Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern • Hacker News Board

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#151

Post by klaushougesen1 » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

CyanBird wrote: post #130

xyst wrote: post #57

My current take (not a virologist, doctor): At this point, if you are not immunocompromised and you have the first vaccination and a booster. You should be able to easily recover regardless of the mutation(s). The virus would need to completely diverge from SARS-CoV-2 in order to fully defeat the countermeasures of the current vaccinations.

> The virus would need to completely diverge from SARS-CoV-2 in order to fully defeat Yeah, you shouldnt be making these claims if you don't have specific background or understanding of what you are talking about All current vaccines target few/couple specific proteins and protein groups on the virus spikes which interact with our cells, if these couple spikes/protein groups change then the vaccines stop being effect…

Basically the same reason why we have a new flu vaccine every single year

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#152

Post by spookthesunset » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

CyanBird wrote: post #150

acqbu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compassionate people should have a problem with being enslaved, mentally and physically, by a disease that, according to your stats has killed 0.06% of the world population - albeit, it's debatable how many people died as a direct result of it.

I know 5 people personally that have died of this virus, forgive me if I take offense at your hand waving of it

That doesn't mean any of these NPI's work, are ethical, or are worth their immense cost to society. It is entirely possible to "take this serious" but feel that society is causing itself far more harm with all these measures than it would have by doing absolutely nothing at all. None of these thing were in any playbook prior to march of 2020. And here we are almost a month from 2022 still working from this unwritten, untested playbook and still we have no clue if any of it works.

About the only thing we know works is vaccines and all these cool treatments we've figured out.

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#153

Post by somewhereoutth » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

spookthesunset wrote: post #122

acqbu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When far more people are harmed by the indirect effects of the fire (fear, jobs lost, mental health issues etc) than the fire itself, then yes - I would encourage them to liberate their minds, embrace reality and start living.

A heck of a lot of people really don't want to move on from all this. Life is way too short to be wasted living the way some of society seems to think is necessary "in order to take this serious". Disease and death have been a part of humanity since time began. All we can do is try to make the most out of the short time we have here on this earth. Playing this covid theater game for 2+ years is, in my opinion, an ins…

"some of you may have to die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#154

Post by spookthesunset » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #119

bedhead wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to a single policy that has demonstrated (in an intellectually honest way) ANY efficacy in slowing covid? One?? Vax passports, cloth masks, N95 masks, face shields, closing schools, cohorts, WFH, clean/dirty pen jars (my fave), plexiglass, 6 feet, travel bans... The grim reality is that there hasn't been a single policy that's been shown to have made any difference at all. NONE. There's literally nothin…

>The grim reality is that there hasn't been a single policy that's been shown to have made any difference at all. NONE. BULLSHIT. How delusional can you be? There is plenty of evidence that masks and contact reduction in various forms have a massive effect on how quickly the virus spreads. Infection numbers and their development over time varied wildly between countries, clearly correlated with such measures, long be…

> There is plenty of evidence that masks and contact reduction in various forms have a massive effect on how quickly the virus spreads.

If this is true, why is it when showing a chart of data it is almost impossible to pick when any of these measures went into effect? If these measures worked to any worthwhile degree their effect on any data should be absolutely profound. Thus far, you'd have a hard time picking florida out from oregon or california. If you need PhD level math to prove that all these NPI'S work... it means they weren't worth the extremely toxic and corrosive effectives they've had on our communities. Any fool off the street should be able to look at the raw data and see the impact, which currently you can't do.

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#155

Post by CyanBird » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

bedhead wrote: post #105

isodev wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine there was a fire near where you live, constantly spreading and endangering lives in your community. Would you say people can just "learn to live it"?

Can you point to a single policy that has demonstrated (in an intellectually honest way) ANY efficacy in slowing covid? One?? Vax passports, cloth masks, N95 masks, face shields, closing schools, cohorts, WFH, clean/dirty pen jars (my fave), plexiglass, 6 feet, travel bans... The grim reality is that there hasn't been a single policy that's been shown to have made any difference at all. NONE. There's literally nothin…

> ANY efficacy in slowing covid? One??

Here, this was recorded on March of 2020

https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/1238604080571772928

Simply because your country's leadership is incompetent and you are incompetent at finding opposing views and analysis doesn't mean that said tools don't exist

Apologies for writing such a scathing comment but, guys, we are 1 year plus into this, please just... I don't even know, I'd like to say "inform yourselves" but with the web and informational intakes being so fragmented who knows what you guys even consider "good information" anymore

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#156

Post by polskibus » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #149

vletal wrote: post #112

Omicron? Was not it Nu like few hours ago? I like the longer name better. Our ministry of finance has already made a typo in a Facebook post calling it Mu (like the sound cows make).

They skipped nu because it sounds too much like mu, and they skipped xi because it sounds like Winnie-the-Poo.

Wait, what happened to epsilon?

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#157

Post by somewhereoutth » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #82

isodev wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine there was a fire near where you live, constantly spreading and endangering lives in your community. Would you say people can just "learn to live it"?

You mean like we learned to live with the far more deadly (at least initially) influenza? As your body increasingly comes in contact with it you’ll build a solid immunity. Similar to the other mRNA viruses such as RSV (dangerous to babies, but almost no one else).

If Covid had occurred in 1918, it would likely have had a much higher CFR than H1N1 - no supplemental oxygen available at that time.

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#158

Post by f38zf5vdt » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #156

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They skipped nu because it sounds too much like mu, and they skipped xi because it sounds like Winnie-the-Poo.

Wait, what happened to epsilon?

That one dates back to July, 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2_Epsilon_variant

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#159

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

malepoon wrote: post #93

Twitter thread from a vaccine developer: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1464222680731820043.html A lot of speculation still, but it's not all bad so far.

His argument is fallacious.

He's saying that since there all other variants we're susceptible to the vaccine, it's unlikely that this one is.

...and goes on to list the high number of different markers the vaccines target.

Unfortunately, vaccines largely target the spike proteins, and sequencing of omicron is demonstrating that every single protein marker on the spike is changed.

Vaccines will likely have a very small effect on this variant.

There are also two other mutations of concern that have never been seen together that each increase binding to ACE2 for cell entry.

This all needs to be formally confirmed, but this is probably BAD.

Re: Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern

#160

Post by eurasiantiger » Fri, Nov 26, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

brandmeyer wrote: post #143

reindeer76 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Narrowness of immune response: >The mRNA and viral vector vaccines induced ONLY spike protein antibodies in the inoculated test subjects >In comparison, whole inactivated virus and natural infection induce antibodies to many parts of the virus Original antigenic sin: >Subjects injected with the old formulations have locked their immune response to only a few antibodies >Any new formulation of the injection will ampli…

Curious edit history. This pile of garbage originally used "vaxtard", "sin", and "purebloods". You really shouldn't take anything seriously from a source that uses those trigger phrases.

Seems to have been copy-pasted from /pol/