[HN Gopher] New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529 ___________________________________________________________________ New Concerning Variant: B.1.1.529 Author : kposehn Score : 113 points Date : 2021-11-26 20:28 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com) | gfodor wrote: | > Travel bans are not evidence-based: It may seem like travel | bans for individual countries are a necessary step, but I cannot | stress enough that they do not work. | | This one point compromised the article for me. The standard for | "working", like all measures, is to slow down the spread. We all | know travel bans got a bad name because you-know-who proposed | them. But all countries imposed travel bans and we ought to be | concrete about the level of delay they create or not. Let's not | hold any measure to a different standard due to political | signaling. If travel restrictions are good on a risk adjusted | basis to buy time for the "weeks" of analysis needed that could | help with further reducing risk, let's talk about it not write it | off as "not working" which is non-sensical. Masks "don't work", | vaccines "don't work", nothing "works" if that is taken to mean a | silver bullet. | flunhat wrote: | Agree 100% -- that whole paragraph has some flimsy logic. The | only bit of evidence they provide for travel bans not working | is: | | > For example, we had a travel ban with China in March 2020, | only to be infiltrated with a European strain. | | Isn't this a good sign that the travel ban actually _worked_ -- | i.e. created enough of a delay in the spread of covid to result | in a meaningfully different pandemic than we would have | otherwise experienced? | ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: | 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. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of better. | nuclearnice1 wrote: | Are they useful at the start of a new variant? | | For example if we assume it gets to the US eventually, what | is, say, an extra few weeks buying the US? | | On day 1 or in year 1, I see the value in those weeks. You | can build ventilators, field hospitals, and learn treatments. | At this point, are there new useful ways to use a few weeks | of lead time? | titzer wrote: | > 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, before the infection has | become severe (and then the immune response will _also_ be | severe). | [deleted] | ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: | 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. | timr wrote: | All current evidence is that masks have a minor effect, | measured in tiny fractions of a percent. | | https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce- | risk... | | To date, I'm aware of no study that has quantified a | difference in infection, hospitalization or death that is | attributable to travel bans. | msie wrote: | "In October 2021, Prasad prompted social media | controversy when he published a blog post comparing the | U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response to the beginnings of | Hitler's Third Reich. Bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan said | that Prasad's arguments were specious and ignorant, and | science historian Robert N. Proctor said that Prasad was | "overplaying the dangers of vaccination mandates and | trivializing the genuine harms to liberty posed by 1930s | fascism"." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Prasad | Klinky wrote: | Vinay Prasad seems to be a contrarian who recently | compared the US COVID-19 policies to Hitler's Germany[1]. | In the article you linked, he's citing his own study on | cloth masks. Most would agree that cloth masks are the | least effective masking option at stopping viral spread. | Cloth masking is just the easiest target to attack in an | anti-mask agenda. He also implies doctor's have inherent | bias against HCQ and Ivermectin, while being pro-mask. | | Basically the dude has his own biases and agenda here, | and the study he cites isn't a definitive nail against | mask wearing. | | 1. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/how-democracy- | ends | timr wrote: | > In the article you linked, he's citing his own study on | cloth masks. | | This is a _blog post_ summarizing his review of every | study on masks ever conducted. So yes, he 's citing that. | You should read it. | | I linked to it because most people won't have time to | read 30,000 words on masks, and want the TL;DR. | fragmede wrote: | Here's a link to a real actual science study that used | tuberculosis-sized particles and found filtration | efficiencies of 99.5% or higher by N95 masks. Which isn't | minor. It's been over a year. If you're not using an N95, | you're doing yourself and those around you a disservice. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9487666/ | nradov wrote: | And so what are you suggesting? Everyone wear N95 masks | all the time forever? | spookthesunset wrote: | There is no end game to masking. It will be in perpetuity | in some places. | NikolaNovak wrote: | It's tricky. | | - fwiw, I personally plan to wear n95 mask outside of | home in enclosed public spaces for the foreseeable | future, and for things like shopping etc (where I'm | exposed to strangers) basically indefinitely / as long as | social norms and laws will allow. | | - I would like for strangers around me to wear masks. | There's too much uncertainty and I don't know how to | quantify and otherwise address risk from stranger e.g. In | waiting / cashier line, or worse yet elevator (enforced | enclosed proximity). I really see no good reason to be in | an elevator with unmasked stranger. | | - how long and where do we legally mandate masks? | Whooeee, I'm glad I don't have to make that awful formal | call! :-) | | But yeah. If risk is forever, than at least some of us | will use ways to mitigate the risk forever in turn. It's | not binary, it's a sliding scale that's very