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

Update on Omicron

who.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 794 posts

Re: Update on Omicron

#71

Post by Taywee »

gukov wrote: post #46
EugeneOZ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just caught myself on the funny fact, that my level of trust for some stranger on HN is higher than the level of trust for WHO. They worked hard to ruin their reputation.

Yeah, not after this: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21

Wasn't that the most up-to-date data at the time? Are you claiming that they did find clear evidence and were lying about it, or that they somehow should have had evidence to the contrary at that time?

Just like any burgeoning subject, you should generally keep up with the expert recommendations. Expecting them to have had all the answers and get everything exactly right in a circumstance with as many unknowns as this pandemic has had is foolish. It's silly how many people are treating medical agencies like this as if they're complete amateurs because some of their educated guess have ended up not being ideal, or that they've updated their recommendations regularly based on recent data.

It seems like people are expecting medical organizations to be like politicians. Updating recommendations based on new data regularly isn't "double backing" or flip-flopping, it's updating recommendations based on new data. It does mean that sometimes their advice will not be correct, especially when the data is thin, but it's literally the best choice you have available.

I really expect a technical community to be better about this kind of stuff. Limited data means less reliable conclusions.

Re: Update on Omicron

#73

Post by justincormack »

glandium wrote: post #63
0des wrote: post #56

When did it get renamed to "Omicron"? Also, dammit, now it's a thing, and it's got its own little soundbite-able name instead of "B.1.1.529".

When people realized that "Nu variant" sounded like "New variant"

And Xi sounds like the Chinese leader.

Re: Update on Omicron

#76

Post by afavour »

swader999 wrote: post #6

In general, respiratory viruses tend to get less severe over time. With this mass vaccination approach it may not turn out that way by some accounts I've read.

It seems kind of unlikely that the scientific world would have overlooked this concept

Re: Update on Omicron

#77

Post by baby »

Tl;dr: we don’t know much currently. It is very frustrating that our tools and techniques are so slow at analyzing, detecting, understanding airborne diseases.

Re: Update on Omicron

#78

Post by nicoburns »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #33
metamet wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This narrative is so silly to me. Same with those who think that mandating mask wearing is some flex by the government to exert control. It's common sense that in order to stop the spread of highly contagious respiratory viruses, having folks stay away from one another for a bit works... if people follow the lockdown, which too many don't. If anything, politicians are hesitant to invoke a lockdown due to the vocal mi…

Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses . Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect. Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere. p.s. f…

Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.

Re: Update on Omicron

#79

Post by [deleted] »

adolph wrote: post #43
duxup wrote: post #32

I would love for a COVID variation for with low severity illness to become dominant ... forever?

I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question becomes second order effects.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN