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

The mutation that helps Delta spread

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 641 posts

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#101

Post by sfink »

tomrod wrote: post #74
tehjoker wrote: post #2

Is there any information on what the upper bound might be on the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2? I think a lot of people just assume one big jump consumes most of the range, but we've seen at least three big jumps so far ("Doug", "Alpha", and "Delta").

It comes from the same family as SARS and MERS. Worst case, IMHO, would be that level of mortality combined with its current R0 of 6 to 9.

Do absolute R0 numbers have meaning without a specified environment?

As in, shouldn't there be various values for R0 within a fully vaccinated community, R0 within an age group, R0 relative to the prevalence of active infection in a community, etc.?

I'm just wondering what complexity is concealed within an R0 figure. After all, if every infected person really infected 6 other people every 2 weeks or so, it would infect every person on Earth in about a year and a half.

Which is probably why R0 is distinguished from R1. Since otherwise R1 would be R0**2, and I highly doubt it is. It could be higher if viral load was a large factor (you have x% chance of picking it up when around a single carrier, but >x% if surrounded by multiple). Far more likely, it would be lower as it burned out tightly-connected groups.

Anyway, just thoughts triggered by seeing absolute R0 values.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#102

Post by tcbawo »

johnbaker92 wrote: post #95
aantix wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take Vitamin D/C/Zinc/Niacin and build up natural immunity?

It's sad that this comment (and probably mine) downvoted despite being a reasonable long-term response to this virus. Instead of mandating this vaccine worldwide, why don't we focus on collectively building a better / stronger health that would prevent the large majority of severe cases?

I haven't seen an evidence that supplements would prevent the majority of severe cases, or the neurological damage done (in even mild cases). Is this something backed up by data?

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#103

Post by tunesmith »

kansface wrote: post #65
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All likely to be infected, I certainly believe. But I've been operating under the assumption that while vaccination won't prevent you from infection, it is still highly effective (90%+) at reducing symptoms, even with Delta. I'm certainly open to learning if this is false, however. I've just seen statistics that over 95% of people hospitalized are unvaccinated.

I believe that number is in the 80s for the mRNA vaccines and lower for the others (minus the one from Russia).

There are many efficacy numbers. mRNA does help against infection but efficacy is apparently low, like 50-60%. Makes sense because they weren't really developed with that in mind.

Efficacy goes to 60-80% for symptomatic, over 80% for serious/hospitalization, and mid 90% for death. I think.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#104

Post by [deleted] »

sreque wrote: post #96
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here in Ontario where we're @ about 65% of the population totally vaccinated, today's new cases. Source: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont... 10.25/100k among people who are unvaccinated. 6.5/100k among people who are partially vaccinated. 1.0/100k among people who are fully vaccinated. For hospitalization: 2.04/100k for unvaccinated, 1.11/100k for partially, 0.21/100k for vaccinated. Fo…

That should be a clue that something is wrong with your numbers. 10% of unvaccinated people getting COVID are absolutely not ending up in the ICU. It's not even remotely close. Also, as good as the vaccines are against delta, natural immunity is doing even better: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu... https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats... https://arieh.substack.com/…

[deleted]

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#105

Post by tomrod »

hutzlibu wrote: post #61

I see the sentiment here expressed, that Covid is far from over. To be honest, I stopped following news since being fully vaccinated some time ago, so I am kind of ignorant here. Is the main problem, the unvaccinated, or that the Delta (and co.) variants are still, too dangerous for vaccinated people? Or is it the fear, that they will get more dangerous?

(1) vaccinated people who get infected can infect others (this wasn't common before Delta)

(2) Kids aren't being vaccinated, and masks have become political despite being the cheapest non-pharmaceutical intervention when most or all are masked (versus costs of shutting down, increasing ventilation, etc.). Some others also cannot be vaccinated due to health issues or availability (not in the US, it's widely available)

(3) most, but not all, hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#106

Post by criticaltinker »

tehjoker wrote: post #2

Is there any information on what the upper bound might be on the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2? I think a lot of people just assume one big jump consumes most of the range, but we've seen at least three big jumps so far ("Doug", "Alpha", and "Delta").

Here is a fantastic resource from the UK government that answers your question in great detail [1].

> As eradication of SARS-CoV-2 will be unlikely, we have high confidence in stating that there will always be variants.

> We describe hypothetical scenarios by which SARS-CoV-2 could further evolve and acquire, through mutation, phenotypes of concern, which we assess according to possibility.