individual. | so... Yeah. Welcome to the new world! Cyberpunk dystopia | future is here! :-) | timr wrote: | That's nice, but filtration efficiency =/= real-world | efficiency. Unless you plan on super-glueing mask fabric | to everyone's face holes, of course. | | Also, last time I checked, most people aren't wearing N95 | masks. Probably because they're annoying and difficult to | wear. | | > Which isn't minor. It's been over a year. If you're not | using an N95, you're doing yourself and those around you | a disservice. | | I am vaccinated. Which brings up an important point: | there is absolutely no evidence that a mask of _any_ sort | provides _any_ benefit to those around me, a vaccinated | person. | | At some point, you have to put up evidence for your | increasingly implausible claims -- you can't just keep | leaning on lab studies of filtration efficiency. It's | been two years now. _Where is the real-world data backing | your claims?_ | planetsprite wrote: | I don't disagree with you on the effectiveness of masks | but tuberculosis bacterial cells are far larger than | coronavirons. | tenuousemphasis wrote: | Coronavirus itself isn't airborne, it travels in | aerosolized water droplets, which are significantly | larger than coronavirus itself. | ricardobeat wrote: | The recent Bangladesh study with 350k people found a ~10% | reduction in cases, from only 40% mask adoption. | | The two-cities trial early in 2020 in Germany saw a ~20% | reduction. Those are in the number of infections - the | number looks low but can make a massive difference in the | actual transmission rate. In the German case, after a | month infections dropped close to zero. | xwdv wrote: | Masks are 100% effective at inconveniencing people's lives | and building a false sense of security. | fredophile wrote: | I could say the same thing about pants but I still have to | wear them in public. | LegitShady wrote: | >because you-know-who proposed them | | Have we really arrived at the point where we've become the | parody of a society in a Harry Potter book? | DoreenMichele wrote: | TBF, I think Lovecraft did it first and that's a much darker | world. | oliv__ wrote: | The standard for something "working" is very much up for debate | though, even if it is carefully avoided. | | "Slowing the spread" is not a good enough argument in my | opinion. Everyone wants to slow the spread, the only question | worth asking is: at what cost? | | At what point do you deem something effective and worthy of | sacrificing your freedoms for? 1% efficacy "slows the spread". | Is that worth it? Where do you draw the line? 20%? 50%? | | Life is risky, everything is a gamble, yet somehow with COVID, | all nuance has disappeared, life is not worth living until we | can be 100% sure that there is no risk at all. | spookthesunset wrote: | The cost is something absolutely nobody wants to discuss but | it is vital to do so. Yeah "slowing the spread" is important | in a vacuum where we live with no friction and spherical cows | but here in the real worth that one goal competes with | literally everything else. | | Asking society to myopically focus on nothing but "slowing | the spread" of one very specific illness for years on end is, | quite frankly, madness. There is vastly more to life than | just living it to slow the spread of exactly one disease. | | At some point in the near future, perhaps right today, people | need to acknowledge that Covid and all its variants past | present and future will be around forever. They can either | learn to return to full normal 2019 life or piss an entire | generation of people away on a battle that cannot ever be | won. | tinus_hn wrote: | You need to be clear about the cost of these measures and about | the benefit of the delays they buy. | | > to buy time for the "weeks" of analysis needed that could | help with further reducing risk, | | We're not going to learn anything useful in the few weeks | bought by stopping these flights. | | And remember, even though the general public insists on these | bans, international law proscribes no country can prevent its | own citizens from returning home, so no ban can be absolute. | WheelsAtLarge wrote: | Travel bans slow down the spread only if they are done for all | travelers. The piece meal approach done by many countries where | only certain countries are banded do little to stop the spread. | The virus spreads too quickly and eventually it will come in | via the travelers that are allowed to come in. Testing and | retesting is probably the only way to slow it down other than a | complete band on travelers. | coolso wrote: | - "Travel bans don't work": _supports banning the unvaccinated | from traveling to particular establishments, supported | preventing anyone from traveling pretty much anywhere during | the first lockdown stages last year_ | | - "Walls don't work": _closes and locks door when entering own | home, probably has walls in house too_ | | - "Ivermectin is horse paste": _is actually not good for COVID, | but is on the WHO list of essential medicines and has saved | countless lives and has a side effect profile that 's tamer | than most of the antibiotics that most US doctors will | prescribe as a precautionary measure for a multitude of things_ | | The more they BS-us, the less we listen. Is that what they | really want? | actually_a_dog wrote: | 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 | controversial. | nsxwolf wrote: | Please just say "Trump" and "Muslims" and don't do the | Voldemort / Macbeth thing. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | It failed to apply to populous or notorious Muslim countries | like Indonesia or Pakistan, only to those which Obama had | previously put on a list. It got a bad name for political | reasons, not for the facts of the executive order. | bradlys wrote: | Yeah, people forget the muslim ban happened _before_ COVID. | rowathay wrote: | People also forget that it wasn't a Muslim ban. The world's | largest Muslim country was not included in it. | msie wrote: | Well, those excluded countries included places where | Trump had business interests and longtime allies of the | US (Saudi Arabia). | https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump- | immigration-ba... | timr wrote: | 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 results out loud lest you get silenced | by the angry mob (as you can see from the color of this | comment). I'm not hopeful. | | But please let me know when someone actually does an unbiased | study of travel restrictions. I have yet to see one. The | biggest tragedy of this pandemic is the number of people who | are willing to substitute their (popular) opinions for evidence | and call it "science". | | I guarantee that every response to this comment will be from | someone asserting that "masks work", and linking to a paper | that they haven't actually read, or worse: an editorial about | papers they haven't read. Most people have literally no idea | what the data is on any of this. | | [1] https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce- | risk... | flunhat wrote: | > 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?? | tenuousemphasis wrote: | I find that the sort of people who call others snowflakes | end up being the biggest snowflakes of all. | flunhat wrote: | Yup -- projection, plain & simple | js2 wrote: | > 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 surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those | living in control villages to develop COVID-19, which is | caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, during the | eight-week study period. The protective effect increased to | nearly 35% for people over 60 years old. | | https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical- | mask... | | Earlier studies said there wasn't sufficient evidence, not | that masks aren't effective: | | > Results: Fourteen studies were included in this study. One | preclinical and 1 observational cohort clinical study found | significant benefit of masks in limiting SARS-CoV-2 | transmission. Eleven RCTs in a meta-analysis studying other | respiratory illnesses found no significant benefit of masks | (+-hand hygiene) for influenza-like-illness symptoms nor | laboratory confirmed viruses. One RCT found a significant | benefit of surgical masks compared with cloth masks. | | > Conclusion: There is limited available preclinical and | clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT | evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no | significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is | of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an | urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to | investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on | transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as | comfort and compliance. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33565274/ | | The cost of wearing a mask is basically zero when there is | sufficient supply. While waiting to gather evidence, it seems | like an easy low cost precaution while gathering evidence. | | Slate Star Code (March 2020): | | > Please don't buy up masks while there is a shortage and | healthcare workers don't have enough. | | > If the shortage ends, and wearing a mask is cost-free, I | agree with the guidelines from China, Hong Kong, and Japan - | consider wearing a mask in high-risk situations like subways | or crowded buildings. Wearing masks will not make you | invincible, and if you risk compensate even a little it might | do more harm than good. Realistically you should be avoiding | high-risk situations like subways and crowded buildings as | much as you possibly can. But if you have to go in them, yes, | most likely a mask will help. | | https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much- | more-t... | timr wrote: | 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? | soperj wrote: | https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical- | mask... | | There's one from Stanford & Yale that says they do. | timr wrote: | Read the study, not a press release. It said quite | explicitly that _cloth masks had no effect_ , and surgical | masks had an _extremely minor_ overall effect (11.3% | reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence), with an absolute | effect size of 0.09%: | | https://www.poverty- | action.org/sites/default/files/publicati... | wwweston wrote: | The Bangladesh study _does not say that cloth masks have | no effect_. | | It said that it can't support an impact of cloth masks | usage on _infection rates_ , but associates them with | reduced severity/symptoms. | | That's a notably distinct proposition from "no effect." | humaniania wrote: | Why is poverty-action.org more reputable than Stanford? | actually_a_dog wrote: | 11.3% reduction in the base of an exponential process is | _huge_. | timr wrote: | Sure, but that is not what the study said, and _not at | all_ what the observed difference means. | | They found a tiny effect in symptomatic seroprevalence at | a single point in time. | actually_a_dog wrote: | If 11.3% fewer people were infected overall up to that | point in time, how many people are likely to be infected | at T+1? 11.3%. It's not even a trick question. | timr wrote: | But again, _that 's not what the study measured._ You're | extrapolating incorrectly. | | First, the study conflates distancing and mask-wearing. | They admit this in the paper (there is a significant | increase in distancing amongst the mask wearers). There | is also a large change in the size of the populations | that could easily swamp the effect size (i.e. the size of | the mask population was something like 9% bigger than the | control). | | Second, just because you observe effect size X at time T | does _not_ mean that you will see an equivalent effect at | T+1. It also doesn 't mean that you will see a | _compounding_ effect. In human terms: maybe you get a | surge of behavior at the _start_ of the intervention that | doesn 't continue, due to burnout or non-compliance. Or | maybe you got lucky at time T, and randomly saw a | population that yielded a result. You can't make the | assumption. | actually_a_dog wrote: | But, that's not what you want to measure. You want to | measure whether an intervention works if people adhere to | the protocol. Again, as I asked you in another comment, | would you expect masks to work if people don't wear them? | timr wrote: | > that's not what you want to measure. You want to | measure whether an intervention works if people adhere to | the protocol. | | No, you want to measure if an intervention works _if you | do everything reasonable to enact it._ You don 't get to | invent an alternate reality where people are 100% | compliant and there are chocolate rivers and gumdrop | trees. | | Otherwise, I have the perfect diet plan that will end all | obesity, worldwide: don't eat if you're fat. Simple! If | it fails, it's because you didn't follow my brilliant | advice. | actually_a_dog wrote: | No, these are not public policy studies. These are | medical studies. Do they measure the effectiveness of an | experimental medication on people who stop taking it? No. | | The point of these studies is to _show_ people that the | intervention works _if people do it_. And, yes, there are | public policy studies showing that mask _mandates_ don 't | work, but that doesn't mean they don't work for the | people _actually wearing them_. It just means people who | refuse are cutting their noses off to spite their faces. | As noted in another comment, this isn 't the beginning of | the Third Reich, and should not be controversial at all. | spookthesunset wrote: | I would take any study performed during the heat of the | moment with a huge grain of salt. Especially in an | environment where saying anything but "masks work" gets you | labeled as some wacko spreading misinformation. | Kkoala wrote: | 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. | timr wrote: | 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... | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Surprisingly, masks with poor filtration underperform at | filtering. Show a study that demonstrates the | ineffectiveness of an N95. | timr wrote: | You're making the claim. Provide evidence of | effectiveness. | cassonmars wrote: | Most people aren't wearing N95s, and to my understanding, | no jurisdiction has a mask policy that requires them. | actually_a_dog wrote: | That's incorrect. Here is a review of 19 RCTs showing that | masks work: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/ | timr wrote: | This review says that _none_ of the community mask trials | showed a significant effect. It says that 3 /6 studies on | respirators in medical settings had no significant effect. | It said that 3/5 studies for masks as source control showed | no significant effect. | | Here's a review of every mask study ever performed: | | https://www.cato.org/working-paper/evidence-community- | cloth-... | | Here's a summary written by the same author, in case you're | too busy to read 30,000 words: | | https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce- | risk... | flunhat wrote: | Why is everyone you're referencing -- and for that | matter, you too -- so damn hysterical? Vinay Prasad, case | in point: | | > When democratically elected systems transform into | totalitarian regimes, the transition is subtle, stepwise, | and involves a combination of pre-planned as well as | serendipitous events. Indeed, this was the case with | Germany in the years 1929-1939, where Hitler was given a | chance at governing, the president subsequently died, a | key general resigned after a scandal and the pathway to | the Fuhrer was inevitable. | | It's a mask & a vaccine, not the beginning of the Third | Reich. The fact that your sources can't see the two as | different things (and not as part of some slippery | slope), tells me they've already arrived at a conclusion | and will ignore all contrary evidence. | | I know masks & vaccines feel oppressive -- but facts | simply do not concern themselves with your feelings. | There is a world of difference between the Third Reich | and public health measures to slow the tide of | preventable deaths. To be honest, I can't believe I'm | having this debate here. | spookthesunset wrote: | Humans are meant to see faces. Requiring people, | including kids, to wear them for 8+ hours a day with | absolutely no metric to get rid of them is insanity. | Especially when said people are fully vaccinated. | Vaccinated individuals have no business wearing a mask, | period. | actually_a_dog wrote: | That's a mischaracterization. The non-significant results | are as a result of "intention to treat" analysis. ITT | analysis considers a subject to be part of whatever group | they are initially assigned, regardless of what treatment | they ultimately receive and/or how adherent they are to | the protocol. Some of those studies even note low | adherence. You wouldn't expect masks to work if people | don't wear them, would you? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention-to- | treat_analysis#Ad... | kylehotchkiss wrote: | These travel bans serve to slow down the spread, but at the | expense of keeping thousands of families separated and harming | diplomacy between countries. Even air cargo has taken a big | hit. And aviation has barely opened up, now to be put on hold | again. The long term consequences of slowing a virus from | entering a country for make a week or two are not being | considered. | ahdh8f4hf4h8 wrote: | Right now we don't know the severity or impact of this | variant, and several signs point in a bad direction. Maybe in | 2 weeks we won't be worried about this variant, but right now | being being proactive may slow down or even stop the spread | of this variant. If China had instituted a travel ban in the | early weeks instead of covering it up we may have never had a | global pandemic - contact tracing and quarantines may have | been enough to contain it in the early days. | sbierwagen wrote: | From the article: | | >A travel ban is not an evidence-based solution unless you stop | all travel from every country. | | Okay, why not do that? China's done it. Vietnam, Australia and | New Zealand require a week+ long quarantine for international | travelers. It obviously works: it stopped two Omicron carriers | at the border in Hong Kong. Why not do that? | | If COVID-19 is such a serious threat that it requires shutting | down _all schools_ for more than a year, why not take the | comparatively minor step of halting or drastically limiting | international travel? | tenuousemphasis wrote: | Schools were closed at the local and state levels. Closing | the borders requires action at a federal level. That seems | incredibly unlikely to happen. | the8472 wrote: | From the outside it looks like a lot of policies are | reactive, they aim at where the target was days before, not | where it is now or where we'll anticipate it might be by the | time policies go into effect. | | We already know we're acting on imcomplete, time-delayed | information, i.e. we will only learn a few days later when | the variant arrives in another country. So we have to | compensate for that either by shutting everything down or by | introducing artificial delays. And that's assuming all | countries are testing and reporting the spread early. Some | countries might lack coverage and thus act as dark hubs. | jakozaur wrote: | Great conclusions, but still looks lake initial data is small. | Some points about viral factor are reasonable hyphothesis, not | final say. | | E.g. some initial hyphothesis about Delta was that it is not so | deadly, but it turn out to be twice more deadly than original | strain. | elzbardico wrote: | The correct title should be "New variant of concern" Not "New | concerning variant" To keep with usual terminology | [deleted] | threatripper wrote: | For me this new variant of concern is quite concerning unlike | some other variants of concern that don't concern me much in | the country where I reside. | dragontamer wrote: | Look, I'm about as pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown, pro-mask as they | come. | | But the hyperbolic reporting on this variant is not helpful. News | articles in mainstream press are already wrong: WHO has named | this Omicron (while many publications came out with Nu). | | This is a virus that takes weeks to months before a variant | becomes dominant. You can afford to wait a day or two to get | information correct before publishing. | | Edit: downvotes? Did no one remember how long it took for Alpha | or Delta to become dominant? Literally months. | https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA_refVal=http... | | Take some time, get the damn details correct. You can afford a | day or two before reporting to double check facts. | | At least this blog had pointed out that Nu was an expected name | as opposed to the actual name. But still, getting details like | this wrong or speculating on the name is very counterproductive | to the issue of trust. | tgv wrote: | Why is a travel stop such problem? Travel can be resumed. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | The countries impacted feel villainized and punished. In the | future they might decide to not report their findings or | other countries seeing these countries become pariahs may | decide to not their findings of new variants, lest they be | cutoff. | graeme wrote: | This variant is moving much faster to dominance in South Africa | than Delta. About 6x faster. You can make some quibbles (small | case numbers etc) but this is quick. | | https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/d42bcd3d-e70... | a94d5dc743 wrote: | It's no Hacker News anymore, it's one fucking disgusting | propaganda mouthpiece. Burn in hell, HN. | mrtweetyhack wrote: | It's cool. I'd be happy to see this rip the non-vaccinated | community and lol | splittingTimes wrote: | For a fully waxed person, Would it make sense to try to get | infected by Delta to build more immunity to fight off that | omicron thing? | | With so many significant variations on the spike protein the | vaccines will be no help.. | kaba0 wrote: | There are already second generation vaccines though, which are | more effective against these new variants. | dragontamer wrote: | Too early to tell. | | This is a variant of concern that has only been aware in the | public space for like 3 days. There's pretty much no evidence | of... Anything... yet. | | Gamma avoided natural immunity. Lambda could have avoided the | vaccine. Etc etc. Variants and mutations like this come out all | the time. | | The question is if we should care. Well, no one knows yet. This | is the time to start classifying and studying the variant. | mellavora wrote: | vaxed or waxed, no. That's not how immunity works. | dnautics wrote: | Not really, we just don't know, and it could legitimately go | either way. | [deleted] | rel2thr wrote: | > Because the change is small, an updated vaccine doesn't need | Phase III trials and/or regularity approval. So, this whole | process should take a max of 6 weeks. | | This appears to be incorrect, Moderna says it needs 60 days to | just get into trials | (https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1464225637590310938) . The | FDA has not said what the approval process will look like, but | its safe to say it will be non-zero | beardedman wrote: | Like I've said for a while now. The EU has done stellar job of | demonstrating a new level of hypocrisy & complete inability to be | effective in a crisis. | | Travel ban imposed overnight, but dear lord - don't restrict the | unfettered movement to Majorca or Sardinia or elsewhere (that | would just be unconstitutional).... | bingohbangoh wrote: | 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? | | Particularly embarrassing is how Sweden and Florida have just | survived without much restrictions. | [deleted] | miohtama wrote: | > Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? | | We have managed to clear out measles, so we should be able to | stop COVID as well with high enough vaccination rates. Although | this is not apples-to-apples comparison. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine | elzbardico wrote: | Did we clear the flu? No, it is endemic. The same is what | will happen with COVID. | timr wrote: | > 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/. | .. | kaba0 wrote: | It is in great part due to idiot anti-vaxxers... | timr wrote: | 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. | tenuousemphasis wrote: | Which reaction to COVID are you crediting with the | resurgence in measles exactly? | j3th9n wrote: | Read about the differences in mutation for maesles and corona | viruses and you'll probably never make this comparison again. | mellavora wrote: | We were close to clearing out measles in western countries | until the anti-vax movement came along. These days, not so | much. | throwawayboise wrote: | What is the fraction of the population who is anti-vax with | regard to measles? I don't know anyone. I do know many | people who are reluctant/refusing to get the COVID vax. | busymom0 wrote: | Measles is a VERY different virus than COVID and even flu. | | > The surface proteins that the measles virus uses to enter | cells are ineffective if they suffer any mutation, meaning | that any changes to the virus come at a major cost. | | https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150521133628.h. | .. | | Since the COVID shots doesn't prevent catching and | transmitting the virus, at least the current shots aren't | going to achieve herd immunity / get rid of COVID. | | AstraZeneca vaccine's lead researcher and head of the Oxford | Vaccine Group, Andrew Pollard, stated that the "idea of | achieving herd immunity is mythical" and "not a possibility" | because "vaccinated people can still be infected and transmit | the virus". He also warned against making any vaccination | policies and programs based on the idea of herd immunity | because the virus may mutate to an even more transmissible | variant among vaccinated populations. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/herd-immunity-is-mythical- | wi... | toshk wrote: | Yet it seems that's the road we are taking. Some bro | science: In 5-10 year heard immunity is what will happen. | | Every year it will be a little less. Vaccines and other | medicines will dampen the casualties. Partial lockdowns and | restrictions will be kept in place so it doesn't get too | much out of control. | | Kids and teenager will grow up with corona being just one | of the viruses they get among many others and build up, it | not a full immunity at least a decent ability to handle it. | | And slowly less and less it will control our society. But | will definitely take a while. | kaba0 wrote: | "If we could not extinguish even the small fire, stop pouring | buckets of water on it, let the whole thing burn down" | | It is still an exponential curve that will overflow all the | hospitals the moment you stop paying attention, causing hundred | thousands of additional deaths indirectly due to overworked med | staff. | | Object permanence is a thing. | threatripper wrote: | > Does anybody think these variants will ever stop? | | No but they tend to become less severe for the surviving | population. Either because susceptible individuals don't make | it or the immune system is learning and the virus runs out of | good mutations. So far it seems that higher transmissibility | was the driving factor. We still have a large percentage of the | population waiting for their first infection. Next we will see | more immune escape variants and then probably come the variants | that diversify but they will probably run out of useful | mutations and our trained immune systems are better at | preventing severe infection. It could take some more years and | some more severe waves (and some calm years in between) until | we arrive there. | | The new Joker we have are mRNA vaccines with which we might | quickly sharpen our immune response before the main wave of a | new variant arrives. | lokl wrote: | According to the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard, as of now, | Sweden has had 15,145 deaths; Norway has had 1,050 deaths; | Denmark 2,863; Finland 1,309. With populations from Wikipedia | (10,402,070 for Sweden; 5,402,171 for Norway; 5,850,189 for | Denmark; 5,536,146 for Finland), this yields deaths per 1,000 | people of: | | Sweden 1.456 Norway 0.194 Denmark 0.489 Finland 0.236 | | Saying Sweden has "just survived" doesn't capture these numbers | well, I think. If this is "embarrassing" for anyone, it's | Sweden, but I wouldn't use the word embarrassing. It's tragic. | titzer wrote: | > Saying Sweden has "just survived" | | Europe "just survived" the black plague (1/3rd of Europe | _died_ ). Life on Earth "just survived" the Chicxulub | impactor (the Dinosaurs and 90% of species on Earth died). | People who say flippant things like this are unserious and | frankly, dangerous. | Thorentis wrote: | COVID does not have a death rate of 33%. | bingohbangoh wrote: | What are the _total deaths_? What is the total mortality | rate? | gus_massa wrote: | Death per million inhabitants in these 4 countries: | https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data- | explor... | | You can also compare with other neighbors and Europe: | https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data- | explor... | throwaway23487 wrote: | Seems like a minuscule percentage. | | Is that a pragmatic-enough reason to significantly | deteriorate the economy and mental health of the enormous | majority of people? | lokl wrote: | You can view JHU's raw data sources at | https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19. According