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

391–400 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#391

Post by akmarinov »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #300
c0balt wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay, it got classified with an interesting name. No, another goddamn variant.

I know it’s from the Greek alphabet, but yeah, they shouldn’t have used “Nu” - homophones cause all kinds of confusion. ----- Patient: “Give it to me straight doc, what have I got?” Doctor: “you have a case of the Nu variant of Covid.” Patient: “yeah, but what is it? What’s it called?” Doctor: “the Nu variant” Patient: “yes, but WHAT IS IT NAMED?!” Doctor: “I’VE TOLD YOU ALREADY!”

But what does mine say?

Dude!

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#392

Post by Fnoord »

ralusek wrote: post #374
eyelidlessness wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The band on stage…

Nu Metal...

Or the Isle called Niue [1] who have the ccTLD .nu

Nu means now in Dutch, but I don't see that as problematic (do see problem in English). New would be nieuw, with the 'w' being hearable, kinda sounding knew but with more articulation on 'i' so kniw.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#393

Post by wwweston »

ed_balls wrote: post #333
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…

Japan is fascinating for me. Do they just not test people? https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

I think "high degree of social cooperation," pretty big strength when confronting a socially transmitted threat.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#394

Post by cthalupa »

spookthesunset wrote: post #357
cthalupa wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If wearing masks were solely a matter of your own personal protection, I would agree. Particularly since being vaccinated nearly eliminates your chances of having a serious covid infection. But vaccines do not prevent you from catching and transmitting covid to others. And some people are precluded from getting vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons, same as they are precluded from other vaccines. A vaccinated per…

Your argument says we should be doing this forever. There will always be viruses that we transmit to each other. Always was. We never took this kind of moral grandstanding before. Why are we doing this for this one specific virus? I’m sorry, your argument just doesn’t make sense. You are arguing we should always be masked forever.

>Your argument says we should be doing this forever.

Yes, I did say this is a possibility. I don't think it's likely, but it is a possibility.

>We never took this kind of moral grandstanding before. Why are we doing this for this one specific virus?

This is the first virus with this sort of reach in the era of modern science. It's pretty simple - we have never before had a virus that has infected and killed this many people while also having an understanding that masking cuts down on transmission rates.

>I’m sorry, your argument just doesn’t make sense.

You disagreeing with it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, it just means that you, for whatever reason, value people not having to wear a mask over cutting down on the loss of human life during a global pandemic.

>You are arguing we should always be masked forever.

If we live in a state of perpetual covid-esque pandemic from now until forever, yes, that would be a perfectly prudent thing to do.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#395

Post by cthalupa »

angelzen wrote: post #318
cthalupa wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a political issue to not do studies that require doing things that actively and intentionally put people at things we know are highly likely to put them at risk of physical harm. The world decided this was unethical long before the current political climate.

In masks + covid context it feels like "unethical" is used as a thought terminating cliche. * The pandemic is affecting 8,000,000,000 people all around the world. A large size RCT enrolls X0,000 participants. For example, the Pfizer covid mRNA vaccine clinical trial had 21,728 placebo participants. For every RCT participant, the RCT results are going to inform the course of action for hundreds of thousands of people.…

This is a well written argument, and I don't disagree with the majority of it. However, there is one key point that I do disagree with, and makes the rest of it moot:

>* There is a large pool of potential volunteers that don't (want to) wear masks anyways. Adults have the right to volunteer for risky activities, including activities that may result in death.

This is certainly true. But the difference is that once we begin performing medical studies that ask this of people, the medical industry is now complicit in adults performing risky activities that may result in death and is asking people to do so, or if doing so, to do so for the benefit of medical research. This is a line that has not been crossed by the modern medical research industry as it has been long decided that this extra pressure, however small, is a lever they do not want to pull because it is fundamentally incompatible with 'Do no harm.'

It isn't 'do no harm, except a little when we think it might outweigh the downsides'

It's a line I don't think we should cross. I understand why someone would disagree with that.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#396

Post by dennis_jeeves »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? I hate, __hate__ this constant fear of a lockdown. Hell, a good part of europe is in lockdown right now. I get that the lockdown is being haphazardly enforce for those countries who've decided on it but I dislike these even being rules on the books. Leave me the hell alone! If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is this gonna be the time it changes?…

>Does anybody think these variants will ever stop?

Variants were always there, for every pathogen out there. It's a good old media keeping the masses engaged...

>Particularly embarrassing is how Sweden and Florida have just survived without much restrictions.

Not many will admit that, will they? Infact they will even interpret any figures from those places to be indicate that things have been terrible over there.

The reality field for many people ( possibly including me) is distorted.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#397

Post by dennis_jeeves »

tinus_hn wrote: post #171
miohtama wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? We have managed to clear out measles, so we should be able to stop COVID as well with high enough vaccination rates. Although this is not apples-to-apples comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine

Considering covid spreads through wildlife, unless you succeed in vaccinating every monkey in the jungle that’s never going to happen.

How about passing a lockdown law and ticketing every monkey who disobeys?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#398

Post by bavell »

malermeister wrote: post #257
bavell wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I take it you live in a city? You may not need anything other than a train or bike but other people have different needs.

So I actually live in a small town of 800 people somewhere in Europe. I can take the train if i need to get anywhere further than is comfortable by bike. I understand that's not currently the case in a lot of the world, which is why I think cars need to be banned eventually , not right now.

That's fair, although instead of banning them I'd prefer to just have better alternatives that people naturally transition to. Cars are certainly not a very efficient mode of transport.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#399

Post by bavell »

kaba0 wrote: post #363
bavell wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> COVID with no restrictions, which will only plateau at ridiculously high amount of infected (and dead). I'm curious what you think of Florida, which has had almost no restrictions for a majority of the pandemic and yet is actually doing better than some other states. Seems to disprove your assertion?

Airborne transmission being heavily climate-dependent? We can’t make everything into Florida (and that would be a much bigger problem than any virus in itself :D)

I'd imagine we'd have studies on this by now if that were actually the case though, right? It's been almost 2 years... so it seems like there's something else going on.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#400

Post by bavell »

kaba0 wrote: post #364
GekkePrutser wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially because it takes a minimum of 4 years to train new ones...

If they are so stupid to not vaccinate themselves as a goddamn med worker, I doubt they were too useful in the first place, if not criminally dangerous.

Do you think the unvaccinated medical workers with natural immunity who were fired were criminally dangerous? I think denigrating nurses and doctors who have been working overtime to save lives for the last two years is pretty harsh and callous (vaccinated or otherwise).

These are the people we all called heros just a year ago. Again, are they really killing more people than they saved?

Post reply on HN