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

271–280 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#271

Post by wrycoder »

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 the US, you can hardly get them. Amazon was restricting them to medical professionals until recently, and all the local stores have been out of stock since spring 2020. Now, if you currently look at Amazon for 3M N95, you'll see that a lot of the purchasers are doubtful that the products offered are genuine.

We've had two years to increase the output of N95s and expand the hospital facilities to handle severe COVID. Almost nothing has been accomplished.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#272

Post by blindmute »

ehsankia wrote: post #173
actually_a_dog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is absolutely not true. Every public figure left of center in the country commented viciously about the racist, stupid travel ban.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#273

Post by throwawayForMe2 »

tinus_hn wrote: post #171
miohtama wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Deer seem to be big carriers also, 80% infected in one study

https://nypost.com/2021/11/02/deer-identified-as-widespread-...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#274

Post by cthalupa »

timr wrote: post #197
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…

> 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.

People post scientific studies, and you repeatedly go back to the same person who has shown an obvious political bias against masks and vaccines to attempt to debunk them.

I'm just feeding into the problem by replying to you, but none of us can expect any discourse with you to be productive when you are working from a position that relies on believing someone acting in obvious bad faith.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#275

Post by biophysboy »

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...

Your link is broken, but if you're talking about that FT chart with the title that starts with "A new variant is spreading rapidly..." then I might be able to to put you at ease a bit, without quibbling about "too early to tell".

It is a time vs percentage share of cases chart, comparing Beta, Delta and Omicron. Omicron is growing very fast in percentage share relative to Beta and Delta. But Beta and Delta were competing with other variants when they first emerged, whereas Omicron is currently not. So its percent share is growing fast.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#276

Post by Eelongate »

humaniania wrote: post #133
timr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the study, not a press release. It said quite explicitly that cloth masks had no effect , and surgical masks had an extremely minor overall effect (11.3% reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence), with an absolute effect size of 0.09%: https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...

Why is poverty-action.org more reputable than Stanford?

In a game of telephone, the further you get from the original source the less reliable the information becomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_telephone

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#277

Post by gladinovax »

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…

As long as it makes you comfortable you should wear a mask. However it makes me uncomfortable to wear one. I've never worn one. The fact you are scared doesn't mean I should have to change how I live. You should change how you live in order to better cope with your fear. Expecting the world to change for you is setting yourself up for disappointment at best.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#278

Post by gladinovax »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #249
timr wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#279

Post by [deleted] »

vishho wrote: post #199
timr wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hospitalizat…

[deleted]

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#280

Post by cthalupa »

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…

> 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.

Masks help prevent you from spreading the virus to other. As a vaccinated individual, you are highly unlikely to have serious illness from CV19, but you can still get it and spread it to others, even if you are only mildly symptomatic.

And this is based on data from the prior variants. Who knows how things are with Omicron - we need more data.

>Humans are meant to see faces.

Humans are/aren't meant to do X is a bad argument. We have made all sorts of behavioral changes over our time as a species. We adapt. I like having cars, and planes, and an industrialized society. But humans weren't "meant" to do any of that, until we did. All of these things have real, serious, drawbacks. But the overwhelming majority of people would agree that having these things is better than not having them.

If the new normal is to have a deadly and highly transmissible disease with us from now until forever, then yes, masks should also be the new normal. I don't think that's the case - the stakes and motivation for figuring out alternatives is quite high - but if it is, then, well, it's better than the alternative.

Post reply on HN