SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant: is it really more deadly? A population level observational study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
In 2021 a new variant of SARS-CoV-2, which came to be called the alpha variant, spread around the world. There were conflicting reports on this COVID-19 variant strain’s potentially increased lethality. In Israel, this strain became predominant in a very short time period.
Methods
COVID-19 mortality and case fatality rates were examined in Israel in terms of weekly and cumulative numbers.
Results
COVID-19 case fatality rates in Israel rose quickly at the beginning of the pandemic and peaked in May 2020. The highest crude mortality came later in the second and third waves, but case the case fatality rates did not rise in 2021 with the increasing dominance of the alpha variant.
Conclusions
Based on the results of examining case-fatality and mortality rates, we concluded that while the alpha variant of the virus raised mortality, in line with the fact that it is more infectious than wild-type, once this strain was caught by patients in Israel, it was not more likely to kill them than the original strain
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.17.21262167: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.17.21262167: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
