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

Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 241 posts

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#211

Post by ncmncm »

throwaway290 wrote: post #172
throwawaycities wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (eg. quarantine not required when traveling to some countries, and your example) For policies like quarantine following travel does it make any sense to distinguish anyone whether they have had covid, had a vaccine, had both a vaccine and covid, or had neither a vaccine or covid? Aren’t all of the above equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus?

That's what I would think, but apparently Malaysia for example really wants people to have recovered from COVID specifically.

About everyone will get it sooner or later, vaccinated or not. (Pets are a reservoir, and nobody is vaccinating them.)

The best to hope for is not to die, be hospitalized, or suffer various long-term or permanent effects. Vaccination is all we have to prevent those.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#212

Post by ncmncm »

Fomite wrote: post #112
rurp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain invasive cancer treatments can look a lot more effective than they really are, if all cause mortality isn't measured. It's possible to reduce the risk of a patient dying from the particular cancer they have while also lowering their overall life expectancy, since the procedure itself can be extremely harmful.

I have a slide in a lecture somewhere noting that no one would ever die of a healthcare-associated infection if, when admitted to the hospital, they were put in a room full of ozone or hydrogen peroxide fog and intense UV light, while never being seen by a nurse or doctor.

Dying from lung damage is discounted in that scenario.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#213

Post by throwawaycities »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #209
throwawaycities wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (eg. quarantine not required when traveling to some countries, and your example) For policies like quarantine following travel does it make any sense to distinguish anyone whether they have had covid, had a vaccine, had both a vaccine and covid, or had neither a vaccine or covid? Aren’t all of the above equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus?

>Aren’t all of the above equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus? No. If I had Covid a month ago and recovered then baring a compromised immune system or new variant I am not going to get it again this month. So I am not "equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus" compared to someone who "had neither a vaccine or covid" .

> I am not going to get it again this month.

I understand that you would have antibodies and it be very unlikely if you carry the virus it would be unlikely to overwhelm your immune system in that time, but you can still carry/spread it right?

More directly related to the policy in question they can test you for antibodies, and maybe it is immaterial, but do they distinguish if you had covid 1 month ago vs 3 months vs 6 months? So does it work on the honor system or are they testing for antibodies, is it simply a matter of if you had covid at any point it doesn’t matter if you still carry antibodies you are not subject to quarantine?

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#214

Post by throwawaycities »

Thorrez wrote: post #194
throwawaycities wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (eg. quarantine not required when traveling to some countries, and your example) For policies like quarantine following travel does it make any sense to distinguish anyone whether they have had covid, had a vaccine, had both a vaccine and covid, or had neither a vaccine or covid? Aren’t all of the above equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus?

I thought the last one on the list (neither vaccine nor covid) has a higher chance of carrying covid.

In general they are more susceptible to becoming infected and once infected they have higher risk of negative outcomes.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#215

Post by InitialLastName »

ejolto wrote: post #205
InitialLastName wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> called a teledoc for like 40$ (copay) So, more like $7400 annually [0], plus a $40 copay, discounting whatever other health care you needed in the year. [0] https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2020-section-6-worke...

If you make 100K a year in Canada you pay $29,986 in taxes of which about a third goes to healthcare, so $10000 annually and you still won't get tested preventatively.

The difference is that the US cost is true whether you're wealthy or poor (above a certain margin). In Canada, if you make the median household income of $35k, you presumably pay proportionally less (or even less than that; I can't be bothered to look up the progressive taxation margins) in taxes, so $3500 max.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#216

Post by thehappypm »

brigandish wrote: post #192
dymk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing the point - his repayment to society was being the guinea pig for a medical experiment, which would have been unethical to do on somebody in nearly any other circumstance.

Another comment points out that his crime was not taken into account, only the fact that he had no other medical procedures as options due to his ill health and history of not following doctor's orders. So what's the point I missed?

Why should a persons crime be taken into account? If the person served their time in prison or did their community service or probation or whatever, they’ve done their sentence, and we should try to incorporate them back to being free people.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#218

Post by caminante »

TedShiller wrote: post #179
slowhand09 wrote: post #5

My friend was a member of the transplant team at Johns Hopkins. "They" said he was near multiple organ failure prior to the transplant. And he survived significantly longer than expected. Recovery under those circumstances was a very long shot already. Kudos to him for undergoing the procedure, and furthering the research. Condolences to he and his family.

isn't this supposed to be kept private by your friend under medical privacy laws?

What are you referring to?

I could've written this. Further, HIPAA has exclusions for dead research patients.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#219

Post by brigandish »

thehappypm wrote: post #216
brigandish wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another comment points out that his crime was not taken into account, only the fact that he had no other medical procedures as options due to his ill health and history of not following doctor's orders. So what's the point I missed?

Why should a persons crime be taken into account? If the person served their time in prison or did their community service or probation or whatever, they’ve done their sentence, and we should try to incorporate them back to being free people.

I haven't made the argument that it should or shouldn't, and I'm not for endless punishment, though I'm not for forgetting someone's crimes either.

What I will say and the point that I've made and will stick to is that it is in no way, no way at all, penance.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#220

Post by hwillis »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #61
hwillis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LVADs are implanted in your chest. Blood doesn't leave your body, but do they have external batteries. You have a wire coming out of your chest (or neck/head, sometimes) which is a constant infection worry. AFAIK the only external pumps are like, countertop kind of things. They're ideally a stopgap, but even still it's typically a massive change in quality of life. The left ventricle is what feeds your entire body bl…

Well, half of your hearth failing being "exceptionally unpleasant" is not a surprise. Anyways, wouldn't it be feasible to use wireless power transfer?

It is, and it has even been done. One large limitation is that it's not a great idea to have batteries inside the body. An LVAD is intrinsically liquid-cooled; batteries are not. Ruggedly encapsulating a battery means it is fairly well-insulated and can get warm. Batteries also fail pretty unpredictably- they're fundamentally dozens of square feet of very thin film, and it's very difficult to ensure that every battery is perfect. But again, it has been done.

Implanting a couple medium-size batteries and the circuitry+magnet for wireless charging is pretty robust to failure, but consider actually making that decision for yourself. You're already accepting huge restrictions, so is the wire that much of an extra burden?

Realistically, if the LVAD loses power, you're dead. It's not like suffocating; without bloodflow (even blood without oxygen!) your brain will die in about two minutes. Chest compressions probably won't even help. You got the LVAD because your heart couldn't pump, and chest compressions will not force blood through the LVAD. Even if this happens in the emergency room your odds are not good. Cutting open a chest to hand-crank a human is not easy. Pulling an ECMO machine and inserting the massive catheters is not easy. You might die while the machine is still rolling towards you.

Post reply on HN