The mutation that helps Delta spread • Hacker News Board

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#431

Post by tunesmith » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #429

tunesmith wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Selective pressure". I find this phrase really confusing, because I think people use it differently. I'm still trying to nail down my own knowledge about this, but here's the gist I have so far. Viruses are not like bacteria. Bacteria can mutate in direct response to antibiotics. Viruses cannot mutate in direct response to vaccines. Some people use "selection pressure" to describe what happens with bacteria and anti…

Bacteria do not mutate directly, in fact, no living creature we know of mutates directly in response to anything. All evolution is random mutation in offspring randomly providing fitness to itself and it's progeny above its predecessors and peers. That is what Darwinian evolution is.

That makes sense. You could say that the "lack of vaccination" yields mutations, much in the same way that the "lack of antibiotic" (like people refusing to finish their prescription) can yield antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But in neither case does it "cause" the mutation.

It appears that I was improperly influenced by the second comment in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ozh9mi/is_the_d...

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#432

Post by mynegation » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #418

Jeema101 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope I am mistaken here, but... are you saying that it would need to kill 1/6th of the population every year (instead of 1/600) before you will consider putting a piece of cloth over your face? What's so terrible about wearing a mask?

The Covid death rate among vaccinated people is under 0.01%[1]. One hundred times worse than the current situation would make Covid not significantly worse than seasonal influenza for the vaccinated. Sure, one hundred times worse among those who refuse to vaccinate would be significantly worse. But if a significant proportion of the population voluntarily refuses to vaccinate, I see no reason why the rest of society…

I know it may all look like small potatoes, but this is HN and you are two orders of magnitude off.

0.01% is pretty close to annual death rate from flu in pre-COVID years [1] so the situation that "one hundred times worse than the current situation" will make it 100 hundred times worse (i.e. significantly worse) than seasonal influenza.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#433

Post by NamTaf » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #346

criticaltinker wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I'm sorry you had to suffer like that - and I don't want anyone to be denied healthcare. > I’d rather vaccinate and mask up then be denied healthcare You've presented a false dichotomy here - mass vaccination and masking will not necessarily prevent overwhelmed hospitals. Israel is a prime example - with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world - their hospitals are being overwhelmed right now due…

Did you notice the distinct lack of flu outbreak last winter? I suppose marks and social distancing just prevented it altogether.

They did. Australia publishes data on this and the effect is profound. Australia has had about 400 flu cases in 2021, compared to a 5-year average of about 50000. None of those cases in 2021 have been hospitalised or led to death, when in the average year there’d be about 150. 2020 also yielded a similarly precipitous drop in cases.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#434

Post by criticaltinker » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

civilized wrote: post #388

afarviral wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great retort BTW. I will be using the "... not eliminating the only one we currently have" line in future. Im worried that any concerns people have result in them being lumped in with conspiracy theorists/misinformants (?) but it seems irrational and dangerous to deter people from receiving some protection if the risks are more effectiveness and longevity rather than side-effects. My most lingering concern is simply…

It's possible that mandatory vaccination is not the optimal strategy. But authoritatively branding it a public health risk is not something anyone is in a position to do with the info available.

These concerns and warnings are coming from the scientific literature - from experts at top institutions in the world. Your dismissal of them is completely unsupported.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#435

Post by criticaltinker » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #410

criticaltinker wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What really should be happening should be a mass vaccination program Compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines poses a serious public health risk [1][2][3]. See my other comments here for more explanation and citations. For these reasons, vaccination strategies should be highly targeted towards vulnerable populations, and should be heavily supplemented by additional therapeutic modalities. > and a mass…

So "[3]" is the only citation you give that addresses vaccine escape and it is about how it doesn't happen that often. Nice work.

If you read beyond the title you'll find that [3] outlines the conditions for vaccine escape and gives many broad examples of antibiotic and antiviral resistance. [1][2] also discuss vaccine escape in detail, but you won't find that out from the title.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#436

Post by betwixthewires » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #319

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but flu shots are entirely voluntary. Meanwhile, there's legislation being considered in the U.S. to put people on Do Not Fly lists for not showing proof of being "fully" vaccinated. And who knows how far the goalposts can move when it comes to what "fully" vaccinated means. Next year, that might mean having had 4 shots, or more.

In the 1970s the US required MMR shots for attendance in public schools and the disease quickly tapered off - we've done this before and, so long as the vaccinations aren't inducing a financial burden on individuals that are unable to afford it - I see no issue with requiring vaccination if you want to share a close space with others. A lot of potential partners will reject you if you're unable to provide negative ST…

First, public schools are government institutions, airlines are not. Sure, flight is heavily regulated, but do you want to live in a world where private companies form a cartel and all agree to require a medical treatment, effectively blocking you from long distance travel?

