Belgian scientific base in Antarctica engulfed by Covid despite strict measures(brusselstimes.com)
brusselstimes.com
Belgian scientific base in Antarctica engulfed by Covid despite strict measures
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium-all-news/199687/belgian-scientific-base-in-antarctica-engulfed-by-covid-19-despite-strict-measures
295 comments
There is this old grandma theory that "don't run outside with wet hair, you'll catch a cold".
Then we learned that viruses cannot spread like that, and so that old theory is basically invalid.
But some time ago I read somewhere that this theory might still hold true somehow, because our nose stores all kinds of viruses, and they might burst out when we are weakened.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this might chime in here ;).
Then we learned that viruses cannot spread like that, and so that old theory is basically invalid.
But some time ago I read somewhere that this theory might still hold true somehow, because our nose stores all kinds of viruses, and they might burst out when we are weakened.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this might chime in here ;).
I think that saying is a bit unfairly mailgned.
For making fire, there is the rule of three, the triangle, and you need all sides to keep combustion going:
- Heat
- Fuel
- Oxygen
knock one out and it falters.
We should describe infections the same way. Needed for infection:
- Virus/pathogen
- Outer defenses penetration (skin/mucous membranes)
- Immune system defeat
Seeing it that way, it doesn't have to be so mysterious. Some viruses are dormant or almost omnipresent. The infection may be triggered by other conditions changing, including factors that affect your immune system status or efficiency of your outer protections!
For making fire, there is the rule of three, the triangle, and you need all sides to keep combustion going:
- Heat
- Fuel
- Oxygen
knock one out and it falters.
We should describe infections the same way. Needed for infection:
- Virus/pathogen
- Outer defenses penetration (skin/mucous membranes)
- Immune system defeat
Seeing it that way, it doesn't have to be so mysterious. Some viruses are dormant or almost omnipresent. The infection may be triggered by other conditions changing, including factors that affect your immune system status or efficiency of your outer protections!
The benign herpes virus "hides" in the body and can "surface" again from time to time.
Wikipedia (I don't link cause unpretty images):
"Worldwide rates of either HSV-1 or HSV-2 are between 60% and 95% in adults. HSV-1 is usually acquired during childhood. Rates of both increase as people age."
"Following a primary infection, the virus enters the nerves at the site of primary infection, migrates to the cell body of the neuron, and becomes latent in the ganglion"
"The causes of reactivation are uncertain, but several potential triggers have been documented. A 2009 study showed the protein VP16 plays a key role in reactivation of the dormant virus. Changes in the immune system during menstruation may play a role in HSV-1 reactivation. Concurrent infections, such as viral upper respiratory tract infection or other febrile diseases, can cause outbreaks. Reactivation due to other infections is the likely source of the historic terms 'cold sore' and 'fever blister'. Other identified triggers include local injury to the face, lips, eyes, or mouth; trauma; surgery; radiotherapy; and exposure to wind, ultraviolet light, or sunlight."
Wikipedia (I don't link cause unpretty images):
"Worldwide rates of either HSV-1 or HSV-2 are between 60% and 95% in adults. HSV-1 is usually acquired during childhood. Rates of both increase as people age."
"Following a primary infection, the virus enters the nerves at the site of primary infection, migrates to the cell body of the neuron, and becomes latent in the ganglion"
"The causes of reactivation are uncertain, but several potential triggers have been documented. A 2009 study showed the protein VP16 plays a key role in reactivation of the dormant virus. Changes in the immune system during menstruation may play a role in HSV-1 reactivation. Concurrent infections, such as viral upper respiratory tract infection or other febrile diseases, can cause outbreaks. Reactivation due to other infections is the likely source of the historic terms 'cold sore' and 'fever blister'. Other identified triggers include local injury to the face, lips, eyes, or mouth; trauma; surgery; radiotherapy; and exposure to wind, ultraviolet light, or sunlight."
The lesson in medical science is that being guided by anything short of actual evidence lets in a lot of pseudoscience. In this particular case; there might be a correlation but that doesn't tell us much. There are so many possible reasons even without asking an expert for possible explanations:
1) The atmosphere is in an unusual state (lots of fast moving water droplets, probably with a lot of backscatter as they hit the ground fast or bounce off leaves). Maybe bacteria use that as a travel mechanism.
2) Maybe an immune system defence is weakened by high humidity.
3) Maybe wet weather causes changes in behaviour unrelated to being wet, but that lead to higher disease transmission and the correlation is being misintepreted.
4) Maybe the bacteria really like rain and multiply like crazy when it is wet.
5) Maybe some people have an unrelated non-infectious illnesses that are triggered by the cold, damp weather and that is being misinterpreted as a cold.
6) Maybe grandmothers just say that because it seems like good advice and they don't like water being traipsed through the house.
There are enough different options there that any correlation is not actionable. Leaving aside whether any correlation even exists.
1) The atmosphere is in an unusual state (lots of fast moving water droplets, probably with a lot of backscatter as they hit the ground fast or bounce off leaves). Maybe bacteria use that as a travel mechanism.
2) Maybe an immune system defence is weakened by high humidity.
3) Maybe wet weather causes changes in behaviour unrelated to being wet, but that lead to higher disease transmission and the correlation is being misintepreted.
4) Maybe the bacteria really like rain and multiply like crazy when it is wet.
5) Maybe some people have an unrelated non-infectious illnesses that are triggered by the cold, damp weather and that is being misinterpreted as a cold.
6) Maybe grandmothers just say that because it seems like good advice and they don't like water being traipsed through the house.
There are enough different options there that any correlation is not actionable. Leaving aside whether any correlation even exists.
In sports, there's a parallel to the old grandma theory that is usually called the "open window theory" (somewhat difficult to google in english, much easier in german where the english term "open window" only exists as a loan word for this particular meaning) which says that after a tough training, some defenses aren't as strong as they usually are. That theory is not entirely uncontested, but if it holds some truth the same mechanism could very well be at play in the wet hair scenario.
(Note how even your wording of the grandma theory is surprisingly in line with infection principles: the wet hair makes you "catch" a cold, from someone else, not directly causing the cold)
(Note how even your wording of the grandma theory is surprisingly in line with infection principles: the wet hair makes you "catch" a cold, from someone else, not directly causing the cold)
The body's immune system may be keeping viruses in check, in part why after the COVID mRNA vaccine there's been a reported uptick of other viruses being able to take hold - e.g. bypassing and brute forcing to overly focus on directions of mRNA seems to have unintended consequences, and I'm also curious how or if these "unrelated" illnesses were observed for and kept track of in the official clinic trials or not.
I thought the reasoning behind this saying was that when your body is cold your immune system needs to work harder to fend off Viruses and it was still true in that sense? Is that not the case?
Isn't this how shingles / chickenpox works?
They very much are interesting, and that's a pretty wild story. There are people a lot smarter than me, doctors in the field, that think we have some of our fundamental understanding of viruses wrong. I haven't read enough to take a stance that 100+ years of research is incorrect, but I do love hearing alternative hypotheses on a variety of topics. I don't think there's any harm in hearing what others have to say, at least.
What aspect, specifically, is suspected to be wrong? The scientific understanding of viruses might be further along than most doctors suspect. There are concepts like pangenome that are becoming appreciated at the research level that might not have gotten to doctors yet.
This is completely off topic, and I apologize, but I clicked your profile.
First off, I am impressed by your credentials, very nice work, you should be proud.
But this segment in your about: box is oddly hilarious to me. Maybe I've just had too much champagne. Happy New Year, from a West Coaster posting at 12:05 AM.
>yt code channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlistlist=PLf5mA1y1vDNlydJ8d5CmSt...
>[censored by desine] dot [also censored] at the only useful google service
First off, I am impressed by your credentials, very nice work, you should be proud.
But this segment in your about: box is oddly hilarious to me. Maybe I've just had too much champagne. Happy New Year, from a West Coaster posting at 12:05 AM.
>yt code channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlistlist=PLf5mA1y1vDNlydJ8d5CmSt...
>[censored by desine] dot [also censored] at the only useful google service
haha that's a good point. I should change it. This is what happens with incremental changes and no unit tests
>What aspect, specifically, is suspected to be wrong?
That depends on who you ask. Different people have different hypotheses and concepts they explore.
That depends on who you ask. Different people have different hypotheses and concepts they explore.
Too late to edit, but I'm getting mixed votes (which I usually don't pay much attention to), so I will explain:
There's a few different frameworks people are working within. From my experience, linking or forwarding to any "outside the box" ideas in this sphere will only invite more downvotes, argumentation over the details, and flamewars. Any linking of these ideas would be interpreted by some to be an endorsement of them. In my parent comment I made sure to mention that none of them were worthy of my endosement at this time, though I do find them interesting. Anyone reading this comment, buried deep in "hacker news" is capable of finding alternative ideas outside the norm. You can do your own research, if you like.
I mentioned them because the idea of people disagreeing on this was actually more foreign to me than "flat earth" which I find "pretty far out there", when I first stumbled upon it. It's very uncommonly discussed, and I don't have the clout to either endorse or properly antagonize these ideas. It's intriguing to me that something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" can be much more widely known and discussed than "maybe the way we frame viruses is incorrect".
There's a few different frameworks people are working within. From my experience, linking or forwarding to any "outside the box" ideas in this sphere will only invite more downvotes, argumentation over the details, and flamewars. Any linking of these ideas would be interpreted by some to be an endorsement of them. In my parent comment I made sure to mention that none of them were worthy of my endosement at this time, though I do find them interesting. Anyone reading this comment, buried deep in "hacker news" is capable of finding alternative ideas outside the norm. You can do your own research, if you like.
I mentioned them because the idea of people disagreeing on this was actually more foreign to me than "flat earth" which I find "pretty far out there", when I first stumbled upon it. It's very uncommonly discussed, and I don't have the clout to either endorse or properly antagonize these ideas. It's intriguing to me that something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" can be much more widely known and discussed than "maybe the way we frame viruses is incorrect".
I mean I suspect that the flu pangenome was evolving "meta-capabilities" to evade the way that our flu vaccines are selected by the authorities, you can see, vaguely, a declining efficacy of the flu vaccine in the last 5 years pre-pandemic (admittedly this could also be noise, or it could also be a measurement artefact due to better tracking). However, we'll probably never know since the flu patterns totally got rekt these past two years, which means any large-scale evolutionary trends, if they existed, probably, got the reset button pushed on them.
That's rather interesting, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about this. A bit frightening too.
Century old understandings in science have been repeatedly upended, so I could see it happening in virology too. I have my own theories based on my reading. And I've seen your comments frequently and find your perspective refreshing, could I contact in some way? You can reach me at the email in my profile.
> the common cold didn't seem to be impacted by the severe lockdowns in the UK
Really? Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't match the experience of myself and others that I know. Everyone I know was talking about how great it was that they hadn't had a cold for so long, during the lockdowns.
Really? Do you have a reference for that? It doesn't match the experience of myself and others that I know. Everyone I know was talking about how great it was that they hadn't had a cold for so long, during the lockdowns.
You're probably correct here.
Flu cases are tracked due to its severity. Cold cases are likely not often even paid attention to by many of those experiencing them.
Anecdotally, I and my friends and relatives hunkered down for COVID in 2020, and we had more cases turn out to be actually COVID-19 than common colds.
Flu cases are tracked due to its severity. Cold cases are likely not often even paid attention to by many of those experiencing them.
Anecdotally, I and my friends and relatives hunkered down for COVID in 2020, and we had more cases turn out to be actually COVID-19 than common colds.
Not exactly. The reference regarding flu is https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/flu-cases-covid-en... where apparently not a single case was detected in late 2020/early 2021, despite a period of time beforehand without lockdowns (roughly July through end of October). There are references in the media to colds being more prevalent throughout this entire same period though, but admittedly not during the lockdowns, as you say.
From this I made an uneducated extrapolation that the common cold pretty much stuck around somewhere and began to rapidly spread again as soon as people got out and about (I got one first week of schools going back in September, as per usual), whereas flu clearly did not.
