[HN Gopher] Update on Omicron
___________________________________________________________________
Update on Omicron
Author : hh3k0
Score : 129 points
Date : 2021-11-28 21:10 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.who.int)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.who.int)
| duxup wrote:
| I would love for a COVID variation for with low severity illness
| to become dominant ... forever?
| adolph wrote:
| I expect this to be the case since decreased severity is
| associated with higher virus reproduction. The main question
| becomes second order effects.
| orra wrote:
| We definitely shouldn't oversimplify. Delta was
| simultaneously more infectious and more deadly than the
| original variant.
|
| Virus mutations can be better for us, and they can be worse.
| This article
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095397/ paints
| a sensibly nuanced picture.
| easytiger wrote:
| > Delta was simultaneously more infectious and more deadly
| than the original variant.
|
| That's not my understanding
| orra wrote:
| It's well known it's more infectious, and widely
| suspected to be more deadly. See both
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-
| is-de... and
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-
| var...
| gitfan86 wrote:
| We don't know for sure, because a lot of people with and
| without symptoms got tested regularly.
| flerovium wrote:
| This is not necessarily the case for a virus with such a long
| period of asymptomatic transmission.
|
| There is very little selective pressure for the virus to
| become less deadly; in fact, higher viron count is positively
| associated with both transmissibility and mortality.
| elevaet wrote:
| Exactly. People overlook this fact constantly. There is no
| selection pressure for a virus like this to become more or
| less deadly. Just pressure to become more transmissible
| within our mixture of vaxxed, unvaxed, and some natural
| immunity.
| loceng wrote:
| Yup, tradeoffs forced to select towards survival.
| PeterisP wrote:
| For people, the difference between 2% and 0.2% mortality is
| huge, but for the virus (and the evolutionary pressures on
| it), the difference between 98% and 99.8% chance of
| continuing to spread is insignificant; any minor changes in
| the rate of spread far outweigh that. The evolutionary
| pressure towards survival of the host matter only for
| diseases with very high lethality.
| janmo wrote:
| Being more severe and deadly is not necessarily a
| propagation disadvantage. Because if you sick you stay at
| home and don't go out. If you are very sick, you need to go
| to the doctor, or the hospital. This can create more
| spread.
| throwhauser wrote:
| > Yup, tradeoffs forced to select towards survival.
|
| Viruses don't have a plan, or intent. It's not impossible
| for a virus to screw itself over and kill off all its
| hosts, or one species of hosts.
|
| https://www.wired.com/2008/11/yes-disease-can/
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| wow, suddenly I feel like the film "Venom" was trying to
| teach me this, it's no good for the virus if it keeps
| killing its hosts, really its mutating itself while
| searching for a host that can coexist with it (as I
| understand it, much of our DNA is incorporated from
| viruses, but I don't understand it very well :)
| mcbits wrote:
| It already coexisted with a host: bats. If we're going to
| anthropromorphize the virus, maybe it's searching for a
| way to kill off one of the biggest predators of its
| preferred host.
| [deleted]
| monopoledance wrote:
| Not inherently. Good counter example is the delta variant,
| which was worse in every aspect.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Not true I'm afraid.
|
| Of course, if a virus killed you before you had a chance to
| pass it on then yes - but most viruses (including SARS-CoV-2)
| kill you slowly enough to have plenty of opportunity to
| propagate, there is no selection pressure to be less deadly.
|
| To my knowledge, we have no evidence that _any_ human virus
| has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish examples
| if I 'm wrong!).
|
| Unfortunately this common myth, that contagiousness is
| inversely correlated with lethality, has been used by those
| who would wish to downplay this public health disaster for
| whatever reason.
| danenania wrote:
| "To my knowledge, we have no evidence that any human virus
| has evolved to become less virulent (please furnish
| examples if I'm wrong!)."
|
| Isn't this what happened with the influenza strain that
| caused the Spanish Flu pandemic?
| janmo wrote:
| I guess the Spanish flue probably did
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| aetherspawn wrote:
| Ok, my 2 cents.
|
| This happened because there isn't enough vaccines in third world
| countries. They can't afford them. The moral of the story?
|
| It doesn't matter if you 100% vaccinate your western country.
| We're all in this together. When COVID spreads in Africa and
| makes a new strain, it may as well be on your own doorstep. The
| world needs to step up and distribute vaccines to every corner of
| the globe, for FREE, or we'll never get out of this.
|
| The only way you'll stop this thing from mutating into a variant
| not covered by the vaccine is by eradicating it everywhere,
| simultaneously.
| mattrighetti wrote:
| If this has been discovered in Africa it doesn't mean that it
| originated there in the first place.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| even if you produce and freely distribute enough vaccines, you
| will never achieve adequate vaccination rates
|
| there is no "eradicating" covid, that is a non-goal
| mr_sturd wrote:
| Very true; and even if Omicron turns out to be less dangerous
| than previous variants, it's a case of when, not if, a deadlier
| variant will emerge from a poorly-vaccinated population.
| samwillis wrote:
| History shows that as a Virus mutates and evolves they tend
| towards more transmissibility but lower morality rate.
| Hermel wrote:
| I don't think the virus could ever be stopped with today's
| vaccines, even if everyone was vaccinated. Data from fully or
| almost fully vaccinated countries clearly show that this
| doesn't eliminate the virus. It of course helps, but we have to
| depart from the idea that the "zero covid" strategies work.