Second, their are religious exemptions to mandatory vaccinations. We can argue whether there should be, whether they're abused and all that, but as long as they're going to exist, shouldn't they apply across the board?

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#437

Post by betwixthewires » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

delecti wrote: post #90

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?

> Get vaccinated every 6 - 12 months indefinitely and always wear masks An annual Flu and COVID shot seems perfectly reasonable. Wearing masks in public is already normal (or at least not uncommon) in many places, and I don't have a problem with where I live being one of those places.

What if I have a problem with where I live being one of those places?

Or another question in a similar vein, what if I don't have a problem wearing a mask but my neighbor does?

Also I'd point out, seasonal flu vaccines are not mandatory and in most places have a low vaccination rate. Would you be fine with a non mandatory covid vaccine?

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#438

Post by ivanhoe » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #411

Jeema101 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope I am mistaken here, but... are you saying that it would need to kill 1/6th of the population every year (instead of 1/600) before you will consider putting a piece of cloth over your face? What's so terrible about wearing a mask?

You're misdirecting and missing the point entirely. While I'm not quite anti mask like the parent comment, it is an important question to consider, it is always a trade off. What severity warrant what measures? If there's still covid like now in 10 years, will we all have to wear masks at work until we retire? Is this feasible? If not, then when do we stop? Will the people advocating it ever tell us to stop? If not,…

> will we all have to wear masks at work until we retire

It's really funny to watch all the push back against masks considering how many uncomfortable things people put on themselves every single day, and usually just because someone told them it's cool thing to do. High heels, bras, neckties, etc. and not to forget things that we do to our bodies like implants and piercings and tattoos - most of that is way less useful and a lot more uncomfortable and even more dangerous to our bodies than wearing masks, and yet we not just accept them, we love having it.

Acceptance of masks as a regular part of clothing is just a matter of making it a cool thing to do.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#439

Post by tunesmith » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #404

tunesmith wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can figure it with math. Given a starting R0, a vaccination level, and an efficacy, you can figure effective Rt: Rt = R0 * (1 - (vacRate * effRate)) So if Delta R0 is 6, a community is 65% vaccinated, and a vaccine is 80% effective against transmission, then effective Rt would be: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (.65 * .8)) = 2.88 Real effective Rt includes impact of mitigation levels and natural immunity. So for instance, in Por…

You are assuming that R0 for vaccinated that contract the virus is the same as those who are unvaccinated that contract the virus, which does not appear to be the case. That was my question - how much less do those who are vaccinated and contract the virus infect other people than those who are unvaccinated and contract the virus. That can't be calculated from a single R0 number.

If you restrict it to the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population, then you can consider the vaccinated population fully populated, and the unvaccinated population entirely unvaccinated.

Vaccinated group:

Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (1 * .8)) = 1.2

Unvaccinated group:

Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (0 * .8)) = 6

The question of "how much less" is hard to parse, but the point is that even among the vaccinated group (in this scenario), the virus is still spreading and growing exponentially.

I suppose if Rt was clearly below 1 for the vaccinated group, that might mean something, but if the groups intermingle, that advantage would be lost pretty quickly.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#440

Post by civilized » Sat, Aug 21, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

criticaltinker wrote: post #434

civilized wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that mandatory vaccination is not the optimal strategy. But authoritatively branding it a public health risk is not something anyone is in a position to do with the info available.

These concerns and warnings are coming from the scientific literature - from experts at top institutions in the world. Your dismissal of them is completely unsupported.

I am not dismissing them. On the contrary, every post I have made takes pains to distinguish between the legitimate analysis and claims in the scientific papers you have cited (e.g. that vaccine escape is worthy of concern) and your unwarranted, irresponsible inferences from them (i.e. that mandatory vaccination is a public health risk - especially stated with such a definitive air of authority, followed by a flurry of citations that simply don't say that).

At best we can say that vaccination programs are not without risks. But this is true of many, many legitimate public health measures, and it is deeply misleading to single out one of them as a "public health risk" on this basis. If we apply such a lax standard of labeling consistently, then not doing a compulsory mass vaccination program is also a public health risk, for reasons that are now extremely obvious if they weren't already.

You have misattributed too many strawman positions to me at this point. You are either unable or unwilling to engage in good faith and this may have to be the end of my interactions with you.