From this I made an uneducated extrapolation that the common cold pretty much stuck around somewhere and began to rapidly spread again as soon as people got out and about (I got one first week of schools going back in September, as per usual), whereas flu clearly did not.
RSV (one of the main cold viruses) was suppressed in the US in 2020, yeah. It's back now.
https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/nrevss/rsv/natl-trend.html
https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/nrevss/rsv/natl-trend.html
Calling RSV a cold (especially if you’re a baby) is an understatement.
I've heard some anecdotes about that but no hard data. This could just be confirmation bias rather than a real effect. People like to believe that their actions are having an effect, and they see imaginary patterns in randomness.
My family has been ill several times in the last 6 weeks (including covid) - more than the previous 2 years put together. Anecdotal but personally interesting
After years of self-observations I have a petty theory that, in addition to outside infections, we always have a zoo of cold viruses inside, and different factors trigger them from time to time.
I am quite surprised this is never discussed and mentioned by scientific community. BTW for some other viruses this is well documented and acknowledged, but with cold/flu/covid we seem to suffer worldwide scientific amnesia.
Sorry I can't find the article, perhaps drowned in covid articles however:
There is a well known research paper from years ago showing that both exposure to cold temperatures and exposure to cold virus could cause cold symptoms, if I recollect right 30% probability when subjects were intentionally exposed to virus, 10% when exposed to cold temperatures. I don't recall the control group results.
This is consistent with covid appearing as an outbreak out of nowhere.
There is a well known research paper from years ago showing that both exposure to cold temperatures and exposure to cold virus could cause cold symptoms, if I recollect right 30% probability when subjects were intentionally exposed to virus, 10% when exposed to cold temperatures. I don't recall the control group results.
This is consistent with covid appearing as an outbreak out of nowhere.
I have heard this before as well. Viruses and colds can live in the throat for weeks or months, people are constantly collecting them. When said person gets rundown, the immune system can't contain them, and they produce a cold or sickness.
I thought this is how viruses operated in general. If somebody gets infected by herpes they basically have it for life. It only rarely flares up, but it's clearly still there. I figured this applied to all/most viruses because of the way viruses reproduce. The immune system just takes care of them and prevents the viral load from increasing. Is that not the case?
That is not always the case. Only certain types of viruses such as herpes viruses remain dormant in the patient's body. Most respiratory viruses are completely cleared out within a few weeks, assuming the patient survives and has a functioning immune system.
But how? I'm genuinely curious. Don't viruses reproduce by getting cells to make copies of them? Is the immune system really capable of removing all of the affected cells?
The CDC recently admitted as much. People can test positive for covid weeks after initially testing positive. Which implies they still are shedding the virus.
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1476189028982702080?s=21
https://twitter.com/abc/status/1476189028982702080?s=21
A positive test indicates they are probably shedding pieces of viral genetic material. It doesn't necessarily mean they are shedding active virions. Sometimes there are just leftover fragments. In other rare cases immunocompromised individuals can experience prolonged active infections lasting for months.
Word of the day:
virons = a complete virus particle that consists of an RNA or DNA core with a protein coat sometimes with external envelopes and that is the extracellular infectious form of a virus.
For me, the intrigue centers on my personal realization that I pretty much never think about individual pieces. And that is what this word is all about.
It's everything needed for Covid to happen, no less, no more.
virons = a complete virus particle that consists of an RNA or DNA core with a protein coat sometimes with external envelopes and that is the extracellular infectious form of a virus.
For me, the intrigue centers on my personal realization that I pretty much never think about individual pieces. And that is what this word is all about.
It's everything needed for Covid to happen, no less, no more.
[deleted]
This happened to me. I tested positive a month after infection (was testing once or twice a week). I isolated anyways to be safe
I thought I was meant to be testing every few days after my symptoms subsided until finally a nurse on the phone said “why do you need a test, you’re going to be have a positive result the next three months”
Apparently PCR tests and antigen tests differ in this regard, but RIP to our insurance providers paying for millions of redundant tests
Apparently PCR tests and antigen tests differ in this regard, but RIP to our insurance providers paying for millions of redundant tests
Not a native speaker. Just to clarify: shedding the virus means being infectious? Or just their body is still doing cleanup but not necessarily that the virus is still intact and contagious/infectious? (The dictionary entry for shedding doesn't feel specific enough to draw conclusions from.)
The sibling comment answered this. But pro-tip, use an industry dictionary to define jargon.
In this case a medical dictionary might help. For reference here’s what the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary says:
To discharge usually gradually from the body (e.g. exposed persons may shed virus from the oropharynx)
In this case a medical dictionary might help. For reference here’s what the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary says:
To discharge usually gradually from the body (e.g. exposed persons may shed virus from the oropharynx)
Thanks for the tip! I didn't know of that dictionary. In this case that's still ambiguous though as it doesn't indicate whether this discharged material is infectious or not, but perhaps then the word is simply ambiguous. (The sibling comment answered that, though: "It doesn't necessarily mean they are shedding active virions. Sometimes there are just leftover fragments")
Yes shedding like a dogs coat, but bits of virus. This is the main pathway of transmission. The pieces that are being shed are active and infectious.
If I get really low on sleep I’ll usually develop a cold, even if I haven’t been around anyone that’s had one in some time. I feel like there’s a lot to virology we don’t have a good grasp on.
High stress can sometimes trigger certain common cold symptoms even in the absence of an active viral infection. Unless the virus has actually been cultured you can't be certain what's happening in your body.
I do a lot of scuba diving. There are many anecdotal reports of divers who briefly experience cold / flu symptoms after failing to decompress correctly. The popular hypothesis is that tiny bubbles in the bloodstream trigger an inflammatory immune response, but who knows?
I do a lot of scuba diving. There are many anecdotal reports of divers who briefly experience cold / flu symptoms after failing to decompress correctly. The popular hypothesis is that tiny bubbles in the bloodstream trigger an inflammatory immune response, but who knows?
We literally just discovered a new muscle in the jaw. It isn't a feeling that you have, it is a fact.
The same thing happens to me. But it doesn't have to be a virus, it may be bacteria living in our body and waiting for a moment when our immune system weakens (like after prolonged stress). It's been known for a while our body is crawling with some bad boys, like Staphylococcus aureus for example.
Strep can lay ‘dormant’ in people for a while. Two months after the original outbreak and lockdown my daughter got strep. We hadn’t seen a soul. Dr said one of us was likely the carrier.
Had your daughter had it before? Once you get strep, you tend to get it semi-frequently. I get it once every couple of years. I always kind of wondered if it's like a viral infection such as cold sores where it lays dormant permanently, and flares up on occasion. However it is bacterial, and not viral, which counts against that idea.
Strep exists on the skin.
Why is being bacterial count against it? Lyme and tb are bacterial also and known to do such a thing
I'm admittedly pretty out of my element here. Apologies if any of the following is misinformed. Lyme and TB are chronic symptoms, from what I understand. No truly dormant stages in the infection, just slight lulls in symptoms. I was under the impression that chronic viral infections such as herpes or HIV were much more able to pass under the immune system's radar for prolonged periods of time, with unpredictable flare ups. From what I understood, this had to do with their cycles of replication and the nature of viral infections.
But again, not my area of expertise. Or even in the same ballpark.
But again, not my area of expertise. Or even in the same ballpark.
No at least with TB most people will have a latent infection (no symptoms and not transmittable) present potentially for a lifetime just waiting for immune system to weaken enough
Step throat is caused by common skin bacteria that can spontaneously mutate and start attacking the throat.
We've all got pneumonia in our lungs, which gain ascendancy when the body becomes weakened. It's been historically dubbed the "Old Man's Friend" because it would peacefully carry off someone who was suffering under some other terminal illness.
As someone who has had pneumonia, it's not an "Old Man's Friend".
There's nothing "peaceful" about pneumonia. It's a very frightening strangling feeling. The only thing "peaceful" about it is that you don't have the energy express the horror.
There's nothing "peaceful" about pneumonia. It's a very frightening strangling feeling. The only thing "peaceful" about it is that you don't have the energy express the horror.
A now-former coworker of mine had walking pneumonia in 2019. He didn't know it was pneumonia until he eventually went to the hospital, but he had been suffering from severe unexplained back pain for days. It wasn't pleasant, and he went to the hospital because his back pain was so bad he was barely able to function.
This was related to me by my father, who had pneumonia as a teen and it nearly killed him. He was allergic to penicillin, and had to endure without it.
Did he really say "we all got pneumonia in our lungs"? Pneumonia is inflammation in your lungs, that isn't normal. You die from it when it fills your lungs with pus and blood, pus and blood in your lungs isn't normal either.
Streptococcus pneumoniae
Looks like the phrase was written about in 1892. Probably it's older than that, though.
> The term is attributed to William Osler, who in the first edition of his book The Principles and Practice of Medicine (1892) wrote:
> In children and in healthy adults the outlook is good. In the debilitated, in drunkards and in the aged the chances are against recovery. So fatal is it in the latter class [i.e. the elderly] that it has been termed the natural end of the old man.
https://pneumonia.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41479-...
> The term is attributed to William Osler, who in the first edition of his book The Principles and Practice of Medicine (1892) wrote:
> In children and in healthy adults the outlook is good. In the debilitated, in drunkards and in the aged the chances are against recovery. So fatal is it in the latter class [i.e. the elderly] that it has been termed the natural end of the old man.
https://pneumonia.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41479-...
Note that the flu disappeared pretty much everywhere, regardless of interventions and restrictions. The likelihood that lockdowns or masks eradicated the flu is very low. More probable explanations are that we pretty much shut down international travel, which is how new flu strains get around, or that the coronavirus out-competed the flu, by being more easily transmitted.
This would be very interesting if I knew it was true. Any specific references with flu stats by state/country?
I also feel like lockdowns are a red herring in discussions like this. People not being locked down by force of law doesn't mean that a huge amount of people are minimizing their contact with other people.
I also feel like lockdowns are a red herring in discussions like this. People not being locked down by force of law doesn't mean that a huge amount of people are minimizing their contact with other people.
I'd wager that virus infectivity decay is strictly stochastic in both time and dosage, that there isn't any truly safe exposure greater than absolute zero or truly safe time/distance when sharing air with infected. There are just thresholds of scientific perception where we say good enough. That would mean that yes, there is an infinitesimally small chance to get infected from a doorknob that hasn't been touched in three weeks, but those odds are so low that with eight billion people and two years of pandemic it's unlikely to ever have happened (and if it did we'd certainly not know about it). Living in quarantine, eventually getting driven to the airfield, plenty of infinitesimally unlikely exposure opportunities.
Or the freezing temperatures allows it to survive outside. For example your spit outside the shelter, you go outside 17 weeks later and then come back and remove the snow on your boots which are now covered in contaminated water.
Ebola's going to be the next "fun" one that pops up.
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-ebola-outbreak-l...
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-ebola-outbreak-l...
It would have to change transmission mechanism.
Until then unlikely
Until then unlikely
Well once TikTok memes us into acting like zombies…
Try Nipah Virus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipah_virus_infection
Read that and be afraid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipah_virus_infection
Read that and be afraid.
The common cold is a set of viral infections caused by an assortment of viruses, that includes amongst them, four different coronaviruses.
If COVID-19 were to evolve to become milder, it could become a fifth coronavirus that causes the common cold.
If COVID-19 were to evolve to become milder, it could become a fifth coronavirus that causes the common cold.
[deleted]
Or more likely the common thread here is Antarctica and the fact that not everything dies when it freezes.
I really do wonder how many and for how long viruses can stay in a person's nasal secretions until conditions are ideal again.
Maybe some sinus washes would help.
Maybe some sinus washes would help.
Could be someone was harboring some kind of cold virus and due to the stress of the environment—it had turned colder 4 days prior—the virus reemerged and became infectious. Another idea that's not mentioned in the article, but that might be possible, is that there was some dust that contained enough of some respiratory virus to be infectious, and due to the recent cold or just by chance, someone was digging through some supplies and breathed it in. Usually viruses degrade rapidly in the environment, since they have no metabolism to speak of to correct damage; I wonder, though, if enough could survive in a cold environment with limited or no sunlight, especially if it was in a storage area that had low relative humidity.