> Scenario One: A variant that causes severe disease in a greater proportion of the population than has occurred to date. For example, with similar morbidity/mortality to other zoonotic coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV (~10% case fatality) or MERS-CoV (~35% case fatality). [...] Likelihood: Realistic possibility. Impact: High.

> Scenario Two: A variant that evades current vaccines. [...] Likelihood: Realistic possibility. Impact: High.

> Scenario Three: Emergence of a drug resistant variant after anti-viral strategies. [...] Likelihood: Likely - unless the drugs are used correctly. Impact: medium.

> Scenario Four: SARS-CoV-2 follows an evolutionary trajectory with decreased virulence. [...] Likelihood: Unlikely in the short term, realistic possibility in the long term.

And here is one very relevant quote:

> There is no historic precedent for the mass administration of antiviral medication in the community as prophylaxis, apart from the use of anti influenza Neuraminidase Inhibitors, which were used to a limited extent in this way in the early phases of Influenza Pandemic of 2009 in the UK. The safety and efficacy profile must be extremely well established for a mass administration strategy to work and poor compliance will likely rapidly lead to the selection of drug resistant variants, rendering such a strategy short lived.

[1] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#107

Post by seaman1921 »

seaman1921 wrote: post #86
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here in Ontario where we're @ about 65% of the population totally vaccinated, today's new cases. Source: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont... 10.25/100k among people who are unvaccinated. 6.5/100k among people who are partially vaccinated. 1.0/100k among people who are fully vaccinated. For hospitalization: 2.04/100k for unvaccinated, 1.11/100k for partially, 0.21/100k for vaccinated. Fo…

thank you for the numbers! But i think you got them wrong > 10.25/100k among people who are unvaccinated that should be 10.25k - so your statement at the end about 10% ICU admissions does not hold.

and honestly given this huge error in your statement, I have lost confidence in your entire comment unless you are willing to share the source.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#108

Post by tomrod »

sreque wrote: post #99
hutzlibu wrote: post #61

I see the sentiment here expressed, that Covid is far from over. To be honest, I stopped following news since being fully vaccinated some time ago, so I am kind of ignorant here. Is the main problem, the unvaccinated, or that the Delta (and co.) variants are still, too dangerous for vaccinated people? Or is it the fear, that they will get more dangerous?

The main problem is that the U.S. federal government in particular has been pretending for a while that we can get to zero COVID, then blaming the unvaccinated when it doesn't happen. First, they said we need 50% vaccination to achieve, herd immunity. Then 60%. Then 70%. Then 80%. When things don't work out, they vilify and blame the unvaccinated. In reality, unvaccinated with natural immunity are likely more protect…

Please share some scientific citations showing natural immunity gives better protection than vaccines. This runs counter to what I'm hearing from my virologist sources.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#109

Post by cmrdporcupine »

sreque wrote: post #96
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here in Ontario where we're @ about 65% of the population totally vaccinated, today's new cases. Source: https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ont... 10.25/100k among people who are unvaccinated. 6.5/100k among people who are partially vaccinated. 1.0/100k among people who are fully vaccinated. For hospitalization: 2.04/100k for unvaccinated, 1.11/100k for partially, 0.21/100k for vaccinated. Fo…

That should be a clue that something is wrong with your numbers. 10% of unvaccinated people getting COVID are absolutely not ending up in the ICU. It's not even remotely close. Also, as good as the vaccines are against delta, natural immunity is doing even better: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu... https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats... https://arieh.substack.com/…

I'm counting ICU admissions among the unvaccinated separately, not against the population as a whole. When you consider that the majority of the population (65% total, 80% eligible) is vaccinated, then you have to separate the two groups because the outcomes are totally different.

But I did spot something wrong with the way I'm counting, so yes the 10% is probably wrong. The reason is that the daily new case count given by the province is incremental, while the ICU count is current # of cases, not new admissions. So it's not possible to do the comparison in this way. I'd have to take a look at the current active case count by vaccination status, which is something I don't think the province is reporting.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#110

Post by chinathrow »

baxtr wrote: post #93
hncurious wrote: post #70

Covid is going to be endemic like the flu and cold. It's not going to be eradicated, unfortunately, and I don't think we've come to terms with this yet. Now what's our plan exactly? Get vaccinated every 6 - 12 months indefinitely and always wear masks? What's our goal and what's our new normal?

Why indefinitely? If that was the case we would need shots for the other cold viruses as well, which we don't. As you say, Sars-2 will turn into an endemic virus and thus we will get used to it over time, death rates will drop and it will turn into a cold. There is absolutely no historic precedent to think it will turn out differently.

If this is so clear, then my current question is how long would that take?
Post reply on HN