Omicron, according to the political scientist Yascha Mounk, marks the beginning of the “social” end of the epidemic. Whether it can also be a prelude to the “biological” end of the pandemic crisis, it is too early to say
Two years after its appearance, we are in the middle of fourth wave of Covid-19. The virus that causes it, Sars-CoV-2, is proving extremely insidious. What is surprising is, above all, hers capacity from to acquire e secure
mutations that end up giving life to variants increasingly transmissible compared to those that preceded them. It was like that for the Alpha variant and then for Delta, of which Omicron has even resulted more contagious. Furthermore, both Delta and, to a greater extent, Omicron, have proven capable of evading the immune response and therefore to reduce, albeit partiallyand, theeffectiveness of the vaccines, which is why it was necessary to resort to administration of a providential dose recall for increase protection against severe forms of disease.
The greater contagiousness and the short interval of time that elapses between the appearance of one case and the next give a Omicron a selective advantage over others variants as well as the ability to generate a large number of infections within a few days. From this it follows that, although the inherent virulence of Omicron is reduced – the risk of hospitalization appears to be about a third of Delta’s -, they remain though high is the risk of congestion from the hospital facilities that of any critical issues relating to continuity of some essential services.
Omicron, according to the political scientist Yascha Mounk, marks the beginning of the “social” purpose of the epidemic. If it can also be a prelude to the “biological” end from the pandemic crisis however, it is too early to tell. Reference is often made to the “Spanish” pandemic, which, however, was caused by a flu virus, very different from coronavirus, and it nevertheless manifested itself with a succession of epidemic waves each having characteristics diverse on the other. During the first wave, which began in March 1918at the time of the “Great War”, the classics predominated flu symptoms, and the clinical impact all in all it wasn’t serious.
The second wave, which began towards the end ofsummer of 1918, it was instead devastating, especially between October and December, due to thehigh frequency from pneumonia, which often also affected people of young age, and determined ahigh mortality. The third wave, which began between December and January, lasted until March-April 1919, but it was less virulent. Unfortunately, unlike what happens today, the lack of technology then did not allow to follow the evolution of the virus from the molecular point of view and of identification, therefore, any mutations which could explain the differences in what was once defined, with an imaginative term, such as Epidemic ‘genius’.
If history always repeats itself with same modalities, while aware of the current threat to the public health brought by Omicron, we would still look to the future with a cautious optimism. Relief of symptoms and population immunity caused by previous inf
ections and / or vaccinations bode well, as any new variant it would most likely find the population more resistant. It is also difficult to think of one new variant which may spread more so quick and more efficient than Omicron. Yet it remains a margin of uncertainty, because viruses are known to be bizarre, and opportunity offering them a globalized world and to a large extent poor man from resources and of vaccines there are so many.
* Giovanni Rezza is an epidemiologist and director of health prevention at the Ministry of Health
January 4, 2022 (change January 4, 2022 | 10:40)
© Time.News