Critical part of the conclusion for those not wanting to skim the article:
> Virus might have persisted in the respiratory tract of one or more men at the Base. If such were the case it would be necessary to postulate a triggering mechanism to precipitate symptoms, and it is interesting to note that symptoms occurred 4 days after a precipitous fall in outside temperature, and during one of the coldest months of the year, which Hope-Simpson (1958) and Lidwell, Morgan & Williams (1965) have correlated with increased incidence of respiratory disease. There is disagreement about whether the viruses which cause common colds can be carried by adults, and how important this is in epidemiology. The pattern of virus infection revealed by long-term studies, such as the virus watch programme (Elveback et al. 1966), is of a series of short infections with different viruses, and in the case of influenza virus disappearance of the current strain when a new serotype appears. On the other hand, adenoviruses may be shed by children for periods of months and recove"ed from the tonsils in a high proportion of cases, without evidence of acute respiratory infection, and non-respiratory viruses such as those of the herpes group often persist for the lifetime of a man. Furthermore, observations in animals have shown that pigs can carry swine influenza and transmit infection to other pigs 3 months later (Blaskovic et al. 1970), turkeys may carry and shed influenza virus A after apparent recovery (Robinson, Easterday & Tumova, 1972), and cattle which have recovered from foot and mouth disease still reproduce virus in the pharynx, and can initiate epidemics on contact with non-immune cattle (Graves et al. 1971).
> There are thus precedents in both children and animals for persistence of respiratory viruses, but in adults the laboratory evidence for carriage and reactivation of common cold viruses is weak. It may be that such evidence can only be found in rather unusual conditions of isolation and stress, such as occur in Antarctica. It is likely to be a rare phenomenon, but it might well be important in explaining the persistence of the large number of rhinovirus serotypes which make an appearance in many areas when the temperature falls.
Critical part of the conclusion for those not wanting to skim the article:
> Virus might have persisted in the respiratory tract of one or more men at the Base. If such were the case it would be necessary to postulate a triggering mechanism to precipitate symptoms, and it is interesting to note that symptoms occurred 4 days after a precipitous fall in outside temperature, and during one of the coldest months of the year, which Hope-Simpson (1958) and Lidwell, Morgan & Williams (1965) have correlated with increased incidence of respiratory disease. There is disagreement about whether the viruses which cause common colds can be carried by adults, and how important this is in epidemiology. The pattern of virus infection revealed by long-term studies, such as the virus watch programme (Elveback et al. 1966), is of a series of short infections with different viruses, and in the case of influenza virus disappearance of the current strain when a new serotype appears. On the other hand, adenoviruses may be shed by children for periods of months and recove"ed from the tonsils in a high proportion of cases, without evidence of acute respiratory infection, and non-respiratory viruses such as those of the herpes group often persist for the lifetime of a man. Furthermore, observations in animals have shown that pigs can carry swine influenza and transmit infection to other pigs 3 months later (Blaskovic et al. 1970), turkeys may carry and shed influenza virus A after apparent recovery (Robinson, Easterday & Tumova, 1972), and cattle which have recovered from foot and mouth disease still reproduce virus in the pharynx, and can initiate epidemics on contact with non-immune cattle (Graves et al. 1971).
> There are thus precedents in both children and animals for persistence of respiratory viruses, but in adults the laboratory evidence for carriage and reactivation of common cold viruses is weak. It may be that such evidence can only be found in rather unusual conditions of isolation and stress, such as occur in Antarctica. It is likely to be a rare phenomenon, but it might well be important in explaining the persistence of the large number of rhinovirus serotypes which make an appearance in many areas when the temperature falls.
All staff members preparing to depart to the station had to undergo a PCR test in Belgium two hours before leaving for South Africa, take a PCR test five days after their arrival in Cape Town, where they also had to quarantine for ten days. Another test was required when leaving Cape Town for Antarctica and another PCR test had to be undergone five days after arrival.
To me, that sounds like lots of testing, not strict health measures. There is a difference.
To me, that sounds like lots of testing, not strict health measures. There is a difference.
the strict health measures are the quarantines and consequences of testing. what happens if someone tests positive?
Seriously not impressed.
Just spitballing here but to me strict health measures would be something like:
1. Here is the antiviral prophylactic we expect you to take starting X days before you depart and continuing until X days after you arrive.
2. Here is the shower at the entrance to the base that you must use before entering the base proper.
3. Here are the OTC meds or other protocols we expect to keep coughs and such under control in common areas if you are having any issues.
4. Here are your instructions for how to do lung clearance in the shower to minimize coughing and such in common areas.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I really needed to. This is just off the cuff for the sake of conversation with an internet stranger, so not much effort or thought has gone into it.
Just spitballing here but to me strict health measures would be something like:
1. Here is the antiviral prophylactic we expect you to take starting X days before you depart and continuing until X days after you arrive.
2. Here is the shower at the entrance to the base that you must use before entering the base proper.
3. Here are the OTC meds or other protocols we expect to keep coughs and such under control in common areas if you are having any issues.
4. Here are your instructions for how to do lung clearance in the shower to minimize coughing and such in common areas.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I really needed to. This is just off the cuff for the sake of conversation with an internet stranger, so not much effort or thought has gone into it.
You've got to be kidding. Effective antiviral drugs aren't at all benign; it would be completely unethical to administer them on a prophylactic basis to healthy patients who don't even have a confirmed exposure. There is no reliable evidence that showers are effective for controlling respiratory viruses. OTC cough suppressants are nearly useless, barely better than placebos.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/otc-meds
Seriously those are almost all bad or pointless suggestions reflecting a lack of relevant medical knowledge.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/otc-meds
Seriously those are almost all bad or pointless suggestions reflecting a lack of relevant medical knowledge.
[deleted]
You can clean the nasal passage with hydrogen peroxide but it’s not a nice thing to do.
I have a form of cystic fibrosis. Nasal washes are routinely prescribed for the condition and my CF specialist gave me a recipe for a strong saline wash containing alcohol.
I have, in fact, used peroxide to wash my sinuses. The result was that, in addition to being tortured, my sinuses were stripped of mucus and I was now defenseless and more vulnerable to infection. It took a while for my sinuses to heal.
Medically recommended sinus washes are generally based on some kind of salt solution. I've tried at least three different variations over the years. Gentler is better because it is less of an assault on the body.
A xylitol-saline solution was the gentlest and most effective. Xylitol is a simple sugar known to kill infection. That worked far better for me than standard saline, strong saline or saline with alcohol added and it wasn't torture like the others.
I would strongly recommend against using peroxide on your nasal passages.
This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor. I'm just a factory reject with defective genes who has put lots of stuff up my nose over the years, sometimes out of desperation. So I have, in fact, put peroxide up my nose and my personal opinion is that it's a really bad thing to do as it hurts like a bitch and also leaves you defenseless.
I have, in fact, used peroxide to wash my sinuses. The result was that, in addition to being tortured, my sinuses were stripped of mucus and I was now defenseless and more vulnerable to infection. It took a while for my sinuses to heal.
Medically recommended sinus washes are generally based on some kind of salt solution. I've tried at least three different variations over the years. Gentler is better because it is less of an assault on the body.
A xylitol-saline solution was the gentlest and most effective. Xylitol is a simple sugar known to kill infection. That worked far better for me than standard saline, strong saline or saline with alcohol added and it wasn't torture like the others.
I would strongly recommend against using peroxide on your nasal passages.
This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor. I'm just a factory reject with defective genes who has put lots of stuff up my nose over the years, sometimes out of desperation. So I have, in fact, put peroxide up my nose and my personal opinion is that it's a really bad thing to do as it hurts like a bitch and also leaves you defenseless.
[deleted]
At least they were all double vaccinated.
Oh wait, that does not help against catching and transmitting the virus.
Oh wait, that does not help against catching and transmitting the virus.
if nothing else, this story should put a stake in the heart of the idea that we can achieve "Zero Covid". If testing and quarantine didn't prevent an outbreak here, it never will.
Covid is endemic - it will never leave us. Even if all vaccines worked perfectly and forever and every single person got vaccinated - we would still see new infections, because animals also get and transmit covid.
I don't think I've seen anyone with any reputation make any claim about "zero covid".
I don't think I've seen anyone with any reputation make any claim about "zero covid".
Yet many people get this idea through media and governments.
It always sounded very utopian to me to 'try to get rid of the virus' and 'fight it' the way they did. No surprises so far.
TIL Belgium has an Antarctic research station.
Belgium actually had the first winter expedition to the Antarctic in the late 1800s. Although it was mostly Belgian in name only and also a complete disaster, save for a commendable amount of scientific data being collected.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Antarctic_Expedition
The book "Madhouse at the End of the Earth" by Julian Sancton is a great read for this story of the first humans to spend a sun-less winter in Antarctica.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Antarctic_Expedition
The book "Madhouse at the End of the Earth" by Julian Sancton is a great read for this story of the first humans to spend a sun-less winter in Antarctica.
You wouldn't have more recommendations about this topic, would you?
If the topic is early Antarctic exploration then I would highly recommend Roland Huntford's book 'Scott and Amundsen' which serves as a sort of autobiography of arctic explorers Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen, and their exhilarating race to discover the South Pole.
The Shackleton expeditions saga for sure will give tons of reading.
In some sense, yes. You could also say that Alain Hubert has an Antarctic station, he just happened to be Belgian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Hubert
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Hubert
Doing scientific research confers some sort of control over the continent.
Article IV of the Treaty states in part, “No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica.”
https://www.asoc.org/advocacy/antarctic-governance/overview-...
https://www.asoc.org/advocacy/antarctic-governance/overview-...
The countries claiming a slice of the pie aren't signatories to that treaty.
Actually, they are. The original 12 signatories of the Antarctic Treaty are the 7 countries that have claimed Antarctic territory, the US and the USSR (who both expressly reserved the right to claim Antarctic territory), and Belgium, Japan, and South Africa.
Which is to say, most of the people who cared enough to sign the treaty already had existing claims they didn't want repudiated by the treaty (which is why Article IV, in its entirety, also says basically "this doesn't affect any existing claims").
Which is to say, most of the people who cared enough to sign the treaty already had existing claims they didn't want repudiated by the treaty (which is why Article IV, in its entirety, also says basically "this doesn't affect any existing claims").
What's going to happen if they simply do nothing? Basically, if they treat it like flu?
Most likely nothing serious, but given their remote location, if they get unlucky and even one person needs hospital treatment beyond what's possible at the base, that's a big problem.
Just like when any other issue arises that requires hospitalization.
The issues they're not able to deal with tend to be slow burners. You might get a week to plan an evacuation or supply drop for a cancer patient. But with Covid Pneumonia not so much.
So what would a mainland hospital be able to do what they can’t do? Using what supplies they can’t get in advance?
That's a great question. I wonder if they took a belt-and-braces approach — as well as all the quarantining and testing, bring along some remdesivir/molnupiravir/ritonavir/etc, monoclonal antibodies and so on, just in case you get really really unlucky and one of the (presumably quite fit and healthy) people ends up with a severe case.
It would very likely spread and infect more people. And by 'it' I mean awareness about how most of the measures are useless and that the vast majority of infections are benign.
Gee, maybe because you can't stop such a virus? I legitimately am curious about any decent intelligence test being done among the people who truly believe in measures like masks, restrictions, and even vaccines.Though i know that ironically the first or second biggest group to not get vaccinated are people with 1 or more PhDs, but people who think these are long-term solutions, or any solutions at all are pretty delusional.And this has been partially proven: Sweden is doing fine, Florida is doing fine, any region that hasn't been building up hotbeds of infectious sedentary people is doing kind of fine, at least compared to the "predictions of specialists".Now this is not a cut&dry issue, partially the biggest factor for this is because the more urban lifestyle you have, the bigger the health problems, but that's precisely why the lockdowns will never work.
