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

91–100 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#91

Post by timr »

titzer wrote: post #57
ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think the article missed the point on this one - travel bans aren't a panacea, but they definitely slow the spread and can buy valuable time at the start of an outbreak. There's been too much binary thinking by the media and politicians - for example masks aren't 100% effective, but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% which could be the difference between getting mildly sick and getting a fatal exposure.…

> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, bef…

All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, measured in tiny fractions of a percent.

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

To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#92

Post by l33tman »

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…

The aggregated over-mortality rate for Sweden at this point puts it in the lower part among the EU, at place 21 of 31 compared countries IIRC. The covid-related death-count at 15000 has been more or less constant since May even while it's surging now in the other countries.

Besides, people keep comparing Sweden to Norway, Denmark and Finland, which is a bad comparison as the demographies are very different.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#93

Post by planetsprite »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #78
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? RNA viruses have high mutation rates and variants will never end in the same way that flu & common-cold variation continues. The more interesting question is how will our immune systems adapt and will vaccines continue to provide protection against severity of illness at the same time as they apply selective pressure that enhances viral transmissibility? Of further…

>role their openness to a certain anti-parasitic, protease inhibiting drug has played in their success. It's their willingness to wear masks, follow social distancing guidelines, not the secret magic of ivermectin.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#94

Post by actually_a_dog »

timr wrote: post #35
actually_a_dog wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11.3% reduction in the base of an exponential process is huge .

Sure, but that is not what the study said, and not at all what the observed difference means. They found a tiny effect in symptomatic seroprevalence at a single point in time.

If 11.3% fewer people were infected overall up to that point in time, how many people are likely to be infected at T+1? 11.3%. It's not even a trick question.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#95

Post by aledalgrande »

oliv__ wrote: post #87
aledalgrande wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strikes me how such a heartless comment comes from someone running a "community" business. Really sad.

Go ahead and paint me as a heartless selfish person because I am looking at probabilities and considering alternatives. In your world, if just one person dies it is worth shutting the rest of the population for.

I'm not painting anything. Your words describe yourself.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#96

Post by joe_the_user »

oliv__ wrote: post #29
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…

So Sweden had proportionately 5 times more deaths for not locking down with a death / population ratio of 0.00145? I don't think it's ridiculous to consider not locking down with those stats. Locking down has tremendous costs whether mental or economic, you just can't compute and make a nice graph of it.

The problem with this line of argument - "if only the state didn't impose a lockdown, we could trade lives for life as it was before" - aside it from being kind of despicable, is that you can't get people to just continue previously normal activities once they know the danger. When Covid appeared in Seattle, the first US city, all the bars and restaurants downtown went out of the business before any restrictions went into place. Sweden had a lot of people working at home even with the supposed "no restrictions" policy. Indeed, see the list of policies that were, in fact, restrictive; https://sweden.se/life/society/sweden-and-corona-in-brief

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#97

Post by flunhat »

bmeski wrote: post #55
tgv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to tell those 12000 people: sorry, but you need to die for my exceptionally limited view of economy?

Yes. How many people die in car accidents each year?

This kind of logic is, more or less, why Trump lost -- people (rightly so) don't like being told they have to sacrifice themselves for the economy

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#98

Post by toshk »

busymom0 wrote: post #33
miohtama wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Measles is a VERY different virus than COVID and even flu. > The surface proteins that the measles virus uses to enter cells are ineffective if they suffer any mutation, meaning that any changes to the virus come at a major cost. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150521133628.h... Since the COVID shots doesn't prevent catching and transmitting the virus, at least the current shots aren't going to achieve…

Yet it seems that's the road we are taking. Some bro science: In 5-10 year heard immunity is what will happen.

Every year it will be a little less. Vaccines and other medicines will dampen the casualties. Partial lockdowns and restrictions will be kept in place so it doesn't get too much out of control.

Kids and teenager will grow up with corona being just one of the viruses they get among many others and build up, it not a full immunity at least a decent ability to handle it.

And slowly less and less it will control our society. But will definitely take a while.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#99

Post by fragmede »

timr wrote: post #91
titzer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, bef…

All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, measured in tiny fractions of a percent. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk ... To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.

Here's a link to a real actual science study that used tuberculosis-sized particles and found filtration efficiencies of 99.5% or higher by N95 masks. Which isn't minor. It's been over a year. If you're not using an N95, you're doing yourself and those around you a disservice.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#100

Post by xwdv »

ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: post #44
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…

Yeah, I think the article missed the point on this one - travel bans aren't a panacea, but they definitely slow the spread and can buy valuable time at the start of an outbreak. There's been too much binary thinking by the media and politicians - for example masks aren't 100% effective, but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% which could be the difference between getting mildly sick and getting a fatal exposure.…

Masks are 100% effective at inconveniencing people’s lives and building a false sense of security.
Post reply on HN