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

401–410 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#401

Post by angelzen »

cthalupa wrote: post #395
angelzen wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The null hypothesis is the natural state of humanity, without medical intervention.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#402

Post by guilhas »

atoav wrote: post #388
dot1x wrote: post #384

The Presidential COVID-19 Task Force in Botswana informs that the new variant was first found in 4 fully jabbed travelers. Good to know the "worst variant ever" (as it has been labeled by MSM) is NOT a pandemic of the unvakzeenated.

I think the term "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is commonly misunderstood. What most people think it means is a pandemic that only ravages and evolves among the unvaccinated. This is not what it means however. What "pandemic of the unvaccinated" means instead is that the unvaccinated population is the key driver for the ongoing spread of the virus. The pandemic however will still infect all people be carried around b…

I got the virus from my vaccinated girlfriend. But now that we recovered, I am much less of a possible spreader than only vaccinated people

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#404

Post by readflaggedcomm »

ehsankia wrote: post #301
blindmute wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely not true. Every public figure left of center in the country commented viciously about the racist, stupid travel ban.

Source please. Find me a prominent politician that specifically called the China travel ban itself racist or xenophobic. If every politician did it, it must be easy to find a clip.

Joe Biden called it "hysterical xenophobia and fear mongering [against] science." Pelosi was on the ground in San Fransisco's Chinatown with similar words. Maxine Waters too, though she had been talking that way since 2015, predicting every possible racist act.

The official record is better, though. This bill calls out travel discrimination based on national origin: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2214...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#405

Post by johnchristopher »

ralusek wrote: post #375
johnchristopher wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/covid-19-vaccines-can-ad... COVID-19 vaccines can adapt to new variants. Here’s what it will take Health Feb 9, 2021 6:37 PM EST > It would take six weeks for researchers to go from “plugging new variants into the vaccine” to “make a new vaccine ready to go into people,” he said, but that does not account for the time it would take to have a drug approved. Weissman compared the pro…

The question has never been about how long it would take to adjust the vaccine. mRNA has been a platform capable of rapid alterations since the beginning. The question is regarding ensuring that the changes are safe and efficacious.

Sorry for misleading, I just wanted to post moderna and pfizer estimates to add to authorization time.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#406

Post by johnchristopher »

refurb wrote: post #269
johnchristopher wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it elicited the same immune response it wouldn't be much of a use though, right ? Anyway, how do they know the usual but new seasonal flu vaccine is safe ? Can't the same framework apply ?

They run clinical trials on them to make sure they are safe and effective. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm Manufacturers guess which flu strain will predominate and start working 9-12 months early to capture the data for approval. There is no way a new Covid mRNA vaccine will be approved with safety and efficacy data from a clinical trial. That will be take months to complete.

Wow, thanks. I didn't know that they had an extensive clinical trial program and that the whole thing started so soon.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#407

Post by mrexroad »

timr wrote: post #367
NikolaNovak wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"Also, are you vaccinated? Yes? Then the answer is almost certainly no risk at all" That is not my lay person interpretation of the currently best available data. A vaccinated person can get infected, can get seriously ill, and can spread out to others more vulnerable. It helps, drastically, and I sure as heck got mine, but my understanding is that it does not confer individual invulnerability.

> A vaccinated person can get infected, can get seriously ill, and can spread out to others more vulnerable. I can get hit by a car when I walk down the street, but I've been doing it my entire life and I'm still here. I can die in a horrible plane crash when I fly, but I still do it. I can have a heart attack when I go to the gym, but it's still a net positive for my life. Do you have a grasp on the actual risks inv…

When you cross a busy street, do you use crosswalks and obey the cross/don’t cross signal?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#408

Post by feanaro »

codezero wrote: post #242
feanaro wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forever? Why would we need to do it forever when we don't do it for any other virus?

Probably because we should have been, and now some of us have learned. It’s been a pleasure going two years without any upper respiratory illnesses for me. I look forward to being steadfast in that since it’s really not that hard to wear a mask, and it’s not hurting anyone else when I do so.

It's nice not to have upper respiratory illnesses, but I'm not going to be wearing masks forever because of that, especially since it's not clear cut that not ever getting illnesses is a good idea. (Especially since you're bound to get infected at some point. Might as well exercise the immune system a bit.)

Now, I look forward to it being more socially acceptable to wear masks when you have an infection.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#409

Post by feanaro »

codezero wrote: post #346
ktkoffroth wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you eventually do catch an upper respiratory disease, and your immune system is no longer used to the challenges it presents?

Are you suggesting that one’s immune system becomes stronger after year over year infection? If so, to what end? Every year? Even when I’m 80? When does my system break down. Isolation seems to solve all of these issues and I hate people so isolation is easy.

> Isolation seems to solve all of these issues and I hate people so isolation is easy.

Ah, so this is the real reason. That's fine, but it's also not really applicable to the wider population and hence isn't about what I originally asked -- which is why we would universally continuing wearing masks forever.

The answer is we wouldn't, because that makes no sense.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#410

Post by codezero »

feanaro wrote: post #409
codezero wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that one’s immune system becomes stronger after year over year infection? If so, to what end? Every year? Even when I’m 80? When does my system break down. Isolation seems to solve all of these issues and I hate people so isolation is easy.

> Isolation seems to solve all of these issues and I hate people so isolation is easy. Ah, so this is the real reason. That's fine, but it's also not really applicable to the wider population and hence isn't about what I originally asked -- which is why we would universally continuing wearing masks forever. The answer is we wouldn't, because that makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with sense and only to do with feelings on all sides. I also mask because I have elderly family and I care that they will die if they get sick at this point, I’m doing my part to minimize the impact on others with what is essentially a zero cost effort. It’s literally the least one can do, next to washing their hands thoroughly, and covering the mouth when coughing or sneezing. That last one is something many people still don’t do, so I’d be happy with a social expectation of fully covering one’s face when expelling saliva and mucus.
Post reply on HN