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

111–120 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#111

Post by tenuousemphasis »

timr wrote: post #9
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

> We have managed to clear out measles No, we have not. In fact, there has been a rather significant resurgence in measles over the course of the last two years. One of the many side-effects of our reaction to Covid that is not properly accounted. https://www.who.int/news/item/10-11-2021-global-progress-aga... https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1077482 https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/3/11/...

Which reaction to COVID are you crediting with the resurgence in measles exactly?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#112

Post by throwawayboise »

mellavora wrote: post #30
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

We were close to clearing out measles in western countries until the anti-vax movement came along. These days, not so much.

What is the fraction of the population who is anti-vax with regard to measles? I don't know anyone. I do know many people who are reluctant/refusing to get the COVID vax.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#114

Post by spookthesunset »

soperj wrote: post #20
timr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would take any study performed during the heat of the moment with a huge grain of salt. Especially in an environment where saying anything but “masks work” gets you labeled as some wacko spreading misinformation.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#115

Post by wwweston »

timr wrote: post #24
soperj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask... There's one from Stanford & Yale that says they do.

Read the study, not a press release. It said quite explicitly that cloth masks had no effect , and surgical masks had an extremely minor overall effect (11.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence), with an absolute effect size of 0.09%: https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...

The Bangladesh study does not say that cloth masks have no effect.

It said that it can’t support an impact of cloth masks usage on infection rates, but associates them with reduced severity/symptoms.

That’s a notably distinct proposition from “no effect.”

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#116

Post by spookthesunset »

throwaway23487 wrote: post #113

[flagged]

Of course it isn’t. But you aren’t allowed to say that out loud. You are supposed to just shut up and delegate all critical thinking to a very narrow field of experts (and only those in that field who have the most negative takes).

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#117

Post by fredophile »

xwdv wrote: post #100
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.…

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

I could say the same thing about pants but I still have to wear them in public.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#118

Post by ipaddr »

aledalgrande wrote: post #62
oliv__ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Let's not get personal and connect his business and your expected social norms into some shaming activity.

I disagree with him but I wouldn't want to silence him. He needs to feel free to express his viewpoint and we should feel free to attack those views with other views and maybe throw in some facts to strength our case.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#119

Post by jcbrand »

joe_the_user wrote: post #96
oliv__ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's no problem with people imposing their own restrictions on their movement and association. That's the whole point, and is what Swedish policy was predicated upon, that the people could largely be trusted with taking appropriate measures without the state imposed lockdowns.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#120

Post by nradov »

fragmede wrote: post #99
timr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

And so what are you suggesting? Everyone wear N95 masks all the time forever?
Post reply on HN