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

Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 262 posts

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#221

Post by anthonypasq »

cygx wrote: post #212
the_af wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's what I'm saying. The flu is already a serious deal and nobody panics. In any case, surely there are some differences between the 1918 world of the Spanish flu and the current world, both in actual medicine and what we learned about how to manage contagious diseases? Maybe the Spanish flu today (I mean, if it started today and hadn't happened before) wouldn't have as many victims.

On the flip side, we're traveling farther in greater numbers than in 1918.

1918 was the height of ww1 btw.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#223

Post by carapace »

ars wrote: post #205
carapace wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like serious side effects? Like what ? What can a vaccine do that's worse than a pandemic? Anti-vaxxers aren't rational people rationally concerned about real side-effects of vaccines, they are superstitious fools who think vaccines give kids autism. (There is NO scientific evidence for this idea whatsoever.) Remember the Mayan Apocalypse? Remember how everybody stopped talking about it about fifteen minutes after…

The original rotavirus vaccine caused intussusception. Vaccines are not magical risk free things, even if they don't cause autisim. There's a reason we say "risk vs benefit". Current vaccines clearly fall under the reward part of that. A new vaccine? Who knows. That's why you have to test.

Right, I get it. I agree with everything you said. You are rational and correct.

However, none of that is to my point.

The OP said, "The US has an active, very vocal anti-vax community." and then said "The first sign of trouble of any kind with a new COVID-19 vaccine would result in a backlash of biblical proportions. It could be so strong as to derail any attempt at a follower."

That's what I am objecting to, I don't think that anti-vaxxer superstition would be increased by a bunch of scientists saying, "yeah, there's a side-effect" because that's not superstition, eh?

I'm finding it hard to articulate my point, which is weird because it seems to clear to me in my mind.

I don't think the masses would chuck science in the bin and huddle in fear, unvaccinated, waiting to see if they live or die from covad, just because there is some side-effect of the vaccine, unless it was somehow more horrible than, uh, huddling in fear, vaccinated but with some side-effects, waiting to see if they live or die from covad.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#224

Post by ouid »

capkutay wrote: post #94
sachdevap wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death rate of COVID-19 is at about 3.4% on average. In comparison, the death rate of seasonal flu is about 0.1% in the US. No, it is not "like" the flu. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-r...

3.4% of reported cases have died. That doesn’t mean the actual IFR is 3.4%. Data modeling suggests it’s closer to 0.98%. It’s also important to note that age plays a significant factor. The IFR is about 0.2% for young healthy people, while it is quite dangerous for people over 60 with existing conditions. https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an...

.2% if you are 30, .2% is greater than your cumulative risk from driving. It's a huge risk.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#225

Post by ouid »

username90 wrote: post #90
sachdevap wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death rate of COVID-19 is at about 3.4% on average. In comparison, the death rate of seasonal flu is about 0.1% in the US. No, it is not "like" the flu. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-r...

It was 1% in diamond princess, and cruises are known to be full of retirees so it should be a lot lower than that in the general population. I believe the reason it looks so high is severe lack of testing.

it wasn't anything in the diamond princess. The diamond princess is ongoing, and the rate of hospitalization is more important if the infection rate becomes too large.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#226

Post by ouid »

tonmoy wrote: post #222
ouid wrote: post #216

This post has 164 points and 204 comments in 3 hours, and is on the second page? Do I fundamentally misunderstand how this works?

Yes, HN heavily penalizes posts with votes lower than number of comments

alright, thanks.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#227

Post by dwild »

cactus2093 wrote: post #78
bhanhfo wrote: post #49

Scientific agreement seems to be that ~60-70% of the population will get infected. It is just not sure if within months or (hopefully!) years. And no drugs within at least one year. Edit: Source => Original in German here: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/krankheiten-experte-e... Express UK translated it here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1249963/Coronavirus-n... The guy interview is Prof. Drosten. He…

Sources? It seems far too early and there isn't enough reliable observational data, much less scientific trial data, available for broad "scientific agreement". Although obviously the accuracy of China's data is in question, it's promising that they were able to get the reproduction rate below 1 pretty quickly. And within Wuhan itself the spreading seems to have slowed with something like 0.6% of the population of 11…

Wuhan is your reference? China too? Aren't they putting pretty severe quarantine in Wuhan? Aren't their quarantine outside of Wuhan still quite strong?

The Diamond Princess had a quarantine, and yet the infection reached 706 peoples, in a boat with 3711 peoples. Sure that's "only" 20%, but that seems to me like 40% isn't that far out if we are considering that it's hard to quarantine a whole country.

The timeframe is important too, as long as we don't have developed any vaccine, the only way to develop immunity is by being infected... thus if the virus spread that easily, it's only a question of when will we reach 40-70%, not if.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#228

Post by jennyyang »

hackeer wrote: post #178
jennyyang wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single individual getting coronavirus isn't a big deal. Chances are they will be fine. The problem is that it's very infectious, R0 could be 6+ where the flu is about 1-2. That means it's 3-6 times more contagious than the flu, so it spreads very very quickly. At the same time, it causes severe symptoms in 15-20% of cases. When these people have access to medical care, they will likely survive. But if they don't ge…

where are you getting the info to say only 15-20% percent of the cases show symptoms?

15-20% show severe symptoms, not just "symptoms". 80%+ show mild symptoms or are asymptomatic.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#229

Post by inshadows »

toxik wrote: post #16
lazyjones wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of "appeal to authority" argument reminds me of the recent interview with an industry "veteran" (60 years experience in developing combustion engines) and professor where he condemned electric cars and claimed they will not help the climate. Being experienced doesn't mean you can't be foolish/dogmatic or simply wrong. And it doesn't always take an even more experienced researcher to prove someone wrong. I w…

Appeal to authority is not the same as appeal to expertise. An expert does have a better shot at knowing. Appeal to authority is saying "climate change doesn't exist, the US president denies it", appeal to expertise is saying "artificial general intelligence is not coming soon, Michael I. Jordan denies it".

You're just using expertise as synonym for authority.

Re: Get Real: no drug or vaccine will avoid a very big coronavirus epidemic

#230

Post by hutzlibu »

xiphias2 wrote: post #140
hutzlibu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the side effects are cancer in a year? Strong, consistent headache? Organ poisening? Permanent weakening of immune system? ... And you would have to be very old and with strong preconditions, to have a 30% death chance with corvid-19. And then any side effects would be even more fatal.

Why would I get those side effects? Remdesivir has already gone through safety trials years ago, it's in phase 3 now.

"If I have 30% chance of dying I take anythingmthat lowers the chance significantly. "
Post reply on HN