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

361–370 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#361

Post by scotty79 »

markdown wrote: post #178
timr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, measured in tiny fractions of a percent. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk ... To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans.

> To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is attributable to travel bans. Why would you need a study to tell you that if nobody with covid travels to a country, that country remains covid-free? Perhaps you are unaware, but there are countries on this planet that covid hasn't gotten to, and those countries have travel bans.

What about truck drivers?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#362

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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.

As of the week before last, 28% of all hospitalizations in my state (NM) related to COVID19 involved fully vaccinated people.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#363

Post by kaba0 »

bavell wrote: post #217
kaba0 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Airborne transmission being heavily climate-dependent? We can’t make everything into Florida (and that would be a much bigger problem than any virus in itself :D)

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#364

Post by kaba0 »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #328
bavell wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can't understand is the risk/benefit of firing thousands of unvaccinated medical staff across the US while we're in the middle of a pandemic and already experiencing hospital staff shortages. Isn't that just exacerbating the problem? Were those unvaccinated medical workers really killing more people than they saved? I honestly don't know but it doesn't feel like we really did the calculus and are instead just…

Especially because it takes a minimum of 4 years to train new ones...

If they are so stupid to not vaccinate themselves as a goddamn med worker, I doubt they were too useful in the first place, if not criminally dangerous.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#365

Post by timr »

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.…

> PS. This is bigger than “fractions of a percent”:

No, it isn't. If you'd bothered to read the content of the link I posted in the comment to which you're replying, you'd see that it's about the same paper.

That paper is mentioned numerous times in the thread you're commenting on, I've linked to it, as have others, and I've cited the absolute effect size: 0.09%.

The paper showed that there was an 11% drop on a baseline infection rate of 0.79%, in a fully unvaccinated population with very little natural immunity. It is the absolute best possible argument for masks, and it showed that cloth masks had no detectible effect, and that surgical masks had an effect size measured in tiny fractions of a percent.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#366

Post by rajup »

Aeolun wrote: post #355
rajup wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it wasn't a Muslim ban then?

Just because it doesn’t target all muslim majority countries doesn’t mean it didn’t target solely muslim majority countries.

Again, that does not constitute a “Muslim” ban especially as it was portrayed in the media.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#367

Post by timr »

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.

> A vaccinated person can get infected, can get seriously ill, and can spread out to others more vulnerable.

I can get hit by a car when I walk down the street, but I've been doing it my entire life and I'm still here. I can die in a horrible plane crash when I fly, but I still do it. I can have a heart attack when I go to the gym, but it's still a net positive for my life.

Do you have a grasp on the actual risks involved here? You do realize that, even unvaccinated, unless you're elderly or obese or severely immunocompromised, the risk from this virus is measured in fractions of a percent, right? And if you've had even a single dose of an approved vaccine, you can take that number and divide it by 10?

At some point, you have to let the terror go.

> my understanding is that it does not confer individual invulnerability.

Who promised you invulnerability?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#368

Post by [deleted] »

Terretta wrote: post #353
nradov wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s relevant to the point that was begin discussed. TBC, I’d agree that your point, that of the article you shared, is valid. But it doesn’t pertain to the claims of inefficacy of masks outside a lab.

[deleted]

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#369

Post by timr »

Terretta wrote: post #296
timr wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We cannot do the science, because such a randomized test would be deeply unethical. Thank you for perfectly illustrating the problem. I was actually sort of worried that people wouldn't take me seriously when I said that science has become so political that we actually can't do any . It sounds conspiratorial, doesn't it? But, alas: 1) I post results of RCTs showing that masks do little, if anything. 2) Someone repl…

And yet, it’s been done: In a First, Randomized Study Shows That Masks Reduce COVID-19 Infections A large study co-authored by Yale SOM’s Jason Abaluck and Mushfiq Mobarak tested the effectiveness of a mask-promotion program in Bangladesh in increasing mask use and preventing symptomatic infections. The study found that masks significantly lower symptomatic infections, especially among older people and when surgical…

That's literally the study this thread is talking about. It's great that they did it -- it should have been done in early 2020, all over the world. We should have dozens of other studies just like it.

The fact that we don't is an indication of how hard it's been to pursue any sort of science in this area. Almost nobody funds it, you can't get it published if it doesn't fit the public health narrative, and even if you do, the the news media won't report on it, and it might just get censored on social media.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#370

Post by timr »

angelzen wrote: post #318
cthalupa wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a political issue to not do studies that require doing things that actively and intentionally put people at things we know are highly likely to put them at risk of physical harm. The world decided this was unethical long before the current political climate.

In masks + covid context it feels like "unethical" is used as a thought terminating cliche. * The pandemic is affecting 8,000,000,000 people all around the world. A large size RCT enrolls X0,000 participants. For example, the Pfizer covid mRNA vaccine clinical trial had 21,728 placebo participants. For every RCT participant, the RCT results are going to inform the course of action for hundreds of thousands of people.…

This is a fantastic comment. Thank you for breaking it down.
Post reply on HN