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

The mutation that helps Delta spread

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 641 posts

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#631

Post by chinathrow »

Retric wrote: post #587
chinathrow wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? If you have a heart attack or a stroke or a grave accident you need a regional ER asap, not one 5h away.

By moving people with covid to other states, or importing medical personnel and equipment. Do so aggressively enough and you can keep capacity available.

And then you'll eventually realize: having thousands of people getting intensive care at the same time until everyone either had it or died from it is moraly not acceptable. Why do you come up with the idea that it's better to increase capacity rather than using large scale vaccination efforts?

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#632

Post by ivanhoe »

systemvoltage wrote: post #527
ivanhoe wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will we all have to wear masks at work until we retire It's really funny to watch all the push back against masks considering how many uncomfortable things people put on themselves every single day, and usually just because someone told them it's cool thing to do. High heels, bras, neckties, etc. and not to forget things that we do to our bodies like implants and piercings and tattoos - most of that is way less use…

I am surprised you didn't discuss how masks affect the most fundamental aspect of social interaction - loss of facial expressions. Our faces are so pivotal to social interaction, it is impossible to overstate.

I guess it depends from a person to person. I actually find it relaxing, as being an Eastern European + an introvert I never really got used to American habit of smiling to everyone as a social norm. With mask I look less grumpy. :)

And also I think social interactions are constantly evolving process so, if needed, people would simply adapt to a new situation. Who knows, perhaps we'd start using our hands instead of facial expressions, just like the Belters did in The Expanse novels/series because they were limited by wearing space suits all the time.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#633

Post by colordrops »

tunesmith wrote: post #439
colordrops wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming that R0 for vaccinated that contract the virus is the same as those who are unvaccinated that contract the virus, which does not appear to be the case. That was my question - how much less do those who are vaccinated and contract the virus infect other people than those who are unvaccinated and contract the virus. That can't be calculated from a single R0 number.

If you restrict it to the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population, then you can consider the vaccinated population fully populated, and the unvaccinated population entirely unvaccinated. Vaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (1 * .8)) = 1.2 Unvaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (0 * .8)) = 6 The question of "how much less" is hard to parse, but the point is that even among the vaccinated group (in this scenario…

I think you are still missing my point. You are using a circular definition of R0. Where did you get that number 6? Is that for a fully unvaccinated population? Are partially vaccinated population? If so, what percentage? Your calculation makes absolutely no sense, it's circular. You can't calculate R0 using R0.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#634

Post by silicon2401 »

jstanley wrote: post #211
silicon2401 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absurd. People said that about the idea that covid would become a pandemic too, you just proved my point.

That doesn't prove your point at all. The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't prove you're right.

It's one thing to say something is unlikely; to completely dismiss it out of hand without acknowledging there could be a chance is exactly what I was talking about originally.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#635

Post by a0-prw »

Jeema101 wrote: post #392
dcolkitt wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a question of preferences that too often gets buried in this debate. If Covid becomes endemic at around its current severity, what level of pandemic restrictions are you willing to accept forever? For me personally, Covid would have to be at least 100 times worse before I’d support masking forever. But I get the sense that some people barely see any downside to it. I think these cross-views drive so much if t…

I hope I am mistaken here, but... are you saying that it would need to kill 1/6th of the population every year (instead of 1/600) before you will consider putting a piece of cloth over your face? What's so terrible about wearing a mask?

I agree with you that 1/6 would be unacceptable, if that's what the post you replied to intended.

On the other hand, 1/600 means between 16 and 17 dead for every 10000 people infected.

Of those 16 to 17 people, the vast majority have one or more comorbidities, mostly caused by lifestyle choices, and probably have little time left anyway.

I have nothing against wearing a mask. I quite enjoyed the anonymity ;)

I do not think cloth masks are very effective against a respiratory virus (it even says so on the box of the ones most people wore in Denmark).

I do think lockdowns are very damaging and we are going to have to live with the virus.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#636

Post by a0-prw »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #614
betwixthewires wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ we aren't talking about backyard c-sections with gritty fingernails here. We are talking about breathing the air and smiling at others. Get a grip.

