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

New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#111

Post by hnarn »

gns24 wrote: post #43

I think most people seem to be underestimating just how bad this is. During the recent 4-week lockdown it was already clear that something odd was going on in Kent; whilst case counts were dropping in the rest of the country, they continued to rise significantly there. Something was clearly different. Now high case counts are spreading from the South East into the rest of the country. We don't know whether we can eve…

This comment should be flagged, it’s extremely sensationalist and below what I expect from HN.

1. On what basis do you say that people are underestimating the seriousness? Are you a doctor? An epidemiologist? Do you have any medical education?

2. Do you have any supporting evidence for your claim that it’s obvious that something was “off” about Kent and that there is a spread attributable to this? Or are you just drawing lines between dots? You source nothing, so it’s impossible to know.

3. On what basis do you claim that this strain “probably” has spread to tens of other countries? Who are you, and based on what do you make this guess?

The pandemic is taxing enough on everybody as it is. We DO NOT need “educated guesses” from armchair epidemiologists that do not identify themselves or what sources they are drawing their conclusions from — and I could expect as much from a random comment field on the internet, but not as the top voted comment on HN.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#112

Post by simonbarker87 »

sgt101 wrote: post #96
simonbarker87 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a decent drop in cases in November from what I can see. You’re right though, the first lock down felt very different. Sadly the rules are laxer than they should be but the government can’t enforce the rules effectively so are putting in enough grey-area that people can sort of decide for themselves. Sadly people are very short term focussed and unable to make the most of the situation and instead complain a…

People are very short term focused on things like; not losing their houses, not losing their businesses, maintaining their families, maintaining their mental health, looking after children. I don't know your situation, but I have lived a very isolated existance for the last 9 months because I am able to. MANY people I know are not in this position.

I wasn’t referring to things people HAVE to do to survive - I’m talking about stuff they don’t have to do but want to do because they “just want to be back to normal”

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#113

Post by DoingIsLearning »

spuz wrote: post #28
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the official position when communicating this information. There simply is not enough data at this point. I was really shocked to read German Minister statements saying the vacine is still effective for this variant. Sure theoretical the spike is majority unchanged but there is no evidence or data for a government official to make such an absolute statement.

The official message from the UK government when they announced concern about this new strain was "we have no evidence to suggest that the Pfizer vaccine is not just as effective against this new strain". Somehow that gets twisted by some people into "we believe the vaccine is just as effective against this new strain". I think it's party due to not wanting to appear to be doomsaying but also very misleading in terms…

My criticism was of Jens Spahn, Germany's Health minister. Claiming there was no evidence that the vacine would not be effective. [0] Which although true sounds incredibly misleading taking into the account the data we currently don't have.

[0] https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/20/covid-vaccines-still-effectiv...

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#114

Post by Volundr »

torben-friis wrote: post #85
throwaway4good wrote: post #58

My worry is this: If you take a population where a virus is widespread and start vaccinating then the likelihood for a mutation that escapes the vaccination is much higher, had you instead taken a population where the virus not widespread and vaccinated there. Is this correct? UK has a widespread ongoing outbreak and is the first nation to deliver vaccinations at a big scale.

I'm not sure I follow. Why would vaccination increase the likelihood of new mutations, or mutations surviving better? The only way I can see that reasoning working is that the mutation was somehow vaccine resistant but not resistant to the immune reaction we get after being sick with the comon corona, but it is not obvious to me that it would work that way, I would assume the opposite.

Yeah this is sort of true on it's face, but doesn't really change anything. Of course if a virus is widely spread it's more likely to have vaccine escaping variants out there. If you vaccinate that population those vaccine escaping variants become dominant. Obviously this is less likely in a population with less cases. But you have to vaccinate that high case population eventually and the sooner you do it the better. No sense giving the virus more time to mutate.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#115

Post by jsnell »

lbeltrame wrote: post #105
jsnell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the prevalence graph in the article, you can see that the new variant has been gradually taking over the turf from the other ones. This cannot be explained by just the founder effect unlike most other cases, since the prevalence was high to start with. It cannot be explained away by a single super-spreader event, since a single event will just cause a single step-change. This has been a continuous process. It…

Is this also taking out potential confounders out of the equation? I believe the currently available data (as opposed to the SAGE minutes, which has the conclusions) is not sufficient to rule that out.

