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

191–200 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#191

Post by actually_a_dog »

timr wrote: post #190
actually_a_dog wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, these are not public policy studies. These are medical studies. Do they measure the effectiveness of an experimental medication on people who stop taking it? No. If I were to measure things as you propose, I guarantee you I could conduct a huge study showing that exercise doesn't make people healthier, just because most people won't adhere to an exercise program . That has no bearing on the effectiveness of the i…

All drug studies are public policy studies. If you show that a drug works in a petri dish, that's completely irrelevant if it's so toxic that people don't take it because of side-effects. If you show that full-face respirators work on a mannequin in a box, that's completely irrelevant if real-world people don't wear full-face respirators because they suck.

> If you show that a drug works in a petri dish, that's completely irrelevant if it's so toxic that people don't take it.

> If you show that full-face respirators work on a mannequin in a box, that's completely irrelevant if real-world people don't wear full-face respirators because they suck.

And these examples are straw men. That's completely irrelevant to the point.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#192

Post by joe_the_user »

jcbrand wrote: post #119
joe_the_user wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no problem with people imposing their own restrictions on their movement and association.

Which implies you have some problem with the ordinary state lockdowns. These were certainly poorly executed and yet we can Sweden with nearly ten times the casualties-per-capita of an equivalent nation (Norway). Where my actual point about people taking their own measures is that life was sucky in Sweden as well as the rest of the world.

So what you effectively saying is: "I don't care if things were not that different in practice, for my principle of freedom, I'll 10K deaths without quality of life that different."

Edit:

"the people could largely be trusted with taking appropriate measures"

Trust is a pretty disingenuous term here. What's actually happened is that the people who took risks were the people who economically forced. Ironically, that include workers who took care of the elderly; poorly paid in Sweden and elsewhere, they then took their infections to the elderly concentrated in homes. Stopping this would have required more measures than any of the nations were will to do.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#193

Post by abledon »

titzer wrote: post #66
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…

> 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.

"2 people compare their personal 5-star ratings system" - HN, 2021, Oil & Canvas

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#194

Post by timr »

Klinky wrote: post #185
timr wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

His review is targeting the weakest mask type while cherry picking and downplaying even from studies showing benefits of masking, such as the Bangladesh study others have cited, to paint the picture he wants to paint.

Read past the title. It covers all masks, not just cloth facemasks.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#196

Post by feanaro »

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?

Forever? Why would we need to do it forever when we don't do it for any other virus?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#197

Post by timr »

flunhat wrote: post #75
timr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This review says that none of the community mask trials showed a significant effect. It says that 3/6 studies on respirators in medical settings had no significant effect. It said that 3/5 studies for masks as source control showed no significant effect. Here's a review of every mask study ever performed: https://www.cato.org/working-paper/evidence-community-cloth-... Here's a summary written by the same author, in c…

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…

> Why is everyone you're referencing -- and for that matter, you too -- so damn hysterical?

I am calling for scientific studies. More data to justify our actions and guide our decisions. You are...calling me hysterical.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#198

Post by abledon »

ipaddr wrote: post #163
ralph84 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

wow, i thought you were being sarcastic (I was laughing at your lmgtfy 'joke') , but they actually do list them. awesome!

https://corpo.metro.ca/en/covid-19-cases-ontario.html

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#199

Post by vishho »

timr wrote: post #162
NikolaNovak wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

We cannot do the science, because such a randomized test would be deeply unethical. Compare to having pregnant women smoke cigarettes to study effect on the fetus. You do this only afterwards with observational data.

Next to politization there is also public health, which is more of a management science than an emperical science. And economic concerns.

From all the data worldwide, you only reduce risk of hospitalization and death, not for spreading to your grandmother or catching it from a bypasser sneezing in your face. To act like there is no risk for the leaky vaccinated, is to actually increase your risk. Data shows that asymptomatic breakthrough infections are able to cause long-COVID. Now you did not even feel sick and gave your body and immune system rest to clear the virus. Very risky!

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#200

Post by yread »

splittingTimes wrote: post #13

For a fully waxed person, Would it make sense to try to get infected by Delta to build more immunity to fight off that omicron thing? With so many significant variations on the spike protein the vaccines will be no help..

If you're formalin-fixed wax-embedded you have absolutely nothing to worry about anymore.
Post reply on HN