New coronavirus variant: What do we know? • Hacker News Board

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#151

Post by jschwartzi » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #131

carlmr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences" Depends on your definition of freedom. The issue with this kind of freedom is that your freedom encroaches on other people's freedoms, so most societies agreed that we should have less freedom in favor of fairness. Exactly where the trade-off is to be made is subjective and cannot be derived from facts alone. We have a lot of freedoms that encroach…

Your sugar example is no good. Sugar doesn’t take people’s freedoms away. It has no agency and doesn’t enforce anything. Like any action, eating sugar may have consequences good or bad for the individual, but that has nothing to do with freedoms unless the government starts telling people they may not eat more than x grams per day or something like that.

In the case of masks and lockdowns the "freedom" in question is more analogous to drunk driving. This is in the sense that exercising the freedom could cause the people around you some severe life-altering problems, and you're imposing that risk without their consent or knowledge.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#152

Post by Doctor_Fegg » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

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…

The chance of transmission in a small, quiet deli is significantly less than in a crowded supermarket. Several older residents in our town have switched from the Co-op to the local deli for exactly that reason. Unless you’re going to start deeming what food is essential and what isn’t, then your distinction is counter-productive.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#153

Post by gorgoiler » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

Am I right in saying that the goal of any lockdown is not to completely stop the spread of the virus, but to instead merely keep hospitals from filling up?

The health of the population, in general, is not the primary concern. We just need to stop the hospitals from collapsing.

We live with all manner of sickness and disease every day of the year without trying to eradicate them. Covid is only different from heart disease, lung cancer, and rabies in that it has the potential to swamp us.

Adjusting the throttle for spread might mean jewelry shops being open but sandwich shops being closed. It might just as well involve lockdown for anyone born in an odd month, or with a name ending in a vowel, or ginger hair. The measures are arbitrary and only used as a throttle for the inevitable spread.

This is how I sleep at night. The alternative is the worrying thought that no one in power really knows what they are doing.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#154

Post by MacsHeadroom » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #68

maxerickson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Thousands of variations have ben sequenced, the notable thing here is the (potentially) faster spread.

Whilst the consensus seems to be that this variant is spreading faster than other variants - is there any information on exactly how it does so?

Not really. But this variant does have novel mutations in sections coding for spike proteins. Whether and how those are functional improvements for the virus are tbd.

See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.16.423118v1

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#155

Post by AntiImperialis2 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

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.

>Why would vaccination increase the likelihood of new mutations, or mutations surviving better?

Our immune systems are general enough to face a wide variety of viruses, infections and strains.

When one is vaccinated, it gets prepared for that particular strain of a particular virus. The cost is that it could become more vulnerable to other infections... it's the cost/benefit of specialization vs generalization. Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14970928/

The reason is that the immune system is highly optimized and it is optimized to be flexible enough to save enough individuals for the next generation. It is not optimized to save each and every individual against all possible infections. That is unnecessary, as far as evolution is concerned.

Having said that, vaccines generally don't weaken individuals to a slightly different variant of the same virus. It should rather strengthen it. The immune system expects the virus to mutate so it prepares for the mutations to an extent. In fact, a category of vaccines called live-attenuated vaccines are basically weakened strains of the same virus (these can sometimes mutate into dangerous strains, eg. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination..., but that's a different discussion).

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#156

Post by kokx » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #134

The best reaction to this would be to pressure the NIH to lift the ban on the Astrazeneca vaccine. There is enough stockpiled supply to vaccinate most of the UK quickly and they would have a first mover advantage to getting a bunch of that vaccine. Evidence suggests this varient still has the same spike protein and seems like it would be still prevented by most if not all the vaccines.

The best reaction is to approve a vaccine which does not have a good proven track record? It hasn't been through complete Stage 3 trials, so we don't know if it works or if it works well.

I'm not saying that the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is bad. This is however very unwise. It would definitely erode trust in vaccines if the Oxford/Astrazeneca were to have significant side effects. Which would erode trust in science in the long term.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#157

Post by newacct583 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

raphaelj wrote: post #11

spuz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes variants occur all the time but they don't tend to become dominant. This variant went from 30% of all infections in November to 60% three weeks later. In order for a given variant to supplant all the others and become dominant it must have some characteristics that make it more transmissible. That is why they are particularly worried about this variant.

Could it still be that this variant is as infectious as others, but just happens to be the dominant one in the regions where the virus circulates the most, for reasons that have nothing to do with the genetics of the virus? London and the South East are some of the densest populated areas in the UK, and one could expect exponential growth of infections there while other less populated areas could manage to keep their…

> Could it still be that this variant is as infectious as others, but just happens to be the dominant one in the regions where the virus circulates the most, for reasons that have nothing to do with the genetics of the virus?

Yes, but one assumes that confounding factors like that are fairly easy to isolate. At some point, especially as the growth continues, statistics pretty much rules out other explanations. General consensus is that this is almost certainly more infectious. But sure, there's always more science to do.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#158

Post by newacct583 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

anonymousDan wrote: post #42

The talk of the virus potentially being on a path to vaccine escape is very worrying. Sounds like we might end up in a situation where we have seasonal COVID like we do with the flu :(

That was the endpoint regardless. Almost no one thinks this is going to be a smallpox situation where the vaccine is so effective that the virus gets eradicated. Almost certainly, covid is going to turn into an endemic disease just like everything else. Remember: all diseases were novel once!

But most of the population will be immune, so outbreaks will be limited and spread slowly. Ideally that immunity will come via vaccination instead of infection. And yes, it remains possible that if it mutates as rapidly as influenza, that we'll need a yearly "covid shot" to plug the gap.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#159

Post by newacct583 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

rubyist5eva wrote: post #63

arcturus17 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds scientifically rigorous.

About as rigorous as the fear mongering in the media right now.

Why this comment? The very article linked is actually a solid, dispassionate treatment of questions exactly like this. It's not "fear mongering" at all, by any definition I'd be comfortable with. I think the media on the whole is doing a great job here, personally. Is there any particular "fear mongering" you'd like to call out?

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#160

Post by graeme » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

gorgoiler wrote: post #153

detritus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Am I right in saying that the goal of any lockdown is not to completely stop the spread of the virus, but to instead merely keep hospitals from filling up? The health of the population, in general, is not the primary concern. We just need to stop the hospitals from collapsing. We live with all manner of sickness and disease every day of the year without trying to eradicate them. Covid is only different from heart dis…

Lockdown had a variety of goals but the current situation can generally be classed as a policy failure. Hospital collapse is the worst case scenario but isn’t the only goal. Other important goals include:

* keeping schools open (mostly a success)

* avoiding economic disruption (mixed, tending towards failure)

* avoiding unnecessary deaths and long run health issues (failure)

* Avoiding a second lockdown and the related uncertainty and stress (failure)

* returning to normal life (failure)

* avoiding dangerous mutations (failure)

The UK is an island and could have fairly easily done a NZ/Australia strategy over the summer when seasonality made elimination easy. Jurisdictions that made that choice are doing better on all front.

I live in one such jurisdiction (atlantic canada) and we’ve spent less time in lockdown, had a good economy, and mostly avoided deaths and hospitalizations. Seems a clear winner.

Perhaps a country in the middle of europe couldn’t have done it but the Uk certainly could have.

And no, this pretty clearly shows govts had no long run or even medium run strategy. Europe will be in rolling lockdowns till april or so, because of a premature declaration of victory in the summer.