A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds • Hacker News Board

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#101

Post by derefr » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #49

derefr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I don't have time to do more than to skim the text, then my own lack of understanding / misrecognition of jargon can also "obfuscate central facts or [the] salience [of] peripheral details."

Don't sell yourself short. Your ability to grok the summary (or abstract) of a research paper is probably not much worse--and possibly better--than a typical journalist, even a journalist at the NYT. Especially relative to younger journalists, who seem to rely on Twitter and other social media to contextualize things.

The journalist has more attention to spare, though, because extracting meaning from opaque text is, in large part, their job—the thing they're putting intentional focus and man-hours into; rather than something they're doing half-heartedly + absent-mindedly + in fits-and-starts as procrastination from their job.

Certainly, as a dabbler in a lot of scientific fields, I might make fewer errors in comprehension than a typical journalist "on the science beat" who doesn't actually get much immersion in science.

But, as someone who comes across this journal paper while scrolling HN on the bus and knows I get off at the next stop, I more-likely-than-not just won't pick up / comprehend any useful facts from reading the scientific abstract, before I get up and forget about the open tab, never coming back to it again. Whereas skimming a few paragraphs of an editorialized version of the paper, might be enough to at least let me absorb a nonzero amount of information, in that same distracted two minutes. Even if I don't absorb a precisely-correct + objective reiteration of the conclusion, then at least I might learn what the novel research method was, to the point that it piques my curiosity to go back and learn more later!

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#102

Post by usefulcat » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

"Studies on each of these coronaviruses indicate that they jumped into our species from bats or other mammals."

Has this been proven for covid 19? I thought it was still a theory at best.

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#103

Post by nradov » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

usefulcat wrote: post #102

"Studies on each of these coronaviruses indicate that they jumped into our species from bats or other mammals." Has this been proven for covid 19? I thought it was still a theory at best.

The genome for SARS-CoV-2 shows strong evidence of passing through both bats and pangolins. But how it made the jump to humans is still unclear.

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#104

Post by lamontcg » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:53 PM UTC

LocalPCGuy wrote: post #92

lamontcg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should it though? Fuck no. I'm really tired of these stories. (this is all directed at the author that put that "it should make us worry" quote in the NYT piece, not at any HN poster, but I really need to vent) The 1918 pandemic turned into seasonal influenza one we had enough herd immunity, enough people had T-cells that recognized H1N1 and the virus was forced into making sacrificial choices in order to spread. T…

I generally agree with you (minus the rage) and agree re: being vaccinated at this point means it's pretty much over for individuals and their associates who are also vaccinated. The only quibble I take is that, while it's likely you (and by proxy, the experts you cite) are correct that we won't go back to square one, it is still a (low) possibility. Probably low enough that it isn't worth concerning yourself with, e…

> it is still a (low) possibility.

It really isn't.

An escape mutation which completely evaded T-cells would write a whole new chapter in immunology.

It on par with worrying about a jet engine falling on my head right now.

There's risks that are low enough that they aren't worth worrying about or particularly acknowledging.

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#105

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

UncleOxidant wrote: post #91

binarymax wrote: post #29

“It should make us worry,” said David Enard, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona who led the study, which was published on Thursday in the journal Current Biology. “What is going on right now might be going on for generations and generations.” Should it though? Seems like we've survived this many times as a species, and now have the technology to combat it! I'm more optimistic with this information…

Yeah, I didn't quite understand why it should make us worry. We do have a lot more tools at our disposal than people had 20,000 years ago - vaccines, antivirals (in a few years), knowing to social distance, etc.

Other things we have today that mitigate spread:

1. sanitation

2. hand washing

3. understanding of how the disease spreads (not swamp gas)

4. knowing that throwing virgins into volcanoes does not work

5. clean water

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#106

Post by justinator » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #103

usefulcat wrote: post #102

"Studies on each of these coronaviruses indicate that they jumped into our species from bats or other mammals." Has this been proven for covid 19? I thought it was still a theory at best.

The genome for SARS-CoV-2 shows strong evidence of passing through both bats and pangolins. But how it made the jump to humans is still unclear.

You eat them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZY7x1166EQ

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#107

Post by acituan » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 9:09 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #42

acituan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer just the opposite, even if the jargon is harder to consume at a glance, the extra layer of editorializing can obfuscate central facts or salience peripheral details based on whatever their target demographic wants to hear (nothing exclusive to NYT).

If I don't have time to do more than to skim the text, then my own lack of understanding / misrecognition of jargon can also "obfuscate central facts or [the] salience [of] peripheral details."

The difference is with one you know you don’t know, with the other “authority” gives people a false confidence at scale and worst case you join the botnet of the narrative warfare.

PS: to salience: to make salient.

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#108

Post by cosmie » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

_jal wrote: post #43

binarymax wrote: post #29

“It should make us worry,” said David Enard, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona who led the study, which was published on Thursday in the journal Current Biology. “What is going on right now might be going on for generations and generations.” Should it though? Seems like we've survived this many times as a species, and now have the technology to combat it! I'm more optimistic with this information…

> Seems like we've survived this many times as a species I'm reasonably sure the species will survive climate change. Some nation states, civilizations and cultures' odds look more iffy. I think your bar for worry may be a bit higher than mine.

It's not the climate change that'll get us, but each other.

Left to nature alone, we'd likely evolve and adapt and survive in some form or fashion. But the advancement of humanity has led to all kinds of ways we could do ourselves in if we put our minds to it.

And those nation states and civilizations facing iffy odds aren't likely to go down quietly. In the throws of desperation, all bets are off (why care about stuff like MAD[1] when you're already facing imminent destruction by nature).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#109

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

luhn wrote: post #70

zamalek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's like surviving falling from an airplane. You technically survive, but life will be extremely different.

TIL you can likely survive a landing at terminal velocity just by orienting yourself feet-first and bending your knees.

[deleted]

Re: A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds

#110

Post by avs733 » Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

realiswhatyoufe wrote: post #44

avs733 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

calling out stupidity is not censorship. Removing stupidity from a conversation on a private website is not censorship. discussing 'agenda' is not a neutral comment or a meaningful contribution to discourse on this topic, it is stupidity.

Removing “stupidity” on any platform, public or private, is absolutely censorship. And discussing any author bias is absolutely a contribution towards conversation surrounding the authors work.

by this definition of censorship, me asking a random person screaming in my house to please leave is censorship.

Author bias, alternative perspectives, etc. can all be contributions to meaningful discourse when they bring evidence or some meaningful engagement. Simply asserting your truth through circular logic isn't a contribution. It's not because the contribution is about 'bias' its because the contribution is stupid. Same rules apply even if think the person agrees with me. Process and structure trump content.

I'm saying this as the type of person who gets concerned when I see a stupid argument that arrives at the same position I hold, I don't get excited just because it's the same outcome.