I’m hoping for the best, too, but let’s not continue the tradition we’ve had during the pandemic of saying “you’re worrying too much” and being wrong.
Today’s Science on this: https://www.science.org/content/article/early-lab-studies-hi...
The article you referenced, referenced a research with a added comment where they declare they can't deduct information about hospitalisation:
> add a comment on page 5 that the crude ratios of hospitalisations to cases give no information on severity on their own due to the differences in the age distribution of Omicron and Delta cases.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...
So your referenced article seems useless about hospitalisation ( the information you extracted from it)
This is also from the UK who had an increase in delta already before Omicron came. My guess is that Denmark would be a better reference to compare hospitalization for Omicron.
Except if you are seeing something that i don't?
Ps. Early data in Denmark is frequently updated and looks positive concerning hospitalisation.
( But still early after only 3 weeks)
The problem is anything that works will always look like an overreaction.
But it doesn't really matter anymore. With all of the fatigue and the failure of public health professionals to set public expectations around vaccines which are looking like they're going need to be taken seasonaly now the only poltically feasible course left at this point is "let's fuck around and find out."
With a growing number of real-life cases, hopefully there are multiple studies already in progress.
So the results should be better than in the study.