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

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#111

Post by akiselev »

bduerst wrote: post #105
mongol wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It might take even longer, though the all encompassing impact of the pandemic might bring it to the forefront. Although there are outliers, at this point the average time from discovery to Nobel recognition is over 20 years for the most recent prizes: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/09/the-nobe...

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#112

Post by bacro »

bumby wrote: post #110
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…

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…

At the time, there was no guidelines to use the mask. Actually, people still thought that masks would be worse than not using at the time. This was at the beginning of the pandemic.

This has to be an emotional decision as well, I am not a doctor, I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#113

Post by [deleted] »

bacro wrote: post #112
bumby wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the time, there was no guidelines to use the mask. Actually, people still thought that masks would be worse than not using at the time. This was at the beginning of the pandemic. This has to be an emotional decision as well, I am not a doctor, I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

[deleted]

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#115

Post by bumby »

bacro wrote: post #112
bumby wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the time, there was no guidelines to use the mask. Actually, people still thought that masks would be worse than not using at the time. This was at the beginning of the pandemic. This has to be an emotional decision as well, I am not a doctor, I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

>I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

The real question then is: how well have you adjusted your posterior risk assessments now that there is more data to analyze?

Based on your previous posts, it sounds like you prior risk assessments (under uncertainty) were so strong as to prevent much modification or you may not be properly weighting the new data.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#116

Post by panabee »

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…

it's reasonable to discount for comorbidities with covid deaths.

how many vaccine deaths occurred among people with 3/4 comorbidities?

assuming vaccine deaths are lower, and the long-term risks for the virus and vaccine are both unknown, why would a risk-based analysis suggest the virus is safer than the vaccine?

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#117

Post by phnofive »

ramraj07 wrote: post #92
baktubi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree your hard disagree. If you throw a vase in the air it will fall down and shatter: like, duh it’s gravity. But how many years to figure the equations? To tie the how/why to the obvious? Don’t trivialize their work because your work didn’t receive a Nobel. K thanks. These discoveries could be game changers for prosthetics, brain computer interfaces, augmented reality, etc.

I’m trivializing their research based on their inherent triviality. Any new gene could be game changers for a plethora of ailments. The correct gravity comparison would be trying to celebrate someone finding the value of g in Oxford when the original measurement was in London. I didn’t say I am sour I didn’t get one. When did a film critic need an Oscar before he could criticize moviemakers?

I've no background in the field but tend to agree. "Humans have thousands of different kinds of sensor mechanisms, and here are two of them" - seems like an award that could be given repeatedly, no?

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#118

Post by ramraj07 »

COGlory wrote: post #104
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.

>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 ac…

Wait what exactly are you saying. In one paragraph you’re saying that these genes are unquestionably important. Then next paragraph you’re saying no gene can be told as important. Pick a side?

You seem to be a biologist, is it truly heresy that there are 500 other genes that are more important than the temperature receptors? I’m talking practical therapeutic use.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#119

Post by bacro »

panabee wrote: post #116
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…

it's reasonable to discount for comorbidities with covid deaths. how many vaccine deaths occurred among people with 3/4 comorbidities? assuming vaccine deaths are lower, and the long-term risks for the virus and vaccine are both unknown, why would a risk-based analysis suggest the virus is safer than the vaccine?

I am not suggesting the virus is safer, like I said nobody knows. What I do know, is that I can work from home for now and I can use a mask when going out and have proper hygiene to avoid catching the virus. Also, if people vaccinated do not spread the virus as some people here suggest, then I should be okay, as most of the people here is vaccinated. I do not believe that, I am just pointing out a flaw in this logic that I must take the vaccine.

Another thing people are forgetting is that you will have to take additional vaccine shots after a few months as its protection will wane, like Israel is doing. Will be interesting to see people getting multiple doses of something they do not know its long-term effects.

> how many vaccine deaths occurred among people with 3/4 comorbidities?

It is not 0 as far as I know.

Re: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2021

#120

Post by u2c4m6 »

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…

It is truly astounding how little you know about biology and then talk so confidently about these Nobel prizes. You realize that cancer and Covid research builds on this type of stuff, right? Well you probably don't since you have demonstrated throughout this thread that you have the biological knowledge of a potato.
Post reply on HN