41–50 of 448 posts
As has been pointed out in an earlier article about the "new strain"[1]: "Let's not be hysterical. It doesn't mean it's more transmissible or more infectious or dangerous." That there are new strains of COVID-19 has been covered over, and over, and over, and over again on the This Week in Virology podcast[2] (which usually has 4 to 6 virologists on it every week discussing COVID-19 news), and they've always had the s…
> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we need to use the precautionary principle in the face of new information that is not fully understood. I don't know where you are from, but I locally heard a string of "there is no evidence of" starting in about January of 2019. There was no evidence that the vi…
Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen.
We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too much opportunistic fear-mongering and questionable decision making playing advantage off the back of a natural virus.
This thing obeys the laws of physics, kills people in a particular pattern and can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever. There is simply no need for everybody to be hysterical yet again, when the science of the virus can be so easily spelled out for the masses.
But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why "should" they be?
Absent any special considerations, that's the general direction that pathogens go, more infectious and less deadly. Dead hosts aren't a benefit to the virus, and neither are hosts too sick to go out and infect others. Evolution is messy though, I don't know how likely a particular new strain is to go that direction.
Do we have any reason at all to trust that any of the vaccines currently being rolled out deal with this new strain? There was surely no way to include testing for this in any of the trials. Doesn't this at least raise the spectre that the vaccines will all be for not and we'll still be faced with all the same issues that already exist.
The UK government has stated that there is no evidence the vaccine will not be effective against this strain. And from the bmj: The new variant has mutations to the spike protein that the three leading vaccines are targeting. However, vaccines produce antibodies against many regions in the spike protein, so it’s unlikely that a single change would make the vaccine less effective. Over time, as more mutations occur, t…
One has to wonder to what extent the new strain is really responsible for this, versus being a convenient excuse for the government's failure to manage the normal variant.
One has to wonder to what extent the new strain is really responsible for this, versus being a convenient excuse for the government's failure to manage the normal variant.
This is always said “if only we were more competent/oppressive/empathetic people - we’d have done fine” instead of perhaps wondering whether much of the mitigation efforts and their implementation are a fraught and possibly even net-negative exercise.
One has to wonder to what extent the new strain is really responsible for this, versus being a convenient excuse for the government's failure to manage the normal variant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we need to use the precautionary principle in the face of new information that is not fully understood. I don't know where you are from, but I locally heard a string of "there is no evidence of" starting in about January of 2019. There was no evidence that the vi…
Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen. We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too mu…
The most important ones aren’t even particularly scientific. If you’re feeling ill, stay home. Wash your hands. Don’t hang around elderly or other vulnerable.
But these are simple and require no exceptional growth of state power and usurping of the right of free people to exercise their labor.
All these pro-labor types have no problem making scientists, politicians, etc. your effective boss.
Rich people deciding they must micromanage their doltish compatriots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always said “if only we were more competent/oppressive/empathetic people - we’d have done fine” instead of perhaps wondering whether much of the mitigation efforts and their implementation are a fraught and possibly even net-negative exercise.
We don't need to wonder, we can look at nations that succeeded in controlling the spread from the start and now are reaping the benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always said “if only we were more competent/oppressive/empathetic people - we’d have done fine” instead of perhaps wondering whether much of the mitigation efforts and their implementation are a fraught and possibly even net-negative exercise.
We don't need to wonder, we can look at nations that succeeded in controlling the spread from the start and now are reaping the benefits.