Stay safe & HN(Y) everyone.I don't think it will soon be over, because this "pandemic"[it's actually more like an endemic disease but whatever] has stopped being about health since half into 2020, and politicians & people in any power don't have any incentives and reasons to let the power go.Especially not until the 1984 measures are all put in place.
Stay safe & HN(Y) everyone.I don't think it will soon be over, because this "pandemic"[it's actually more like an endemic disease but whatever] has stopped being about health since half into 2020, and politicians & people in any power don't have any incentives and reasons to let the power go.Especially not until the 1984 measures are all put in place.
> All staff members preparing to depart to the station had to undergo a PCR test in Belgium two hours before leaving for South Africa, take a PCR test five days after their arrival in Cape Town, where they also had to quarantine for ten days. Another test was required when leaving Cape Town for Antarctica and another PCR test had to be undergone five days after arrival.
This is clear evidence that the current paradigm for dealing with the pandemic is ineffective at best.
This is clear evidence that the current paradigm for dealing with the pandemic is ineffective at best.
> ineffective
I don't think it's clear evidence of this, but you could definitely say it's not 100% effective. Whether it is useful is not something that you cannot determine from this story alone.
I don't think it's clear evidence of this, but you could definitely say it's not 100% effective. Whether it is useful is not something that you cannot determine from this story alone.
The problem is being 99.9% effective just isn't good enough. One person slips through and it's all over. It isn't realistically possible to keep covid out of areas.
New Zealand has done a pretty good job over the last two years. Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is a separate question
They had 1000 community cases today https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...
Thats over the last 21 days. There was 47 community cases yesterday.
Economically or in terms of mortality/morbidity, it’s not obvious that there was a better strategy for New Zealand.
The article claims that covid is in all Antarctic bases, but I wasn’t aware that Scott base had any. I can’t find any reports of it either.
Edit: Their report from August had it covid free. https://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/media/news/antarctica-new-z...
The article claims that covid is in all Antarctic bases, but I wasn’t aware that Scott base had any. I can’t find any reports of it either.
Edit: Their report from August had it covid free. https://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/media/news/antarctica-new-z...
That’s beside the point. It is possible to keep covid out. There are costs and benefits to that.
The ISS has remained covid free. Kiribati has too. Tonga had one person arrive with covid but it didn’t progress.
The ISS has remained covid free. Kiribati has too. Tonga had one person arrive with covid but it didn’t progress.
It is understood that it's not 100% effective, we enforce these restrictions upon ourselves in part so that we just slow it down and spread it out over time, so that medical centers are not overwhelmed and unable to provide care to those who really it, so that we have time to create better and better therapeutics.
What is good enough though?
I always thought the whole prevention thing is because we want to “flatten the curve”, remember? Not to prevent every single infection, which is impossible.
I always thought the whole prevention thing is because we want to “flatten the curve”, remember? Not to prevent every single infection, which is impossible.
Different places, different goals.
If you're on an Antarctic base where medical facilities are meager and the time and cost for evacuation is high, zero infections is likely the goal.
As an extreme example, the US grounded an astronaut for being exposed, not infected, by measles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mattingly#Apollo_13
If you're on an Antarctic base where medical facilities are meager and the time and cost for evacuation is high, zero infections is likely the goal.
As an extreme example, the US grounded an astronaut for being exposed, not infected, by measles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mattingly#Apollo_13
As another fun example, the doctor (and only the doctor) overwintering in Antartica needs to have had their appendix out.
Medical evacuations are tricky, especially in the winter, and the logic is that the (single) doctor could remove someone else's appendix, but it would much harder for them to remove their own. Leonid Rogozov did remove his own in the 1960s, but I think most stations would prefer to avoid a repeat of that.
It did make for a fascinating BMJ Christmas Article though, written by his son: https://web.archive.org/web/20100925041337/http://www.bmj.co...
Medical evacuations are tricky, especially in the winter, and the logic is that the (single) doctor could remove someone else's appendix, but it would much harder for them to remove their own. Leonid Rogozov did remove his own in the 1960s, but I think most stations would prefer to avoid a repeat of that.
It did make for a fascinating BMJ Christmas Article though, written by his son: https://web.archive.org/web/20100925041337/http://www.bmj.co...
China is still pursuing a zero case strategy and locking down huge sections of the country. Apologies for daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349531/China-Covi...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10349531/China-Covi...
In the US there are literally thousands of different public health agencies headed by health officers with strategies ranging from herd immunity by any means necessary to attempting COVID 0. Vague gripes about public health tag lines in such a fractured environment is unproductive.
That’s really not true though. 99.9% effective might not be good enough for an Antarctic research base, but that’s a pretty unusual circumstance. We’d be thrilled if our current countermeasures against Covid were 99.9% effective; we would’ve ended this in 2020 if that were the case.
If I understand correctly, you can mathematically model how effective countermeasures have to be in order to suppress a virus with a given R0. Given that the measles vaccine is 93% effective and sufficient to suppress one of the most infectious diseases we’ve ever seen (R0 of 12-18), I think 99.9% would be in the overkill category.
If I understand correctly, you can mathematically model how effective countermeasures have to be in order to suppress a virus with a given R0. Given that the measles vaccine is 93% effective and sufficient to suppress one of the most infectious diseases we’ve ever seen (R0 of 12-18), I think 99.9% would be in the overkill category.
Can you give a source for that 93% efficiency of measles vaccine? Accuracy for 2 digits is very suspicious. Measles symptoms depend strongly on nutrition deficiencies with insufficient vitamin C being especially bad. If that is not the case, one can be asymptomatic and then we never know about infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html
> The MMR vaccine is very safe and effective. Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.
Prevention of Measles, Rubella, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, and Mumps, 2013 Summary Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24832555
> One dose of measles-containing vaccine administered at age ≥12 months was approximately 94% effective in preventing measles (range: 39%–98%) in studies conducted in the WHO Region of the Americas (141,142). Measles outbreaks among populations that have received 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine are uncommon. The effectiveness of 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine was ≥99% in two studies conducted in the United States and 67%, 85%–≥94%, and 100% in three studies in Canada (142–146). The range in 2-dose vaccine effectiveness in the Canadian studies can be attributed to extremely small numbers (i.e., in the study with a 2-dose vaccine effectiveness of 67%, one 2-dose vaccinated person with measles and one unvaccinated person with measles were reported [145]). This range of effectiveness also can be attributed to age at vaccination (i.e., the 85% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age 12 months, whereas the ≥94% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age ≥15 months [146]). Furthermore, two studies found the incremental effectiveness of 2 doses was 89% and 94%, compared with 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine (145,147). Similar estimates of vaccine effectiveness have been reported from Australia and Europe (Table 1) (141).
No mention of vitamin C. Given that "After exposure, up to 90% of susceptible persons develop measles", it seems very unlikely that differences in vitamin C play an important role.
What are your sources? I found nothing on PubMed nor Google Scholar, though I did find that vitamin C is promoted to antivaxxers (eg, http://www.amcli.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/bmj-measles-f... ).
You write "depend strongly on nutrition deficiencies", which my cited article describes as "In low to middle income countries where malnutrition is common, measles is often more severe and the case-fatality ratio can be as high as 25%".
That's calorie deficient, but not specifically vitamin deficient.
> The MMR vaccine is very safe and effective. Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.
Prevention of Measles, Rubella, Congenital Rubella Syndrome, and Mumps, 2013 Summary Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24832555
> One dose of measles-containing vaccine administered at age ≥12 months was approximately 94% effective in preventing measles (range: 39%–98%) in studies conducted in the WHO Region of the Americas (141,142). Measles outbreaks among populations that have received 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine are uncommon. The effectiveness of 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine was ≥99% in two studies conducted in the United States and 67%, 85%–≥94%, and 100% in three studies in Canada (142–146). The range in 2-dose vaccine effectiveness in the Canadian studies can be attributed to extremely small numbers (i.e., in the study with a 2-dose vaccine effectiveness of 67%, one 2-dose vaccinated person with measles and one unvaccinated person with measles were reported [145]). This range of effectiveness also can be attributed to age at vaccination (i.e., the 85% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age 12 months, whereas the ≥94% vaccine effectiveness represented children vaccinated at age ≥15 months [146]). Furthermore, two studies found the incremental effectiveness of 2 doses was 89% and 94%, compared with 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine (145,147). Similar estimates of vaccine effectiveness have been reported from Australia and Europe (Table 1) (141).
No mention of vitamin C. Given that "After exposure, up to 90% of susceptible persons develop measles", it seems very unlikely that differences in vitamin C play an important role.
What are your sources? I found nothing on PubMed nor Google Scholar, though I did find that vitamin C is promoted to antivaxxers (eg, http://www.amcli.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/bmj-measles-f... ).
You write "depend strongly on nutrition deficiencies", which my cited article describes as "In low to middle income countries where malnutrition is common, measles is often more severe and the case-fatality ratio can be as high as 25%".
That's calorie deficient, but not specifically vitamin deficient.
Thanks for the links. “About 93%” is much more sensible then 93%. As for vitamins there was an old study [1] :
Child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones. In addition, measles brings about consumption of nutrients in marginally nourished children, so they will also do worse if not supplemented during infection.
[1] https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/413843
Child mortality due to measles is 200 to 400 times greater in malnourished children in less developed countries than those in developed ones. In addition, measles brings about consumption of nutrients in marginally nourished children, so they will also do worse if not supplemented during infection.
[1] https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/413843
I strongly disagree - ashtonkem's description is quite sensible. I don't expect HN comments to be more precise than medical professionals.
That is, it's easy to find scholarly papers published by doctors which don't add the "about" like:
"Measles vaccine is highly effective, with 1 dose being 93% effective and 2 doses being 97% effective at preventing measles." from "Measles Outbreak — Minnesota April–May 2017" by authors from the Minnesota Department of Health, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687591/
"Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, one dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against MeV, 78% effective against mumps virus (MuV), and 97% effective against rubella." by authors from The Ohio State University at https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/12/e2026153118.full.pd... .
Yes, I already mentioned malnutrition as a known factor.
I asked for substantiation of your statement "insufficient vitamin C being especially bad."
You cited reference doesn't even mention vitamin C.
That is, it's easy to find scholarly papers published by doctors which don't add the "about" like:
"Measles vaccine is highly effective, with 1 dose being 93% effective and 2 doses being 97% effective at preventing measles." from "Measles Outbreak — Minnesota April–May 2017" by authors from the Minnesota Department of Health, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687591/
"Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, one dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against MeV, 78% effective against mumps virus (MuV), and 97% effective against rubella." by authors from The Ohio State University at https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/12/e2026153118.full.pd... .
Yes, I already mentioned malnutrition as a known factor.
I asked for substantiation of your statement "insufficient vitamin C being especially bad."
You cited reference doesn't even mention vitamin C.
I was wrong with vitamin C, it was vitamin A deficiency that is correlated with severe symptoms, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282701/
And given that precise numbers like 93% is meaningless. One should either give the range or at least describe the population.
And it turned out 93% was not coming from the study in https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/12/e2026153118.full.pd..., they just reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863094/ , but that nowhere mention the number 93% and it’s abstract give much more sensible data:
Delivery of the two doses of vaccine needed to achieve >90% immunity is accomplished by routine immunization of infants at 9–15 months of age followed by a second dose delivered before school entry or by periodic mass vaccination campaigns. B
And given that precise numbers like 93% is meaningless. One should either give the range or at least describe the population.
And it turned out 93% was not coming from the study in https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/12/e2026153118.full.pd..., they just reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863094/ , but that nowhere mention the number 93% and it’s abstract give much more sensible data:
Delivery of the two doses of vaccine needed to achieve >90% immunity is accomplished by routine immunization of infants at 9–15 months of age followed by a second dose delivered before school entry or by periodic mass vaccination campaigns. B
Do you expect HN comments to use more accurate language than medical researchers use in published papers?
I don't.
So describing the difference between "93%" and "about 93%" as 'much more sensible', in this context, seems excessively nitpicky.
Even more so given that you got the wrong vitamin and it took you a couple of tries until you got the right citation.
