fake news. enjoy your lockdown and GDP in the shitter. you dumb sheep.
New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
201–210 of 280 posts
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. On the other hand, people are actually dying of Covid. Given the choice I'd take financial ruin over death.
Why does there have to be a dichotomy here? Another option would be to lock down but also to provide for people who will otherwise be ruined by the lockdown. That seems to be the most humane option. Make it illegal to evict people, provide them with a reasonable base income that allows them to lead a dignified life through the lockdown, and then shut everything down for a little while. Suggesting that the lockdown is…
> Another option would be to lock down but also to provide for people who will otherwise be ruined by the lockdown.
Well, that's will just establish a beachhead for socialism, and that is reserved for big business.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#203Is there anyway to know if the vaccines are effective against the new strains?
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, this is a variant, not a strain.
This variant does not have any genetic differences in the spike protein targeted by the vaccines. It is unlikely the vaccines will be differently effective.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the latest episode of This Week in Virology [1] five virologists discuss this issue. Some points they made: "It's a variant. It's not a strain. A strain is a virus with a new biological property. There have been no new properties ascribed to this isolate other than sequence differences, which is not enough to make a strain.. nor have we seen any other new strains of SARS-CoV-2 that anybody's demonstrated to be bio…
> Yet when a journalist calls up a scientist and say "What do you think?" and the scientist says "These could have an effect on virulence or transmission or antibody neutralization," somehow that gets translated in to "It's making the virus more virulent" This has been an incredibly large issue for almost a year now and it's ridiculous. Journalists not understanding the way scientists speak was vaguely understandable…
They go on to say that in this case it's probably the opposite, scientists calling up journalists. Which seems relevant given the OP in this thread linking to a scientist making a number of statements based on unproven hypotheses.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Direct link to the thread where he explains why the evidence, although not conclusive, strongly supports a higher infectivity of the new variant: https://mobile.twitter.com/jcbarret/status/13407169016101724...
This is a perfect example of mixing science and opinion, and we should be scolding "scientists" who do this without clarifying which is which, not lionizing them. The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet: "One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet" Everything…
On TWiV they call it a SWAG, scientific wild ass guess
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the latest episode of This Week in Virology [1] five virologists discuss this issue. Some points they made: "It's a variant. It's not a strain. A strain is a virus with a new biological property. There have been no new properties ascribed to this isolate other than sequence differences, which is not enough to make a strain.. nor have we seen any other new strains of SARS-CoV-2 that anybody's demonstrated to be bio…
> Yet when a journalist calls up a scientist and say "What do you think?" and the scientist says "These could have an effect on virulence or transmission or antibody neutralization," somehow that gets translated in to "It's making the virus more virulent" This has been an incredibly large issue for almost a year now and it's ridiculous. Journalists not understanding the way scientists speak was vaguely understandable…
Well we’re about 10 months into this and most news outlets won’t even admit that there’s natural immunity, even though with 10s of millions of cases we have maybe a dozen of cases worldwide of reinfection.
I think the fundamental issue is that the public health measures break down once everyone doesn’t have to follow them. So either you refuse to admit that there’s no reason for a recovered COVID patient to wear a mask, or quarantine after close contact with a new case, etc.
Or else, if you admit that exemption, you either basically can’t enforce the rules anymore, or you need to track everyone who was infected and provide verifiable “passports” which is a step toward a dystopian future we should not allow.
