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

Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 404 posts

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#351

Post by waych »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #343
rayiner wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a right-wing Fauci hater, but I think he’s just not that good at his job. He found himself in a tough situation, having to tell inconvenient truths to a President that had every reason to downplay the virus because he had up to that point a very strong economy and was up for re-election in less than a year. Guess what—that’s a key part of the job for a high level government official. Politics always influence…

He was trying to navigate an impossible course between telling the truth and not getting fired for telling the truth.

Fauci continued to lie and deceive even after the next bozo took office.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#352

Post by reducesuffering »

yucky wrote: post #338
reducesuffering wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a technicality. People vote for Presidents by including the combo of them and their VP pick. The VP pick is known, even on the ballot, and understood to assume the President's role in case of emergency. So it's quite realistic to say we know full well we're voting for the package. I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting.

>I wouldn't extend this to the President's cabinet, as these people aren't known to us when voting. Which is the bigger point, since that is who makes up the government. Not just the cabinet heads, but all of the undersecretaries and department heads etc. There are hundreds (or more) of appointed positions in the Executive Branch. People like Fauci have never been elected to anything so I don't see how the comment I…

Agreed. My mistake, I thought you were emphasizing how the VP isn't democratically elected, on my first pass read.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#353

Post by nradov »

fivea wrote: post #305
nradov wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masks in general provide very little protection. I recommend you listen to the explanations by infectious disease experts Dr. Monica Gandhi and Dr. Michael Osterholm. Only properly fitted N95 (or equivalent) masks provide significant protection. Throughout the pandemic most people weren't wearing those, and those who did mostly wore them incorrectly. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/ https://open.spotify.com/epis…

> Masks in general provide very little protection. I recommend you listen to the explanations by infectious disease experts Dr. Monica Gandhi and Dr. Michael Osterholm. (...) It literally takes less than 5min in Google to realize your criticism is utter bullshit, and even come across statements by Dr Monica Gandhi complaining that her comments were misrepresented and distorted to come across as authoritative anti-mas…

Stop lying. I haven't posted any misinformation. You can literally listen to Dr. Gandhi's own words at the link I posted above. She spoke on the subject at some length, and answered several direct questions from a panel of other physicians.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#354

Post by nradov »

fivea wrote: post #300
parkingrift wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are adults. You tell them the truth. Lies don’t work as well now that we have access to so much information. We now have a sizable percentage of people who not only don’t care what the WHO has to say, but also want to outright cut funding to the organization. Great outcome. Panick avoided.

> People are adults. No, not really. Not all, at least. I vividly recall from the start of the very first lockdown, when the only people expected to be outside were those attending pressing matters like restocking provisions on supermarket, the local police caught a middle age man who was avoiding the lockdown by strolling around repeatedly with the same days-old loaf of bread under his arm. He didn't even bothered t…

There was never any valid justification for the police to harass a man going for a stroll. Real adults actively resist overbearing authoritarian governments instead of meekly submitting.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#355

Post by FooBarWidget »

avazhi wrote: post #335
FooBarWidget wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that mistakes have been made, both on the local level and on the national level. I also agree that there were failures to protect the interests of citizen — a thing which happens time to time. But I strongly disagree with the notions that: 1. They "covered it up". 2. COVID is "wholly China's fault". 3. China is a jingoistic, self-obsessed, morally bankrupt country. 4. China lies and will continue to…

Just letting you know I (truly) appreciate your points here and also how much time they must have taken to write, and I will get back to you. If I don't reply immediately, give me some time. I'll try to reciprocate by putting some serious thought/time into replying.

I appreciate this reply.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#356

Post by nradov »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #344
disambiguation wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural immunity works. It's settled science, and has been for some time. Many countries acknowledge it as a valid alternative to the vaccine. But not the USA. There has been no change in policy. Not even a public acknowledgment, let alone an apology for getting it wrong. Is this out of ignorance? malice? Neither, it's simply pragmatic. Reliably testing for prior infections at population scale would be really slow, e…

Natural immunity works? Have you seen how bad Sweden's numbers were? It was vaunted as a story of the success of let it rip approach, but the end result was to show the failure of the let it rip approach. And note that it's not that good in the first place--plenty of reinfections because the immune system locked onto a part of the virus that changed. The vaccine has enough problem with immune escape, natural "immunit…

Actually Sweden's numbers are quite good, better than many other EU countries which took more restrictive approaches.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

The immune system doesn't "lock onto“ part of the virus. That's just misinformation and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the adaptive immune system works.

