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

301–310 of 442 posts

Re: Delta Variant

#301

Post by bamboozled »

ceejayoz wrote: post #284
bamboozled wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short amount of time people have been taking these vaccines, how much more data than a few months could they really be looking at, seriously ?

They're looking at a century's worth of other vaccines and noting that the side effects present early on, not years later. The stuff in vaccines gets broken down or excreted by the body; it doesn't linger in your system for years. mRNA, for example, breaks down in minutes/hours.

All it tells us if that in the very short term, it seems safe. Great.

When we know more about the long term, then people will be more happy to take it?

Re: Delta Variant

#302

Post by call_me_dana »

OzyM wrote: post #286
ElectronCharge wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source? > Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines . Howe…

> You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source?

You seem to be conflating numbers reported to the CDC with investigations conducted by the CDC themselves.

Re: Delta Variant

#303

Post by passivate »

hattmall wrote: post #38

My question is why don't we have treatment? Yes we know vaccines are good as preventative but we also know that vaccines are vulnerable to mutations and waning efficacy over time. It's also somewhat burdensome to need to vaccinate all people all the time. Where is the research into effective treatments and why do we seem to prefer mass vaccination over acute treatments for the sick. Is it just much more difficult to…

The short and unsatisfying answer is - Because the funding for infectious disease research has been shrinking for decades. The focus shifted to cancer and lifestyle diseases in the developed world which generate more income.

'move fast and break things' is not applicable when it comes to the human body. :)

Re: Delta Variant

#304

Post by petre »

aeternum wrote: post #261
omegaworks wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine is new, but the mRNA delivery system has been in the pipeline for decades, with other treatments actively undergoing the normal, slow FDA process[1]. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...

Yes, but why is it okay to approve this mRNA delivery system in a matter of months while the approval for these others require decades of test? There's clearly inconsistency by the FDA here.

Because we don't have decades at our disposal to combat this pandemic.

Re: Delta Variant

#305

Post by throwaway316943 »

specialist wrote: post #277
throwaway316943 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even easier would be simply admitting they were wrong about the previous guidelines and explaining why, you know like grown ups.

They did. Repeatedly. Further, many exposés and post mortems are in progress. The Premonition https://www.amazon.com/Premonition-Pandemic-Story-Michael-Le... Uncontrolled Spread: Why COVID-19 Crushed Us and How We Can Defeat the Next Pandemic https://www.amazon.com/Preparing-Inevitable-Normal-Survive-E... Preventable https://www.amazon.com/Preventable-Leadership-Failures-Selfi... Move on.

Only after being left with no choice or when politically convenient. Too little too late.

Re: Delta Variant

#306

Post by matz1 »

alkonaut wrote: post #296
matz1 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The IFR (Infected Fatality Rate4) for the original variant was about 0.01% for those in their 20s and 0.2% for those in their 40 Thanks, so 2x of that is 0.02% and 0.4%, that was my point: 2x of a low rate is still low

I don’t think anyone is arguing 20-somethings should be getting the vaccine for (their own) risk of ending up dead. The risk is low but not even healthy 20 year olds should disregard a 2/10000 risk of preventable death.

Its a choice, at least for me there is a lot of thing in life that a lot more worrying than 2/10000 risk of preventable death

Re: Delta Variant

#307

Post by ElectronCharge »

OzyM wrote: post #286
ElectronCharge wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You cited the CDC, but now that the figure you used has been cleared up, you no longer like the CDC as a source? > Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines . Howe…

[flagged]

Re: Delta Variant

#308

Post by effie »

api wrote: post #162
usrusr wrote: post #32

Is seems kind of logical in hindsight: the first mutation of the predecessor bat/pangolin/whatever virus genome to cross over to humans is an MVP full of "compatibility bugs" that barely achieves R0>1. A few billion dicerolls later many of those "compatibility bugs" have found fixes. Remember the hand washing phase of the pandemic? Aerosol transmission was basically ruled out because it was assumed that spread would…

This is also why vaccination is so critical and why "young healthy people" should not opt out: when you get the virus, even if it's a mild case, you are in effect donating processing power to what amounts to a global supercomputing project to evolve more virulent strains of COVID. That's how evolution works. The more chances the virus has to replicate, the more likely it is to become more virulent or even worse learn…

> evolve more virulent strains of COVID.

More virulent virus does not always mean worse disease. It maybe that more virulent variants will be also causing less severe diseases. Hints of this are present now (low deaths/day) but we will see what the variants really do in the coming months.

> That's how evolution works. The more chances the virus has to replicate, the more likely it is to become more virulent or even worse learn to evade the vaccine.

Yes but this process happens in the whole interacting population, you can't blame just the unvaccinated people for this. The virus is likely to mutate towards variants that are better at infecting vaccinated people. Realistically, we can't stop this process without isolating everyone all the time.

Vaccination will protect most people who chose to get vaccinated from getting the severe disease. It won't stop evolution of the virus.

Re: Delta Variant

#309

Post by babypuncher »

bvaldivielso wrote: post #54
pier25 wrote: post #41

These new variants were to be expected as the vaccines seem to be accelerating these mutations. My understanding is that the COVID vaccines train the body to recognize the outer protein layer of the virus. In consequence when that changes (because of mutations and natural selection) the body becomes less effective at recognizing the virus. Geert Vanden Bossche[1] has been warning about this for months now. He says it…

As far as I understand (I don't have any background in biology), mutations will happen regardless of whether people are vaccinated or not. There might be mutations that make the virus circumvent some vaccine protections, but those mutations would take place even if we weren't vaccinating people. Nothing about the vaccines "guides" the virus towards specific mutations. Mutations are random. If this is correct, why wou…

Mutations are random, but the factors that result in a mutation leading to improved reproductive success are not. An organisms environment helps select for beneficial mutations.

Re: Delta Variant

#310

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #248
addicted wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I linked and quoted the top “Latest Updates” article in the NYTimes under their Coronavirus section. What you say you’ve never seen is literally what they’ve done.

...ok? So what's the problem here? We agree that what I'm saying is true, and you've found a news source that reported it to your satisfaction. I haven't found that latter part to be true in general. We can disagree on that.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN