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

341–350 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#341

Post by codezero »

ktkoffroth wrote: post #282
codezero wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens when you eventually do catch an upper respiratory disease, and your immune system is no longer used to the challenges it presents?

I take advantage of every medical technology available to me. Duh.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#342

Post by stjohnswarts »

legolas2412 wrote: post #325
righttoolforjob wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It's too late (for this variant). So you can't act reactively. 2) When would you ever open then (since you need a proactive approach)? 3) How would trade look? I can't think of a single way of halting a contagious virus between countries that wouldn't completely shut us down as a race. The cost to humanity would be beyond imagination. Perhaps on the order of 100x-1000x that of corona.

Maybe you imagination is limited. China has done this precisely. They have kept the virus in check while limiting international travel and while being the world's factory. You open up when enough of your population is vaccinated. I wonder why you feel that it is fine to say "too late" for this measure that obviously works. Do you also say too late to lockdowns, vaccine mandates, restaurant and schools closures, and m…

China is an authoritarian state that can almost anything it wants to do to limit the freedoms of its population. That same tactic won't work in (real) democratic countries, especially after 2 years of lockdowns.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#343

Post by stjohnswarts »

titzer wrote: post #57
ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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…

If both parties are wearing proper masks then it is 90-95% particle blocking and limiting of viral loads

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#344

Post by stjohnswarts »

blagie wrote: post #168
timr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice, but filtration efficiency =/= real-world efficiency. Unless you plan on super-glueing mask fabric to everyone's face holes, of course. Also, last time I checked, most people aren't wearing N95 masks. Probably because they're annoying and difficult to wear. > 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. I am vaccinated. Whic…

1) There are a lot of comfortable masks which have high filtration. They're used widely in Asia. It's no >99%, but it is >90% when used reasonably. If both sides use them, that brings viral loads down by >99%, though. 2) You're right that Americans are idiots who mostly can't tell the difference between a piece of cloth, which reduces viral loads marginally, and a proper mask. 3) Vaccinations have minimal impact on s…

You seem to be getting downvoted for no reason. Lot of angry people out there.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#345

Post by nradov »

Terretta wrote: post #293
timr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice, but filtration efficiency =/= real-world efficiency. Unless you plan on super-glueing mask fabric to everyone's face holes, of course. Also, last time I checked, most people aren't wearing N95 masks. Probably because they're annoying and difficult to wear. > 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. I am vaccinated. Whic…

Feels like you’re slinging a lot of assertions without substantive evidence, seemingly asking people to “Google that for you”. Among other things, vaccinated persons can and do contract, carry, and spread, during which a decent* mask does do its thing. And who doesn’t wear an N95 class mask? I see about 2/3rds N95, KN95, or KF94s, 1/3 useless masks, appearing to be mostly correlated along economic lines ($2/masks vs.…

None of that is relevant. The virus is now endemic so everyone will eventually be exposed regardless of whether they wear masks in some situations.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#346

Post by codezero »

ktkoffroth wrote: post #282
codezero wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens when you eventually do catch an upper respiratory disease, and your immune system is no longer used to the challenges it presents?

Are you suggesting that one’s immune system becomes stronger after year over year infection? If so, to what end? Every year? Even when I’m 80? When does my system break down. Isolation seems to solve all of these issues and I hate people so isolation is easy.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#347

Post by freeflight »

timr wrote: post #15
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…

Yep, we ought to be evidence-based about everything we have done: travel bans, masks, respirators, distancing, plexiglass, closing businesses, forcing healthy kids to wear masks in schools, forcing everyone to get vaccinated, rubber gloves in the grocery store. All of it. So far, our track record isn't that great. The two RCTs for masks and Covid showed minimal (if not zero) effect [1], and you can barely say the res…

The whole mask discourse has been heavily riddled with communication and terminology errors since the very beginning.

A mask is not a respirator, yet the two of these are regularly confused not just in the public discourse, but were even confused in official messaging during the beginning of the pandemic.

The WHO and health agencies the world over were suddenly asking people to "prioritize masks for at risk groups", which in some places was parsed as "no need to wear masks", as everybody was struggling to get medical masks, and particularly respirators, for the HCW treating infected patients.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#348

Post by stjohnswarts »

Aulig wrote: post #187
bavell wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anyone in public with an N95 mask since the pandemic started but I've seen plenty of cloth masks, bandanas and those cheap hospital masks.

Interesting, in Germany, especially Bavaria, the restrictions have switched to require FFP2 (equivalent to N95 afaik) since quite a while.

America loves its theater. We have a whole department of government dedicated to security theater, the TSA

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#349

Post by NikolaNovak »

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.

replying to "Gladinovax":

>>"I'm doing great without one. No need to worry about longterm risks from a rushed vaccine. 1 year does not equal 10. Ever."

There are categories of knowledge where I'm profoundly uninterested in any individual's experience (best friend or stranger on the internet alike:). Simply put - a person surviving Russian Roulette does not make playing Russian Roulette a good idea, no matter how convinced they are and loudly proclaimed that it worked out great for them :).

I do not know your situation - maybe you've gone hermit; maybe you're in an area of low risk; maybe you're being careful; maybe you're the one asshole around and everybody else is vaccinated/wearing mask/implementing lockdown while you're taking credit for not getting your sorry ass sick; or (most likely but I have no way of judging), you're just lucky - see the Russian roulette above.

But in risk evaluation of this sort, again, I'm far far more interested in verifiable statistics than individual's lived experience.Don't get me wrong - we can have a nice round of drinks and talk about how last year's been to us and approaches we've taken and it'll be interesting and we can share; but it's not a policy-guiding thing.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#350

Post by freeflight »

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.

Right now FP2/N95 are the only masks allowed for adults in public transport/supermarkets in Bavaria Germany. Cloth or surgical mask are treated like wearing no mask at all, unless it's a child up to a certain age.

Compliance in public transport and supermarkets is extremely high, pretty much never see any adult with just a mask, everybody wearing actual respirators.

Post reply on HN