I don't.
So describing the difference between "93%" and "about 93%" as 'much more sensible', in this context, seems excessively nitpicky.
Even more so given that you got the wrong vitamin and it took you a couple of tries until you got the right citation.
I am extremely skeptical about precise numbers in medicine. The biology just does not work in that way. And it does no matter if the number comes from HN comments or peer-reviewed journal article. It signals that with very high probability that at best those who gave the number do not understand what they are talking about. At worst in can be just an arbitrary number where the extra precision was used to give a sense of legitimacy.
And note how much better the claim from the original article sounds: the efficiency of at least 90%. Which tells that even if one follow a reasonable lifestyle that minimizes chances of getting the infection (or at least feed infants in a reasonable way as we are talking about <2 years old), then still the vaccine reduces the chance of infection by a factor of 10.
And yes, it was stupid for me to rely on the memory when claiming about particular vitamin.
And note how much better the claim from the original article sounds: the efficiency of at least 90%. Which tells that even if one follow a reasonable lifestyle that minimizes chances of getting the infection (or at least feed infants in a reasonable way as we are talking about <2 years old), then still the vaccine reduces the chance of infection by a factor of 10.
And yes, it was stupid for me to rely on the memory when claiming about particular vitamin.
> And it does no matter if the number comes from HN comments or peer-reviewed journal article.
I’m sorry, that’s absurd. You will always be picking pedantic fights with people if you expect everyone everywhere to meet the standards of peer reviewed medicine.
From the outside picking a fight over the difference between “93%” and “about 93%” on a technology board is pedantic to the point of being suspicious.
I’m sorry, that’s absurd. You will always be picking pedantic fights with people if you expect everyone everywhere to meet the standards of peer reviewed medicine.
From the outside picking a fight over the difference between “93%” and “about 93%” on a technology board is pedantic to the point of being suspicious.
Seeing people very critical of vaccine studies of a successfully eradicated disease that has had a long time since to evaluate that success aside a really generous benefit of the doubt given to vague claims about vitamin supplements makes me sad.
We can be observant and suspicious about the healthcare industry while also admitting that there is science being done. They manufacture vitamin C supplements, too. They make money whether you buy the regulated stuff or the unregulated stuff.
We can be observant and suspicious about the healthcare industry while also admitting that there is science being done. They manufacture vitamin C supplements, too. They make money whether you buy the regulated stuff or the unregulated stuff.
In fact, there is a lot of money in supplements, lots of which aren’t FDA regulated to even work.
I think if you take the strictest possible quarantine and test paradigms and even those are failing, its certainly fair to call them ineffective.
I don’t know. If a medicine cures 99 % of all cases (or even 10 %) would you say it’s ineffective? I’d say it’s effective, but depending on the your overall goal, not effective enough (if you’d like to call it ineffective, it would be ineffective with respect to a certain macro outcome, not with respect to individual cases). At some minuscule percentage (let’s say 0,1 %) I would probably be tempted to actually starting to call it ineffective.
[deleted]
It would be to anyone thinking about this logically, but belief in the measures seems to have become like a religion to some. The craziest discussion I had about this was with a friend who insisted the number of administered tests for a given location hadn't risen in 2021. I showed them the official government stats but they still claimed there hadn't been a rise. When I sent them a graph they said they'd looked at it and it confirms there was no rise. The graph showed a clear rise, like line going straight up!
How do you even deal with this? I can have more rational discussions with fundamental Christians.
How do you even deal with this? I can have more rational discussions with fundamental Christians.
Right. Because something needs to be airtight 100% successful with 100% compliance and 100% enforcement or nothing at all. As with American politics, there is no gray area ever.
I completely disagree with your statement. The goals of the current paradigm of dealing with the pandemic is to minimize the strain on various processes from a public health perspective. Anything moving the needle is effective. That's why guidelines are like 'gatherings of 20 people or more'. It's to minimize spread, not completely obliterate it.
Comparing this incident with public health directives is disingenuous at best. It's the exact same line of thinking about masks. Oh, masks aren't 100% effective in preventing infection. Therefore, they're useless so nobody should wear them, ever.
We've also sent some people to the IIS and they didn't test positive. What does that say about the current paradigm?
I completely disagree with your statement. The goals of the current paradigm of dealing with the pandemic is to minimize the strain on various processes from a public health perspective. Anything moving the needle is effective. That's why guidelines are like 'gatherings of 20 people or more'. It's to minimize spread, not completely obliterate it.
Comparing this incident with public health directives is disingenuous at best. It's the exact same line of thinking about masks. Oh, masks aren't 100% effective in preventing infection. Therefore, they're useless so nobody should wear them, ever.
We've also sent some people to the IIS and they didn't test positive. What does that say about the current paradigm?
[deleted]
I’m not so sure; respectfully disagree. This only talks about process stricture, not efficacy or process compliance/lapse. Plausible hypothesis, but needs more data.
If I've learned something about people during the pandemic, it's that the average person is far less intelligent and far less compliant than I previously believed. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out this was caused by people not complying with protocols. Or at the very least, not having an understanding of the fact that COVID transmission is aerosol, and that breathing reshared air even for a few seconds is a high risk activity.
I would call that uneducated rather than unintelligent. Not everyone is an expert on Covid-19, most people here aren't. We look for and rely on trusted sources to get our information about it.
But many mainstream trusted sources have been carrying out misinformation/divertion campaigns by focusing prevention on hand hygiene and vaccination, instead of explaining the actual mechanism of transmission. So unless they're curious and proactive about searching for neutral information (which is orthogonal to intelligence), many people by default believe transmission happens by touching surfaces, or cannot happen when one has taken vaccines, for instance.
But many mainstream trusted sources have been carrying out misinformation/divertion campaigns by focusing prevention on hand hygiene and vaccination, instead of explaining the actual mechanism of transmission. So unless they're curious and proactive about searching for neutral information (which is orthogonal to intelligence), many people by default believe transmission happens by touching surfaces, or cannot happen when one has taken vaccines, for instance.
Reminds me of the fact that you can fool people into believing the school system is effective, that a record number of tractors was produced, that the leader got elected with 96% of the vote, but you simply cannot fool people into thinking they aren't starving to death.
Not sure I follow. Haven't Trump and Bolsonaro et al done surprisingly well at convincing people they aren't dying?
Scientists heading to the Belgian station are probably fairly smart. As for compliance, my experience with highly intelligent people is that they tend to be less compliant or predictable than others, so you may be right that this was due to a lapse in compliance.
When things don't make any sense, or show poor results, it's hard to comply to, which has been the case in the last two years with our betters on a power trip.
Intelligence does not necessarily imply compliance, or vice versa.
Human error/non-compliance is a thing, to be honest. Although, this can also mean the procedures do not work as well.
Good point. However, one can’t conclude that with any reasonable certainty from the article.
Yep. Likely self-supervised isolation/quarantine and someone broke the rules.
That said, omicron is apparently insanely infectious, so it could have been something as simple as a member of the ground crew being inside the plane for a bit to stock or check something.
That said, omicron is apparently insanely infectious, so it could have been something as simple as a member of the ground crew being inside the plane for a bit to stock or check something.
Or some asymptomatic carrier administering a set of the test, or some of the cleaning staff coughing in the room before the tests.
That they focused on the person action (quarantines, tests) and not the environment (transfer shuttles, testing rooms, bathrooms and dressing rooms) kids hints the latter as a source. After all, you drop your mask during testing, and I've seen places doing it in a small, unventilated room with no pause between each person.
That they focused on the person action (quarantines, tests) and not the environment (transfer shuttles, testing rooms, bathrooms and dressing rooms) kids hints the latter as a source. After all, you drop your mask during testing, and I've seen places doing it in a small, unventilated room with no pause between each person.
Two options: quarantine bubble failure or incubation longer than .. 15 days?
Both are possible, though the former is more likely. 5 day intervals for incubation seem too short for 100% safety. I believe omicron has some data points of longer incubation already.
Both are possible, though the former is more likely. 5 day intervals for incubation seem too short for 100% safety. I believe omicron has some data points of longer incubation already.
Third option: flawed hypothesis. Swabbing the nose or throat and performing subsequent RT-PCR analysis is not an infallable indicator of whether or not someone is free from the virus SARS-CoV-2 or infected with or likely to become infected with the respiratory disease COVID-19. Before 2020 such tests were typically only used as a part of a diagnosis by a medical professional upon consultation, typically also alongside symptoms. The limitations of testing were well understood before 2020 but somehow that all got lost in the panic.
Another point is that there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2. We've known this since well before the zero-covid debacle, making such a plan was doomed to fail, as it did. It's likely that the virus can live in intestinal tracts of animals, including humans, for long periods without being detected and destroyed by the host's immune system. This makes the use of negative nose/throat swab tests as a guarantee of no subsequent infection a fallacy.
The way we deal with COVID is to stop testing asymptomatic people and use the plethora of effective early treatment protocols we've developed since as early as December 2019 to vastly reduce the need for hospital treatment in those that do develop symptoms.
Another point is that there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2. We've known this since well before the zero-covid debacle, making such a plan was doomed to fail, as it did. It's likely that the virus can live in intestinal tracts of animals, including humans, for long periods without being detected and destroyed by the host's immune system. This makes the use of negative nose/throat swab tests as a guarantee of no subsequent infection a fallacy.
The way we deal with COVID is to stop testing asymptomatic people and use the plethora of effective early treatment protocols we've developed since as early as December 2019 to vastly reduce the need for hospital treatment in those that do develop symptoms.
Nose swabs reveal whether you're shedding the particles and thus infectious. It doesn't matter if you're infected if you're not shedding the virus.
They are also exceptionally reliable. The home test kit I used had a sub-1% false negative rate.
They are also exceptionally reliable. The home test kit I used had a sub-1% false negative rate.
> Nose swabs reveal whether you're shedding the particles and thus infectious. It doesn't matter if you're infected if you're not shedding the virus.
No, they really don't. Swabbing for RNA picks up gene fragments that may or may not be from infectious virus -- it's why we see positive tests for months after infection in some people.
Swabbing for viral protein is debatably more likely to detect the thing of interest (the virus itself, in some semblance of functioning order), but these tests also have a high false-negative rate (around 10% for the better tests I've seen; I have never heard of a test with a sub-percent FN rate, as you claim). You can be shedding live virus and these tests won't pick it up, either because you're not shedding enough, or because the antibodies in the test don't bind to the protein in your sample for whatever reason.
Either way, you're measuring a proxy for what you really care about. A true test of infection involves taking a sample and incubating in cell culture. Nobody does this, except to validate the original tests and provide clear positive and negative samples. It's slow and orders of magnitude more expensive than even PCR testing. But this is the direct test for infectious virus. Everything else is an approximation.
(Let me be clear, though: I wholeheartedly support the use of antigen tests -- even ones with low sensitivity -- over the insanity we're doing now in the US. It's just bad to misrepresent what they're actually doing.)
No, they really don't. Swabbing for RNA picks up gene fragments that may or may not be from infectious virus -- it's why we see positive tests for months after infection in some people.
Swabbing for viral protein is debatably more likely to detect the thing of interest (the virus itself, in some semblance of functioning order), but these tests also have a high false-negative rate (around 10% for the better tests I've seen; I have never heard of a test with a sub-percent FN rate, as you claim). You can be shedding live virus and these tests won't pick it up, either because you're not shedding enough, or because the antibodies in the test don't bind to the protein in your sample for whatever reason.
Either way, you're measuring a proxy for what you really care about. A true test of infection involves taking a sample and incubating in cell culture. Nobody does this, except to validate the original tests and provide clear positive and negative samples. It's slow and orders of magnitude more expensive than even PCR testing. But this is the direct test for infectious virus. Everything else is an approximation.
(Let me be clear, though: I wholeheartedly support the use of antigen tests -- even ones with low sensitivity -- over the insanity we're doing now in the US. It's just bad to misrepresent what they're actually doing.)
Agree with all of this. PCR literally involves amplifying segments of genetic material so it can be detected. All you need is a segment of genetic material, not the whole virus.