to | that, they are getting COVID death numbers for Sweden from | the Swedish Public Health Agency via https://experience.arc | gis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6.... I am not fluent | in Swedish, but perhaps someone who is can tell you exactly | how the Swedish Public Health Agency measures them. | Likewise for the other countries cited. | ptr wrote: | Not saying it's the reason, but Sweden has higher | urbanization than its neighbors. The country also has more | people who don't speak the native language. Belgium has a | similar population size but more deaths (27k). | runarberg wrote: | Sweden does not have higher urbanization then Denmark (both | at 88%). Also what has native language anything to do with | the spread of the virus and its mortality rate? I fail to | see a logical link between the two. | jsnell wrote: | > Not saying it's the reason, but Sweden has higher | urbanization than its neighbors. | | The urbanization % for the four countries are: 82.9%, | 87.9%, 85.5%, and 88.1%. Which one of those do you think is | Sweden? Do you think it's at all plausible that such small | differences could account for an order of magnitude more | deaths? | | > The country also has more people who don't speak the | native language | | What are the numbers, and why would that be relevant? | l33tman wrote: | The aggregated over-mortality rate for Sweden at this point | puts it in the lower part among the EU, at place 21 of 31 | compared countries IIRC. The covid-related death-count at | 15000 has been more or less constant since May even while | it's surging now in the other countries. | | Besides, people keep comparing Sweden to Norway, Denmark and | Finland, which is a bad comparison as the demographies are | very different. | oliv__ wrote: | 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. | tgv wrote: | Are you going to tell those 12000 people: sorry, but you | need to die for my exceptionally limited view of economy? | bmeski wrote: | Yes. | | How many people die in car accidents each year? | malermeister wrote: | And that's why I'm unironically for banning cars in the | long term. They're a terrible mode of transport, trains | and bikes are all we need. | wwweston wrote: | An order of magnitude less than the covid deaths in a | year. And yet automobile engineering and usage are | heavily regulated in order to improve safety and reduce | fatalities. | kaba0 wrote: | Will it increase exponentially if not cared about? | jdminhbg wrote: | Yes, car deaths have decreased by multiple orders of | magnitude in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_ | vehicle_fatality_rate_in... | kaba0 wrote: | You can't infer that from the graph. Yeah, they will go | back to pre-pandemic levels, but they won't increase | exponentially from then on - which is not the case for | COVID with no restrictions, which will only plateau at | ridiculously high amount of infected (and dead). | CorrectHorseBat wrote: | In Sweden? ~300 [1], so about 40 years worth of traffic | accidents. | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/438009/number-of- | road-de... | flunhat wrote: | This kind of logic is, more or less, why Trump lost -- | people (rightly so) don't like being told they have to | sacrifice themselves for the economy | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Why'd you leave out his mention of the impact on mental | health? | enw wrote: | No, I would tell: since you are at-risk, use the means | provided to stay safe and take precautions to reduce the | risk of getting infected. | aledalgrande wrote: | Strikes me how such a heartless comment comes from someone | running a "community" business. Really sad. | ipaddr wrote: | Let's not get personal and connect his business and your | expected social norms into some shaming activity. | | I disagree with him but I wouldn't want to silence him. | He needs to feel free to express his viewpoint and we | should feel free to attack those views with other views | and maybe throw in some facts to strength our case. | oliv__ wrote: | 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. | aledalgrande wrote: | I'm not painting anything. Your words describe yourself. | joe_the_user wrote: | The problem with this line of argument - "if only the state | didn't impose a lockdown, we could trade lives for life as | it was before" - _aside_ it from being kind of despicable, | is that you can 't get people to just continue previously | normal activities once they know the danger. When Covid | appeared in Seattle, the first US city, all the bars and | restaurants downtown went out of the business before any | restrictions went into place. Sweden had a lot of people | working at home even with the supposed "no restrictions" | policy. Indeed, see the list of policies that were, in | fact, restrictive; https://sweden.se/life/society/sweden- | and-corona-in-brief | jcbrand wrote: | There's no problem with people imposing their own | restrictions on their movement and association. That's | the whole point, and is what Swedish policy was | predicated upon, that the people could largely be trusted | with taking appropriate measures without the state | imposed lockdowns. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | > Leave me the hell alone! | | As long as that makes essential things such as grocery shopping | more dangerous for others, such as myself, no. | scohesc wrote: | When you can prove in a court of law that person "x" infected | person "y" at "Z" date/time - then you can say this with even | a minimal level of confidence. | | Don't want to get sick? Order groceries online and have them | delivered to your door. | mrinella wrote: | Are you saying that because it can't be proven that you | infected someone else, it is okay to put others at risk? | | And that since we can't hold individuals responsible, | everyone else needs to alter their behavior? | | That is, one infectious person wandering around a grocery | store gets to force everyone else to shop online and is not | doing anything wrong? | ipaddr wrote: | Those delivery people may be carriers. Better to grow and | eat your own produce and avoid society at all costs. | bingohbangoh wrote: | Ok, then when does this end? | | I'm all ears! | doesnt_know wrote: | Maybe it doesn't? At least not until medical science | catches up to allow the level of social/global interaction | we had been taking for granted for decades. | | In the history of our species, we have never been this | connected on a global level before, we were potentially | sitting on a timebomb just waiting for the appropriate | viral trigger to bring it down. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Violence. It gives people a lot of perspective very | quickly. Sooner or later, it's where we're going to end up. | kaba0 wrote: | 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". | ricardobeat wrote: | The existence of Covid won't end, but the pandemic has | to. Living with overloaded hospitals forever, or | doubling/tripling our health systems capacity to deal | with it permanently don't sound like very good ideas. | Gigachad wrote: | 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. | ipaddr wrote: | It will be over if we go inside and plug into a matrix like | world. That was the missing piece from the first lockdown. | Mass VR simulating our world. | ralph84 wrote: | Do you have any evidence of a significant covid outbreak | being traced to grocery shopping? | jljljl wrote: | I don't understand the recent celebrating of Florida's COVID | performance -- in September, after vaccinations and treatment | options were widely available, Florida was losing more than 300 | people per day to COVID. They went from ~25th in the nation for | COVID Deaths per capita to 8th worst since the pandemic | started. | | That "just surviving" came at a huge cost of lives. | chmod600 wrote: | But it was mostly unvaccinated dying. It's called freedom. | nradov wrote: | Florida has a higher proportion of elderly residents at | higher risk. When you adjust for demographics the death rate | in Florida is about average for the USA. | howmayiannoyyou wrote: | > 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 interest is why Japanese and Taiwan infection and | severity rates remain comparatively low and what - if any - | role their openness to a certain anti-parasitic, protease | inhibiting drug has played in their success. | | Also of great interest is why aspiration isn't mandatory in the | US to prevent the vaccine from entering the bloodstream | (primarily the heart) rapidly and in large quantities. | | Many unanswered questions. | titzer wrote: | > 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. | planetsprite wrote: | >role their openness to a certain anti-parasitic, protease | inhibiting drug has played in their success. It's their | willingness to wear masks, follow social distancing | guidelines, not the secret magic of ivermectin. | drusepth wrote: | Mutations happen during spread, so as long as we have huge | swaths of unvaccinated people in every country around the | world, the mutations will continue to happen. Luckily, variants | of concern have slowed significantly as more and more people | have gotten vaccinated (and practiced social distancing, masks, | wash hands, etc), but there's still a long way to go before we | can finally put this pandemic behind us. | phonebucket wrote: | > If we couldn't overcome it after a year of lockdowns, why is | this gonna be the time it changes? | | Lockdowns are not about overcoming it; they're about saving | lives. I think it's fair to say that the lockdowns saved quite | a lot of them. Looking at how the death charts correlate with | lockdown impositions might support this viewpoint. | Gigachad wrote: | Lockdowns don't make any progress. They put everything on | pause. But as soon as you unpause, all of those saved lives | are at the same risk they were at before. And you can't pause | forever. Each lockdown becomes less and less effective as | people stop caring. | mojuba wrote: | Except there's hope of finding a more effective treatment | against this virus while we are on pause. So lives can be | saved potentially. | ipaddr wrote: | Until you enforce those rules with the military. | runarberg wrote: | You are wrong. The virus has a higher chance of mutating if | left to spread. By slowing the rate of transmission we also | slow down the rate of mutation. I bet we would be seeing | far more dangerous variants at this point if all countries | would have just kept business as usual and allowed it to | spread unhindered. | | In the mean time we have developed numerous vaccines and | possible treatments, and have only seen a handful of | dangerous mutations. The lockdowns certainly seem to be | working as intended. | roywiggins wrote: | The world survived the 1918 flu without any vaccines and only | sporadic and limited social distancing... but it killed 50 | million people. That sucks, and we can do better. | | Societies survive these things, usually; it's people who die. | throwaway23487 wrote: | Where is the pragmatic approach to COVID? | | I'm all for vaccines and science, but what's the endgame? | | What about the impact on mental health? | | What about the impact on quality of life of the _enormous_ | majority of people? | | How about we take care of those who are vulnerable without | destroying the economy and social lives of everyone? | | Why can't we provide vulnerable ones means to be safe and why | can't they take more precautions to stay safe? | | Is this _really_ the most pragmatic approach? | spookthesunset wrote: | Of course it isn't. But you aren't allowed to say that out | loud. You are supposed to just shut up and delegate all | critical thinking to a very narrow field of experts (and only | those in that field who have the most negative takes). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-26 23:00 UTC)