| cheaprentalyeti wrote:
| If the vaccines are only retarding infection and transmission
| instead of blocking it, then all they're doing is giving the
| virus a space to evolve in.
| belter wrote:
| South Africa's COVID-19 adviser, Prof Barry Schoub told Sky News
| that so far, most Omicron cases, were mild.
|
| https://youtu.be/3RSRtuRm92o
|
| Edit: "South African doctor who raised alarm about omicron
| variant says symptoms are 'unusual but mild'"
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
|
| "Dr Angelique Coetzee said she was first alerted to the
| possibility of a new variant when patients in her busy private
| practice in the capital Pretoria started to come in earlier this
| month with Covid-19 symptoms that did not make immediate sense.
|
| They included young people of different backgrounds and
| ethnicities with intense fatigue and a six-year-old child with a
| very high pulse rate, she said. None suffered from a loss of
| taste or smell."
| koheripbal wrote:
| This is a novice interpretation of the data. Most early cases
| are recorded as mild. Severe cases and hospitalizations lag
| infections by 2-3 weeks, and deaths lag by 2-3 months.
|
| It's frankly irresponsible to report this factoid without that
| caveat.
| azangru wrote:
| > Severe cases and hospitalizations lag infections by 2-3
| weeks
|
| The starting point in this case would be symptoms onset,
| surely? First samples were taken on November 14; the median
| time between the onset of symptoms and hospitalization is
| 5-10 days; patients have been followed since November 18 [0].
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/safrican-doctor-
| says-pa...
| easytiger wrote:
| No more irresponsible that devastating thousands of lives and
| businesses over a hysterical piece of zero information
| because it is politically expedient
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://www.yahoo.com/now/u-k-buying-time-mideast-111736790....
|
| > The World Health Organization is urging caution after two
| South African health experts, including the doctor who first
| sounded the alarm about the omicron variant, indicated that
| symptoms linked to the coronavirus strain have been mild so
| far.
|
| > The initial reported infections were among university
| students, WHO said, adding that younger patients tend to have
| milder symptoms.
|
| > "Understanding the level of severity of the omicron variant
| will take days to several weeks," WHO said in a statement,
| adding that "there is currently no information to suggest that
| symptoms associated with omicron are different from those from
| other variants."
|
| It's likely too early to tell yet.
| belter wrote:
| Indeed. Prof Barry Schoub, mentions two times in the
| interview that its very early days.
| ellyagg wrote:
| It is not yet clear whether infection with Omicron causes more
| severe disease compared to infections with other variants,
| including Delta.
|
| I thought this was weirdly worded. It's also not clear whether
| Omicron disease is less severe, either, right?
|
| A long time ago, long before the pandemic politicized messaging
| so much, a researcher posted a comment here on HN where they
| said that virus deadliness and contagiousness were in tension.
| pydry wrote:
| South Africa is also pissed that they've been cut off from the
| rest of the world. They might be downplaying.
| tibbon wrote:
| I'm not sure I get this assumption. Few other countries were
| "pissed off" when borders were closed to them. I still cannot
| travel recreationally to Japan from the US, and that's fine.
| jjeaff wrote:
| I assume if you deal in any kind of tourism/business travel
| or travel adjacent business, you wouldn't be too happy
| about closing the borders.
| tpmx wrote:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/26/covid-omicron-variant-
| south-...
|
| _South African Health Minister Joe Phaahla said that new
| travel restrictions amid concerns over a heavily mutated
| Covid variant are "unjustified."_
|
| _He slammed other nations for "wanting to put blame" and
| ascribe the variant to South Africa rather than working
| collaboratively to address the situation as guided by the
| WHO._
| evgen wrote:
| And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59453842
| where '[SA president] Cyril Ramaphosa said he was "deeply
| disappointed" by the action, which he described as
| unjustified, and called for the bans to be urgently
| lifted.'
|
| Your country has a very low vaccination rate and you are
| ground zero for a new variant, but feel the need to be
| "deeply disappointed" that others trying to slow the
| spread slightly may impact your tourism industry...
| tpmx wrote:
| Also note that the low vaccination rate in SA is _not_
| due to a lack of vaccine availability.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/exclusive-south-
| africa-...
| lkbm wrote:
| Ground Zero was Botswana[0]. South Africa is the country
| leading the research and monitoring because they have an
| exceptionally strong epidemiological community and
| facilities.
|
| (And, yes, a very low vaccination rate.)
|
| [0] https://www.dw.com/en/covid-what-we-know-about-the-
| omicron-v...
| chasil wrote:
| This new variant has been called "mild."
|
| I hope this proves to be true, and is not used as an excuse for
| another lockdown.
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...
| r721 wrote:
| From the OP article:
|
| >There is currently no information to suggest that symptoms
| associated with Omicron are different from those from other
| variants. Initial reported infections were among university
| students--younger individuals who tend to have more mild
| disease--but understanding the level of severity of the Omicron
| variant will take days to several weeks.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Why do you say "excuse for another lockdown"? Are you implying
| that someone in government has alterior motives to desire a
| lockdown?
| marchingtomars wrote:
| It doesn't have to be someone in government.
|
| It could be a group of people acting strategically towards a
| particular goal, in a series of steps. Those steps would
| include paying funds for the following: Lobbying governmental
| officials across all three branches, Strategically networking
| & "giving gifts" (quid pro quo), Sponsoring scientific
| studies, Paying journalists to report certain things.
|
| For example, Amazon Executives have a financial interests in
| reducing competition from independent retailers ("Mom & Pop
| shops"). A lockdown would certainly boost Amazon's position
| in that case. And Bezos does own the Washington Post.
|
| By the way, have you heard of Operation Mockingbird [1]?
|
| "Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of
| the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that
| began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to
| manipulate news media for propaganda purposes."
|
| "According to author Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird
| recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda
| network and influenced the operations of front groups. CIA
| support of front groups was exposed when a 1967 Ramparts
| magazine article reported that the National Student
| Association received funding from the CIA. In 1975, Church
| Committee Congressional investigations revealed Agency
| connections with journalists and civic groups."
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
| markdown wrote:
| But what about the frogs turning gay?
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| Estrogen and estrogen-like plastics in waterways is a
| huge problem. Some people mis interpreted it, but that
| doesn't discount the fact that plastics are a huge
| problem that are interfering with nature.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-
| hermaphrodite...
| john_moscow wrote:
| You can always follow the money to see who benefits from a
| decision, and who gets penalized.
|
| The initial lockdowns penalized many small businesses (small
| shops, hairdressers) that could not operate and benefited
| large online retailers and chains like Walmart that were
| declared exempt, that got extra business.
|
| The lockdowns also justified large-scale payout of benefits,
| that were funded by increasing the money supply. This
| benefited the owners of limited-supply assets (stocks, real
| estate, even the f*cking crypto) at the expense of people
| with cash savings and those with fixed/slowly changing income
| (most salaried employees).
|
| Since most members of government are major real estate owners
| and stock investors, they absolutely had benefited from the
| lockdown-related economic measures more than an average
| salaried employee.
|
| It is also notable that the effects of increasing the money
| supply are delayed. We are starting to see the inevitable
| rise of inflation over a year after the start of the
| pandemic. It will take a long time for it to taper down, and
| we are yet to see how it will affect the average quality of
| life (i.e. salary/expense ratio).
| soared wrote:
| So you're just ignoring the countless lives saved and lost?
| XorNot wrote:
| That would be devastating to their argument, so of course
| they are.
|
| Though I'm impressed they're literally making the
| "lockdowns are being driven by _Big Delivery Service_ "
| argument.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| I think the ulterior motive is ass-covering.
|
| If you don't order a lockdown and it was needed then lots of
| people die, this is very bad.
|
| If you do order a lockdown and it wasn't needed then you can
| say that you were just being safe. And it's hard to even tell
| when a lockdown wasn't needed because the very act of doing
| it changes the result and leads to less cases. The lockdown
| was successful!
|
| It's always easy to say "We did it to save lives" and few
| people will hold you to account for it.
| nnvvhh wrote:
| "Ass-covering" is a really uncharitable synonym of "being
| prudent."
| jjeaff wrote:
| Ya, to me, ass covering is much more like trying to
| rewrite history after the fact, downplaying the virus, or
| maybe trying to hide statistics like nursing home deaths
| in your state.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Such a one sided view. Let me tell you the truth of the
| matter.
|
| Government is made out of multitudes of personalities and
| conflicting interests. There are those that care, there are
| those that don't care, there are scientists, there are
| people who are knowledgeable of the proper action and there
| are those who are emotional and everything in between
| exists as well.
|
| It is a hodge podge of motives. Classifying government
| action in a singular light as if it was one ulterior ass
| covering agenda is a lie people tell themselves when they
| need something to blame.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| I don't understand how what you are saying refutes ass-
| covering at all. Yes, you have a pile of people in
| government with all sorts of opinions, but ultimately
| there is someone who has to make the decision.
|
| If you present that person with a cloud of information
| from a bunch of different conflicting sources it actually
| incentivises ass-covering even more.
|
| You say "ulterior ass covering agenda" but an Agenda is
| entirely the opposite of what an ass-coverer has.
|
| When you don't know what you should do, you pick safe
| option that nobody is going to blame you for.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| I didn't refute anything just like the original statement
| didn't prove anything. To do this you require evidence.
| Neither of us offered anything concrete so we are in a
| discussion where we only offer opinions.
|
| Additionally my statement itself doesn't refute ass
| covering. All I am saying is that the government is too
| complex to classify it as a singular entity out to cover
| it's own ass.
|
| Several things cause me to disagree with you. Some of the
| most best science is being done by people who are part of
| or have high influence in the government. There are
| definitely people up there who view the problem as a
| situation that needs to be resolved rather then an every
| man for himself type of deal you seem to characterize it
| as.
|
| As I said, the government is a hodge podge of both. This
| has both benefits and downsides.
|
| An example of a government that tries to act as a
| singular entity is China. In terms of stopping covid in
| its' tracks China done better than the hodge podge
| government that makes up US democracy. However, in terms
| of stopping covid from spreading out of Wuhan, Chinas'
| ass covering is what screwed up the world. There's good
| and bad to either methodology and It's too complicated to
| characterize.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| Arse covering is as good ulterior motive as any, something
| anyone who's dealt with large organisations of any sort will
| attest to.
