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

New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#11

Post by bingohbangoh »

lokl wrote: post #6
bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? I hate, __hate__ this constant fear of a lockdown. Hell, a good part of europe is in lockdown right now. I get that the lockdown is being haphazardly enforce for those countries who've decided on it but I dislike these even being rules on the books. Leave me the hell alone! If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes?…

According to the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard, as of now, Sweden has had 15,145 deaths; Norway has had 1,050 deaths; Denmark 2,863; Finland 1,309. With populations from Wikipedia (10,402,070 for Sweden; 5,402,171 for Norway; 5,850,189 for Denmark; 5,536,146 for Finland), this yields deaths per 1,000 people of: Sweden 1.456 Norway 0.194 Denmark 0.489 Finland 0.236 Saying Sweden has "just survived" doesn't capture…

What are the _total deaths_? What is the total mortality rate?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#12

Post by bingohbangoh »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #8
bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? I hate, __hate__ this constant fear of a lockdown. Hell, a good part of europe is in lockdown right now. I get that the lockdown is being haphazardly enforce for those countries who've decided on it but I dislike these even being rules on the books. Leave me the hell alone! If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes?…

> Leave me the hell alone! As long as that makes essential things such as grocery shopping more dangerous for others, such as myself, no.

Ok, then when does this end?

I'm all ears!

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#14

Post by actually_a_dog »

gfodor wrote: post #3

> Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot stress enough that they do not work. This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for “working”, like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be co…

I agree with about 95% of this, but, I don't think "travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them." I think they got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them previously, targeting countries with you-know-what religion, for a political reason. Had it been just "we're going to reduce air traffic into the country to slow the spread of the virus," I don't think that would have been terribly controversial.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#15

Post by timr »

gfodor wrote: post #3

> Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot stress enough that they do not work. This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for “working”, like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be co…

Yep, we ought to be evidence-based about everything we have done: travel bans, masks, respirators, distancing, plexiglass, closing businesses, forcing healthy kids to wear masks in schools, forcing everyone to get vaccinated, rubber gloves in the grocery store. All of it.

So far, our track record isn't that great. The two RCTs for masks and Covid showed minimal (if not zero) effect [1], and you can barely say the results out loud lest you get silenced by the angry mob (as you can see from the color of this comment). I'm not hopeful.

But please let me know when someone actually does an unbiased study of travel restrictions. I have yet to see one. The biggest tragedy of this pandemic is the number of people who are willing to substitute their (popular) opinions for evidence and call it "science".

I guarantee that every response to this comment will be from someone asserting that "masks work", and linking to a paper that they haven't actually read, or worse: an editorial about papers they haven't read. Most people have literally no idea what the data is on any of this.

[1] https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#16

Post by lokl »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #11
lokl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard, as of now, Sweden has had 15,145 deaths; Norway has had 1,050 deaths; Denmark 2,863; Finland 1,309. With populations from Wikipedia (10,402,070 for Sweden; 5,402,171 for Norway; 5,850,189 for Denmark; 5,536,146 for Finland), this yields deaths per 1,000 people of: Sweden 1.456 Norway 0.194 Denmark 0.489 Finland 0.236 Saying Sweden has "just survived" doesn't capture…

What are the _total deaths_? What is the total mortality rate?

You can view JHU's raw data sources at https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19. According to that, they are getting COVID death numbers for Sweden from the Swedish Public Health Agency via https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6.... I am not fluent in Swedish, but perhaps someone who is can tell you exactly how the Swedish Public Health Agency measures them. Likewise for the other countries cited.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#17

Post by drusepth »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? I hate, __hate__ this constant fear of a lockdown. Hell, a good part of europe is in lockdown right now. I get that the lockdown is being haphazardly enforce for those countries who've decided on it but I dislike these even being rules on the books. Leave me the hell alone! If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes?…

Mutations happen during spread, so as long as we have huge swaths of unvaccinated people in every country around the world, the mutations will continue to happen. Luckily, variants of concern have slowed significantly as more and more people have gotten vaccinated (and practiced social distancing, masks, wash hands, etc), but there's still a long way to go before we can finally put this pandemic behind us.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#18

Post by dragontamer »

splittingTimes wrote: post #13

For a fully waxed person, Would it make sense to try to get infected by Delta to build more immunity to fight off that omicron thing? With so many significant variations on the spike protein the vaccines will be no help..

Too early to tell.

This is a variant of concern that has only been aware in the public space for like 3 days. There's pretty much no evidence of... Anything... yet.

Gamma avoided natural immunity. Lambda could have avoided the vaccine. Etc etc. Variants and mutations like this come out all the time.

The question is if we should care. Well, no one knows yet. This is the time to start classifying and studying the variant.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#19

Post by j3th9n »

miohtama wrote: post #4
bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? I hate, __hate__ this constant fear of a lockdown. Hell, a good part of europe is in lockdown right now. I get that the lockdown is being haphazardly enforce for those countries who've decided on it but I dislike these even being rules on the books. Leave me the hell alone! If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes?…

> Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? We have managed to clear out measles, so we should be able to stop COVID as well with high enough vaccination rates. Although this is not apples-to-apples comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine

Read about the differences in mutation for maesles and corona viruses and you'll probably never make this comparison again.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#20

Post by soperj »

timr wrote: post #15
gfodor wrote: post #3

> Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot stress enough that they do not work. This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for “working”, like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be co…

Yep, we ought to be evidence-based about everything we have done: travel bans, masks, respirators, distancing, plexiglass, closing businesses, forcing healthy kids to wear masks in schools, forcing everyone to get vaccinated, rubber gloves in the grocery store. All of it. So far, our track record isn't that great. The two RCTs for masks and Covid showed minimal (if not zero) effect [1], and you can barely say the res…

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

There's one from Stanford & Yale that says they do.

Post reply on HN