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

The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

journals.asm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–217 of 217 posts

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#211

Post by flybrand »

someguydave wrote: post #140
flybrand wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the outset, I agreed that research into the origin is misplaced. However as time went on, a scenario emerged that made the origin story important - it’s about the ethics and integrity of the system. If the people and institutions at the origin lack integrity, and they are the same things we depend on for the solutions brought forward - then the origin story matters a lot. If you have a vendor that is good, and the…

especially when the same people are: 1) responsible for funding very dangerous and questionable research 2) investigate their own failings 3) give advice on how every else ought to behave?!?

100%

It also explains how a lot of the guidance looks like projection - things they wish they’d been doing themselves ahead of the virus.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#212

Post by jgwil2 »

tigershark wrote: post #194
8note wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empty land doesn't get sick. The people in Sweden are concentrated in one fairly dense area, Stockholm. I don't think the overall #people/surface area of the country is something meaningful to compare. I hypothesize that comparing Sweden and Germany is about the same as comparing Stockholm to an average of German cities. I don't have the German and Swedish skills to find and compare the data though

“Empty land doesn't get sick” That’s exactly the point. In Norway and Sweden, unlike Germany, there is a huge amount of empty land. For this reason it doesn’t make sense at all to compare Sweden with Germany when you have a far, far better comparison in the nearby country.

If you have a hypothetical country with a huge swath of empty land, and a single city with the population density of Hong Kong, the population density of that country will appear to be low, but in fact all the people living in the country live in a highly dense city. Perhaps a better measure than population/land area would be the average of the population density in the square kilometer surrounding each inhabitant (or something like that).

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#213

Post by varelse »

8note wrote: post #189
varelse wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not focus instead on countries that did get this under control then? Some of them are even western.

From a practical standpoint, different countries are really different both in culture and infrastructure. What worked in China was welding people into their houses, but that's not going to work of most people don't have metal doors

I'm long past the point of believing anti-vaxxers who insist on loudly cosplaying this like it's the Holocaust should be welded into their homes if only because it's a lot cheaper than building camps for them to really enhance that cosplay they themselves opted into.

And you don't even have to actually weld them in there all you need to do is put ankle monitors on them.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#214

Post by quantumsolace »

shlant wrote: post #79
quantumsolace wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside for YouTube "tut tut" what has Markson said that disqualifies her? I ask in full faith, as I don't know who she is. But why does YT get to tut tut anyone? The only basic reason for it is that you fundamentally agree with YT's worldview and are OK with their dominance. I'd ask for you to turn the tables around, YT censoring PoV you agree with. But we both know that is a ridiculous question; introspection by the…

> "But why does YT get to tut tut anyone?" because it is a platform they own. I'm not arguing whether that is good or bad but if you run a site you are free to moderate it however you wish. Until YT, FB etc. are classified as public utilities or similar, you have no rights whatsoever to say what you want on someone else's platform.

Lol, I asked rhetorically. I know the legality behind it.

It's a pickle to to balance all the higher order principles involved.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#215

Post by EMM_386 »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #203
EMM_386 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is entirely a failure of government. The origin is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Whos government? This is a global issue. It doesn't care about governments.

Governments have the ability to isolate, mitigate and mobilize a response. Unless we have a global government to do all that, I don't get your response. Look at New Zealand for an example of how to do it right (read: better).

> Governments have the ability to isolate, mitigate and mobilize a response.

Only so much, and New Zealand is clearly an outlier.

Has their response to this been an A+? Without a doubt.

But I'd need some hard evidence this stance works across the globe. Everywhere from India to Brazil is going through this.

Which is why these pandemics are so dangerous. If this was slightly worse, New Zealand would succumb to it too, despite best efforts.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#216

Post by bildung »

fallingknife wrote: post #160
bildung wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Response type absolutely matters. Sweden has 10x the death rate of Norway, for example. Norway, Finland, Denmark, even Cuba, a poor country with 3x the population density of the US is significantly below 700. Australia stands at 45, not 700, BTW.

Cuba isn't comparable because the age structure of it's population will be different. 90% of covid deaths happen in the 65 and over cohort so mortality will be drastically lower.

Cubas age structure is practicaly identical to the US, both have about 16% aged 65+.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/388539/age-structure-in-...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270000/age-distribution-...

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#217

Post by bildung »

8note wrote: post #191
tigershark wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, right. Let’s compare Sweden with 10M people and a very low population density with Germany with 83M people and 10 times the population density instead of Norway that has comparable population and density and 10 times less deaths just because it helps your narrative. Such comments spreading misinformation should not be allowed at all here in my opinion.

Empty land doesn't get sick. The people in Sweden are concentrated in one fairly dense area, Stockholm. I don't think the overall #people/surface area of the country is something meaningful to compare. I hypothesize that comparing Sweden and Germany is about the same as comparing Stockholm to an average of German cities. I don't have the German and Swedish skills to find and compare the data though

> The people in Sweden are concentrated in one fairly dense area, Stockholm.

So exactly like Norway, were almost all people live around Oslo/Bergen

Post reply on HN