|
| I'd argue the reason governments obsess over marginally
| effective at best measures like masks is that they give
| society the opportunity to wag their fingers and exercise the
| usual moral authoritarianism at their neighbours instead of
| blaming the politicians for their various inadequacies
| throughout the pandemic (including in the UK's case running
| the NHS into the ground with cuts a decade before in their
| usual miserly short-sightedness).
| skrowl wrote:
| Lockdowns lead to one of the largest transfers of wealth in
| history
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/cramer-the-pandemic-led-
| to-a...
|
| All those mom and pop businesses? FORCED CLOSED, many didn't
| make it through
|
| Wal*mart, Amazon, Home Depot, etc? NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL,
| LOL WEAR A CLOTH MASK
| Hamuko wrote:
| Haven't Walmart, Amazon et all been eating mom and pop
| businesses for years now?
| aortega wrote:
| >Are you implying that someone in government has alterior
| motives to desire a lockdown?
|
| They have obvious ulterior motives. Political motives, or
| ass-covering. If they don't do a lockdown they will be
| utterly attacked by the opposition for 'not being proactive
| enough' no matter if there is only one more death.
|
| I believe this is the principal motive, health being a
| distant second. Remember, governments act first to get votes,
| second to help population.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Do you really mean that government acts primarily to avoid
| being voted out of office? Should we be shocked or
| disgusted by that?
|
| I guess someone like Putin doesn't have to be worried about
| being unelected, so they were able to go soft on the virus
| in Russia. But, I don't think that turned out well for
| them.
| nicoburns wrote:
| So... the government is acting in what they perceive the
| population overall wants. That motive doesn't sound very
| ulterior to me.
| [deleted]
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| COVID is bad. When cases spike, people naturally take steps
| to avoid getting infected. They also want other people to do
| the same.
|
| The problem is that some steps are more conspicuous than
| others and that doesn't always align with efficacy. An
| obvious example is wearing a mask vs. washing your hands.
| They're both effective measures, but one can be seen by
| anyone and the other happens in the privacy of your bathroom,
| so one gets politicized and over-emphasized even if they're
| both of similar importance.
|
| It works the same way for politicians. If things are going
| poorly, they're expected to do something. But their incentive
| is to do things that are conspicuous, even if they have a
| high cost and therefore a low cost/benefit ratio.
|
| Almost any kind of mandate falls into this category because
| the cost/benefit for doing that thing is going to depend on
| individual characteristics. "Stay at home" may be a better
| strategy for someone who lives with amiable people than
| someone who lives alone and suffers from depression, or who
| lives with an abuser, but blanket mandates don't distinguish
| them. And yet when cases spike, Something Must Be Done.
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| On the one hand, people have been claiming for years that the
| world is sleep walking into authoritarian, kleptocratic
| fascism.
|
| On the other hand, if you are even slightly sceptical that
| the same authoritarians might be using lockdowns to make
| public protest illegal and overstep civil liberties you are a
| conspiracy-believing, alt-right moron.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Are there any examples in the US of using lockdowns to make
| public protest illegal?
| deltaonefour wrote:
| He knows. He just needs to make up an alternate reality to
| justify his own darkness.
|
| On some level many of us simply don't give a shit about the
| fact that the virus can slaughter millions. We just don't
| think it will affect us and we don't want to be locked down.
| It's like a heroin addict. He knows the reality of his
| addiction but he needs to make up a reality to justify
| shoving one more injection into his veins, just one more.
| [deleted]
| polote wrote:
| > https://www.ft.com/content/620e3d31-ba90-4cb6-ae27-6e2d0740
| d...
|
| 19% of britons are in favor of eternal curfews. It seems very
| likely that some percentage also desire lockdowns
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There's a 10-20% proportion on any poll that'll pick the
| insane option.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2014/02/14/277058739...
|
| Sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of "I'll pick one
| at random".
| m12k wrote:
| Obviously the rich elite that owns the majority of shares and
| controls the world governments want to self-mutilate by
| cratering the market again, so they get to "control" the
| population with lockdowns. Thank god we have Facebook groups
| to clue is in to all this.
| yuuu wrote:
| ulterior
| metamet wrote:
| This narrative is so silly to me. Same with those who think
| that mandating mask wearing is some flex by the government to
| exert control.
|
| It's common sense that in order to stop the spread of highly
| contagious respiratory viruses, having folks stay away from
| one another for a bit works... if people follow the lockdown,
| which too many don't. If anything, politicians are hesitant
| to invoke a lockdown due to the vocal minority's tantrums
| over them.
|
| People don't like them, the same way that people don't _like_
| wearing masks. But most understand the value of both. And it
| 's not like the local government is gaining anything from
| slowing down the local economy and annoying its citizens--
| aside from trying to save lives and put less stress on the
| healthcare system and its already overtaxed workers.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > And it's not like the local government is gaining
| anything from slowing down the local economy and annoying
| its citizens
|
| It's a lot simpler than that. Weilding political power is
| psychologically addictive, perhaps even more so than
| recreational drugs. Like drugs, the user will always want
| to come back for another hit, and thus politicians will use
| every excuse and rationalization to continue to use
| emergency powers.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation
| is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates _for the
| masses_. Deaths are typically a select subset of the
| population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one
| size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more
| appropriate -makes them suspect.
|
| Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing
| context that tends to be missed elsewhere.
|
| p.s. fwiw, there were these in the past week or so:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-
| heal...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-
| make-...
