The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study.
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern
Andrews, N., Stowe, J., Kirsebom, F., Toffa, S., Rickeard, T., Gallagher, E., Gower, C., Kall, M., Groves, N., O’Connell, A.-M., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.12.14.21267615 · Cited by 2,420
Self-citationTimeliness and completeness of laboratory-based surveillance of COVID-19 cases in England
Clare, T., Twohig, K. A., O'Connell, A.-M., & Dabrera, G. (2021) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2021.03.012 · Cited by 51
Self-citation
Cited by
Bobrovitz, N., Ware, H., Ma, X., Li, Z., Hosseini, R., Cao, C., Selemon, A., Whelan, M., Premji, Z., Issa, H., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00801-5 · Cited by 614
Past SARS-CoV-2 infection protection against re-infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Stein, C., Nassereldine, H., Sorensen, R. J. D., Amlag, J. O., Bisignano, C., Byrne, S., Castro, E., Coberly, K., Collins, J. K., Dalos, J., et al. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02465-5 · Cited by 412
McMenamin, M. E., Nealon, J., Lin, Y., Wong, J. Y., Cheung, J. K., Lau, E. H. Y., Wu, P., Leung, G. M., & Cowling, B. J. (2022) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00345-0 · Cited by 360
Wong, C. K. H., Au, I. C. H., Lau, K. T. K., Lau, E. H. Y., Cowling, B. J., & Leung, G. M. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01586-0 · Cited by 299
Cognition and Memory after Covid-19 in a Large Community Sample
Hampshire, A., Azor, A., Atchison, C., Trender, W., Hellyer, P. J., Giunchiglia, V., Husain, M., Cooke, G. S., Cooper, E., Lound, A., et al. (2024) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2311330 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Nyberg, T., Ferguson, N. M., Nash, S., Webster, H. H., Flaxman, S. R., Andrews, N. J., Hinsley, W. R., Bernal, J. L., Kall, M. M., Bhatt, S., Blomquist, P. B., Zaidi, A., Volz, E., Aziz, N. I. B. A., Harman, K., Funk, S., Abbott, S., COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium, Hope, R., Charlett, A., Chand, M. A., Ghani, A. C., Seaman, S. R., Dabrera, G., Angelis, D. D., Presanis, A. M., & Thelwall, S.
- Venue
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University)
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02-26
- OpenAlex
- W4224950216
- Cited by
- 1,129
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 127.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Funders
- MRC (MC_PC 19074, MC_PC_19027)
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (via University of Bristol) (200877 2020 - 245)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17863/cam.81883
- The paper
- Nyberg, T., Ferguson, N. M., Nash, S., Webster, H. H., Flaxman, S. R., Andrews, N. J., Hinsley, W. R., Bernal, J. L., Kall, M. M., Bhatt, S., Blomquist, P. B., Zaidi, A., Volz, E., Aziz, N. I. B. A., Harman, K., Funk, S., Abbott, S., COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium, Hope, R., . . . Thelwall, S. (2022). Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study. Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University). https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.81883
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.