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

121–130 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#121

Post by timr »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #110
timr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, that's not what the study measured. You're extrapolating incorrectly. First, the study conflates distancing and mask-wearing. They admit this in the paper (there is a significant increase in distancing amongst the mask wearers). There is also a large change in the size of the populations that could easily swamp the effect size (i.e. the size of the mask population was something like 9% bigger than the cont…

But, that's not what you want to measure. You want to measure whether an intervention works if people adhere to the protocol. Again, as I asked you in another comment, would you expect masks to work if people don't wear them?

> that's not what you want to measure. You want to measure whether an intervention works if people adhere to the protocol.

No, you want to measure if an intervention works if you do everything reasonable to enact it. You don't get to invent an alternate reality where people are 100% compliant and there are chocolate rivers and gumdrop trees.

Otherwise, I have the perfect diet plan that will end all obesity, worldwide: don't eat if you're fat. Simple! If it fails, it's because you didn't follow my brilliant advice.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#122

Post by tenuousemphasis »

planetsprite wrote: post #109
fragmede wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I don't disagree with you on the effectiveness of masks but tuberculosis bacterial cells are far larger than coronavirons.

Coronavirus itself isn't airborne, it travels in aerosolized water droplets, which are significantly larger than coronavirus itself.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#123

Post by msie »

rowathay wrote: post #81
bradlys wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, people forget the muslim ban happened before COVID.

People also forget that it wasn’t a Muslim ban. The world’s largest Muslim country was not included in it.

Well, those excluded countries included places where Trump had business interests and longtime allies of the US (Saudi Arabia). https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-immigration-ba...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#124

Post by mojuba »

Gigachad wrote: post #80
phonebucket wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes? Lockdowns are not about overcoming it; they're about saving lives. I think it's fair to say that the lockdowns saved quite a lot of them. Looking at how the death charts correlate with lockdown impositions might support this viewpoint.

Lockdowns don’t make any progress. They put everything on pause. But as soon as you unpause, all of those saved lives are at the same risk they were at before. And you can’t pause forever. Each lockdown becomes less and less effective as people stop caring.

Except there's hope of finding a more effective treatment against this virus while we are on pause. So lives can be saved potentially.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#125

Post by spookthesunset »

nradov wrote: post #120
fragmede wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no end game to masking. It will be in perpetuity in some places.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#126

Post by nuclearnice1 »

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.…

Are they useful at the start of a new variant?

For example if we assume it gets to the US eventually, what is, say, an extra few weeks buying the US?

On day 1 or in year 1, I see the value in those weeks. You can build ventilators, field hospitals, and learn treatments. At this point, are there new useful ways to use a few weeks of lead time?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#127

Post by timr »

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/

That's nice, but filtration efficiency =/= real-world efficiency. Unless you plan on super-glueing mask fabric to everyone's face holes, of course.

Also, last time I checked, most people aren't wearing N95 masks. Probably because they're annoying and difficult to wear.

> 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.

I am vaccinated. Which brings up an important point: there is absolutely no evidence that a mask of any sort provides any benefit to those around me, a vaccinated person.

At some point, you have to put up evidence for your increasingly implausible claims -- you can't just keep leaning on lab studies of filtration efficiency. It's been two years now. Where is the real-world data backing your claims?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#128

Post by mrinella »

scohesc wrote: post #39
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When you can prove in a court of law that person "x" infected person "y" at "Z" date/time - then you can say this with even a minimal level of confidence. Don't want to get sick? Order groceries online and have them delivered to your door.

Are you saying that because it can’t be proven that you infected someone else, it is okay to put others at risk?

And that since we can’t hold individuals responsible, everyone else needs to alter their behavior?

That is, one infectious person wandering around a grocery store gets to force everyone else to shop online and is not doing anything wrong?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#129

Post by ipaddr »

Gigachad wrote: post #80
phonebucket wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes? Lockdowns are not about overcoming it; they're about saving lives. I think it's fair to say that the lockdowns saved quite a lot of them. Looking at how the death charts correlate with lockdown impositions might support this viewpoint.

Lockdowns don’t make any progress. They put everything on pause. But as soon as you unpause, all of those saved lives are at the same risk they were at before. And you can’t pause forever. Each lockdown becomes less and less effective as people stop caring.

Until you enforce those rules with the military.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#130

Post by malermeister »

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?

And that's why I'm unironically for banning cars in the long term. They're a terrible mode of transport, trains and bikes are all we need.
Post reply on HN