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

Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

sydney.edu.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#151

Post by logifail »

incangold wrote: post #13
logifail wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the existence of this protein explain asymptomatic infections? I wonder what percentage of the population have it. Our [unvaccinated] 8 year-old had Covid last Spring and his symptoms lasted exactly one entire morning. PCR swab tests were done in school on day 1, on day 2 I got a frantic phone call from his school at 7am saying "keep him home, he has Covid!". We would not otherwise have known, since he had pre…

From the point of view of someone who is immunocompromised this seems like the bare minimum we can do as a society to protect the vulnerable. Something between “almost nothing” and “nobody leaving the house” would be nice. At the moment we’re at “almost nothing”.

> Something between “almost nothing” and “nobody leaving the house” would be nice.

Based on who tested postive (and indeed negative) when, it appears our 8 year-old gave it to my OH, but not to his 12 year-old brother (with whom he shares a bedroom). When my OH had it, she didn't give it to me, either, and I was testing very frequently back then due to work & travel requirements.

There is a hypothesis that the risk of catching Covid from someone may be related to the relative blood types. Based on the veeery small sample size of our immediate family it's definitely not the case that Covid always spreads quickly round a family group, despite us not having changed anything about our family routine when somone in the house was positive. We didn't send anyone to a separate bedroom, no-one wore a mask at home, and we all sat at the meal table together just as normal.

FWIW My 12 year-old and I had Covid approximately two months later, when he caught it in his school and brought it home.

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#152

Post by logifail »

sokoloff wrote: post #41
neoromantique wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do they exhibit symptoms AND trigger a PCR test?

People who recovered from C19 many weeks ago and are no longer contagious can still test positive on a PCR test. Catch C19, recover, get the sniffles in the next 2 months, get PCR tested, require a parent to take off work and the kid to sit out 10 days [possibly more than once] is not a reasonable policy IMO.

> People who recovered from C19 many weeks ago and are no longer contagious can still test positive on a PCR test

Which is why the EU issued the "recovery certificate" and put it on the same basis as a negative test, and why our schools didn't test recovered children (to clarify: were mandated not to test recovered children) after they returned to school after having Covid.

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#153

Post by knewter »

genewitch wrote: post #89
knewter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot believe that <3 mo of summer accounts for half of the calendar year, and I know you know that 10d isolation runs past the weekend

There's 104 non school days regardless of any other days without school. It only takes 76 other days off (June 15-august 15 + 3 additional weeks off) is youe 180 days off.

Your analysis skipped the fact that quarantine, being 10d, necessarily extends past the weekend making those days unfit for your calculation's purpose

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#154

Post by logifail »

landemva wrote: post #139
sokoloff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who recovered from C19 many weeks ago and are no longer contagious can still test positive on a PCR test. Catch C19, recover, get the sniffles in the next 2 months, get PCR tested, require a parent to take off work and the kid to sit out 10 days [possibly more than once] is not a reasonable policy IMO.

PCR test amplifies whatever was swabbed, usually from the nose (an air filter). A positive result does not prove there is an infection.

Our state-run testing facility always did PCR tests using a throat swab, and since I was the one who drew the short straw and took each of our kids there for mandatory tests, I've observed this being done a couple of dozen times over the last three years.

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#155

Post by logifail »

aflag wrote: post #35
callahad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure. I think we're interpreting the parent comments differently (i.e., I'm understanding sokoloff's and aflag's comments to be about more general precautionary isolation based on symptomatic illness, not necessarily PCR-confirmed infection like logifail's kid.)

I was not really suggesting kids should be isolated whenever they have any sort of possible symptoms. But if you're diagnosed with some contagious illness, it's probably not a bad idea to try to curb the spread.

> if you're diagnosed with some contagious illness, it's probably not a bad idea to try to curb the spread

This was always true, and we never sent an obviously poorly child to daycare/preschool/school.

I've lost count of the number of times I've picked up one of our kids from daycare/preschool/school before Covid after a phone call along the lines of "your child has spiked a fever/vomited/has had an accident and should probably see a doctor".

Wasn't this typically based on common sense by the parties involved, though?

