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

The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

thetyee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 248 posts

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#21

Post by __blockcipher__ »

jensgrud wrote: post #17

Definitely a report we did not want to hear. Just the the record though, the author is factually wrong about Denmark being one of the jurisdictions that "chose not to stamp out this virus and blithely tolerated high infection rates" and is probably referring to Sweden - see https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2020/11/17/the-nor... . We actually wiped out an entire industry of mink farming in the name of stoppin…

Yeah I think the mink culling was an absurd over-reaction and highly unethical. Those poor minks.

(Disclosure: I also think the same for the human lockdowns too though)

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#23

Post by jraby3 »

I wonder what the effects of rapidly vaccinating your population would be, like Israel is currently doing.

There are still children and people who can’t tolerate a vaccine, but vaccinating 6.5M out of 8.5M people quickly (assuming 2M children and 800k that have or soon will catch COVID) should have a huge effect on the r rate.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#24

Post by djaychela »

plantain wrote: post #2

It won't happen, because there's no political incentive to do so. The citizens of these beleaguered countries seem quite happy with the government management thus far[1]. I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the UK response thus far and think - more of that please! [1] https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1355606835873669126

As already said by someone else, I don't think that's the right reading of it. I know it's anecdotal, but I don't know anyone here (I'm in the southern UK) who thinks that the government has handled this even remotely competently, but they also acknowledge that there's not really an ideal way to handle it. The only thing that seems to be going 'to plan' is the vaccine rollout, which has surprised me as I never thought they'd get near the target figures they now look to be going to achieve (i.e. vaccinating the four key groups by Feb 15).

You have to make some sacrifices to win the battle, but it seems we've paid a lot of the price (in terms of economic costs as well as deaths), but without the positives that should have come from that. As soon as there's any sign of let-up in any of the statistics, it seems the government wants to remove the measures, which seems to be a bad idea to me, but I'm a chump who's not making the decisions!

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#25

Post by EdwardDiego »

area51org wrote: post #22

None of the variants so far are any more lethal than the original. Isn't that right? I have heard nothing to the contrary, although this guy seems to think it's already happened.

You miss the point - a virus with a 1% death rate of those infected, that mutates into a virus 50% more transmissible, with a 1% death rate of those infected, is obviously likely to kill more people.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#26

Post by djaychela »

tristanperry wrote: post #18
plantain wrote: post #2

It won't happen, because there's no political incentive to do so. The citizens of these beleaguered countries seem quite happy with the government management thus far[1]. I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the UK response thus far and think - more of that please! [1] https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1355606835873669126

I agree, but it also doesn't help when the Labour opposition have had a string of weak opposition leaders. Even Keir Starmer seems content to sit back and only critise the Government's response the day or days after a grim milestone/but of news. Why isn't he constantly saying that the UK should totally shut their borders, for example? He should be saying this and nothing else, and directing the rest of Labour to do t…

I have to say I've been really disappointed in KS - I wanted him to win the leadership, and was expecting a much more robust performance from him. I wouldn't say he chooses silence, but he often sounds a bit whiny and little more.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#27

Post by baxtr »

jensgrud wrote: post #17

Definitely a report we did not want to hear. Just the the record though, the author is factually wrong about Denmark being one of the jurisdictions that "chose not to stamp out this virus and blithely tolerated high infection rates" and is probably referring to Sweden - see https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2020/11/17/the-nor... . We actually wiped out an entire industry of mink farming in the name of stoppin…

He is also factually wrong on at least one other thing:

“He finds it astonishing that COVID-19 has boosted its infectiousness by 30 to 50 per cent over previous strains by doing what viruses do: evolve, mutate and adapt for more effective reproduction.”

The UK strain seems to be 25% more infectious. It’s still bad but less than mentioned.

EDIT: source is the latest Drosten podcast, where he referenced to some new evidence and papers. Here’s the transcript (in German), see page 9 bottom.

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript262.pdf

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#28

Post by threeseed »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21
jensgrud wrote: post #17

Definitely a report we did not want to hear. Just the the record though, the author is factually wrong about Denmark being one of the jurisdictions that "chose not to stamp out this virus and blithely tolerated high infection rates" and is probably referring to Sweden - see https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2020/11/17/the-nor... . We actually wiped out an entire industry of mink farming in the name of stoppin…

Yeah I think the mink culling was an absurd over-reaction and highly unethical. Those poor minks. (Disclosure: I also think the same for the human lockdowns too though)

Lockdowns work. End of story.

Melbourne, Australia had a 4-month lockdown which turned an exponentially-rising 500+ cases a day scenario into elimination. Saving thousands of lives.

No other place has managed to do something similar and it shows hotel quarantine of foreign arrivals, aggressive contact-tracing, mandatory mask-wearing, social distancing and lockdowns work. The Swedish laissez-faire approach does not.

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#29

Post by jansan »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #25
area51org wrote: post #22

None of the variants so far are any more lethal than the original. Isn't that right? I have heard nothing to the contrary, although this guy seems to think it's already happened.

You miss the point - a virus with a 1% death rate of those infected, that mutates into a virus 50% more transmissible, with a 1% death rate of those infected, is obviously likely to kill more people.

If I look a the infection numbers of South Africa and UK, I completely fail to see how there variants are more infectious. Also, in Brazil, where life seems to go on as usual, there is no exponential growth of cases. Do you have any numbers that prove that the new strains are actually spreading faster in society?

Re: The Virus Changed. Now We Must ‘Get to Zero’ or Face Catastrophe

#30

Post by MattGaiser »

The author never says it and probably because he knows the reaction it would cause. "Decisive" lockdown at this point would likely be a troops patrolling the street type of event with extreme restrictions on leaving one's home.

I don't see that being anywhere near politically acceptable in many areas of the country.

Post reply on HN