However, I’m not sure the value in antigen testing? Sure, when you’re traveling or have to into a higher risk situation.
But Singapore decided to freely give out antigen tests and what happened was people who tested positive showed up at the ER. And the antigen tests weren’t reliable, so PCR had to confirm. And they have a high vaccination rate so after all that testing the answer was “go home and if you get really sick, come back”.
It finally dawned on them that could just be the message anyways - if you don’t feel bad, don’t worry. If you do, you can test but don’t seek medical care unless you have severe symptoms.
However, I’m not sure the value in antigen testing? Sure, when you’re traveling or have to into a higher risk situation.
But Singapore decided to freely give out antigen tests and what happened was people who tested positive showed up at the ER. And the antigen tests weren’t reliable, so PCR had to confirm. And they have a high vaccination rate so after all that testing the answer was “go home and if you get really sick, come back”.
It finally dawned on them that could just be the message anyways - if you don’t feel bad, don’t worry. If you do, you can test but don’t seek medical care unless you have severe symptoms.
The value of cheap, ubiquitous antigen testing is that you can be pretty sure that you don't have the virus, which allows scared people to have some sense of control. Even though these tests have a high false-positive rate, it's pretty unlikely that you'll test negative on multiple independent tests, so the cheap and ubiquitous part is important. Scared people can fixate their fear on a metric that actually correlates with transmission. Negative test? No need to freak out about going to the store.
That said, your point is well-taken that people can be idiots about testing positive. We do need to get over this fear and accept that the virus is endemic, and that vaccines work to prevent serious illness. We're now talking about miniscule risks that we would have rightfully shrugged off in any previous year, but folks have been terrorized, and they're desperately looking for control. Any tool that can calm that fear is a good tool.
That said, your point is well-taken that people can be idiots about testing positive. We do need to get over this fear and accept that the virus is endemic, and that vaccines work to prevent serious illness. We're now talking about miniscule risks that we would have rightfully shrugged off in any previous year, but folks have been terrorized, and they're desperately looking for control. Any tool that can calm that fear is a good tool.
> Nose swabs reveal whether you're shedding the particles and thus infectious.
On the "shedding" point, not necessarily. The virus can be present in but contained by the immune response from the mucosae of the upper respiratory tract in such a way that it is unable to spread into the lungs and cause COVID-19, yet not shed in large enough quantities to infect others. Given time, a healthy immune system will deal with the virus in the nose and throat, often without the host even noticing. Such a situation would set off a PCR or rapid test but not present a meaningful COVID-19 infection risk to the others. (In fact, one hypothesis for why positive cases rise soon after vaccination and booster campaigns start is because of the well understood phenomenon of reduced immune response for a short time after vaccination, giving such virus already present in the upper respiratory tract at time of vaccination the edge it needs to get into the lungs.)
And the cycle thresholds on PCR tests are often set nonsensically high making them sensitive to quantities of virus and viral debris far lower than the quantity required to meaningfully infect either the host or someone else via shedding. They can also trigger positive on not just virus but viral debris for months after recovery from COVID-19 infection. (A test can be too sensitive, especially when used as the only evidence to force someone and their contacts to isolate and in some cases not earn an income for weeks.)
> It doesn't matter if you're infected if you're not shedding the virus.
I agree, but I'm not sure if the Belgian authorities, who seem to use PCR positives as a COVID-19 diagnosis, and PCR negatives as a guarantee of safety from infection risk to others, would. The article does what most articles these days do, conflating presence of SARS-CoV-2 debris on a swab with COVID-19 disease diagnosis. It incorrectly claims 2/3rds of the 25 staff have COVID-19, when given that none seem to have symptoms of the disease it's likely a case of oversensitive tests. Let's not also forget that these tests are mostly (at least all the ones I've seen) called COVID-19 tests.
On the "shedding" point, not necessarily. The virus can be present in but contained by the immune response from the mucosae of the upper respiratory tract in such a way that it is unable to spread into the lungs and cause COVID-19, yet not shed in large enough quantities to infect others. Given time, a healthy immune system will deal with the virus in the nose and throat, often without the host even noticing. Such a situation would set off a PCR or rapid test but not present a meaningful COVID-19 infection risk to the others. (In fact, one hypothesis for why positive cases rise soon after vaccination and booster campaigns start is because of the well understood phenomenon of reduced immune response for a short time after vaccination, giving such virus already present in the upper respiratory tract at time of vaccination the edge it needs to get into the lungs.)
And the cycle thresholds on PCR tests are often set nonsensically high making them sensitive to quantities of virus and viral debris far lower than the quantity required to meaningfully infect either the host or someone else via shedding. They can also trigger positive on not just virus but viral debris for months after recovery from COVID-19 infection. (A test can be too sensitive, especially when used as the only evidence to force someone and their contacts to isolate and in some cases not earn an income for weeks.)
> It doesn't matter if you're infected if you're not shedding the virus.
I agree, but I'm not sure if the Belgian authorities, who seem to use PCR positives as a COVID-19 diagnosis, and PCR negatives as a guarantee of safety from infection risk to others, would. The article does what most articles these days do, conflating presence of SARS-CoV-2 debris on a swab with COVID-19 disease diagnosis. It incorrectly claims 2/3rds of the 25 staff have COVID-19, when given that none seem to have symptoms of the disease it's likely a case of oversensitive tests. Let's not also forget that these tests are mostly (at least all the ones I've seen) called COVID-19 tests.
> Given time, a healthy immune system will deal with the virus in the nose and throat, often without the host even noticing.
Ah ok, so that might explain why there's a significant number of people who say that they had covid without difficulty, at least of they didn't test false positive.
Thanks for explaining the nuance - I've heard a lot of this before but it's refreshing how succinctly you captured it.
Ah ok, so that might explain why there's a significant number of people who say that they had covid without difficulty, at least of they didn't test false positive.
Thanks for explaining the nuance - I've heard a lot of this before but it's refreshing how succinctly you captured it.
Not sure there are many animal reservoirs in Antartica, where the only mammals are seals and cetaceans, neither of which have much human contact.
There are humans in Antarctica though. As I said, humans can carry the virus and not set off a test.
Most probably people not staying in quarantine or still get infected in transit somehow.
There's a weak link somewhere--I wonder if it's flight crews in this case. If the pilot and other crew for the leg from South Africa to Antarctica weren't also isolating 10 days and tested at the same time, then there's your infection vector.
There’s also the factor that some people have a longer incubation period. Early on in the pandemic there were reports of some people having 21-27 day incubation periods before testing positive and getting sick. I think it’s less common now with delta and omicron but likely still possible in rare instances.
it’s only clear if they can verify 100% compliance
Not even then. If they can verify 100% compliance, we can adjust our estimates about the false negative rate of these tests (which we already know not to be perfect)
(And maybe not even that. There could have been an infection between the tests “when leaving Cape Town for Antarctica” and actual departure)
(And maybe not even that. There could have been an infection between the tests “when leaving Cape Town for Antarctica” and actual departure)
I'd say "overkill" over ineffective. I do think that if all of these scientists were dying of the virus it was extremely ineffective, but thankfully they are not.
What are some realistic alternatives?
One would be to stop sending groups of people to that station.
Whether or not that's "realistic" is another question. It really depends on what's at stake, which is not clear yet. But the point is that governments around the world may face a very similar question in the weeks ahead.
Whether or not that's "realistic" is another question. It really depends on what's at stake, which is not clear yet. But the point is that governments around the world may face a very similar question in the weeks ahead.
Going back to normal and stopping the theater.
Everyone wants this. We should do it slowly, but we should do it.
In the US, omnicron is going fast. Hopefully, and I say this with week old information in a huge information-differential environment that evolves hourly, omnicron itself is a step towards mitigation.
In the US, omnicron is going fast. Hopefully, and I say this with week old information in a huge information-differential environment that evolves hourly, omnicron itself is a step towards mitigation.
[deleted]
Define normal.
No mandates.
No vaccine passbooks or apps.
Return jobs to employees lost because of vaccine compliance/rebuild small businesses (If this is somehow possible but the damage is already done).
No mask requirements.
Covid-19 Vaccines are available and treated in the same way as flu vaccines once FDA approved.
Yknow, normal.
No vaccine passbooks or apps.
Return jobs to employees lost because of vaccine compliance/rebuild small businesses (If this is somehow possible but the damage is already done).
No mask requirements.
Covid-19 Vaccines are available and treated in the same way as flu vaccines once FDA approved.
Yknow, normal.
[deleted]
ryandrake(4)
It only takes one slip...
[deleted]
I imagine they probably have a central air system recirculating the air.
A top flight HVAC system will have a Heat Recovery Ventilator, which is a heat exchanger that warms up incoming fresh air using the heat from the exhaust air.
It's been known for a long time that a hepa filter in the air handler would be a smart idea.
Seems like a lot of testing and no quarantine before the departure and on the arrival.
What can go wrong?
Edit: I missed the 10 day quarantine in South Africa. So it is not so bad.
What can go wrong?
Edit: I missed the 10 day quarantine in South Africa. So it is not so bad.
> All staff members preparing to depart to the station had to undergo a PCR test in Belgium two hours before leaving for South Africa, take a PCR test five days after their arrival in Cape Town, where they also had to quarantine for ten days.
But of course, there could have been more quarantining.
But of course, there could have been more quarantining.
[deleted]
And some people still insist that if we just locked down the world for x time the virus would go away.
Interesting headline choice leading to the sentence “No severe symptoms have been reported as of yet.”
The point of the article is that Antarctica's research stations--some of the most remote and isolated places on the planet--are now suffering COVID-19 outbreaks. This isn't some article trying to massage public opinion or make people feel better about ignoring the pandemic. It's an interesting look at how even places that think they are doing everything correctly to avoid infection are... not avoiding infection.
> suffering COVID-19 outbreaks.
The word choice foe describing covid over these years (!) is quite exaggerated.
If you read the article, where is the suffering?
The word choice foe describing covid over these years (!) is quite exaggerated.
If you read the article, where is the suffering?
It isn't that surprising, right? The population is 25 people, probably a slight skew toward being a little fitter than average given that it is an installation for field research, and I'd hope they are required to be vaccinated. Severe cases should be pretty rare I guess.
No severe symptoms? Great! Let them all go back to normal after this. Remove the social distancing, the masks, the plastic shields. Let them party, dance, etc
It’s torture to take an already isolated group and isolate them with “strict measures” which apparently do nothing to stop infection.
It’s torture to take an already isolated group and isolate them with “strict measures” which apparently do nothing to stop infection.
What's the quarantine situation? Shared bathrooms? High enough virus density in the quarantine room that a meal delivery person gets a blast through the door slot? Or some other source of virus escape?
The quarantine in Cape Town or in the base? The article is unclear, but it sounds like people don't quarantine at the base normally. This person did after testing positive 7 days after arrival, but by then it was too late.
Its almost like canceling all of humanity although it accomplishes extremely little but a CYA for the politicians is not the best way to handle this.
Im sure when are fighting the 200th variant whose symptoms are a day of fatigue we will almost be ready to end the restrictions.
And just for the record, im 2x vaccinated, not an antivaxxer or denier or something.
Im sure when are fighting the 200th variant whose symptoms are a day of fatigue we will almost be ready to end the restrictions.
And just for the record, im 2x vaccinated, not an antivaxxer or denier or something.
Why do you feel like you have to qualify your comment by disclosing your vaccination status?
Surely that shouldn’t dictate whether you’re allowed to express your thoughts on a subject or the factual accuracy of your statements.
Surely that shouldn’t dictate whether you’re allowed to express your thoughts on a subject or the factual accuracy of your statements.
Because people like to group everyone in to camps so if I say anything remotely dismissive of an official covid narrative, I'm probably just some anti science, anti vaxxer, whose opinion isn't worth listening too (according to them).
So at a minimum, dismiss me if you want, but not because I'm in the evil other camp, because I'm not.
So at a minimum, dismiss me if you want, but not because I'm in the evil other camp, because I'm not.
