Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#101

Post by bumby » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

bacro wrote: post #74

bumby wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A vast majority of who gets the virus does not die or get any effects. To the OP's point, the same can be said about the vaccine. Their point being, because of the transmissibility of the virus, it's fairly safe to assume that most people leading normal lives will be exposed to the virus at some point so the choice is whether or not to be exposed while vaccinated or not. There seems to be less uncertainty around th…

Both of these scenarios are possible (among others, obviously): - I take the vaccine and either die or have a side-effect for life because of some unknown related to my body. - I contract the virus and have no symptoms at all. Nobody knows which one will happen to each individual. That woman that took the vaccine and died one day later? We will never know if she was better off without taking the vaccine and having th…

I don't think anybody is disagreeing here to the level insinuated. The OP's point wasn't that the vaccine has no risk. It's that both choices have risks, but since there's more data regarding the vaccine, there is less uncertainty about the risks.

With most of the population (possible exception being teenage males, the last I looked, regarding myocarditis), the same outcomes are prevalent regarding the virus as the vaccine, but at lower probabilities with vaccine. Since risk = severity x probability, that generally makes the risk of the vaccine lower.

Questioning a vaccine is prudent and doesn't make someone an idiot. But sometimes there does seem to be a conflation of ideas regarding risk, data, and uncertainty.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#102

Post by ramraj07 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

soheil wrote: post #99

ramraj07 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, why are these genes more important than say, GM-CSF? That gene has 10 times more therapeutic importance than these genes. I can name 500 genes more important for any practical purpose than these genes. That’s the reason none of the early scientists were scrambling to discover them.

Something as fundamental as heat and pressure are not important? I don't have a biology background, but learning that we just discovered these genes gave me the impression that we're still living in the stone age. Kudos to the award recipients for discovering the genes responsible. It's probably that much harder to find these genes responsible for such basic sensory abilities that so much work must have gone into the…

You are absolutely right that it’s dumb that it took so long for us to have discovered these receptors so late. Consider for a second though that this might be a symptom of a fundamental myopia in the way biological science itself has progressed? That perhaps we have been congratulating people for the wrong thing - discovering expected genes instead of finding new ways to do everything faster or finding things that are completely unexpected. As much as heat and pressure sound like fundamental senses (they are), they aren’t very high on the priority list of basically anyone trying to do biology with applications in mind. Heat receptors don’t cure cancer or cystic fibrosis. Or Covid.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#103

Post by wombatpm » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

bacro wrote: post #74

bumby wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A vast majority of who gets the virus does not die or get any effects. To the OP's point, the same can be said about the vaccine. Their point being, because of the transmissibility of the virus, it's fairly safe to assume that most people leading normal lives will be exposed to the virus at some point so the choice is whether or not to be exposed while vaccinated or not. There seems to be less uncertainty around th…

Both of these scenarios are possible (among others, obviously): - I take the vaccine and either die or have a side-effect for life because of some unknown related to my body. - I contract the virus and have no symptoms at all. Nobody knows which one will happen to each individual. That woman that took the vaccine and died one day later? We will never know if she was better off without taking the vaccine and having th…

43 million US Covid cases to date 700k deaths

393 million doses of the vaccine have been administered in the US

I think the safety of the vaccine has been established. You are welcome to take whatever risks you want. Just because you have been lucky so far, doesn't make it the correct approach. If you really believed it was no big deal, you'd run out and get COVID. Instead, you hope your luck will hold. Thing about luck is that it always runs out.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#104

Post by COGlory » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #94

suchow wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criteria for winning the prize depend more on the outcome of the research (importance) than its process (originality): "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- – -/ one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine …” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel)".

Again, why are these genes more important than say, GM-CSF? That gene has 10 times more therapeutic importance than these genes. I can name 500 genes more important for any practical purpose than these genes. That’s the reason none of the early scientists were scrambling to discover them.

>I can name 500 genes more important for any practical purpose than these genes.

The arrogance of this statement is astrounding. Perhaps you didn't mean it to come off that way?

First of all, these are important genes - extremely important genes, because they are a large part of the basis of that whole "response to stimulus" thing that people are pretty fond of associating with life.

That said, regardless of their actual importance, it's pretty remarkable for anyone to say any gene is important or not important considering how little we actually know about biological processes. I see all the time people doing "omics" work and wanting to jump to conclusion because of data, but data-only makes a relatively blind conclusion. There's still far far more unknown than known, and these genes are fundamental genes for starting to actually build a functional model of human biology. They are boilerplate genes.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#105

Post by bduerst » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

mongol wrote: post #55

siva7 wrote: post #3

I would have appreciated this year's one going for mRNA vaccine research as this would have been clearly the one to meet Nobel's will.

I think it is very likely that it will be rewarded, just not this year. Some time need to pass, and even though the discovery should be rewarded, it also needs to be figured out who to reward it to. Probably there are more than 3 contenders.

I would bet money that there is one awarded in the next 10-15 years.

