Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado • Hacker News Board

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#481

Post by spurgu » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #360

spurgu wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: - how much/long the media keeps the fear drum pounding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI5E8z89c9U

Media fear drum has no effect on whether my local hospital is overwhelmed. Everybody can make their own decisions, as long as hospitals are good.

> Everybody can make their own decisions, as long as hospitals are good.

Wait. "Everyone can make their own decisions"? And those decisions are completely rational, not affected at all by what the media is saying? I would argue the complete opposite.

Why are you trying to bend the argument into hospital capacity? Is your argument that if hospital capacity is under threat then it's ok for the media and government to lie and instill baseless fear into people, solely as a means of a) scaring them into staying at home (to minimize the spread of the virus) and b) to demonize unvaccinated people?

One would think that transparency and honesty would work better than bullshitting people.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#482

Post by lovecg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

rblatz wrote: post #227

swader999 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty terrifying.

Eventually it’s going to do what all other viruses have done. Mutate into another flu or common cold. We already have l seasonal coronavirus outbreaks. We call it cold and flu season; except it’s numerous coronaviruses and influenza viruses and one or two “win” that year.

Some part mutation, some part immunization so that future infections are milder. In the absence of perfect vaccination this involves killing millions of people. Let’s not forget about this.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#483

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

uhtred wrote: post #433

steelstraw wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations. You haven't had a bad cold or flu before. It's not uncommon for the flu to knock someone out for a good week. Or for a cold to leave a lingering cough for weeks.

You are the gatekeeper on feeling sick, now?

No, but he's fundamentally right. The symptoms described are no worse than a moderate flu.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#484

Post by wallacoloo » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

loktarogar wrote: post #7

yumraj wrote: post #5

Question: what does "100% prevalence" mean in this context? sorry, it's not clear.

all cases are omicron - at least, all sequenced samples came back as omicron

yeah, kind of confusing. “omicron at 100% prevalence, Colorado” is easily mistaken as “100% of the population of Colorado has/had omicron”.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#485

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #109

benjaminwootton wrote: post #103

Surely this is the end of the pandemic? With an estimated 300k+ cases per day here in the UK, that is 10 million this month on top of everyone who has already had it. It’s as though nobody is ready to acknowledge the elephant in the room that Covid is nearly finished. Or am I missing something?

I'm not sure if we can say it's "over". People were saying the same thing after the Delta waves started subsiding and behold … Omicron.

And Omicron is an order of magnitude less virulent on hospitalization/deaths per infection basis.

The pandemic is never going to be "over" on a case basis, and the virus is never going away, spread will never be zero, variants will always keep happening for decades.

Omicron is telling you that its going to be time soon to start thinking about this virus more like a normal cold/flu virus based on its impact.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#486

Post by lovecg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:07 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #281

cduzz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something's a one a million event, happening billions of times per day, it'll happen pretty much constantly. This one, omicron, seems to mostly infect nasal passages and upper respiratory tract. The next, maybe after spending 2 years spreading across all the weasels of upper winchester county, may affect the lungs again. This is a lottery that's less fun to play... (edited for clarity)

Yeah, sure. Who knows what viruses could be spreading and mutating amongst those weasels. It's not like SARS-CoV-2 is the first, and it won't be the last. But when you say > This is a lottery that's less fun to play How exactly do you propose not playing? Lockdowns, social distancing, masking, etc. for life? We're eventually going to have to start treating Covid the same as we've always treated "the flu" and it defin…

Banning certain high risk/low reward research would be a start.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#487

Post by lovecg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:09 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #317

Scoundreller wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a vaccine reduces your cough/oozing orifice severity, wouldn’t that reduce transmission?

Technically yes, but see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29826355

This is the “not wearing a bike helmet will make car drivers around you more careful” level argument. Let’s see some hard data please.

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#488

Post by lovecg » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

jonpalmisc wrote: post #421

beamatronic wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they at least 6-9 months apart, or closer to a year?

First two infections were closer to 3-4 months IIRC, third was probably ~6 months.

How did the severity compare across the three cases if you know?

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#489

Post by nradov » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:12 PM UTC

awb wrote: post #479

nradov wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get infected with both, but there is still a significant level of cellular immunity across all common variants. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.06.471446v1

For someone not well versed in virology, can you please explain what that means? How do you get infected with significant levels of cellular immunity? And does that mean the infection is less severe?

There are multiple components to the immune system. For some viruses like measles, prior infection or vaccination usually triggers production of sterilizing antibodies which block subsequent infections in most patients. That isn't really the case for COVID-19. However the immune system also contains memory cells which can ramp up defenses more quickly during reinfections. The targets for those defenses are mostly the same across all SARS-CoV-2 variants.

I have oversimplified this explanation to keep the comment short. If you'd like to really understand what's going on I recommend this panel discussion by a group of leading physicians; it's long but worth a listen.

https://youtu.be/GklHGYY8vN8

Re: Omicron at 100% Prevalence, Colorado

#490

Post by crocodiletears » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 8:13 PM UTC

uhtred wrote: post #433

steelstraw wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations. You haven't had a bad cold or flu before. It's not uncommon for the flu to knock someone out for a good week. Or for a cold to leave a lingering cough for weeks.

You are the gatekeeper on feeling sick, now?

Caught a bad flu in late 2018. Lingered for two months. Cough so bad, I dislocated a rib. Had X-rays taken, and everything. Took about a year for the the rib to stop slipping whenever I exerted myself. In the end, it was a period of discomfort that set me back a spell, but which I ultimately got over. Probably wouldn't try to shut down society over it, or use it as proof that people should fear the flu. Just that sometimes you get sicker than usual.