Or perhaps because people should not be divided into the two extremes of antivax conspiracy theorists and infinite lockdown aficionados.
That’s just a convenient fallacy to dismiss criticism.
That’s just a convenient fallacy to dismiss criticism.
I agree.. but unfortunately nowadays we shove people who refuse or are skeptical about COVID vaccine in the "anti-vaxxer" basket so people have to clarify that
I found the disclosure helpful because I had assumed they were one of those vocal antivaxxers.
What are your thoughts on the hospitalization of infected people? Hospitals are at capacity or overflowing.
not in England they aren't
Ehm.... If there not exactly at capacity, the trend isn't looking great.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...
What we don’t have easy pubic access too is a breakdown of
1) total hospital admissions (not just those with covid but those without) and how that compares to a normal winter. If 4% of the country test positive for covid at the moment and 4% of hospital admissions have covid, that’s to be expected for example
2) age of those being admitted compared with covid by age
4) vaccination of those being admitted
There’s a chance that the Hugh number of cases is in those who are young and vaccinated and less likely to need hospitalisation, and we’ll soon reach peak transmission and cases will drop come January without it overwhelming hospitals.
There’s also a chance that it will spread to more vulnerable people, especially once school returns next week and grandparents start babysitting again, and hospitalisations will shoot up about 3rd/4th week in January as it spreads throughout the over 60s.
It’s not just a matter of dividing infections by hospitalisations a week later, getting a number, and plugging it in to calculate capacity. Not is it a matter of comparing those going into hospital with covid with last year, as more cases means fewer people going in without covid.
1) total hospital admissions (not just those with covid but those without) and how that compares to a normal winter. If 4% of the country test positive for covid at the moment and 4% of hospital admissions have covid, that’s to be expected for example
2) age of those being admitted compared with covid by age
4) vaccination of those being admitted
There’s a chance that the Hugh number of cases is in those who are young and vaccinated and less likely to need hospitalisation, and we’ll soon reach peak transmission and cases will drop come January without it overwhelming hospitals.
There’s also a chance that it will spread to more vulnerable people, especially once school returns next week and grandparents start babysitting again, and hospitalisations will shoot up about 3rd/4th week in January as it spreads throughout the over 60s.
It’s not just a matter of dividing infections by hospitalisations a week later, getting a number, and plugging it in to calculate capacity. Not is it a matter of comparing those going into hospital with covid with last year, as more cases means fewer people going in without covid.
It's 100% about hospital capacity and mass death. When hospitals around the country are no longer turning away cancer patients needing treatments and have plenty of ICUs for heart attacks and such, when they no longer have to rent fleets of refrigerator trucks every outbreak to store the bodies, the restrictions will end. It has always been about that and nothing more.
They could start by not terminating perfectly capable doctors and nurses who have decided, for whatever their reasons may be, to refuse vaccination. I’m vaccinated (and boosted) but I cannot understand why it was okay for these people to be on the frontlines of the fight for over a year but suddenly they are no longer acceptable. And I find no convincing argument as to why actually recovering from infection counts for nothing, but the vaccine does.
The decision to terminate unvaccinated individuals reeks of bureaucracy, not an understanding of science or medicine.
The decision to terminate unvaccinated individuals reeks of bureaucracy, not an understanding of science or medicine.
It’s pretty simple. They are more likely to get sick and more likely to infect those whose care they are entrusted with.
There’s a long history of this type of sanction. If you are a provider or nurse in a hospital who fails to get a measles, hepatitis, or rabies (after exposure) shot, you’ll be terminated for cause in many places.
The reason why recovery doesn’t “count” the same as vaccination is that immunity doesn’t last very long - 60-90 days typically. Some countries, such as Israel will recognize a single Pfizer dose and recovery as immune, if you have a negative PCR test.
There’s a long history of this type of sanction. If you are a provider or nurse in a hospital who fails to get a measles, hepatitis, or rabies (after exposure) shot, you’ll be terminated for cause in many places.
The reason why recovery doesn’t “count” the same as vaccination is that immunity doesn’t last very long - 60-90 days typically. Some countries, such as Israel will recognize a single Pfizer dose and recovery as immune, if you have a negative PCR test.
> It’s pretty simple. They are more likely to get sick and more likely to infect those whose care they are entrusted with.
In a vacuum, that makes sense. But in the midst of genuine shortage of healthcare professionals, it's myopic foolishness. And I'd guess your comment about the lasting effect of actual recovery is going to turn out to be very wrong and already contradicts most everything I've seen recently regarding the immune response to reinfection after Covid recovery.
edit: Here are a few links that contradict your statement that immunity doesn't last very long:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
https://www.futurity.org/covid-19-survivors-immunity-viruses...
In a vacuum, that makes sense. But in the midst of genuine shortage of healthcare professionals, it's myopic foolishness. And I'd guess your comment about the lasting effect of actual recovery is going to turn out to be very wrong and already contradicts most everything I've seen recently regarding the immune response to reinfection after Covid recovery.
edit: Here are a few links that contradict your statement that immunity doesn't last very long:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
https://www.futurity.org/covid-19-survivors-immunity-viruses...
Israel issues vaccination credentials to recovered COVID patients with 1 Pfizer dose. There’s a lot of data from there about this topic.
Initially, those folks are “super immune”, but it fades much quicker than expected last summer. Around November data started indicating that those individuals were much more likely (10x iirc) to contract COVID than a person fully vaccinated in the same timeframe.
Initially, those folks are “super immune”, but it fades much quicker than expected last summer. Around November data started indicating that those individuals were much more likely (10x iirc) to contract COVID than a person fully vaccinated in the same timeframe.
In all honesty I don't want people uneducated or conspiracy-minded enough to not take the vaccine treating me anyway even in a shortage situation.
You don't want people who have medical degrees and are experts in their field treating you?
Because you have a better understanding of this than they do?
That seems like a strange position to take.
I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
Because you have a better understanding of this than they do?
That seems like a strange position to take.
I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
I’m all ears. On the face of it, getting vaccinated is a no brainer. I’d love to hear a medical reason for healthy individuals not to get vaccinated.
So far I’ve only heard arguments about vaccine mandates infringing on peoples rights, even though they never batted an eyelid at other vaccines. Why is this one a problem?
So far looking at the death rates, cases of severe illness, vaccination is the way to go. So I’d love to hear a compelling argument why you’d avoid it.
I’m all ears. On the face of it, getting vaccinated is a no brainer. I’d love to hear a medical reason for healthy individuals not to get vaccinated.
So far I’ve only heard arguments about vaccine mandates infringing on peoples rights, even though they never batted an eyelid at other vaccines. Why is this one a problem?
So far looking at the death rates, cases of severe illness, vaccination is the way to go. So I’d love to hear a compelling argument why you’d avoid it.
Having natural immunity is an excellent reason, according to all of the studies I've read.
From what I've seen, there is no risk in being vaccinated when you already have prior infection, and there are benefits to doing so. So I don't see why prior infection would constitute a good medical reason to avoid vaccination.
(Aside: it is worth noting that vaccination also induces "natural immunity", as it introduces viral units [via various mechanisms depending on specific vaccine type] that cause the immune system to work more or less the same way as it would if presented with a regular viral infection. So using the term "natural immunity" when what you really mean is "prior infection" smacks quite heavily of chemophobia.)
(Aside: it is worth noting that vaccination also induces "natural immunity", as it introduces viral units [via various mechanisms depending on specific vaccine type] that cause the immune system to work more or less the same way as it would if presented with a regular viral infection. So using the term "natural immunity" when what you really mean is "prior infection" smacks quite heavily of chemophobia.)
No it’s not because the risk of getting serious illness is/was much higher compared to any vaccine. The risk of death is certainly higher. Again getting vaccinated is a no brainer on the face of it.
It seems like you don't have that much experience with real world doctors. Lots of highly educated doctors become complete crackpots who you'd not want to be putting a band-aid on you. Dr. Oz is one such very high profile example (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz#Reception) but there's lots more. I've had experiences with much less famous doctors that got all the proper education but then later lost their minds and/or decided to just make as much cash as possible. Really really common. I have trust in the field of medicine but in specific doctors just because they have their medical degree? no way.
What percentage of doctors are unvaccinated? Or is there atleast a number or some reporting on doctors getting fired for refusing vaccinations?
>I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
Examples?
>I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
Examples?
It’s literally the dumbest line of logic and my barely literate neighbor justifies his antivax status with the same theory. “What do the doctors who have declined the vaccine know that I don’t”
Even though over 99% of practicing doctors and something like 99.9% of hospitalists are vaccinated, they hold up that 1/1,000 as some sort of “truthsayer”.
If 999 experts in a field told you they trusted something and 1/1,000 said they didn’t —- you’d have to be an absolute fool to blindly follow the 1 and I'm a bit surprised how common this argument is on HN.
Even though over 99% of practicing doctors and something like 99.9% of hospitalists are vaccinated, they hold up that 1/1,000 as some sort of “truthsayer”.
If 999 experts in a field told you they trusted something and 1/1,000 said they didn’t —- you’d have to be an absolute fool to blindly follow the 1 and I'm a bit surprised how common this argument is on HN.
Doctors are just people, and like other people, a minority are idiots or feel they are invincible.
Well, I personally know three and have seen many videos of others who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits for healthy people who have natural immunity.
So, that's more than one.
So, that's more than one.
Just nonsense. “Natural immunity” is another one of those amazing shibboleth words for those who don’t understand probabilities. It’s kind of amazing how innumerate most antivax people are.
Can you elaborate on what your problem is with the term "natural immunity"?
> Because you have a better understanding of this than they do?
I think that the vast majority of doctors that have taken the vaccine to protect themselves are probably smarter than the tiny minority that have refused, yes.
I think that the vast majority of doctors that have taken the vaccine to protect themselves are probably smarter than the tiny minority that have refused, yes.
I believe my beliefs and choices are morally superior to yours, so that completely invalidates your merit! /s
Let them eat cake!
I encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated but that doesn't produce lasting immunity against infection either. Immunity is a spectrum, not a binary condition.
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
Confine them to covid wards
Those doctors and nurses are little more than saboteurs. Would you hire someone who would willingly increases their own risk of being unable to work by orders of magnitude for no actual gain?
Note that this is not like not hiring someone who likes to go mountain biking and therefore are more likely to hurt themselves and not work. Hobbies like that have real benefits. Vaccine denial not.
Note that this is not like not hiring someone who likes to go mountain biking and therefore are more likely to hurt themselves and not work. Hobbies like that have real benefits. Vaccine denial not.
How about scale up the hospitals, or at least covid capacity in a meaningful way. How long does they public have to bear burden of insufficient health infra.
EDIT: Sorry that might have come off a bit blunt. But the entire pandemic response has been frustratingly insufficient in my opinion. A variant like Omicron was long predicted and expected. How are we not prepared with a plan to end lockdowns?
And blaming unvaccinated or anti-maskers is not a good answer. Modeling of acceptance should’ve been done. It’s not like these contrarian sentiments were surprising either.
All together it feels like this response to omicron is a public health failure.
EDIT: Sorry that might have come off a bit blunt. But the entire pandemic response has been frustratingly insufficient in my opinion. A variant like Omicron was long predicted and expected. How are we not prepared with a plan to end lockdowns?
And blaming unvaccinated or anti-maskers is not a good answer. Modeling of acceptance should’ve been done. It’s not like these contrarian sentiments were surprising either.
All together it feels like this response to omicron is a public health failure.
The US is a public health failure. We didn’t want “socialized” medicine.
So we got what we wanted, the best nurses are making $300/hr in COVID hotspots and leaving new grads and understaffed facilities in their wake.
So we got what we wanted, the best nurses are making $300/hr in COVID hotspots and leaving new grads and understaffed facilities in their wake.
Feel free to name the country that isn't experiencing the exact same issues regarding COVID hotspots and understaffed facilities, "socialized medicine" or not.
Japan, Israel, South Korea, New Zealand come to mind. Honestly, it’s not very hard… the US went from the respected world leader to a public health carnival sideshow overnight.
