BA.2 is spreading in many areas, overtaking BA.1. In many most locations it is probably running out of people to infect - those who have either no prior immunity or immunity derived from an earlier variant infection or the quasi-vaccines which are based on early 2020 SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins.
All the reports I have read but one state that BA.2 seems to be no more or no less virulent than BA1. The exception is a U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1063424/Tech-Briefing-39-25March2022_FINAL.pdf which estimates the risk of hospitalisation with BA.2 is 0.94 that of Ba.1. However, the confidence interval is 0.88 to 1.00, so this is a rough indication of lower virulence, in a given population at a given time, rather than something which can be reliably extrapolated to all people.
Because at home tests don't get reported anywhere and you just get a sick day from work when you get the sniffles. Does anybody actually go to a home depot shed in a gas station parking lot (I mean official state of the art testing facility) anymore?
Testing is only important when you want to win an election.
The lack of reporting is a factor, no doubt, but with a test positivity rate in New York of ~2%, the question persists even within the population of people who have been tested and their results reported.
This goes back to a point I made back in 2020: mass diagnostic tests are not fit for disease tracking.
BA.2 is spreading in many areas, overtaking BA.1. In many most locations it is probably running out of people to infect - those who have either no prior immunity or immunity derived from an earlier variant infection or the quasi-vaccines which are based on early 2020 SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins.
All the reports I have read but one state that BA.2 seems to be no more or no less virulent than BA1. The exception is a U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1063424/Tech-Briefing-39-25March2022_FINAL.pdf which estimates the risk of hospitalisation with BA.2 is 0.94 that of Ba.1. However, the confidence interval is 0.88 to 1.00, so this is a rough indication of lower virulence, in a given population at a given time, rather than something which can be reliably extrapolated to all people.
Because at home tests don't get reported anywhere and you just get a sick day from work when you get the sniffles. Does anybody actually go to a home depot shed in a gas station parking lot (I mean official state of the art testing facility) anymore?
Testing is only important when you want to win an election.
The lack of reporting is a factor, no doubt, but with a test positivity rate in New York of ~2%, the question persists even within the population of people who have been tested and their results reported.
This goes back to a point I made back in 2020: mass diagnostic tests are not fit for disease tracking.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/testing-is-a-failure-at-tracking?s=w