|
| Both of those certain raise a reasonable eyebrow.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of
| the population out of society to benefit others, that
| presumes that a selective approach would be effective,
| and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and
| non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical
| suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I
| believe that's why it hasn't been attempted.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is
| this: locking down select subsets (of high risk
| individuals) is doable simply because locking down
| everyone is doable.
|
| But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there
| were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement
| homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled
| right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media
| - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing
| happened here? It's been all down hill since then.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals)
| is doable_
|
| We can't convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes
| getting a shot. We're supposed to trust them to confine
| themselves at home?
| [deleted]
| rajin444 wrote:
| It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit
| of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny
| elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the
| other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.
| Hermel wrote:
| People like power, in particular politicians. The have a bias
| towards any measure that makes them feel powerful and in
| control.
| toss1 wrote:
| In a word: Bullsh*t.
|
| You fail to have the slightest understanding of how
| politics works, beyone that of a 5-year old child.
|
| Sure, some politicians may like to 'flex', but in the real
| world, that is not how they do it, even for the petty
| motive to feel their power, beyond perhaps some petty
| sheriff in a no-account town. There are far better ways to
| 'flex' and feel one's power that do not involve making a
| large portion of your voters hate you. Moreover, for
| something like this to be implemented, MANY bureaucrats and
| politicians need to be involved, all with different
| motives, so one emotionally stunted politician could not
| pull it off without a lot of help, which would not be
| available absent decent reasons, at least in any democratic
| system (autocracies are an entirely different story, but
| AFAIK, few of us on HN currently live in one).
| fhsxbdueu wrote:
| please broaden your horizons and stop reading that rag
| [deleted]
| jmfldn wrote:
| I read the article and it seems like what she is saying is more
| nuanced than that. There is significant concern, not least for
| potential impacts on the elderly and those with co-morbidities.
|
| To the point about lockdowns, nobody in govt in the UK is
| looking for an excuse for another. The exact opposite is true
| in fact.
| cletus wrote:
| No one still thinks Covid is ever going away, right? It's likely
| something we'll just have to deal with like the flu. For one
| thing, there are now Covid-19 reservoirs in various animal
| populations.
|
| It's hard to say how this will evolve but there's a lot of
| evolutionary pressure on viruses to become more transmissible and
| less deadly. Why less deadly? Because a virus that is too deadly
| will likely die. It's why the Spanish flu is now just H1N1.
|
| This isn't guaranteed and will no doubt join the ranks of many
| other anti-vaxxer straw man arguments alongside "you said the
| vaccine was forever", "you said the vaccine would stop
| transmission", "people with the vaccine still can get Covid",
| "people with the vaccine can still die" and so on.
|
| It's actually quite depressing how staggeringly selfish, wildly
| irrational and willfully ignorant so many people are. I don't
| mean just being ignorant. I mean taking pride in that ignorance.
| Particularly in the US, it seems the anti-intellectual chickens
| have come home to roost in droves.
|
| Seeing all of this I really hope there's no one out there who
| believes for a second that the world as a whole will sacrifice
| anything or even mildly inconvenience themselves when it comes to
| addressing climate change. It's never going to happen.
|
| Like there are still people who believe the millions that have
| been killed is fake news and part of some media conspiracy.
|
| So, I see a future with annual Covid shots just like annual flu
| shots. I'm personally beyond caring if any individual chooses not
| to get one. We've blunted the initial onslaught of a novel
| disease appearing in a population of >7 billion with no natural
| immunity (albeit at the cost of millions of lives). At this
| point, it's now evolution in action.
| mcbits wrote:
| It can and will be eradicated, and eventually the flu along
| with it (which was already a high research priority before
| Covid). Just not soon.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| TL;DR: we don't know
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| I just caught myself on the funny fact, that my level of trust
| for some stranger on HN is higher than the level of trust for
| WHO. They worked hard to ruin their reputation.
| gukov wrote:
| Yeah, not after this:
| https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21
| ceejayoz wrote:
| We're still doing this?
|
| "Preliminary" is a key word, as is "clear". The clear
| evidence came (to the WHO, at least) about a week later. On
| the same day as the tweet, they provided further
| information that doesn't fit in a tweet indicating they
| expected things to potentially change:
|
| > The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official
| noted in a press briefing that there "may have been"
| limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus
| between family members and that there was "a risk of a
| possible outbreak."
|
| The WHO doesn't have a covert intelligence arm, so they
| only had what information the Chinese were willing to
| provide at the time.
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/30/brian-
| fitz...
| Taywee wrote:
| Wasn't that the most up-to-date data at the time? Are you
| claiming that they did find clear evidence and were lying
| about it, or that they somehow should have had evidence to
| the contrary at that time?
|
| Just like any burgeoning subject, you should generally keep
| up with the expert recommendations. Expecting them to have
| had all the answers and get everything exactly right in a
| circumstance with as many unknowns as this pandemic has had
| is foolish. It's silly how many people are treating medical
| agencies like this as if they're complete amateurs because
| some of their educated guess have ended up not being ideal,
| or that they've updated their recommendations regularly
| based on recent data.
|
| It seems like people are expecting medical organizations to
| be like politicians. Updating recommendations based on new
| data regularly isn't "double backing" or flip-flopping,
| it's updating recommendations based on new data. It does
| mean that sometimes their advice will not be correct,
| especially when the data is thin, but it's literally the
| best choice you have available.
