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

171–180 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#171

Post by tinus_hn »

miohtama wrote: post #4
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? 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

Considering covid spreads through wildlife, unless you succeed in vaccinating every monkey in the jungle that’s never going to happen.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#172

Post by spookthesunset »

flunhat wrote: post #164
spookthesunset wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Facts don’t dictate policy. Even if masks were incredibly effective so some point we’d have to stop wearing them. Now that we have countless effective medical interventions, I’d say that time is now. Vaccinated individuals have zero business being required to wear masks. They’ve done their part and should be able to return to a fully normal life.

COVID is never going away. There is so much more to live for than being treated as a vector for exactly one disease.

And what I said is a value statement. Facts or science have nothing to do with it besides they guided and informed my opinions.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#173

Post by ehsankia »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #14
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…

I agree with about 95% of this, but, I don't think "travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them." I think they got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them previously, targeting countries with you-know-what religion, for a political reason. Had it been just "we're going to reduce air traffic into the country to slow the spread of the virus," I don't think that would have been terribly controver…

It's also worth noting that a lot of the narrative makes it sound like people called him racist for the ban, but it was mostly his use of "Kung-flu" and "china virus" that people had an issue with, not the ban itself.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#174

Post by tmaly »

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?…

We are all going to have to live in the metaverse at the rate things are going.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#175

Post by mjlawson »

Thorentis wrote: post #104
titzer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying Sweden has "just survived" Europe "just survived" the black plague (1/3rd of Europe died ). Life on Earth "just survived" the Chicxulub impactor (the Dinosaurs and 90% of species on Earth died). People who say flippant things like this are unserious and frankly, dangerous.

COVID does not have a death rate of 33%.

You're missing the forest from the trees here; no one's suggesting that. Instead, we're saying that perhaps you shouldn't use Sweden as evidence supporting non-intervention when their deaths per capita was an order of magnitude higher than similar countries with more aggressive policies.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#176

Post by eulenteufel »

cassonmars wrote: post #143
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, masks with poor filtration underperform at filtering. Show a study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of an N95.

Most people aren’t wearing N95s, and to my understanding, no jurisdiction has a mask policy that requires them.

In a lot of places in Germany public transport was only restricted to using N95 masks. This summer in Berlin all the stores required N95 masks, as did universities. They have relaxed the rules since then and you can see in the recent infection statistics how that worked out for them.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#177

Post by jjtheblunt »

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.…

> We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better.

well said, in my opinion

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#178

Post by markdown »

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.

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

Why would you need a study to tell you that if nobody with covid travels to a country, that country remains covid-free? Perhaps you are unaware, but there are countries on this planet that covid hasn't gotten to, and those countries have travel bans.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#179

Post by [deleted] »

ricardobeat wrote: post #106
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.

The recent Bangladesh study with 350k people found a ~10% reduction in cases, from only 40% mask adoption. The two-cities trial early in 2020 in Germany saw a ~20% reduction. Those are in the number of infections - the number looks low but can make a massive difference in the actual transmission rate. In the German case, after a month infections dropped close to zero.

[deleted]

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#180

Post by actually_a_dog »

spookthesunset wrote: post #172
flunhat wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Facts don’t dictate policy. Even if masks were incredibly effective so some point we’d have to stop wearing them. Now that we have countless effective medical interventions, I’d say that time is now. Vaccinated individuals have zero business being required to wear masks. They’ve done their part and should be able to return to a fully normal life. COVID is never going away. There is so much more to live for than being…

> Facts don’t dictate policy.

And you don't see that as a problem?

Post reply on HN