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#156

Post by logifail »

Krssst wrote: post #51
sokoloff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolating and denying effective schooling to every kid who comes down with a one-day mild illness for ten days does not seem like a risk-proportionate response to me.

Allowing a single covid-positive kid go to school means contaminating a significant portion of the class's students and students' parents. Ten days out of school sounds fine. Long covid is a thing; being unlikely to die does not mean that illness is unlikely to be life-altering.

> Allowing a single covid-positive kid go to school means contaminating a significant portion of the class's students and students' parents

To a first-order approximation based on data from my three kids and their classes/schools, pretty much all the children in all the kindergarten and school classes got Covid last year. All their teachers got it, too, including the vaccinated ones.

Early last year I recall talking to my (then) 8 year-old about his best friend, who was stuck at home for a fortnight after testing positive Covid [this was before we'd all had it]:

me: "How is he?" son: "What do you mean?" me: "Is he OK?" son: "Why wouldn't he be?" me: "Is he getting better?" son: "He's not poorly, he's just positive, Daddy!"

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#157

Post by [deleted] »

Supermancho wrote: post #149
Eisenstein wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missing the entire context of the conversation and replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication, but OK. I didn't 'introduce' anything. The grandparent post is about 'vaccines' in general. the mRNA vaccine is one of them.

> You missing the entire context of the conversation The entire comment section of this article can be perused in a few minutes. Cntrl-f and I find all your comments. At this moment there are 5 (4 of which are this thread). There hasn't been some elaborate discussion that's hard to follow. > replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication, Plainly dishonest. Got it.

[deleted]

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#158

Post by aflag »

knewter wrote: post #67
aflag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a 180 day school year (which would actually mean a 10 day period would be closer to 3-4% not 4-5%), that means that half of the year they are not in school anyway. So they have a good chance of catching it outside of school days anyway even if they catch it annually. Besides that, if that's that's a huge and consistent problem, school could just reduce the number of holidays by a week or so. The variance of…

You cannot believe that <3 mo of summer accounts for half of the calendar year, and I know you know that 10d isolation runs past the weekend

I was considering: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_14.asp

The weekends do count, out of the 10 days they'd be out, up to 4 would be weekend days. So, really they'd have missed around 6 or 7 days of actual school. But it could also happen to fall in a public holiday, which will reduce the number of days even more. And there are school breaks throughout the year.

I find it hard to believe that many people are living such in the edge that, if their kid has to miss a week or so of school in a year their finance and jobs fully crumble.

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#159

Post by Eisenstein »

Supermancho wrote: post #149
Eisenstein wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missing the entire context of the conversation and replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication, but OK. I didn't 'introduce' anything. The grandparent post is about 'vaccines' in general. the mRNA vaccine is one of them.

> You missing the entire context of the conversation The entire comment section of this article can be perused in a few minutes. Cntrl-f and I find all your comments. At this moment there are 5 (4 of which are this thread). There hasn't been some elaborate discussion that's hard to follow. > replying to a specific part of my response to another person is not a miscommunication, Plainly dishonest. Got it.

Apparently you have used my comments to 'prove' that I am dishonest for 'introducing' the fact that pluralization means 'more than one'.

Let's break this down with an example:

P1: What don't you like about milks?

P2: I don't like cows.

P1: Goats are not cows.

Is P1 dishonest? If you say yes, I would disagree with you and say that you are attributing to dishonesty what is for you reading comprehension problem. If you say no then I say you are grasping at straws in order to find flaws in my argument because you cannot find a real one.

Re: Scientists discover receptor that blocks Covid-19 infection

#160

Post by throwntoday »

aflag wrote: post #19
sokoloff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolating and denying effective schooling to every kid who comes down with a one-day mild illness for ten days does not seem like a risk-proportionate response to me.

Why not? I don't think skipping one week and a half of school when you're 8 will have any real effect in your life neither in the short or long term future. Meanwhile, if they get in contact with someone with some sort of immunodeficiency along the way it could cause irreparable damage.

I know it seems cruel but if you are immunocompromised that is your problem, don't make it everyone elses.

The kids around the world ended up having to take nearly two years off of school and it was shown to have a massive effect on their development.

Post reply on HN