[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)