Sorry, I spent this morning figuring out the words to share at a friend's memorial. I've been emotional. He was vaccinated, he wore a mask, he was careful. He did his part and hurt nobody. I hope whoever gave it to him never finds out what it cost so they could smile at others and breathe the air. I'd trade their life for his in an instant.

Maybe he got it from a small child or someone fully vaccinated or someone who can't get the vaccine for medical reasons. Yes, fully vaccinated people can get the virus and transmit it.

Would you still trade his life for theirs in an instant ?

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#637

Post by aplummer »

newacct583 wrote: post #298
aplummer wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for adding this. Compulsory mass vaccination is one of the greatest medical miracles in human history, possibly the actual single greatest. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/File:Poumon_a...

Second greatest. Antibiotics take the crown.

I think you got me there, but it's at least up there as a big winner.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#638

Post by tunesmith »

colordrops wrote: post #633
tunesmith wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you restrict it to the vaccinated population and the unvaccinated population, then you can consider the vaccinated population fully populated, and the unvaccinated population entirely unvaccinated. Vaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (1 * .8)) = 1.2 Unvaccinated group: Rt = 6 * ( 1 - (0 * .8)) = 6 The question of "how much less" is hard to parse, but the point is that even among the vaccinated group (in this scenario…

I think you are still missing my point. You are using a circular definition of R0. Where did you get that number 6? Is that for a fully unvaccinated population? Are partially vaccinated population? If so, what percentage? Your calculation makes absolutely no sense, it's circular. You can't calculate R0 using R0.

No, R0=6 is a given. I'm not calculating R0. R0 for Delta is estimated between 5 and 9.5. I picked 6, just for illustration. Given a starting R0 and a vaccination rate and a vaccine effectiveness, that is how you can calculate effective Rt. There's nothing circular about that.

There's no such thing as "R0 within a vaccinated community" - R0 is the starting reproductive number. Effective reproductive number - given various mitigation measures like vaccination, masks, natural immunity, etc - is Rt.

You can try the calculations using any other starting R0, from 5 to 9.5 if you stay consistent with estimates of Delta transmissibility.

The point is that it's possible that a group of vaccinated people would never have an Rt below 1 from vaccination alone, simply because of the limited vaccine effectiveness against transmission.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#639

Post by colordrops »

tunesmith wrote: post #638
colordrops wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are still missing my point. You are using a circular definition of R0. Where did you get that number 6? Is that for a fully unvaccinated population? Are partially vaccinated population? If so, what percentage? Your calculation makes absolutely no sense, it's circular. You can't calculate R0 using R0.

No, R0=6 is a given. I'm not calculating R0. R0 for Delta is estimated between 5 and 9.5. I picked 6, just for illustration. Given a starting R0 and a vaccination rate and a vaccine effectiveness, that is how you can calculate effective Rt. There's nothing circular about that. There's no such thing as "R0 within a vaccinated community" - R0 is the starting reproductive number. Effective reproductive number - given va…

If one population spreads a disease more than another, it makes absolutely no sense that R0 is a constant across all populations, by definition. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of R0.

Re: The mutation that helps Delta spread

#640

Post by eecc »

betwixthewires wrote: post #460
ivanhoe wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will we all have to wear masks at work until we retire It's really funny to watch all the push back against masks considering how many uncomfortable things people put on themselves every single day, and usually just because someone told them it's cool thing to do. High heels, bras, neckties, etc. and not to forget things that we do to our bodies like implants and piercings and tattoos - most of that is way less use…

The difference is that those are worn by choice, and in very specific social situations. A more comparable thing would be to shoes, or shirts, since we are talking about everyone wearing them. It's not just a matter of making it cool, hats are cool and not everyone wears a hat. Facial expression is a very important part of human interaction and I think that will always outweigh any amount of cool that can be pumped i…

Oh please enough with this "choice" argument. There's a feral organism out there trying to survive by eating us alive and you're whining about "choice"?

Let me break out the crayons and draw a simple analogy that I hope will drive the point home:

it's like complaining about curfew and how ugly blackout curtains look in your living-room, while the Nazis are trying to bomb your country back to the stone-age. Does that sound monumentally egotistic and ultimately eligible for a Darwin Award?

SMH

Post reply on HN