The Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Variant Omicron with a Doubling Time of 2.0–3.3 Days Can Be Explained by Immune Evasion

  1. Frederic Grabowski
  2. Marek Kochańczyk
  3. Tomasz Lipniacki

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Omicron, the novel highly mutated SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern (VOC, Pango lineage B.1.1.529) was first collected in early November 2021 in South Africa. By the end of November 2021, it had spread and approached fixation in South Africa, and had been detected on all continents. We analyzed the exponential growth of Omicron over four-week periods in the two most populated of South Africa’s provinces, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, arriving at the doubling time estimates of, respectively, 3.3 days (95% CI: 3.2–3.4 days) and 2.7 days (95% CI: 2.3–3.3 days). Similar or even shorter doubling times were observed in other locations: Australia (3.0 days), New York State (2.5 days), UK (2.4 days), and Denmark (2.0 days). Log–linear regression suggests that the spread began in Gauteng around 11 October 2021; however, due to presumable stochasticity in the initial spread, this estimate can be inaccurate. Phylogenetics-based analysis indicates that the Omicron strain started to diverge between 6 October and 29 October 2021. We estimated that the weekly growth of the ratio of Omicron to Delta is in the range of 7.2–10.2, considerably higher than the growth of the ratio of Delta to Alpha (estimated to be in in the range of 2.5–4.2), and Alpha to pre-existing strains (estimated to be in the range of 1.8–2.7). High relative growth does not necessarily imply higher Omicron infectivity. A two-strain SEIR model suggests that the growth advantage of Omicron may stem from immune evasion, which permits this VOC to infect both recovered and fully vaccinated individuals. As we demonstrated within the model, immune evasion is more concerning than increased transmissibility, because it can facilitate larger epidemic outbreaks.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v14020294
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.08.21267494v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.08.21267494: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The mobility in Gauteng province was accessed from COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports from Google (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility).
    Google
    suggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.08.21267494v1 on medRxiv