|
| I really expect a technical community to be better about
| this kind of stuff. Limited data means less reliable
| conclusions.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Wasn't that the most up-to-date data at the time?
|
| No, China was already arresting doctors for warning about
| human-to-human transmission in December.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/world/asia/Li-
| Wenliang-ch...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It was the most up-to-date data _the WHO had their hands
| on_ at the time.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The same thing happens with e.g. Fauci's mask remarks
| from March of 2020. Somehow people pretend like _that_
| was the fatal communication sin of the whole pandemic and
| the reason there 's little trust in the medical community
| and they ignore the months and months of downplaying the
| virus and just an endless stream of disinformation from
| literally everyone else in the administration in service
| of trying to get reelected.
| rafale wrote:
| Which is way better than what the media has been "speculating".
| afavour wrote:
| I do wish people would be more specific when saying "the
| media". There are a lot of media outlets out there, some are
| level headed, some are hysterical.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Usually when people say "the media", they mean the
| mainstream liberal leaning news companies like CNN[1] or
| New York Times[2]. When talking about Fox (conservative
| media), people usually just say that.
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/28/world/coronavirus-
| omicron-var...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/governors-
| omicron-covi...
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Which ones do you believe are level headed?
| iamdamian wrote:
| The Economist.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| The financial press is always better on this sort of
| thing because they are only really interested in the
| economic outcomes.
| aninteger wrote:
| Yes, but media outlets that go "hysterical" are the ones
| that get the most views and get talked about most. Nothing
| we can do about that in a free society, it's just human
| nature.
| chana_masala wrote:
| How then did this even become a"variant of concern" if so
| little is known about it?
| woodruffw wrote:
| The "concern" in "variant of concern" is a function of the
| number of potentially significant mutations in the spike
| protein. It's an indicator of unknowns (and therefore unknown
| risks), not a _positive_ indicator of risk.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| The rate at which they noticed it spreading in SA and the
| number and type of mutations.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Because it's it became the most dominant strain of covid in
| SA in about two weeks. And it has a massive number of
| mutations compared to other strains. The former might be
| partly due to the collapse of last wave of delta. Latter
| tends to scare immunologists.
| willmorrison wrote:
| Pretty useless statement. No interesting information.
| [deleted]
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I don't give a shit. I want my life back. I'll take my chances.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Would be interesting if Omicron turns out to be protected against
| by vaccines over natural immunity. I'd been in favour of America
| adopting the European 2G precedent, but perhaps a more
| conservative stance is warranted.
| [deleted]
| swader999 wrote:
| In general, respiratory viruses tend to get less severe over
| time. With this mass vaccination approach it may not turn out
| that way by some accounts I've read.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| In the book "spillover", notably written before Covid (so quite
| prophetic read from today's perspective), the author discussed
| this claim. Although it often happens, it is by no means
| guaranteed (at least on satisfactory timelines), and there are
| counter examples.
|
| One is the evolution of myxomatosis in Australia, it is a
| disease affecting rabbits. The disease split into 4 strains.
| Eventually the dominant one become, IIRC, one that had the
| slowest progression, but also was the deadliest overall.
|
| Buns infected with that strain had larger chances of passing it
| on (since they were alive longer), and yet they would be more
| likely to die.
|
| I guess evolution doesn't care, and if a strain is more deadly,
| yet more persistent, it will win.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The easier way to look at this is that from the perspective
| of evolutionary pressure what happens to a host (or parents,
| for that matter) once reproduction has taken place is
| irrelevant. So there is no selection pressure for mortality,
| that's just another outcome, _unless_ it happens too quickly
| in case the virus has less chance to make it to the next
| generation.
|
| Reductio ad absurdum: if a virus would kill on first contact
| there would never be any time for it to spread, but once a
| virus has spread the host is not all that interesting unless
| it could be caused to continue to spread. So whether the host
| lives or dies after that won't cause that particular virus to
| be more or less successful.
| daveguy wrote:
| Citations? I think I've heard that too, but if you've read
| something recently that would help me separate a study from a
| rumor.
| cblpan wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention is
| the canonical example:
|
| "However, the leaky vaccine changes this evolutionary
| pressure and permits the evolution of highly virulent
| strains. The vaccine's inability to prevent infection and
| transmission allows the spread of highly virulent strains
| among vaccinated chickens. The fitness of the more virulent
| strains is increased by the vaccine."
|
| See:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/
|
| Andrew Read on the issue:
|
| https://theconversation.com/vaccines-could-affect-how-the-
| co...
| wirrbel wrote:
| The argument one frequently reads/hears on this is, that a
| virus has no evolutionary advantage to kill its host and if
| the virus becomes fitter in terms of infecting new hosts,
| they can neglect functions in their genome that lead to
| deadliness.
|
| A respiratory virus may have an evolutionary advantage if it
| doesn't hit the organism so hard that the host stays home and
| isolates. Mild symptoms may increase the likelihood for
| socialising for example, thus there could be evolutionary
| pressure for a milder form to develop.
|
| I would assume that these are just general observations and
| it won't allow a clear prediction where COVID19 variants are
| headed. But there are theories that other coronaviruses have
| been more aggressive initially until they became the milder
| forms that are nowadays endemic.
|
| Of course we know plenty viruses that have evolved and are
| still deadly, so this isn't something I would bet on.
