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

81–90 of 432 posts

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#81

Post by rowathay »

bradlys wrote: post #32
actually_a_dog wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with about 95% of this, but, I don't think "travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them." I think they got a bad name because you-know-who proposed them previously, targeting countries with you-know-what religion, for a political reason. Had it been just "we're going to reduce air traffic into the country to slow the spread of the virus," I don't think that would have been terribly controver…

Yeah, people forget the muslim ban happened before COVID.

People also forget that it wasn’t a Muslim ban. The world’s largest Muslim country was not included in it.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#82

Post by timr »

js2 wrote: post #47
timr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sur…

Your comment is currently the only one on this subthread that I would characterize as an accurate and evidence-based response.

Once we agree that the evidence for masks is weak and mixed, then sure, we can debate costs and benefits of the intervention. Or...we can do more studies.

It's been almost two years now. I think it's rather shameful that we haven't done the science, and we're still guessing, don't you?

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#83

Post by titzer »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #78
bingohbangoh wrote: post #2

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?…

> Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? RNA viruses have high mutation rates and variants will never end in the same way that flu & common-cold variation continues. The more interesting question is how will our immune systems adapt and will vaccines continue to provide protection against severity of illness at the same time as they apply selective pressure that enhances viral transmissibility? Of further…

> why Japanese and Taiwan infection and severity rates remain comparatively low

Just a stab in the dark, but generally high social conformity and particularly mask wearing.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#84

Post by timr »

kaba0 wrote: post #71
timr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have managed to clear out measles No, we have not. In fact, there has been a rather significant resurgence in measles over the course of the last two years. One of the many side-effects of our reaction to Covid that is not properly accounted. https://www.who.int/news/item/10-11-2021-global-progress-aga... https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1077482 https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/3/11/...

It is in great part due to idiot anti-vaxxers…

Stop. The articles explicitly tell you that the rate of people missing vaccines went up during global lockdowns. People missed their appointments and stopped vaccinating their children.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#85

Post by ahdh8f4hf4h8 »

titzer wrote: post #57
ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> but they do reduce the viral load by 30-50% I think the effect is much larger than that, but yes, absolutely. This is an important point that is constantly lost in the public discourse. We realize there's a big difference in dosage with poisons and radiation, but it's the same with viral infections; viruses do take time to replicate, so having a low initial exposure can give the immune system to ramp up sooner, bef…

Theoretically masks would be much more effective than this - I think the 30-50% number came from a study where they looked at actual non-professional usage of masks. Most people have bad mask hygiene, so there is substantial air leaking around the nose or chin. Many of the makeshift masks people used are insufficient to capture viruses, but they do greatly reduce the "blast radius" of your breathing and coughs.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#86

Post by Gigachad »

kaba0 wrote: post #67
bingohbangoh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As far as I know the current view is that it won’t end, but it will become a regular the same way the flu is. There may even be yearly shots combined with flu shots for all the new variants that may evolve. I truly hate that guy, but “facts don’t care about your feelings”.

I don’t think OP is concerned with yearly shots or covid hanging around. It’s the lockdowns and other restrictions that people care about.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#87

Post by oliv__ »

aledalgrande wrote: post #62
oliv__ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strikes me how such a heartless comment comes from someone running a "community" business. Really sad.

Go ahead and paint me as a heartless selfish person because I am looking at probabilities and considering alternatives.

In your world, if just one person dies it is worth shutting the rest of the population for.

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#88

Post by jdminhbg »

kaba0 wrote: post #59
bmeski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. How many people die in car accidents each year?

Will it increase exponentially if not cared about?

Yes, car deaths have decreased by multiple orders of magnitude in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#89

Post by flunhat »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #79
flunhat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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??

I find that the sort of people who call others snowflakes end up being the biggest snowflakes of all.

Yup -- projection, plain & simple

Re: New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529

#90

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

timr wrote: post #40
Kkoala wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear at this point that restrictions and masks help reduce the spread. Of course it's another question how does that balance out in the longer term, e.g. how did the lockdowns affect the economy, or the mental and physical healtht of people.

Is it? Cite the evidence. Editorials and commentaries don't count. All of the good evidence (RCTs) on masks is extremely marginal, at best, and there hasn't been a single RCT I'm aware of that showed any effect of the other interventions. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk...

Surprisingly, masks with poor filtration underperform at filtering. Show a study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of an N95.
Post reply on HN