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

371–380 of 442 posts

Re: Delta Variant

#371

Post by kuraudo »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #327
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.

"Stop Flip Flopping" Politicians have to appeal to people who crave stability above all else, and trying to do otherwise will just get them replaced by someone who knows how to appeal to stability.

I'm not sure that's actually the case here; anecdotally, but a lot of the criticism of the former president at the time came from his bold statements that he never bothered to correct. Though, to be fair, that's probably not the only reason his former supporters did not come out to vote for him in round 2.

Re: Delta Variant

#372

Post by spfzero »

murgindrag wrote: post #189
aeternum wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many reasons people choose not to get the vaccine. What evidence do you have that the main issue is a distrust of authority? The main authority on this, the FDA has not even officially approved the vaccine and likely won't for quite awhile. For some people it is logical to ask why other vaccines require 10year+ trials and for this a few months was sufficient. While personally, I think the risk of the virus…

Anecdotally, my experience is that the main reason is distrust of authority. It's usually warranted distrust too. Authorities aren't trustworthy. To answer your question: (1) Most vaccines don't have 10+ year trials. A year is not even the fastest; the flu on 1957-1958 has a vaccine developed in 4 months. (2) Most medical trials are slower since everything is done sequentially, since there is no rush. You can do an a…

Still, it hasn't passed the standard testing to show that it is safe and efficacious. That's why it is only allowed under EAU for the moment.

It has not passed the testing that a vaccine needs to have, to be FDA approved. Especially long-term effects testing, which I guess is us now. I doubt the tests will ever be completed now since the makers can already sell every dose they can make.

That said, I'm not too worried about the safety of the vaccine, but I certainly understand people who are.

Re: Delta Variant

#373

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayboise wrote: post #356
oezi wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all makes sense if you are - less than 18 years old. For everyone older, all countries in the world have come to the conclusion that vaccination is safer than staying without vaccination. - only considering yourself and not the risk that you are part of the reason it spreads. What lies at the foundation of all this is your distrust and I would suggest you consider how to deal with that. If you can't trust the me…

> If you can't trust the media and governments Up until December we had the Pres/VP candidates saying they would not take any vaccine that Trump endorsed. Then they won, and were faced with convincing everyone to take those very vaccines. Do you believe them now, or then?

[deleted]

Re: Delta Variant

#374

Post by jibbit »

polygotdomain wrote: post #364
jibbit wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would advise those people not to fear the Delta variant, because catching it is inevitable, and probably won't kill you?

I would advise people to get vaccinated, as that's the best protection against all strains of COVID and the best chance for the pandemic to be brought to an end. I'm not sure why you seem so insistent that I should be fearing the Delta variant, but if you're convinced that you should, then by all means.

I mean, thank you for demonstrating

Re: Delta Variant

#375

Post by spfzero »

omegaworks wrote: post #271
blindmute wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unvaccinated and probably will remain so for this particular vaccination. I don't truly believe that the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of the virus to me. It's more that I weigh the risk of covid at around zero, and the risk of vaccine at a question mark. I cannot trust the institutions pushing this vaccine at all. At worst, I trust the opposite of what they say about anything politicized. But let's jus…

The amount of cognitive dissonance here is intense. >I can only make this decision based on my own research. >Unfortunately I am not qualified to interpret the data meaningfully, You do your own research but admit that you are unqualified to do that research. > and I truly believe that if there was data suggesting that the vaccine was equally dangerous to the virus, it would be suppressed. You believe institutions ar…

> Nothing about your youth or fitness reduces your risk of transmitting this virus.

This one surprised me. Doesn't the length of time you are symptomatic, and the viral load you're carrying, affect how likely you are to transmit the virus to others? That was my understanding, along with young fit people having shorter, milder bouts.

Re: Delta Variant

#376

Post by zpeti »

gonzo wrote: post #351
zpeti wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue which this article ignores, and so does the fear mongering clickbait media, is how many asymptotic people we are testing now vs 6 months ago or a year ago. It’s way more. The UK especially is testing like crazy. But that means a lot more cases appear in the statistics than before, even if the R rate is only marginally higher. We simply don’t know what the actual r rate of all the different variants are…

> even if the R rate is only marginally higher. R is an exponent. Small changes in an exponent lead to huge differences in the result.

How does that change my point? The article says the original variant had an R rate of 2.7, and delta had one between 4 and 9.

That’s a big claim with no data.

And thanks I understand how exponential works.

Re: Delta Variant

#377

Post by mindslight »

bamboozled wrote: post #342
mindslight wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how I've implied that any option was "great" ? My post is pointing out that your previous framing is discounting the possible effects from doing nothing, while emphasizing the possible effects from doing something. This is not scientific. In general you seem to be attaching a high weighting to not taking the vaccine, including repeating common logical fallacies. Most likely you've gotten that from the "I…

What's you're deal then? You just feel strongly I should take the vaccine? Where I live, what I do for work has really made no impact on my quality of life, so I don't give a fish about the virus or the vaccine. It's funny to me that you say you deliberated, then you took it, and now I'm being "unscientific" for deliberating in the same way. But somehow you've made the scientific choice because you felt 6 months was…

I'm not going to argue that you, Internet Stranger, should get the vaccine. I will tell my friends they need to be vaccinated if they want to hang out.

I respect people's right to make their own informed decisions, but not to repeat disinformation. I've pointed out exactly how your framing is unscientific for privileging one option ("do nothing") above the rest, but you keep brushing past that.

I shared my story in the hopes that you would see there are deliberate decisions by the people getting vaccinated as well, not just the "Internets". Six months of time felt like a reasonable period of caution to me. If you wanted to wait a year or a "little longer", I wouldn't say we disagree. But rather you're putting forth reasoning that implies needing to wait 10 years which might as well be forever.

If you yourself really don't come into contact with other people - ie you live alone, work at home, get groceries delivered, and don't visit friends - then sure, continue on isolating. But for the vast majority of people this path is inapplicable, and for them your incorrect framing is actively harmful.

Re: Delta Variant

#378

Post by Retric »

throwawayboise wrote: post #356
oezi wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all makes sense if you are - less than 18 years old. For everyone older, all countries in the world have come to the conclusion that vaccination is safer than staying without vaccination. - only considering yourself and not the risk that you are part of the reason it spreads. What lies at the foundation of all this is your distrust and I would suggest you consider how to deal with that. If you can't trust the me…

> If you can't trust the media and governments Up until December we had the Pres/VP candidates saying they would not take any vaccine that Trump endorsed. Then they won, and were faced with convincing everyone to take those very vaccines. Do you believe them now, or then?

That’s out of context, the VP said she would take a Vaccine endorsed by medical professional not the president. It was and attack on Trumps trying to reduce red tape / rush things depending on perspective, not any specific or hypothetical vaccine.

It’s perfectly reasonable to agree or disagree with rushing vaccine deployment even further, but don’t attack a straw man.

Re: Delta Variant

#379

Post by 1123581321 »

dTal wrote: post #311
ginko wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, the UK is quite a bit into the delta wave and the number of deaths have barely budged: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Barely budged? It's gone up by a factor of 5x since the beginning of April!

Are you looking at cases instead of deaths?

Re: Delta Variant

#380

Post by effie »

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #368
effie wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this is not U.S. specific, so it is not a political polarization in the traditional sense. The broader world-wide phenomenon, visible also here, is that most people got divided into two camps: 1) "COVID-19 is so dangerous that we must restrict freedoms", "the other camp is a harm to society's health" 2) "COVID-19 is not that dangerous, mortality below 2% (or even lower depending on how it is calculated)…

There are a few issues here. 1) COVID-19 is not a static, singular disease. Now that it is circulating widely in the human population it has the potential to mutate, as it already has several times. SARS had a mortality rate on the order of 10%. MERS was above 30%. Part of the miscommunication seems to come from camp 2 assuming that things will largely continue as they are, while those remaining in camp 1 are saying…

I think both camps have solutions for these issues, but unsurprisingly, they don't agree on which is most appropriate.
Post reply on HN