I think in the end it’s easier to deny that there is true natural or vaccinated immunity than to deal with this conundrum head-on. However, at some point the admission must come, I can only hope in the April/May timeframe once vaccination is more widespread.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the march/april stage of the pandemic, I chose to shop at such "shi-shi" places exclusively because a) there were no lineups, b) their non-frozen supply chain meant they had to sell meat or it would rot, c) they were owned by people with families in the neighbourhood/city, and d) the higher prices kept out hoarders, panic buyers, and the mentally ill. On the last point, there was almost always some psycho causing…
Not addressing your main points, but that is a seriously prejudiced view of people struggling with mental illness. Mentally ill people aren’t “psychos”, many people in all walks of life struggle with anxiety, depression or something else. That’s not to say violent people don’t have underlying mental health issues. It’s quite an outdated view that mentally ill people are distinct from “normal” people, and aren’t just…
During a public emergency with uncertainty like the beginning of the pandemic, a person who becomes physically aggressive in a supermarket, makes a point of coughing and spitting on shelves and aisles, and threatens the cashiers and stock staff everyone else depends on, because they want to provoke a confrontation that makes them feel powerful - does not earn sympathy.
Equating people experiencing depression with those who have violent delusions and borderline tendencies creates a worse stigma on seeking treatment than recognizing that dangerous people are just plain dangerous. Sure, we're all people etc, but in an emergency, there are men and women you can trust, and there are ones you can't. A psycho is someone who threatens or harms others for gratification, and it is an epithet they earn. If that's "prejudiced," perhaps we're just from different cultures.
The stakes change when there was a reasonable threat that their actions could put people and their families at risk.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#208My 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.
"first nation to deliver vaccinations at a big scale" Yes, we are getting into it but something like 300K first jabs for a two jab vacc in two weeks is not going to set the world on fire. The logistics behind delivering the jab are absolutely breathtaking. Here in the UK we are rich and have the science etc. We are a small, comparatively, densely populated place. We have a country funded health service and a fairly w…
The US is on target to have everyone that wants one jab'ed by June.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the march/april stage of the pandemic, I chose to shop at such "shi-shi" places exclusively because a) there were no lineups, b) their non-frozen supply chain meant they had to sell meat or it would rot, c) they were owned by people with families in the neighbourhood/city, and d) the higher prices kept out hoarders, panic buyers, and the mentally ill. On the last point, there was almost always some psycho causing…
Not addressing your main points, but that is a seriously prejudiced view of people struggling with mental illness. Mentally ill people aren’t “psychos”, many people in all walks of life struggle with anxiety, depression or something else. That’s not to say violent people don’t have underlying mental health issues. It’s quite an outdated view that mentally ill people are distinct from “normal” people, and aren’t just…
You're attacking a straw man of your own invention here. In casual use (like above), "psycho" means somebody acting in a bizarre or dangerous manner, eg. trying to buy all the toilet paper in the store and not taking "no" for an answer. Nothing to do with actual mental illness.
Obviously the etymology of the term comes from psychological illness via a certain famous Hitchhock movie, and that's one reason why the term du jour these days is "Karen" instead.
Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yet when a journalist calls up a scientist and say "What do you think?" and the scientist says "These could have an effect on virulence or transmission or antibody neutralization," somehow that gets translated in to "It's making the virus more virulent" This has been an incredibly large issue for almost a year now and it's ridiculous. Journalists not understanding the way scientists speak was vaguely understandable…
They go on to say that in this case it's probably the opposite, scientists calling up journalists. Which seems relevant given the OP in this thread linking to a scientist making a number of statements based on unproven hypotheses.
Seems as though it would go both ways.
Scientists have career-advancing reasons to have their opinions and research--whether confirmed by evidence and peer reviewed or not--distributed by the media. And the media has incentive to amplify concerning or controversial information.
What's tragic is that these hypotheses or conjectures are being used to make public policy decisions that affect millions or billions of people. And it seems that public servants and officials lack the scientific aptitude or inclination to truly understand how solid the data and conclusions are before acting on them. Or, perhaps more cynically, the officials know the conjecture is unverified but--being accountable to a public who will likely not read beyond the headlines and who will believe any article that starts with "Scientists find ..."--are forced to take action purely to hold the appearance of doing something.
Regardless of the directionality, I agree with the parent that 2020 is demonstrating serious flaws in the relationships between the scientific community, journalism, public policy makers, and the public.