| cheese_van wrote:
| Host availability is likely the greatest pressure I would
| think. Then severity or its lack, given our numbers, would
| be less a driver of genetic change than would random
| mutations.
| marwatk wrote:
| Isn't Delta vs Alpha a pretty convincing counter argument? It
| was more transmissible, more severe and better at avoiding
| acquired immunity.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Source for the Delta variant being more severe? I hadn't
| heard that.
| danenania wrote:
| Are we certain Delta was/is more severe? Since it's more
| contagious, might it also be producing a lot more
| mild/asymptomatic cases that don't get reported? Severity
| seems like a difficult thing to measure reliably if you can't
| be sure about the denominator.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Multiple countries have sustained mass testing of at least
| certain groups of population. The argument about undetected
| asymptomatic cases would be valid in early 2020 when tests
| were scarce, but now there are good continuous metrics from
| people who get tested even if asymptomatic.
| danenania wrote:
| Gotcha--I'd be interested in links to some of this
| research. I wasn't aware there was conclusive evidence
| that it's more severe.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Oh, I'm not following the news on Delta or any other
| variants much, however, I just know people who are
| measuring the prevalence of variants in the general
| population in reasonable ways which would definitely
| cover also asymptomatic people (one is mass testing -
| e.g. right now 100% of local kids are getting weekly
| tests in schools, and all hospital admissions get tested
| even if it's e.g. a car crash, but there's also the viral
| analysis in sewer system, which is a cool way to get a
| total perspective on large populations), so studies about
| the severity of Delta (whatever they are saying) should
| not be distorted by the particular problem of
| asymptomatic cases not getting reported, the researchers
| now have good tools to get the "denominator" part
| correct.
| [deleted]
| afavour wrote:
| It seems kind of unlikely that the scientific world would have
| overlooked this concept
| m12k wrote:
| In order for there to be an evolutionary pressure toward
| becoming less severe, having higher severity has to give some
| disadvantage - e.g. killing the host before it can spread the
| disease or giving stronger symptoms so hosts can be isolated
| before they can spread it. The corona virus is pretty unique in
| how much it can spread before/without any symptoms showing up,
| which should mean there's relatively less room for improvement
| by lowering the severity.
| oezi wrote:
| I think it is the other way around, there is no pressure to
| maintain a high severity as long as the virus can spread thus
| leading to mutations that lose the severe traits.
| XorNot wrote:
| Viruses aren't trying to kill their hosts, they're trying
| to replicate. But to replicate they kill the cells they're
| in.
|
| COVID's severity is because it's making a tradeoff between
| the time it takes the immune system to destroy it, vs the
| need to get a host walking around and socializing while
| breathing it out onto new hosts. The lethality is a side-
| effect of its replication strategy.
| lrem wrote:
| Uh, can you point at an example of a pressure to kill your
| host?
| red_trumpet wrote:
| Surely such mutations can and will happen. But will they
| become dominant, if they do not provide any advantage?
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| sometimes the "best" team doesn't win the league. Its
| plausible.
| h0l0cube wrote:
| Perhaps if it requires less energy to replicate and/or it
| invokes a weaker immune response?
| chana_masala wrote:
| Asymptomatic spread is a myth - https://jamanetwork.com/journ
| als/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
| greendesk wrote:
| Can someone explain whether corona is unique in this
| attribute of spreading versus other viruses? I would expect
| most cold-related viruses or other viruses in the human
| virome to exhibit this pattern.
| orra wrote:
| As you suspect, Coronavirus isn't unique in having an
| incubation period, or in being infectious during the latter
| part of the incubation period.
|
| Of course, there's questions of degree.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Dude that's 2019 science. Get with the times!
| NDizzle wrote:
| Yet NY declared a state of emergency already?! Crying wolf, on
| repeat, for ... two more weeks, I'll guess.
| 0des wrote:
| When did it get renamed to "Omicron"?
|
| Also, dammit, now it's a thing, and it's got its own little
| soundbite-able name instead of "B.1.1.529".
| r721 wrote:
| >In a statement provided to the AP, the WHO said it skipped nu
| for clarity and xi to avoid causing offense generally.
|
| >"'Nu' is too easily confounded with 'new,' and 'Xi' was not
| used because it is a common last name," the WHO said, adding
| that the agency's "best practices for naming disease suggest
| avoiding 'causing offence to any cultural, social, national,
| regional, professional or ethnic groups.'"
|
| >Those best practices were outlined in a May 2015 document
| issued by the agency. The organization said at the time that it
| wanted to "minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations,
| economies and people" when naming infectious diseases.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-heal...
| MadeThisToReply wrote:
| They skipped the Greek letter "Xi"; no prizes for guessing why.
| glandium wrote:
| When people realized that "Nu variant" sounded like "New
| variant"
| justincormack wrote:
| And Xi sounds like the Chinese leader.
| FPGAhacker wrote:
| The Greek letter pronounced more like Kai. But, yes, the
| anglicized written form of the Greek letter looks like the
| anglicized written form of the Chinese leader's name. And I
| agree, I'm sure it was skipped in the interest of not being
| antagonistic.
| jason0597 wrote:
| It's not really pronounced Kai, it's Xi.
|
| Ksuno, Ksustra, Oxugono, anoixe, xenos, xero, lexe
|
| It's pronounced xi, exactly. "x".