Nobel prizes are notorious for not being reactionary, and waiting for the full effects of the work to be realized - i.e. GFP tagging awarded the nobel prize 16 years after it was first used.

mRNA vaccination technology is just getting started, the impact of which will likely be on the level of penicillin.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#106

Post by Duller-Finite » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #102

soheil wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something as fundamental as heat and pressure are not important? I don't have a biology background, but learning that we just discovered these genes gave me the impression that we're still living in the stone age. Kudos to the award recipients for discovering the genes responsible. It's probably that much harder to find these genes responsible for such basic sensory abilities that so much work must have gone into the…

You are absolutely right that it’s dumb that it took so long for us to have discovered these receptors so late. Consider for a second though that this might be a symptom of a fundamental myopia in the way biological science itself has progressed? That perhaps we have been congratulating people for the wrong thing - discovering expected genes instead of finding new ways to do everything faster or finding things that a…

TRP channels were first cloned over 20 years ago, and are indeed medically relevant for nociception and pain. The piezos are equally relevant; knockouts are embryonically lethal, and the function of mechanosenstation in somatosenation and in general continue to be elucidated. For instance, it was only a few years that they were identified as being required for the baroreceptor reflex.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#107

Post by bacro » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

wombatpm wrote: post #103

bacro wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these scenarios are possible (among others, obviously): - I take the vaccine and either die or have a side-effect for life because of some unknown related to my body. - I contract the virus and have no symptoms at all. Nobody knows which one will happen to each individual. That woman that took the vaccine and died one day later? We will never know if she was better off without taking the vaccine and having th…

43 million US Covid cases to date 700k deaths 393 million doses of the vaccine have been administered in the US I think the safety of the vaccine has been established. You are welcome to take whatever risks you want. Just because you have been lucky so far, doesn't make it the correct approach. If you really believed it was no big deal, you'd run out and get COVID. Instead, you hope your luck will hold. Thing about l…

How many of those 700k deaths are from people with 3 or 4 comorbities?

If you remove that from the equation, it would give a lot lower number I am sure. Now compare this with the flu. Would these people with comorbities die if they catch the flu? Do you absolutely know they wouldn't?

If you have comorbidities, by all means, take the shot. If you do not have comorbidities and want to take the shot as well, fine it is your body, you can do whatever you want with it that does not put me in danger. I, for instance, want to take the shot only when I know for sure it won't affect me. After all, the city where I live was one of the firsts that got Covid cases and it got so bad that the city was in complete lockdown and at the time there was no guidance for masks usage. So, I went to supermarkets, pharmacies, whatever at that time with no mask and if I had to bet, I would bet that I already got covid and was asymptomatic.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#108

Post by wombatpm » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

bacro wrote: post #107

wombatpm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

43 million US Covid cases to date 700k deaths 393 million doses of the vaccine have been administered in the US I think the safety of the vaccine has been established. You are welcome to take whatever risks you want. Just because you have been lucky so far, doesn't make it the correct approach. If you really believed it was no big deal, you'd run out and get COVID. Instead, you hope your luck will hold. Thing about l…

How many of those 700k deaths are from people with 3 or 4 comorbities? If you remove that from the equation, it would give a lot lower number I am sure. Now compare this with the flu. Would these people with comorbities die if they catch the flu? Do you absolutely know they wouldn't? If you have comorbidities, by all means, take the shot. If you do not have comorbidities and want to take the shot as well, fine it is…

COVID has been fatal to people without comorbidities. The fact that you have a respiratory issues and want to take a chance with a respiratory disease shows you are just counting on your luck. I wish you well

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#109

Post by bacro » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 7:12 PM UTC

wombatpm wrote: post #108

bacro wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of those 700k deaths are from people with 3 or 4 comorbities? If you remove that from the equation, it would give a lot lower number I am sure. Now compare this with the flu. Would these people with comorbities die if they catch the flu? Do you absolutely know they wouldn't? If you have comorbidities, by all means, take the shot. If you do not have comorbidities and want to take the shot as well, fine it is…

COVID has been fatal to people without comorbidities. The fact that you have a respiratory issues and want to take a chance with a respiratory disease shows you are just counting on your luck. I wish you well

Has the flu been fatal to people without comorbidities?

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#110

Post by bumby » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

bacro wrote: post #107

wombatpm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

43 million US Covid cases to date 700k deaths 393 million doses of the vaccine have been administered in the US I think the safety of the vaccine has been established. You are welcome to take whatever risks you want. Just because you have been lucky so far, doesn't make it the correct approach. If you really believed it was no big deal, you'd run out and get COVID. Instead, you hope your luck will hold. Thing about l…

How many of those 700k deaths are from people with 3 or 4 comorbities? If you remove that from the equation, it would give a lot lower number I am sure. Now compare this with the flu. Would these people with comorbities die if they catch the flu? Do you absolutely know they wouldn't? If you have comorbidities, by all means, take the shot. If you do not have comorbidities and want to take the shot as well, fine it is…

I have no personal umbrage if somebody weighs the risk and decides against the shot. What's confusing is when people only acknowledge one side of the risk equation and couch it as some sort of risk-based decision.

>I, for instance, want to take the shot only when I know for sure it won't affect me.

That's fine. What's incongruent is when it's followed up with the sentiment below.

>I went to supermarkets, pharmacies, whatever at that time with no mask

I don't quite understand the logic. You don't want the shot because the risk uncertainty is too great. Yet you have no problem (likely, in your words) exposing yourself to the disease at a frame when there was little data about it and the uncertainty was also great. Now that there's more data, the uncertainty is even more in favor of the vaccine being safer than the disease.

Again, I don't really care if people don't want to get the vaccine on a personally level. But, absent of some grand conspiracy, don't try to rationalize that decision as some pragmatic risk-based analysis. If you do think its riskier due to some large conspiracy that, too, will need some data to back it up. Make peace with the fact its an emotionally based decision and not a data-driven one and move on.