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

211–220 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#211

Post by btmiller »

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:…

Just as a reminder, HN isn’t a place where it’s acceptable to appeal to downvoters as a tactic for increasing the legitimacy of your comment.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#212

Post by dillondoyle »

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:…

I agree. I haven't learned anything new from reporting except the designation, which some reports got wrong..

I was an idiot and commented/replied to two posts on Reddit on this topic. I showed actual research paper receipts yet was still mega downvoted, told I am wrong and don't know anything. It's so pointless and frustrating.

I'm sorry you're getting downvoted that's not what HN is about, though I'm guilty myself in the CCP threads imho on deserving posts but maybe I'm blind there.

This type of click bait reporting is dangerous. Whatever push notification text gets clicks !== news.

People don't want to hear anything that doesn't fit their viewpoint, especially if that viewpoint is the world is ending, vaccines don't do anything, and let's buy 200 rolls of TP - because they use 1/8th of a roll at a time ;)

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#213

Post by emkoemko »

runarberg wrote: post #138
ptr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sweden does not have higher urbanization then Denmark (both at 88%). Also what has native language anything to do with the spread of the virus and its mortality rate? I fail to see a logical link between the two.

maybe some languages by their nature spread more virus into the air? i don't know..

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#214

Post by flunhat »

timr wrote: post #207
flunhat wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can barely say the results out loud lest you get silenced by the angry mob Please -- you're not being silenced, you are not some martyr, people are just disagreeing with you.

For the record: I wasn't talking about me. There has been actual censorship throughout 2020. A lot of it, across all social-media platforms. I'm sure the downvoting here has nothing to do with the fact that comments get sorted to the bottom and grayed out.

> I'm sure the downvoting here has nothing to do with the fact that comments get sorted to the bottom and grayed out.

Would you stop with the hysteria? You're getting downvoted not only because people disagree with you, but also because you've managed to turn that disagreement into some kind of cause for martyrdom.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#215

Post by enw »

mjlawson wrote: post #175
Thorentis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Potentially you're also missing the forest from the trees: it may be an order of magnitude higher, but in relation to the population size, the number of deaths is minuscule regardless.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#216

Post by dillondoyle »

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”.

I agree with it's constant forever, just like flu. maybe we get a breakthrough treatment / vaccine for all virus' like that.

But we don't regular wear masks during winter nor enforce limited capacity or hours or quarantines. Personally of those options I'd be down for short term, financially assisted family quarantine and punishments for going to work sick.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#217

Post by bavell »

kaba0 wrote: post #102
jdminhbg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, car deaths have decreased by multiple orders of magnitude in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

You can’t infer that from the graph. Yeah, they will go back to pre-pandemic levels, but they won’t increase exponentially from then on - which is not the case for COVID with no restrictions, which will only plateau at ridiculously high amount of infected (and dead).

> COVID with no restrictions, which will only plateau at ridiculously high amount of infected (and dead).

I'm curious what you think of Florida, which has had almost no restrictions for a majority of the pandemic and yet is actually doing better than some other states. Seems to disprove your assertion?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#218

Post by lamontcg »

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..

No. Immunity isn't like a key fitting perfectly into a lock.

You already have T-cell immunity against Omicron from the vaccine which will recognize the mutated spike.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#219

Post by sanedigital »

sbierwagen wrote: post #37
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…

From the article: >A travel ban is not an evidence-based solution unless you stop all travel from every country. Okay, why not do that? China's done it. Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand require a week+ quarantine for international travelers. It obviously works: it stopped two Omicron carriers at the border in Hong Kong. Why not do that? If COVID-19 is such a serious threat that it requires shutting down all schools…

Your last paragraph is begging the question: closing schools wasn’t required and was likely a major mistake. Closing borders just heaps more ineffective but costly action into the pile.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#220

Post by refurb »

Anon84 wrote: post #188
rel2thr wrote: post #74

> Because the change is small, an updated vaccine doesn’t need Phase III trials and/or regularity approval. So, this whole process should take a max of 6 weeks. This appears to be incorrect, Moderna says it needs 60 days to just get into trials ( https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1464225637590310938 ) . The FDA has not said what the approval process will look like, but its safe to say it will be non-zero

Yes, you need to show that the new vaccine works against the new variant but not that it’s safe. So it will be much faster

Why would you not need to show it’s safe? A new mRNA vaccine would be introducing different mRNA, which produces new antigen proteins and elicits a different immune response.
Post reply on HN