Live data from Hacker News

New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com

41–50 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#41
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…

What are the _total deaths_? What is the total mortality rate?

Death per million inhabitants in these 4 countries: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

You can also compare with other neighbors and Europe: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#42
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…

Agree 100% -- that whole paragraph has some flimsy logic. The only bit of evidence they provide for travel bans not working is:

> For example, we had a travel ban with China in March 2020, only to be infiltrated with a European strain.

Isn't this a good sign that the travel ban actually worked -- i.e. created enough of a delay in the spread of covid to result in a meaningfully different pandemic than we would have otherwise experienced?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Leave me the hell alone! As long as that makes essential things such as grocery shopping more dangerous for others, such as myself, no.

Ok, then when does this end? I'm all ears!

Maybe it doesn't? At least not until medical science catches up to allow the level of social/global interaction we had been taking for granted for decades.

In the history of our species, we have never been this connected on a global level before, we were potentially sitting on a timebomb just waiting for the appropriate viral trigger to bring it down.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#44
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…

Yeah, I think the article missed the point on this one - travel bans aren't a panacea, but they definitely slow the spread and can buy valuable time at the start of an outbreak.

There's been too much binary thinking by the media and politicians - for example masks aren't 100% effective, but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% which could be the difference between getting mildly sick and getting a fatal exposure. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#45
post #15
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…

Yep, we ought to be evidence-based about everything we have done: travel bans, masks, respirators, distancing, plexiglass, closing businesses, forcing healthy kids to wear masks in schools, forcing everyone to get vaccinated, rubber gloves in the grocery store. All of it. So far, our track record isn't that great. The two RCTs for masks and Covid showed minimal (if not zero) effect [1], and you can barely say the res…

> you can barely say the results out loud lest you get silenced by the angry mob

Would you chill out? People are disagreeing with you & presenting evidence, not burning you at stake. When did everyone get so damn fragile??

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#46
post #29
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…

So Sweden had proportionately 5 times more deaths for not locking down with a death / population ratio of 0.00145? I don't think it's ridiculous to consider not locking down with those stats. Locking down has tremendous costs whether mental or economic, you just can't compute and make a nice graph of it.

Are you going to tell those 12000 people: sorry, but you need to die for my exceptionally limited view of economy?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#47
post #15
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…

Yep, we ought to be evidence-based about everything we have done: travel bans, masks, respirators, distancing, plexiglass, closing businesses, forcing healthy kids to wear masks in schools, forcing everyone to get vaccinated, rubber gloves in the grocery store. All of it. So far, our track record isn't that great. The two RCTs for masks and Covid showed minimal (if not zero) effect [1], and you can barely say the res…

> A large, randomized trial led by researchers at Stanford Medicine and Yale University has found that wearing a surgical face mask over the mouth and nose is an effective way to reduce the occurrence of COVID-19 in community settings.

> The researchers enrolled nearly 350,000 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh. Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those living in control villages to develop COVID-19, which is caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, during the eight-week study period. The protective effect increased to nearly 35% for people over 60 years old.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

Earlier studies said there wasn’t sufficient evidence, not that masks aren’t effective:

> Results: Fourteen studies were included in this study. One preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks (±hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks.

> Conclusion: There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33565274/

The cost of wearing a mask is basically zero when there is sufficient supply. While waiting to gather evidence, it seems like an easy low cost precaution while gathering evidence.

Slate Star Code (March 2020):

> Please don’t buy up masks while there is a shortage and healthcare workers don’t have enough.

> If the shortage ends, and wearing a mask is cost-free, I agree with the guidelines from China, Hong Kong, and Japan – consider wearing a mask in high-risk situations like subways or crowded buildings. Wearing masks will not make you invincible, and if you risk compensate even a little it might do more harm than good. Realistically you should be avoiding high-risk situations like subways and crowded buildings as much as you possibly can. But if you have to go in them, yes, most likely a mask will help.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#48

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?…

[deleted]

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#49
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…

>because you-know-who proposed them

Have we really arrived at the point where we've become the parody of a society in a Harry Potter book?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#50

Look, I'm about as pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown, pro-mask as they come. But the hyperbolic reporting on this variant is not helpful. News articles in mainstream press are already wrong: WHO has named this Omicron (while many publications came out with Nu). This is a virus that takes weeks to months before a variant becomes dominant. You can afford to wait a day or two to get information correct before publishing. Edit:…

Why is a travel stop such problem? Travel can be resumed.
Post reply on HN