Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on Omicron

who.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 794 posts

Re: Update on Omicron

#131

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #112
nicoburns wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.

Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable. But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly…

> locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable

We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?

Re: Update on Omicron

#132

Post by somewhereoutth »

adolph wrote: post #43
duxup wrote: post #32

I would love for a COVID variation for with low severity illness to become dominant ... forever?

I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question becomes second order effects.

Not true I'm afraid.

Of course, if a virus killed you before you had a chance to pass it on then yes - but most viruses (including SARS-CoV-2) kill you slowly enough to have plenty of opportunity to propagate, there is no selection pressure to be less deadly.

To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any human virus has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish examples if I'm wrong!).

Unfortunately this common myth, that contagiousness is inversely correlated with lethality, has been used by those who would wish to downplay this public health disaster for whatever reason.

Re: Update on Omicron

#133

Post by elevaet »

flerovium wrote: post #92
adolph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question becomes second order effects.

This is not necessarily the case for a virus with such a long period of asymptomatic transmission. There is very little selective pressure for the virus to become less deadly; in fact, higher viron count is positively associated with both transmissibility and mortality.

Exactly. People overlook this fact constantly. There is no selection pressure for a virus like this to become more or less deadly. Just pressure to become more transmissible within our mixture of vaxxed, unvaxed, and some natural immunity.

Re: Update on Omicron

#134

Post by mcbits »

cletus wrote: post #108

No one still thinks Covid is ever going away, right? It's likely something we'll just have to deal with like the flu. For one thing, there are now Covid-19 reservoirs in various animal populations. It's hard to say how this will evolve but there's a lot of evolutionary pressure on viruses to become more transmissible and less deadly. Why less deadly? Because a virus that is too deadly will likely die. It's why the Sp…

It can and will be eradicated, and eventually the flu along with it (which was already a high research priority before Covid). Just not soon.

Re: Update on Omicron

#135

Post by evgen »

tpmx wrote: post #122
tibbon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I get this assumption. Few other countries were "pissed off" when borders were closed to them. I still cannot travel recreationally to Japan from the US, and that's fine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/26/covid-omicron-variant-south-... South African Health Minister Joe Phaahla said that new travel restrictions amid concerns over a heavily mutated Covid variant are “unjustified.” He slammed other nations for “wanting to put blame” and ascribe the variant to South Africa rather than working collaboratively to address the situation as guided by the WHO.

And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59453842 where ‘[SA president] Cyril Ramaphosa said he was "deeply disappointed" by the action, which he described as unjustified, and called for the bans to be urgently lifted.’

Your country has a very low vaccination rate and you are ground zero for a new variant, but feel the need to be “deeply disappointed” that others trying to slow the spread slightly may impact your tourism industry…

Re: Update on Omicron

#136

Post by Gibbon1 »

chana_masala wrote: post #72
eric__cartman wrote: post #3

TL;DR: we don't know

How then did this even become a"variant of concern" if so little is known about it?

Because it's it became the most dominant strain of covid in SA in about two weeks. And it has a massive number of mutations compared to other strains. The former might be partly due to the collapse of last wave of delta. Latter tends to scare immunologists.

Re: Update on Omicron

#137

Post by jacquesm »

rich_sasha wrote: post #29
swader999 wrote: post #6

In general, respiratory viruses tend to get less severe over time. With this mass vaccination approach it may not turn out that way by some accounts I've read.

In the book “spillover”, notably written before Covid (so quite prophetic read from today’s perspective), the author discussed this claim. Although it often happens, it is by no means guaranteed (at least on satisfactory timelines), and there are counter examples. One is the evolution of myxomatosis in Australia, it is a disease affecting rabbits. The disease split into 4 strains. Eventually the dominant one become,…

The easier way to look at this is that from the perspective of evolutionary pressure what happens to a host (or parents, for that matter) once reproduction has taken place is irrelevant. So there is no selection pressure for mortality, that's just another outcome, unless it happens too quickly in case the virus has less chance to make it to the next generation.

Reductio ad absurdum: if a virus would kill on first contact there would never be any time for it to spread, but once a virus has spread the host is not all that interesting unless it could be caused to continue to spread. So whether the host lives or dies after that won't cause that particular virus to be more or less successful.

Re: Update on Omicron

#138

Post by rajin444 »

nicoburns wrote: post #78
chiefalchemist wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses . Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect. Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere. p.s. f…

Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.

It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.

Re: Update on Omicron

#139

Post by danenania »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #132
adolph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question becomes second order effects.

Not true I'm afraid. Of course, if a virus killed you before you had a chance to pass it on then yes - but most viruses (including SARS-CoV-2) kill you slowly enough to have plenty of opportunity to propagate, there is no selection pressure to be less deadly. To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any human virus has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish examples if I'm wrong!). Unfortunately this common…

“To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any human virus has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish examples if I'm wrong!).”

Isn’t this what happened with the influenza strain that caused the Spanish Flu pandemic?

Re: Update on Omicron

#140

Post by janmo »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #132
adolph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question becomes second order effects.

Not true I'm afraid. Of course, if a virus killed you before you had a chance to pass it on then yes - but most viruses (including SARS-CoV-2) kill you slowly enough to have plenty of opportunity to propagate, there is no selection pressure to be less deadly. To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any human virus has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish examples if I'm wrong!). Unfortunately this common…

I guess the Spanish flue probably did
Post reply on HN