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

241–250 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#241

Post by johnchristopher »

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

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/covid-19-vaccines-can-ad... COVID-19 vaccines can adapt to new variants. Here’s what it will take Health Feb 9, 2021 6:37 PM EST

> It would take six weeks for researchers to go from “plugging new variants into the vaccine” to “make a new vaccine ready to go into people,” he said, but that does not account for the time it would take to have a drug approved. Weissman compared the process to the way the vaccines for the seasonal influenza are modified each time it circumnavigates the globe.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/26/biontech-say... BioNTech says it could tweak Covid vaccine in 100 days if needed

> BioNTech says it could produce and ship an updated version of its vaccine within 100 days if the new Covid variant detected in southern Africa is found to evade existing immunity.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#242

Post by codezero »

feanaro wrote: post #196
nradov wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Probably because we should have been, and now some of us have learned. It’s been a pleasure going two years without any upper respiratory illnesses for me. I look forward to being steadfast in that since it’s really not that hard to wear a mask, and it’s not hurting anyone else when I do so.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#243

Post by simondotau »

enw wrote: post #215
mjlawson wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then I have to ask: what hypothetical rate of death could exceed your definition of minuscule? How many per capita deaths do we need to reach before you will agree that societal intervention is warranted? A number would be appreciated.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#244

Post by paulryanrogers »

spookthesunset wrote: post #184
Gigachad wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think OP is concerned with yearly shots or covid hanging around. It’s the lockdowns and other restrictions that people care about.

Bingo. It’s long since time to stop spending this much energy on this myopic fixation on Covid. There are billions of other things for each individual to worry about besides the spread of Covid. And that is a fact, which doesn’t care about the feelings of people pushing society to continue waging an impossible war on a respiratory virus.

Except that when these variants strike in waves they overwhelm hospitals that even the fittest among us still need from time to time. Perhaps permanently increased hospital capacity and a few million fewer people is a better trade off. Assuming there aren't other less visible costs.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#245

Post by radiator »

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?

What consequences do the lockdowns have on birth rates? In some western countries it has been shown that births have decreased by more than 10%. What are you going to tell those thousands of people who will remain childless because of these policies?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#246

Post by neither_color »

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…

In America it would disproportionately affect working class immigrants who get a measly two weeks a year to see their families.

We do not have and shouldn't have a zero covid goal and negative tests + vaccine checks are a reasonable enough. AU/NZ are outliers, but there are countries with strict border policies like them but that failed to contain their spread, such as Australia's neighbor Indonesia. That suggests there's more to the story that requires further study. Australia + NZ are not good case studies for Europe + NA to follow because they are rich islands with limited ports of entry that get less international air traffic in a year than busy European or NA airports get in a month. Furthermore I don't see what the major quality of life improvements for Aussies/Kiwis has been as a result of their overly strict policies. They have a statistic they can be proud of but at what cost?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#247

Post by contravariant »

johnchristopher wrote: post #235

> We know that B.1.1.529 is not a “Delta plus” variant. The figure below shows a really long line, with no previous Delta ancestors. So this likely means it mutated over time in one, likely immunocompromised, individual (see my P.S. note at the end of the post). How does that work ? Virus mutate inside the host until either death or the immune system stops it ? Why is the absence of selective pressure producing a vir…

This isn't really my area so this is conjecture and guesswork.

If various immunocompromised people get infected then by a fluke their immune system could be just powerful enough to contain the infection but not eradicate it, this will remain the case until the virus becomes too powerful and the host dies.

It's not the absence of selective pressure that is driving the mutation here, it's the mere fact that the virus might survive the selective pressure that does it.

Also from some of the explanations I've read of Covid-19 the mere duplication of the virus isn't all that damaging, the harsh way the immune system eradicates infected cells is more damaging. So someone with a limited immune response might survive for a surprisingly long time.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#248

Post by XorNot »

ipaddr wrote: post #170
drusepth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

South Africa, where this strain originated, has a vaccination rate of 25%.

Though I'm also curious why this only happens for this virus, and not any of the others we've destroyed with vaccination like smallpox, or reduced to nothingness like polio or measles. (short version: you don't know what you're talking about).

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#249

Post by NikolaNovak »

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…

>>"Also, are you vaccinated? Yes? Then the answer is almost certainly no risk at all"

That is not my lay person interpretation of the currently best available data.

A vaccinated person can get infected, can get seriously ill, and can spread out to others more vulnerable. It helps, drastically, and I sure as heck got mine, but my understanding is that it does not confer individual invulnerability.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#250

Post by adamrezich »

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…

apparently the US is now doing a travel ban for eight African nations yet somehow I'm not holding my breath for these to be considered problematic in any way
Post reply on HN