Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the novel coronavirus has evolved

graphics.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#61

Post by Scarblac »

herendin2 wrote: post #54
graderjs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know either way about your question, but aren't these sort of power law dynamics common in everything? I don't think it would be surprising if that was the case with this "pandemic" nor would it make this virus special. Just like 90% of the content is created by 10% of the people in social media, or something like that.

It's important because focussing on that 20% might be far more efficient and effective

I don't think anybody knows who are going to be part of that 20% in advance though.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#62

Post by randomsearch »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #38

What does everyone think of the idea that there is an 80/20 rule in play for Coronavirus? Specifically, 80% of the infections come from 20% of the infected. I’ve heard some hearsay about it, but nothing conclusive; I was hoping someone knew either way.

Did anyone else think that 80/20 sounds too neat, especially when you consider that the definition of superspreaders is subjective? It suggests confirmation bias and reminds me of when biologists etc assume normal distributions but when you did into the detail you find normal is actually not normal.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#63

Post by blackrock »

Lucasoato wrote: post #52
blackrock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting premise. But why doesn’t anyone look at the bigger elephant in the room? Sometime in April 2019, reports of a mysterious illness started surfacing. They thought it was related to vaping products. [1] Then in July 2019, a respiratory illness hit a retirement home in Virginia, and killed a bunch of old people. [2] Then the Wuhan military games was in mid October 2019. Then China reported of an unknown pneum…

> And just conveniently blame China for being the origin of the virus, just because they were the first ones to detect it, and report it. This is false, China has actively denied the existence of the virus until it was too late. The scientist who discovered it could have been a new kind of virus was blackmailed and threatened. The numbers China released were mostly false.

Donald? Is that you?

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#65

Post by rswail »

blackrock wrote: post #44
Izkata wrote: post #12

So it's finally okay to say there's multiple strains with different infectiousness and (possibly) severity? Back in February-ish (I forget exactly when), we had confirmed community spread in Washington (West-coast state in the US), with the belief that it had been spreading for weeks and no one noticed, because of how few cases there were, and no bump in hospitalizations. This was likely the Wuhan strain, which likew…

Interesting premise. But why doesn’t anyone look at the bigger elephant in the room? Sometime in April 2019, reports of a mysterious illness started surfacing. They thought it was related to vaping products. [1] Then in July 2019, a respiratory illness hit a retirement home in Virginia, and killed a bunch of old people. [2] Then the Wuhan military games was in mid October 2019. Then China reported of an unknown pneum…

The vaping issue was related to Vitamin E in THC vaping and was not related to vaping in general.

The Vitamin E was being vaporized and inhaled directly into the lungs, which caused the problems. Inhalation of Vitamin E into the lungs is a known cause of lung disease symptoms.

See https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s...

There's no evidence that EVALI is related to COVID-19 or SARS-cov-2.

The vaping "thing" hasn't just come and disappeared. The CDC has stopped reporting on it.

See https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...

So that correlation is not causation, EVALI is not COVID-19.

EVALI is not related to the vaping pens or where they originated.

The disease was reported where people were using THC cartridges that were diluted with Vitamin E, which is primarily the US.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#67

Post by CyberDildonics »

riccia wrote: post #59
someotherperson wrote: post #35

Since this will continue to be misunderstood, it's important to emphasise that the article explicitly mentions that there is 1. No evidence to support the idea of strains that have any impact on infection 2. No evidence to support the idea that the strains will resist the vaccines or weaken vaccine efficacy. This is not a "strain" in the sense of the flu, COVID-19 hasn't fundamentally changed in any meaningful way th…

Not questioning anything you wrote, but it would be interesting to know the strains of virus in people who acquired COVID in the mRNA vaccine trials. I imagine this is in the trial data but haven't seen it.

How many people actually acquired COVID in the mRNA vaccine trials?

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#68

Post by neogodless »

blackrock wrote: post #44
Izkata wrote: post #12

So it's finally okay to say there's multiple strains with different infectiousness and (possibly) severity? Back in February-ish (I forget exactly when), we had confirmed community spread in Washington (West-coast state in the US), with the belief that it had been spreading for weeks and no one noticed, because of how few cases there were, and no bump in hospitalizations. This was likely the Wuhan strain, which likew…

Interesting premise. But why doesn’t anyone look at the bigger elephant in the room? Sometime in April 2019, reports of a mysterious illness started surfacing. They thought it was related to vaping products. [1] Then in July 2019, a respiratory illness hit a retirement home in Virginia, and killed a bunch of old people. [2] Then the Wuhan military games was in mid October 2019. Then China reported of an unknown pneum…

Looks like the CDC investigated the outbreak - if there was a virus responsible, wouldn't it have been found then? If it was related, it doesn't make sense that it would not have easily begun to spread at that time.

http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/three-dead-amid-respira...

Trying to connect dots makes for adventurous brainstorming, but it doesn't manifest reality.

> The whole origin of this virus was always very mysterious. Something just never seemed right about it.

This is exactly the kind of language utilized to create a sense of mystery and intrigue, but is not based on any facts.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#69

Post by hef19898 »

Lucasoato wrote: post #52
blackrock wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting premise. But why doesn’t anyone look at the bigger elephant in the room? Sometime in April 2019, reports of a mysterious illness started surfacing. They thought it was related to vaping products. [1] Then in July 2019, a respiratory illness hit a retirement home in Virginia, and killed a bunch of old people. [2] Then the Wuhan military games was in mid October 2019. Then China reported of an unknown pneum…

> And just conveniently blame China for being the origin of the virus, just because they were the first ones to detect it, and report it. This is false, China has actively denied the existence of the virus until it was too late. The scientist who discovered it could have been a new kind of virus was blackmailed and threatened. The numbers China released were mostly false.

That trope again. First, that's spilled milk, even it were true, and thus is a pointless discussion. Second, local Chinese authorities screwed up. That was followed by one of the quickest, strictest and most effective reactions. As for the international response, that could be based on cases in Korea and Japan, for example. Europe reacted quick enough in Spring, after Italy waited a couple of days to long. Which is now followed by a real screw up in Germany. So no, China didn't hide anything once central government took over. And no, even if they had that would not be an acceptable excuse for screwing up ones response.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#70

Post by pharke »

pm90 wrote: post #48
WanderPanda wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay, then lets see how the spike protein evolves after mass vaccination. In my understanding the vaccination targets exactly that protein so there should be plenty of selective pressure in case mass vaccination takes place

That seems to be an incorrect understanding. Selective pressure is only one of the factors influencing how frequently the virus has mutations. Self correction mechanics in the RNAs replication seem to have a much more stronger effect, since they “correct” the mutations. The article specifically mentions that the timeline for significant mutations is likely in the order of a few years.

A slow mutation rate reduces the rate of change if all other variables are equal but increasing the selection pressure can drive that rate of change higher by clearing the field of competitors and providing only one clear path to success.
Post reply on HN