The Mixed Messaging of the Omicron Variant from the Mainstream Media
Introduction
I was browsing the front page of YouTube when the platform recommended me a bunch of COVID-19 news in the wake of the Omicron variant. In a funny turn of events, I found two videos right next to each other that had opposite messages. The first came from Reuters titled "Study shows Omicron no less severe than Delta" while the second came from Forbes titled "Omicron Less Likely To Cause Hospitalization And Develop Into Severe Disease: South African Study".
I had to do a double take because it was just too comical. But commenters on the Forbes video also confirmed that they saw the same thing.
For those who are familiar with my writing, I have greatly criticized the mainstream media's (lack of) integrity like with the lab leak hypothesis, ivermectin, or the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Even so, I decided to give Reuters and Forbes a fair shake, and watched both of their videos at their entirety.
My Analysis
Neither video was that informative (and I hated Forbes' format), so I had to do more digging. Unfortunately for Reuters, it did not provide a link to the study and it took me a while to find the article that matched what the video was talking about. I was largely unimpressed with the publication as it did not provide a link to the specific study that made its conclusion nor did Reuters provided a brief explanation to the study's methodology. P-values and 95% intervals were also lacking, so there was no way for me to evaluate statistical significance.
As for Forbes, even though I disliked its video format more, at least it provided a link to its article in the description. Even better, the article provided a link to the Wolter et al. (2021) study it was talking about, so I can actually read up on the study's methodology. While the study has yet to be peer-reviewed, the methodology appears to be sound as it accounts for several variables such as age, sex, and comorbidities and includes them in its analysis.
In Table 1, the odds ratio for getting hospitalized from Omicron versus non-Omicron is 0.2 (p<0.001). This means an individual infected with the Omicron variant has a 20% risk of getting hospitalized relative to an individual infected with a non-Omicron variant. A lower hospitalization rate would imply less severe symptoms as one would be visiting the hospital because of them.
In Tables 2 and 3, Wolter et al. (2021) compared outcomes of severe disease among hospitalized patients infected with Omicron and non-Omicron variants, and Omicron and Delta, respectively. Patients with Omicron had an odds ratio of 0.7 (p=0.302) compared to non-Omicron patients. In comparison to the Delta variant specifically, patients with Omicron had an odds ratio of 0.3 (p<0.001). To put it in laymen terms, hospitalized Omicron patients have a 70% (though not statistically significant) and 30% risk in comparison to hospitalized non-Omicron and Delta patients, respectively.
Like the study Reuters mentioned, Wolter et al. (2021) looked at the risk of reinfection among the many variables it analyzed. Among the patients who were admitted to the hospital, the odds ratio for reinfection was 1.1 (p=0.660), meaning the risk of reinfection versus not getting reinfected is 10% higher. This was also the case with Omicron and Delta patients in Table 3 (p=0.798). In study group in Table 2 that compared severe disease outcomes between Omicron to non-Omicron patients, the odds ratio for reinfection was 2.5 (p=0.114). While the likelihood of reinfection was higher amongst these study groups, there was no statistical significance as indicated by the very high p-values.
Dr. John Campbell uploaded a video on December 23 where he analyzed the COVID-19 numbers from Our World in Data. His analysis of the UK, where he's from, showed that while cases have risen, the amount of hospitalizations and deaths have not risen in proportion. In fact, the hospitalization and death rates remained rather stagnant (7:55 to 9:05). In addition, the South African data appears to corroborate what Wolter et al. (2021) concluded in that while the death rate has risen, it is nowhere near as bad as the previous three waves (9:07).
Closing Thoughts
In science, there will be conflicting conclusions. That is just the nature of the field, but I am rather disappointed in how Reuters was not transparent in its reporting. From not providing a link to its article in the video description to not linking to the actual study to not even talking about the study's methodology, it is very hard for me take Reuters' word at face value. In contrast, Forbes was more transparent, and its video allowed me to find and assess the study in short order.
While what Reuters did was not medical misinformation, it failed to provide enough context and information for its reporting to be considered accurate. People who only watched its video may end up believing the Omicron variant is just as deadly as the Delta variant when there's a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Overall, I think it would behoove people more if they take the time to independently research the data themselves. Even though Forbes did a better job than Reuters, it was such a low bar to leap over. I disliked its video format and while the article did provide the link to the study, the article itself did not really get into the nitty-gritty parts.
Merry Christmas and stay well, everyone.
Science is about disagreements, conflicts, questioning. It's not important if a new variant spreads fast what counts is if people drop dead within the minute. This isn't the case, never been the case and never be the case unless your blood is a clot.
The pandemic never was a pandemic but used to control people. Mainstream media is part of that control system owned by the same people.
The issues with viruses will solve themselves. It's survival of the fittests/smartest. Society is cleaning up.