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

101–110 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#101

Post by the8472 »

sbierwagen wrote: post #37
gfodor wrote: post #3

> Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot stress enough that they do not work. This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for “working”, like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be co…

From the article: >A travel ban is not an evidence-based solution unless you stop all travel from every country. Okay, why not do that? China's done it. Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand require a week+ quarantine for international travelers. It obviously works: it stopped two Omicron carriers at the border in Hong Kong. Why not do that? If COVID-19 is such a serious threat that it requires shutting down all schools…

From the outside it looks like a lot of policies are reactive, they aim at where the target was days before, not where it is now or where we'll anticipate it might be by the time policies go into effect.

We already know we're acting on imcomplete, time-delayed information, i.e. we will only learn a few days later when the variant arrives in another country. So we have to compensate for that either by shutting everything down or by introducing artificial delays. And that's assuming all countries are testing and reporting the spread early. Some countries might lack coverage and thus act as dark hubs.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#102

Post by kaba0 »

jdminhbg wrote: post #88
kaba0 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will it increase exponentially if not cared about?

Yes, car deaths have decreased by multiple orders of magnitude in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

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).

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#103

Post by actually_a_dog »

timr wrote: post #52
actually_a_dog wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect. Here is a review of 19 RCTs showing that masks work: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

This review says that none of the community mask trials showed a significant effect. It says that 3/6 studies on respirators in medical settings had no significant effect. It said that 3/5 studies for masks as source control showed no significant effect. Here's a review of every mask study ever performed: https://www.cato.org/working-paper/evidence-community-cloth-... Here's a summary written by the same author, in c…

That's a mischaracterization. The non-significant results are as a result of "intention to treat" analysis. ITT analysis considers a subject to be part of whatever group they are initially assigned, regardless of what treatment they ultimately receive and/or how adherent they are to the protocol. Some of those studies even note low adherence. You wouldn't expect masks to work if people don't wear them, would you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention-to-treat_analysis#Ad...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#104

Post by Thorentis »

titzer wrote: post #66
lokl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard, as of now, Sweden has had 15,145 deaths; Norway has had 1,050 deaths; Denmark 2,863; Finland 1,309. With populations from Wikipedia (10,402,070 for Sweden; 5,402,171 for Norway; 5,850,189 for Denmark; 5,536,146 for Finland), this yields deaths per 1,000 people of: Sweden 1.456 Norway 0.194 Denmark 0.489 Finland 0.236 Saying Sweden has "just survived" doesn't capture…

> Saying Sweden has "just survived" Europe "just survived" the black plague (1/3rd of Europe died ). Life on Earth "just survived" the Chicxulub impactor (the Dinosaurs and 90% of species on Earth died). People who say flippant things like this are unserious and frankly, dangerous.

COVID does not have a death rate of 33%.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#105

Post by beardedman »

Like I've said for a while now. The EU has done stellar job of demonstrating a new level of hypocrisy & complete inability to be effective in a crisis.

Travel ban imposed overnight, but dear lord - don't restrict the unfettered movement to Majorca or Sardinia or elsewhere (that would just be unconstitutional)....

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#106

Post by ricardobeat »

timr wrote: post #91
titzer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, bef…

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.

The recent Bangladesh study with 350k people found a ~10% reduction in cases, from only 40% mask adoption.

The two-cities trial early in 2020 in Germany saw a ~20% reduction. Those are in the number of infections - the number looks low but can make a massive difference in the actual transmission rate. In the German case, after a month infections dropped close to zero.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#107

Post by timr »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #94
timr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that is not what the study said, and not at all what the observed difference means. They found a tiny effect in symptomatic seroprevalence at a single point in time.

If 11.3% fewer people were infected overall up to that point in time, how many people are likely to be infected at T+1? 11.3%. It's not even a trick question.

But again, that's not what the study measured. You're extrapolating incorrectly.

First, the study conflates distancing and mask-wearing. They admit this in the paper (there is a significant increase in distancing amongst the mask wearers). There is also a large change in the size of the populations that could easily swamp the effect size (i.e. the size of the mask population was something like 9% bigger than the control).

Second, just because you observe effect size X at time T does not mean that you will see an equivalent effect at T+1. It also doesn't mean that you will see a compounding effect. In human terms: maybe you get a surge of behavior at the start of the intervention that doesn't continue, due to burnout or non-compliance. Or maybe you got lucky at time T, and randomly saw a population that yielded a result. You can't make the assumption.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#108

Post by spookthesunset »

oliv__ wrote: post #54
gfodor wrote: post #3

> Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot stress enough that they do not work. This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for “working”, like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be co…

The standard for something "working" is very much up for debate though, even if it is carefully avoided. "Slowing the spread" is not a good enough argument in my opinion. Everyone wants to slow the spread, the only question worth asking is: at what cost? At what point do you deem something effective and worthy of sacrificing your freedoms for? 1% efficacy "slows the spread". Is that worth it? Where do you draw the li…

The cost is something absolutely nobody wants to discuss but it is vital to do so. Yeah “slowing the spread” is important in a vacuum where we live with no friction and spherical cows but here in the real worth that one goal competes with literally everything else.

Asking society to myopically focus on nothing but “slowing the spread” of one very specific illness for years on end is, quite frankly, madness. There is vastly more to life than just living it to slow the spread of exactly one disease.

At some point in the near future, perhaps right today, people need to acknowledge that Covid and all its variants past present and future will be around forever. They can either learn to return to full normal 2019 life or piss an entire generation of people away on a battle that cannot ever be won.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#109

Post by planetsprite »

fragmede wrote: post #99
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.

Here's a link to a real actual science study that used tuberculosis-sized particles and found filtration efficiencies of 99.5% or higher by N95 masks. 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/

I don't disagree with you on the effectiveness of masks but tuberculosis bacterial cells are far larger than coronavirons.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#110

Post by actually_a_dog »

timr wrote: post #107
actually_a_dog wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 11.3% fewer people were infected overall up to that point in time, how many people are likely to be infected at T+1? 11.3%. It's not even a trick question.

But again, that's not what the study measured. You're extrapolating incorrectly. First, the study conflates distancing and mask-wearing. They admit this in the paper (there is a significant increase in distancing amongst the mask wearers). There is also a large change in the size of the populations that could easily swamp the effect size (i.e. the size of the mask population was something like 9% bigger than the cont…

But, that's not what you want to measure. You want to measure whether an intervention works if people adhere to the protocol. Again, as I asked you in another comment, would you expect masks to work if people don't wear them?
Post reply on HN