|
| Take it from a Greek ;)
| mbg721 wrote:
| More "looks like", in transliteration; John Q. Budweiser
| has no reason to try to pronounce it, and why should he?
| This was purely a butt-smooching move from the Western
| media.
| cole-k wrote:
| The answers address your question here:
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/52676/did-the-w...
| [deleted]
| enlyth wrote:
| This answer does not address the why, only the 'did it
| happen'.
|
| Like other commenters have said, Nu was skipped because it
| sounded too similar to "New", and Xi was skipped because of
| Xi Jinping.
|
| It's not a conspiracy, it's to avoid political controversy,
| before someone starts a flamewar on here.
| [deleted]
| calltrak wrote:
| Great video about Omicron up on https://hugotalks.com
| minimaxir wrote:
| > Fauci told Biden it'll take ~2 weeks to get "more definitive
| information on the transmissibility, severity, and other
| characteristics" of Omicron, per WH.
|
| > "He continues to believe that existing vaccines are likely to
| provide a degree of protection against severe cases of COVID."
|
| https://twitter.com/AndrewSolender/status/146508649802653696...
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
| coolso wrote:
| Fauci told 60 Minutes on March 8th, 2020:
|
| > "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When
| you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make
| people feel a little bit better and it might even block a
| droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that
| people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended
| consequences -- people keep fiddling with the mask and they
| keep touching their face."
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Albert Einstein:
|
| > Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice
| tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory
| produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the
| secret of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He
| does not play dice.
|
| Scientists get things wrong. I'm more concerned about someone
| who _won 't_ change their position when better information
| becomes available.
| coolso wrote:
| Did better information become available, or was he
| misleading the public to prevent people buying too many
| masks making it harder for medical staff to acquire them?
|
| Either way the quote is important to inform people who may
| not be aware, that a Fauci quote is not necessarily the end
| all be all factual information the media would have you
| believe it is.
| wrl wrote:
| Yeah, and humanity used to believe in miasma theory too.
| Fauci being wrong and then correcting himself later is a good
| thing, actually.
| john_moscow wrote:
| Well, unfortunately, criticizing anything vaccine-related has
| become an unholy thought crime, but there's an interesting prior
| example how a leaky vaccine (i.e. the one that don't stop you
| from infecting others) helped make the virus more deadly.
|
| You can search for Marek's disase - a virus affecting chickens.
| Here's a scary paragraph from the Wiki [0]:
|
| >Because vaccination does not prevent infection with the virus,
| Marek's is still transmissible from vaccinated flocks to other
| birds, including the wild bird population. The first Marek's
| disease vaccine was introduced in 1970. The disease would cause
| mild paralysis, with the only identifiable lesions being in
| neural tissue. Mortality of chickens infected with Marek's
| disease was quite low. Current strains of Marek virus, decades
| after the first vaccine was introduced, cause lymphoma formation
| throughout the chicken's body and mortality rates have reached
| 100% in unvaccinated chickens.
|
| The current pandemic is a completely unprecedented thing, but
| global vaccination does put an evolutionary pressure on the virus
| to escape the vaccine. So it's a trade-off between the current
| deaths and unknown deaths in the future. Sadly, we live in such
| polarizing times, that trade-offs and moderation have become a
| luxury we can no longer afford.
|
| Some more articles: [1], [2]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease
|
| [1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-
| pr...
|
| [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-
| vaccine-m...
| baby wrote:
| Tl;dr: we don't know much currently. It is very frustrating that
| our tools and techniques are so slow at analyzing, detecting,
| understanding airborne diseases.
| 0-sodium wrote:
| Chose carefully - fast or accurate.
| mr_sturd wrote:
| I think their best would be educated guesses without actually
| seeing how it behaves in the wild. Though with them simply
| saying it's a VoC with a high number of mutations has led the
| media to catastrophise in their reporting.
| coolso wrote:
| Is there another, less biased source we can use rather than the
| WHO, which has been confirmed and well documented to be
| influenced heavily by the wishes of the Chinese Communist Party,
| especially with matters related to COVID?
| nectarinebanana wrote:
| Bracing for the worst :very scared:
| bengale wrote:
| I think this might be the most level headed information I've seen
| so far: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/go-get-
| your-v...
| nectarinebanana wrote:
| Recommending vaccination for a "variant" we know nothing about
| - isn't this plain misinformation?
| adolph wrote:
| The WHO statement seems to have a more sanguine viewpoint than
| the Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-
| VE) which defines "Variant of Concern" as associated with one of
| the below:
|
| _Increase in transmissibility or detrimental change in COVID-19
| epidemiology; OR_
|
| _Increase in virulence or change in clinical disease
| presentation; OR_
|
| _Decrease in effectiveness of public health and social measures
| or available diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics._
|
| https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-varian...
|
| _This variant has a large number of mutations, some of which are
| concerning. Preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of
| reinfection with this variant, as compared to other VOCs. The
| number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in
| almost all provinces in South Africa. Current SARS-CoV-2 PCR
| diagnostics continue to detect this variant. Several labs have
| indicated that for one widely used PCR test, one of the three
| target genes is not detected (called S gene dropout or S gene
| target failure) and this test can therefore be used as marker for
| this variant, pending sequencing confirmation. Using this
| approach, this variant has been detected at faster rates than
| previous surges in infection, suggesting that this variant may
| have a growth advantage._
|
| https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-o...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-28 23:00 UTC)