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

Delta Variant

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 442 posts

Re: Delta Variant

#61

Post by kokey »

CPLX wrote: post #4

I have to admit, I'm a little perplexed about all the discussion around the Delta variant. It almost feels like people are discussing this like it's a plot point in a novel, a new looming threat that comes after Act II, rather than a cold scientific fact. As someone who lives in New York and has been vaccinated for months, should I worry about this? It seems like the answer to that question is no, I shouldn't. Also n…

I hear you and it's now inevitable that the news cycle will move beyond Delta soon as other variants take over from it. It's also inevitable that future dominant variants are going to be more resistant to the current vaccines as they evolve inside of vaccinated populations. That said, I think the article conveyed a lot of subtle but important points that some people miss in all the noise. One is that vaccination is increasingly important for protecting yourself regardless of the evolving situation and how many people around you do or don't get vaccinated. The other is that vaccines are unlikely to ever stop the spread of the virus but that's not a bad thing since we will be increasingly able to prevent deaths.

Re: Delta Variant

#62

Post by usrusr »

accurrent wrote: post #18

I've a feeling at the end of the day the only solution will be to scale up the number of medical facilities/personnel/equipment so we can cope with changing and mutating virus. With sufficient care, access to oxygen etc, we may still be able to handle the onslaught of new variants. Vaccines, while very important, will not be a magic bullet unless we can get them to enough people fast enough. This still remains a prob…

Medical facilities already take up a considerable fraction of total productivity. Vaccine production on the other hand is a tiny footnote in the grand scheme of things.

Vaccine output could be increased tenfold or more for less effort then it would take to increase medical facilities by only a few percentage points. It's a comparison like getting a second TV for seeing more frames per second vs trying to do the same by commissioning more oil paintings (from a really bad painter)

Re: Delta Variant

#63

Post by egeozcan »

enragedcacti wrote: post #21
CPLX wrote: post #4

I have to admit, I'm a little perplexed about all the discussion around the Delta variant. It almost feels like people are discussing this like it's a plot point in a novel, a new looming threat that comes after Act II, rather than a cold scientific fact. As someone who lives in New York and has been vaccinated for months, should I worry about this? It seems like the answer to that question is no, I shouldn't. Also n…

If you’re vaccinated, you’re mostly safe, especially with mRNA vaccines. Keep your guard up for now, avoid events that might become super-spreaders, but you don’t need to worry much more than that. If you’re not vaccinated though, this is a much more dangerous time than March 2020. The transmission rate is higher than it used to be, and if you catch Delta, you’re much more likely to die—or get Long COVID. You should…

I got vaccinated with J&J and I should then freak out? I've been frantically searching for a source to definitely tell me if it makes sense to get a shot of mRNA based vaccine too to no avail.

Re: Delta Variant

#64

Post by joelbluminator »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #53
joelbluminator wrote: post #12

Haven't read the piece but I have read a few things by this guy that made me panic. I don't know if he was right or wrong but he has a tendency to be overly bleak. Yes Covid kills, a lot. Also car accidents and air pollution kill a lot. I haven't gained anything from reading this guy despite all the good info, it hasn't given me any action items and I suspect a politician reading him won't gain anything either.

‘Haven’t read the piece’

I have read two long articles by him, each around 1 hour read. So I have a good sense of what his writing is about.

Re: Delta Variant

#65

Post by dqv »

neogodless wrote: post #59

Hmm @dang this doesn't seem controversial, or shouldn't be. We should be curious about the details of a dangerous strain of a virus, and learn more about it. I'm not sure if this deserves to be "[flagged]" but perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture.

I think it gets that tag after some threshold of flags and then has to be revived.

>controversial

I would say there is some contention going on in this thread.

Re: Delta Variant

#66

Post by dboshardy »

mikepurvis wrote: post #49
CPLX wrote: post #4

I have to admit, I'm a little perplexed about all the discussion around the Delta variant. It almost feels like people are discussing this like it's a plot point in a novel, a new looming threat that comes after Act II, rather than a cold scientific fact. As someone who lives in New York and has been vaccinated for months, should I worry about this? It seems like the answer to that question is no, I shouldn't. Also n…

I'm a fully vaccinated Canadian, and it matters to me because the vaccines are effective against Delta, but seemingly only barely so— and the longer it continues to circulate the better a chance it has of evolving further and then us all having to go into lockdown and wait for another booster shot that specifically targets whatever the new vector is: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/07/3-princip...

Yes, it will evolve further, but human ACE2 receptors aren't evolving rapidly within a generation any time soon. There's a metaphorical window of possible mutations that will allow SARSCov2 to bind to receptors and a huge swath of that window clearly is taken up by protection from vaccines (especially mRNA ones). There is a finite space in which it could still evolve _and_ evade vaccines. That space is likely _extremely_ small. "Too much" evolution renders it ineffective at infecting humans.

Re: Delta Variant

#67

Post by joosters »

specialp wrote: post #42

I'm not sure what the end game is here. The original plan was "flatten the curve", which meant keep hospitals from getting inundated. Then it became wait for the vaccine. COVID is not going to go away. The vaccine has dramatically decreased the amount of people dying from it. Cases going up without dramatic increases in death or hospitalization might not be a bad thing. The alternative is lockdowns that will never co…

'There are ever present dangers that we just live with like the chances of getting in a car accident and dying'

Have you not noticed how we have put a lot of time, effort and money into increasing the safety of road travel? Do you just 'live with' the chance of dying in a car crash, or do you have technology like seat belts and air bags?

Re: Delta Variant

#68

Post by matz1 »

egeozcan wrote: post #63
enragedcacti wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re vaccinated, you’re mostly safe, especially with mRNA vaccines. Keep your guard up for now, avoid events that might become super-spreaders, but you don’t need to worry much more than that. If you’re not vaccinated though, this is a much more dangerous time than March 2020. The transmission rate is higher than it used to be, and if you catch Delta, you’re much more likely to die—or get Long COVID. You should…

I got vaccinated with J&J and I should then freak out? I've been frantically searching for a source to definitely tell me if it makes sense to get a shot of mRNA based vaccine too to no avail.

[flagged]

Re: Delta Variant

#69

Post by alkonaut »

matz1 wrote: post #47

>It looks like the risk of death is 2x higher for Delta than for the original variant: 2x of what ? 2x of low risk is still a low risk.

You literally quoted the answer to your question

Re: Delta Variant

#70

Post by raphlinus »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #2

According to Wikipedia, this variant was first detected in India, in late 2020. If it's that much more infectious than other variants, where was it til now?

You're being downvoted, but that's actually a good question. An explanation that fits the fact is antigenic drift. A variant that's different but not necessarily that much worse will outcompete another variant in which the population has built up significant immunity. The difference in fitness doesn't need to be that large.

If the virus truly had a massively larger R0 value, as is asserted in TFA, then you'd expect it to catch fire extremely quickly as soon as it starts showing up, and everywhere it is found. Ron Fouchier (see TWiV 777 as cited elsethread) certainly believes that these huge R0 values are not plausible, and that antigenic drift fits the observable facts better.

Post reply on HN