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

151–160 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#151

Post by ricardobeat »

kaba0 wrote: post #67
bingohbangoh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, then when does this end? I'm all ears!

As far as I know the current view is that it won’t end, but it will become a regular the same way the flu is. There may even be yearly shots combined with flu shots for all the new variants that may evolve. I truly hate that guy, but “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

The existence of Covid won’t end, but the pandemic has to. Living with overloaded hospitals forever, or doubling/tripling our health systems capacity to deal with it permanently don’t sound like very good ideas.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#152

Post by NikolaNovak »

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?

It's tricky.

- fwiw, I personally plan to wear n95 mask outside of home in enclosed public spaces for the foreseeable future, and for things like shopping etc (where I'm exposed to strangers) basically indefinitely / as long as social norms and laws will allow.

- I would like for strangers around me to wear masks. There's too much uncertainty and I don't know how to quantify and otherwise address risk from stranger e.g. In waiting / cashier line, or worse yet elevator (enforced enclosed proximity). I really see no good reason to be in an elevator with unmasked stranger.

- how long and where do we legally mandate masks? Whooeee, I'm glad I don't have to make that awful formal call! :-)

But yeah. If risk is forever, than at least some of us will use ways to mitigate the risk forever in turn. It's not binary, it's a sliding scale that's very individual. so... Yeah. Welcome to the new world! Cyberpunk dystopia future is here! :-)

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#153

Post by ipaddr »

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.

Those delivery people may be carriers. Better to grow and eat your own produce and avoid society at all costs.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#154

Post by enw »

tgv wrote: post #46
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.

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

No, I would tell: since you are at-risk, use the means provided to stay safe and take precautions to reduce the risk of getting infected.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#155

Post by runarberg »

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.

You are wrong. The virus has a higher chance of mutating if left to spread. By slowing the rate of transmission we also slow down the rate of mutation. I bet we would be seeing far more dangerous variants at this point if all countries would have just kept business as usual and allowed it to spread unhindered.

In the mean time we have developed numerous vaccines and possible treatments, and have only seen a handful of dangerous mutations. The lockdowns certainly seem to be working as intended.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#156

Post by jsnell »

ptr wrote: post #72
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…

Not saying it’s the reason, but Sweden has higher urbanization than its neighbors. The country also has more people who don’t speak the native language. Belgium has a similar population size but more deaths (27k).

> Not saying it’s the reason, but Sweden has higher urbanization than its neighbors.

The urbanization % for the four countries are: 82.9%, 87.9%, 85.5%, and 88.1%. Which one of those do you think is Sweden? Do you think it's at all plausible that such small differences could account for an order of magnitude more deaths?

> The country also has more people who don’t speak the native language

What are the numbers, and why would that be relevant?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#157

Post by timr »

Klinky wrote: post #148
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.

Vinay Prasad seems to be a contrarian who recently compared the US COVID-19 policies to Hitler's Germany[1]. In the article you linked, he's citing his own study on cloth masks. Most would agree that cloth masks are the least effective masking option at stopping viral spread. Cloth masking is just the easiest target to attack in an anti-mask agenda. He also implies doctor's have inherent bias against HCQ and Ivermect…

> In the article you linked, he's citing his own study on cloth masks.

This is a blog post summarizing his review of every study on masks ever conducted. So yes, he's citing that. You should read it.

I linked to it because most people won't have time to read 30,000 words on masks, and want the TL;DR.

Everything else you've said is an ad hominem.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#158

Post by AlexCoventry »

flunhat wrote: post #42
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…

Agree 100% -- that whole paragraph has some flimsy logic. The only bit of evidence they provide for travel bans not working is: > For example, we had a travel ban with China in March 2020, only to be infiltrated with a European strain. Isn't this a good sign that the travel ban actually worked -- i.e. created enough of a delay in the spread of covid to result in a meaningfully different pandemic than we would have ot…

For a variant with this level of transmissibility, doesn't it seem likely that it's already present in every nation with significant international travel?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#159

Post by kcplate »

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.

> Locking down has tremendous costs whether mental or economic, you just can't compute and make a nice graph of it

The gorilla in the room that no one’s wants to acknowledge…we locked down to allow people who were likely to die within the next 3-5 years to maybe survive a couple of those years. The price of the lockdowns economically, physical health, mental health, and in education will be paid by folks who were probably never in much danger from this virus for decades.

I fully believe that historians will look back at this time and talk of the lopsided cost/benefit.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#160

Post by BirdieNZ »

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…

> nd what - if any - role their openness to a certain anti-parasitic, protease inhibiting drug has played in their success.

There's a trial study currently in progress in Japan to investigate this, but all the evidence we have points to ivermectin being of no benefit to Covid patients unless they have parasitic worms. See, for example: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

It's not an unanswered question, in other words. Ivermectin doesn't help against Covid.

Post reply on HN