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#357

Post by slategruen »

pmlnr wrote: post #64

Related read: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

Wow, thi event has really been pivotal but I wonder why major news outlets brushed it off. I've been reading a lot of news articles about the virus ever since the pandemic started and I didn't even know about this.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#358

Post by laurent92 »

mypalmike wrote: post #135
laurent92 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. CDC (I believe) was claiming that N95 masks won't help as much as other masks. Later it turned out they just didn't want to create scarcity for N95 masks because hospitals need them. This is the most probable explanation for governments around the world saying that masks are “Absolutely useless” (literal quote) until June 2020. It is lying-as-a-form-of-governance. It’s extremely detrimental to credibility: From…

One theory is that governments acted maliciously and lied. The other theory is that they were being advised by bad science (the 5 micron boundary). https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...

In both cases, they are guilty of speaking. If they were benevolent, but wrong in terms of science, then they should shut up.

“But it was impossible to predict!” that the mask was useful. Well, Pr Raoult did. Many doctors did. Government can’t claim innocence “by being wrongly advised” after implementing nationwide policies without knowing anything correct AND banning criticism on Facebook.

You can’t claim innocence when you perform wilful censorship.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#359

Post by fivea »

nradov wrote: post #356
LorenPechtel wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural immunity works? Have you seen how bad Sweden's numbers were? It was vaunted as a story of the success of let it rip approach, but the end result was to show the failure of the let it rip approach. And note that it's not that good in the first place--plenty of reinfections because the immune system locked onto a part of the virus that changed. The vaccine has enough problem with immune escape, natural "immunit…

Actually Sweden's numbers are quite good, better than many other EU countries which took more restrictive approaches. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries The immune system doesn't "lock onto“ part of the virus. That's just misinformation and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the adaptive immune system works. https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/

> Actually Sweden's numbers are quite good, better than many other EU countries which took more restrictive approaches.

Reality does not agree with you.

Sweden fared rather poorly when compared with comparable countries such as Norway, Finland, or Denmark.

* https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/norway/

* https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/finland/

* https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/denmark/

There is no way around it: Sweden had more covid-related deaths than Norway, Finland, and Denmark bundled together.

Denmark had 500k more cases than Sweden, but only endured a quarter of Sweden's death count.

This does not fit the definition of "quite good". These are awful numbers. Awful numbers that were easily avoidable if Sweden followed the example of any of its neighbors.

Re: Why the WHO took two years to say Covid is airborne

#360

Post by disambiguation »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #344
disambiguation wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural immunity works. It's settled science, and has been for some time. Many countries acknowledge it as a valid alternative to the vaccine. But not the USA. There has been no change in policy. Not even a public acknowledgment, let alone an apology for getting it wrong. Is this out of ignorance? malice? Neither, it's simply pragmatic. Reliably testing for prior infections at population scale would be really slow, e…

Natural immunity works? Have you seen how bad Sweden's numbers were? It was vaunted as a story of the success of let it rip approach, but the end result was to show the failure of the let it rip approach. And note that it's not that good in the first place--plenty of reinfections because the immune system locked onto a part of the virus that changed. The vaccine has enough problem with immune escape, natural "immunit…

I made no mention of Sweden and have no idea what that has to do with natural immunity given their vaccination rate is 75% and their death rate is comparable to Germany and France. [0] [1]

> And note that it's not that good in the first place--plenty of reinfections because the immune system locked onto a part of the virus that changed.

You've got it exactly backwards. The vaccine uses only a part of the S-protein, whereas a natural infection exposes the body to the full S-protein and N-protein. In theory and in practice, the immune system can train on more viral features via natural infection than it can via vaccine.

> The vaccine has enough problem with immune escape, natural "immunity" fares even worse.

It really doesn't. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

> We present a systematic review and pooled analysis of clinical studies to date that (1) specifically compare the protection of natural immunity in the COVID-recovered versus the efficacy of complete vaccination in the COVID-naive ... it supports the pooled findings in finding superiority of natural immunity over-vaccination ... Consequently, no study could conclude the superiority of vaccination protection over natural immunity with statistical confidence, but observational studies endorsed an advantage for protection by natural immunity. [7]

[0] https://ycharts.com/indicators/sweden_coronavirus_full_vacci...

[1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/

[3] https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/

[4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-75...

[5] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...

[6] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627252/

Post reply on HN