What confounders would you suggest? Elsewhere in the thread you've been suggesting it's a founder effect. It should be plainly obvious why it's not that, nor something you could attribute to a single super-spreader event.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#116

Post by detaro »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #113
spuz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The official message from the UK government when they announced concern about this new strain was "we have no evidence to suggest that the Pfizer vaccine is not just as effective against this new strain". Somehow that gets twisted by some people into "we believe the vaccine is just as effective against this new strain". I think it's party due to not wanting to appear to be doomsaying but also very misleading in terms…

My criticism was of Jens Spahn, Germany's Health minister. Claiming there was no evidence that the vacine would not be effective. [0] Which although true sounds incredibly misleading taking into the account the data we currently don't have. [0] https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/20/covid-vaccines-still-effectiv...

I thought Spahns full statement was reasonable. Deferring to what the health organizations report to him, saying that that "would be very good news" (would be, not is), emphasizing multiple times that this is "as of now, sunday evening". If you hear that and take away "we're definitively safe" ...

(Of course I can't judge the biology and if that actually accurately represented the expert opinion behind it, but to me it communicated clearly enough that this isn't a certain claim, but reflecting a current snapshot of something that's actively looked at)

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#117

Post by Johnjonjoan »

dgritsko wrote: post #86
rubyist5eva wrote: post #52

I know I'm less afraid of it. More contagious generally means less deadly.

My understanding was that because this virus can spread presymptomatically or even asymptomatically, there is little or no evolutionary pressure for it to become less deadly. It can easily spread to many people before the host even knows that they have it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but if that is the case then it would seem that the normal "rules" for the virus becoming less deadly over time don't really app…

You're right for the short term but (in the hypothetical case it becomes deadlier) once we are aware it has becomes deadlier, our behaviour will change and reduce transmission.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#118

Post by shalmanese »

detritus wrote: post #70
LatteLazy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but it would be really nice if we could classify lockdowns better. The original lockdown furloughed a LOT of workers, closed schools and closed virtually all shops. Today's "super tier 4+ lockdown" doesn't seem to apply to shops at all (my local shops were all open this morning, is wrapping paper really an "essential"?). Workers are mostly going in. Schools that have remained open unless they alread…

On my walk to work this morning, I detoured down a local main street, curious to see what shops were considering themselves 'essential' and remaining open. Apparently this time around, travel agents and jewellery sellers have added themselves to the list, with a few barbers clearly operating illicitly behind half-drawn shutters. I was bemused by the very chi-chi local middle class deli near my home insisting they'd b…

> I was bemused by the very chi-chi local middle class deli near my home insisting they'd be staying open when I enquired on Saturday evening. I mean, sure they sell food, but really - I'm unsure how vital to survival artisanal cheese and pasta is!

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the first lockdown. If you close down too many places, all that causes is everyone cramming into the same few places still open, causing superspreader events. At one point, LA shut down outdoor farmers markets and many cities including London slashed their public transit schedules, leading to overpacked busses and trains.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#119

Post by jmnicolas »

LatteLazy wrote: post #99
jmnicolas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK-dwellers' sense of entitlement to 'freedoms' Seriously? We (the West, I'm not from the UK) are losing our freedom at an unimaginable speed even a few years ago and you think freedom is negotiable? I find this appalling how easy we ease into a dictatorship everywhere in Europe.

It's interesting that no one seems to give a shit about real freedoms like free speech or democracy, detention without trial or access to lawyers. But when you close the pubs (or the artisnal pasta makers), suddenly we're on a dictatorship.

This is so unjust: you don't know me but you basically reduce me to an angry guy that can't get drunk with his friends.

ALL our freedoms are attacked: the social media censorship reached crazy levels lately, and let's not talk about democracy given the disgusting spectacle the US has shown this year (my country doesn't fare any better).

When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship.

As I said I'm not from the UK but as far as I know people in London had more freedom during the WWII aerial bombings.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#120

Post by ryandrake »

Shorel wrote: post #110
gns24 wrote: post #43

I think most people seem to be underestimating just how bad this is. During the recent 4-week lockdown it was already clear that something odd was going on in Kent; whilst case counts were dropping in the rest of the country, they continued to rise significantly there. Something was clearly different. Now high case counts are spreading from the South East into the rest of the country. We don't know whether we can eve…

>During the last lockdown schools remained open Honestly, that doesn't sound like a real lockdown at all.

People really need to stop using the l-word. It grossly overstates what's happening. They called it that here in the USA too, and it was just as ridiculous. We had these so-called Stay At Home orders, which had tons of exceptions and were both ignored by the population and unenforced by the government. They might as well have been called Stay At Home Suggestions.

An actual sustained lock-down would likely stop the virus's spread, allowing us to finally get back to normal. But nobody wants to claim ownership of the economic fallout, so instead they do these half-assed lock-downs which don't really accomplish much besides making the government look like they're doing something.

Post reply on HN