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

161–170 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#161

Post by bavell »

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/

I've never seen anyone in public with an N95 mask since the pandemic started but I've seen plenty of cloth masks, bandanas and those cheap hospital masks.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#162

Post by timr »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #152
nradov wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There's too much uncertainty and I don't know how to quantify and otherwise address risk from stranger

You know what would help with this? A randomized controlled trial. This isn't tricky at all, except that we can't do the science because it has become political, because people insist that they know the answer already! And if the study shows what they don't want to see, then they censor it, bury it, downvote it into oblivion, or...write missives about how they're going to ignore it.

Also, are you vaccinated? Yes? Then the answer is almost certainly no risk at all. This much we know from ~all of the data regarding vaccines and serious illness, worldwide.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#163

Post by ipaddr »

ralph84 wrote: post #27
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.

Do you have any evidence of a significant covid outbreak being traced to grocery shopping?

Yes just type covid breakout grocery store in google to see all the local breakouts in your area.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#164

Post by flunhat »

spookthesunset wrote: post #137
flunhat wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is everyone you're referencing -- and for that matter, you too -- so damn hysterical? Vinay Prasad, case in point: > When democratically elected systems transform into totalitarian regimes, the transition is subtle, stepwise, and involves a combination of pre-planned as well as serendipitous events. Indeed, this was the case with Germany in the years 1929-1939, where Hitler was given a chance at governing, the pr…

Humans are meant to see faces. Requiring people, including kids, to wear them for 8+ hours a day with absolutely no metric to get rid of them is insanity. Especially when said people are fully vaccinated. Vaccinated individuals have no business wearing a mask, period.

I will repeat myself one more time:

Facts simply do not concern themselves with your feelings. I know it feels like oppression (a new Third Reich!!111!) & like there is no metric to get rid of masks, but your feelings alone do not make these true statements. The fact -- and we should concern ourselves with facts, not vague feelings or bouts of hysteria -- is that all of these measures will go away once the pandemic has abated to such an extent that it no longer poses a substantial threat to human lives. It's as simple as that: given that masks do an excellent job of slowing the spread, ceteris paribus, wearing a mask is better than not wearing one.

This kind of "feelings logic" is why Trump lost, more or less -- most people are willing to undergo mild inconvenience to save lives & slow the spread of a deadly virus. Despite the feelings of frustration, which we all have.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#165

Post by tinus_hn »

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…

Sweden kept its freedom and paid the price. Considering that Sweden is not now experiencing another wave while the other countries are, it remains to be seen what the price is the other countries ultimately will pay.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#166

Post by jlmorton »

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…

It's obesity.

We know that obesity is a large driver not just in severity, but transmission.

When you compare a world map of obesity rates to Covid death rates, you'll find a better match than any other single variable, far better-matching than income, masking, density, or any other single variable.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#167

Post by ehsankia »

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…

The issue with the 2020 travel ban was indeed that it was for a single country only (later added Iran too), and AFAIK only included direct flights, which kinda defeats the point. You have to go all in or nothing.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#168

Post by blagie »

timr wrote: post #127
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/

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. Whic…

1) There are a lot of comfortable masks which have high filtration. They're used widely in Asia. It's no >99%, but it is >90% when used reasonably. If both sides use them, that brings viral loads down by >99%, though.

2) You're right that Americans are idiots who mostly can't tell the difference between a piece of cloth, which reduces viral loads marginally, and a proper mask.

3) Vaccinations have minimal impact on spread for extended in-door socialization (~30% reduction in odds of spread at this point). They do pretty well for reducing risk to you (e.g. death or hospitalization), and they seem to do pretty well for avoiding casual spread (e.g. passing someone on the street).

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#169

Post by dragontamer »

graeme wrote: post #136
dragontamer wrote: post #10

Look, I'm about as pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown, pro-mask as they come. But the hyperbolic reporting on this variant is not helpful. News articles in mainstream press are already wrong: WHO has named this Omicron (while many publications came out with Nu). This is a virus that takes weeks to months before a variant becomes dominant. You can afford to wait a day or two to get information correct before publishing. Edit:…

This variant is moving much faster to dominance in South Africa than Delta. About 6x faster. You can make some quibbles (small case numbers etc) but this is quick. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/d42bcd3d-e70...

And Lambda took over South America and people were worried it'd also overtake Delta in the USA.

Lambda didn't win however. We were right to be concerned but don't panic about it. Lambda clearly had some 'superpowers'

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#170

Post by ipaddr »

drusepth wrote: post #17
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.

Mutations are happening in vaccinated people. It's similiar to what happens when you spray a new poison on an insect group. Most die but the bugs with mutations live replicate and quickly spread making that poison useless.
Post reply on HN