CDC is taking cues from places like South Africa and Israel now. It’s pathetic.
CDC is taking cues from places like South Africa and Israel now. It’s pathetic.
This is not a productive viewpoint, it’s defeatist.
How would socialized medicine help in this specific case? More power to the government? The government already has plenty of power to influence outcomes through spending. However, that power has been applied poorly.
We need mass repeal of old government regulations and the appointing of technocrats (as in people concerned with low level details of regulations). Additionally we need new highly adversarial independent regulatory bodies to prevent capitalistic interests from causing market collapse.
The current agencies are too in bed with industry, and it’s not beneficial to the public.
Giving more power to the current government systems which rolled out this poor response seems like the wrong answer.
How would socialized medicine help in this specific case? More power to the government? The government already has plenty of power to influence outcomes through spending. However, that power has been applied poorly.
We need mass repeal of old government regulations and the appointing of technocrats (as in people concerned with low level details of regulations). Additionally we need new highly adversarial independent regulatory bodies to prevent capitalistic interests from causing market collapse.
The current agencies are too in bed with industry, and it’s not beneficial to the public.
Giving more power to the current government systems which rolled out this poor response seems like the wrong answer.
And who will staff them?
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/uk-lacks-nursing-staff-to-...
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/uk-lacks-nursing-staff-to-...
Here are a few options:
* Spend tens of billions training new medical staff so you can save hundreds of billions / trillions on not having to lock people down
* Stop admitting COVID patients at government subsidized hospitals when there is a shortage of hospital beds, with the exception of essential and frontline workers, so that hundreds of millions of people don't need to be locked down
* Make those who are not vaccinated, or do not have recent booster shots, ineligible for care for COVID at government subsidized hospitals, when there is a shortage of hospital beds, so that hundreds of millions of people don't need to be locked down
But the go-to solution seems to be: massively violate the civil and economic liberties of the entire population, to prevent COVID surges from causing a shortage of hospital beds.
* Spend tens of billions training new medical staff so you can save hundreds of billions / trillions on not having to lock people down
* Stop admitting COVID patients at government subsidized hospitals when there is a shortage of hospital beds, with the exception of essential and frontline workers, so that hundreds of millions of people don't need to be locked down
* Make those who are not vaccinated, or do not have recent booster shots, ineligible for care for COVID at government subsidized hospitals, when there is a shortage of hospital beds, so that hundreds of millions of people don't need to be locked down
But the go-to solution seems to be: massively violate the civil and economic liberties of the entire population, to prevent COVID surges from causing a shortage of hospital beds.
The ones you didn't force out because they didn't want to get vaccinated?
There are approximately 0 actual nurses capable of running critical care beds who are antivaxxers. It’s such a fringe position that’s given far more press coverage than it deserves. Blaming the hospital shortage on the hypothetical vaccine mandates chasing away capable staff is completely without evidence.
Every story of a health care provider firing unvaccinated staff has only had losses of less than 1%. That's not enough to make a significant difference.
> How are we not prepared with a plan to end lockdowns?
We barely ever had anything approximating lockdowns and they ended long ago. We don't generally make plans to do things after they are already done.
We barely ever had anything approximating lockdowns and they ended long ago. We don't generally make plans to do things after they are already done.
> How are we not prepared with a plan to end lockdowns?
We don't have lockdowns, and haven't had lockdowns in America
> And blaming unvaccinated or anti-maskers is not a good answer
Blaming the unvaccinated, who comprise the overwhelming majority of those that get hospitalized, spread it and die, is a good answer. I think a lot of this is solved by deprioritizing them at triage time or letting them recuperate at home.
We don't have lockdowns, and haven't had lockdowns in America
> And blaming unvaccinated or anti-maskers is not a good answer
Blaming the unvaccinated, who comprise the overwhelming majority of those that get hospitalized, spread it and die, is a good answer. I think a lot of this is solved by deprioritizing them at triage time or letting them recuperate at home.
I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated but blaming people for making unhealthy choices isn't an effective public health measure. It didn't work in the HIV/AIDS pandemic and it won't work now. Better to focus on education and harm minimization.
Due to EMTALA, hospitals in the US are required to treat unstable patients regardless of vaccination status. Changing that would require an Act of Congress. Also note that there is no 100% reliable way for hospitals to determine a particular patient's vaccination status; the registries have some data quality and record linkage problems.
Due to EMTALA, hospitals in the US are required to treat unstable patients regardless of vaccination status. Changing that would require an Act of Congress. Also note that there is no 100% reliable way for hospitals to determine a particular patient's vaccination status; the registries have some data quality and record linkage problems.
I share your frustration, but the anti-vax people were expected. It’s like sitting into the wind at this point. The game plan should’ve been built around there non-compliance.
Poor leadership only plans for things going how they want.
As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
I was using the shorthand.
Poor leadership only plans for things going how they want.
As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
I was using the shorthand.
> The game plan should’ve been built around there non-compliance.
That is correct, and that's why they proposed the OSHA rule for mandating vaccinations after months of incentives. I think some % of non-compliance is understandable, but the remaining unvaccinated seem to be doing it for political reasons over anything else.
> As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
Right, we had those last year. Not since, in America at least.
That is correct, and that's why they proposed the OSHA rule for mandating vaccinations after months of incentives. I think some % of non-compliance is understandable, but the remaining unvaccinated seem to be doing it for political reasons over anything else.
> As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
Right, we had those last year. Not since, in America at least.
I am in the US and schools are still doing "distance" learning and restaurants are not allowed at full capacity.
I don't know any school districts that have permanently been doing distance learning (though some, stupidly, are doing another round of it because of the omicron surge) and I have not heard of any restaurant capacity restrictions in my very blue, COVID conscious city.
Well, where I am things are still quite restrictive
That’s not a lockdown by any reasonable definition of the term.
The AMA doesn't want an oversupply of competition.
False. The current physician shortage is primarily caused by insufficient federal funding for medical residencies. Every year there are doctors who graduate from medical school but are never allowed to practice medicine because they can't get matched to a residency program. The AMA has been lobbying Congress to increase the supply for years.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
There's other sources of money. Hospitals have like a trillion dollars of revenue at this point, I bet diverting some of that to training doctors would work out fine.
>Every year there are doctors who graduate from medical school but are never allowed to practice medicine because they can't get matched to a residency program.
Aren't 99% of unmatched, graduates of sketchy overseas medical schools?
Aren't 99% of unmatched, graduates of sketchy overseas medical schools?
Typically about 5% of medical school graduates don't get matched, although some of those do get in later.
https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/match/if-you-re-...
As for overseas medical schools, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation is supposed to ensure they meet the same standards as domestic schools. I haven't seen any real evidence that they're sketchy.
https://sites.ed.gov/ncfmea/
https://www.ama-assn.org/residents-students/match/if-you-re-...
As for overseas medical schools, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation is supposed to ensure they meet the same standards as domestic schools. I haven't seen any real evidence that they're sketchy.
https://sites.ed.gov/ncfmea/
Knowing a number of foreign medical grads, I'd have to agree that they are not, as a rule, skethcy.
It has been nearly 2 years. Have they considered training a few people to handle respiratory diseases and bulking up the hospitals?
Nursing is hard and takes years of training, but 2 years would have been long enough to teach people how to manage the average case of 1 disease.
There have been a lot of people sitting around doing not much, they could probably use the work.
Nursing is hard and takes years of training, but 2 years would have been long enough to teach people how to manage the average case of 1 disease.
There have been a lot of people sitting around doing not much, they could probably use the work.
There is also the argument for encouraging people to lead a healthier lifestyle. Even though it’s political suicide to tell people that they need to get in shape, two years of a push from the government would have had enough time to make a great impact on overall population health.
As many others below have pointed out, there are a variety of reasons why this narrative is extremely flimsy. All ends do not justify all means, especially when the proven correlation between the ends and the means is often lacking or doesn't support the use of the means at all.
Very normal.
With a minuscule fatality rate at this point, all these measures seem like a massive waste of energy and resources. Masks, vaccines, dividers, hand sanitizer… none of it actually stops transmission. Spare everyone from this godawful ceremony.
Hospitalizations tend to precede fatalities. While I hope you're right, it's too early (by a couple weeks in the US, at least) to start trumpeting a "minuscule fatality rate".
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/current-covid-patients-ho...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/current-covid-patients-ho...
Unless you’re elderly or have health issues, Covid fatality rate was already very, very low. Therapeutics make that even better.
It depends on your definition of "elderly", "health issues", and "very, very low".
There were 60,000 US fatalities of people younger than 50 (1 Vietnam War's worth of US casualties, or, if you prefer, 15,000 Benghazis).
Yes, for many of the dead, you can retroactively point to "health issues", but those are _extremely_ common, even among people who generally don't consider themselves "chronically ill" at all. And some of the "health issues" might come down to having a bad set of certain genes that up to now have never caused any significant issues.
Finally, there are other Covid consequences than death. I personally know several people (some of them perfectly healthy people in their early 20s) dealing with fatigue/loss of taste for a year (and counting). Personally, I'm fairly confident that the risk of severe outcomes of an acute COVID-19 infection are minuscule for me, thanks to vaccination (So that's a vast improvement over a year ago), but the risks of chronic complications are not as well managed with vaccines, are not particularly closely correlated with severity of the acute infection, and are, as of yet, practically unknown for the omicron variant.
There were 60,000 US fatalities of people younger than 50 (1 Vietnam War's worth of US casualties, or, if you prefer, 15,000 Benghazis).
Yes, for many of the dead, you can retroactively point to "health issues", but those are _extremely_ common, even among people who generally don't consider themselves "chronically ill" at all. And some of the "health issues" might come down to having a bad set of certain genes that up to now have never caused any significant issues.
Finally, there are other Covid consequences than death. I personally know several people (some of them perfectly healthy people in their early 20s) dealing with fatigue/loss of taste for a year (and counting). Personally, I'm fairly confident that the risk of severe outcomes of an acute COVID-19 infection are minuscule for me, thanks to vaccination (So that's a vast improvement over a year ago), but the risks of chronic complications are not as well managed with vaccines, are not particularly closely correlated with severity of the acute infection, and are, as of yet, practically unknown for the omicron variant.
That's complete nonsense. If covid wasn't as deadly as we have been reliably informed, then they would not be forcing us to go through these otherwise-draconian and insane mandates or lockdowns.
I just spent 10 minutes Googling for a good source and surprisingly couldn’t find one. For under 65 say, the fatality rate is well under 1%. This was before vaccines and Omnicron is estimated as 70% lower. We must be well under the IFR of flu already.
The CDC has published estimates of fatality rate by age group.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
That’s interesting data. Thanks for the link
I think the person you're replying to was being sarcastic
> then they would not be forcing us to go through these otherwise-draconian and insane mandates or lockdowns.
Your faith in the government acting benevolently is surprising. There is the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste"
Your faith in the government acting benevolently is surprising. There is the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste"
So how deadly do you think COVID is?
In New Hampshire, 93% of the deaths are over 60.
[deleted]
I think of it as a fire drill, a preparation for a real fire. Just trying to find some rationale in this madness.
>With a minuscule fatality rate at this point,
Even at 0.1% over 7b population that's still a couple million body bags so measures even if only partially effective at preventing transmission are still worthwhile
Even at 0.1% over 7b population that's still a couple million body bags so measures even if only partially effective at preventing transmission are still worthwhile
Transmission can be delayed in some cases but ultimately prevention is futile and everyone will be exposed. Fortunately the vaccines and other treatments cut the fatality rate way down.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
[deleted]
They didn't fare much better with alien shapeshifters, either.
Peter Watts wrote a short story from the perspective of The Thing. It's very good, like all his work.
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
Thanks for this. Never would have thought of this perspective for myself. "What would the alien be thinking?"
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a false positive due to the CDC is now recommending against PCR tests as they can’t tell between corona or the flu. I hate to say it but I think some of the people who were saying the numbers were wrong might be right, we might have been counting the flu this whole time along with the coronavirus.
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert...
https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert...
> …the CDC is now recommending against PCR tests as they can’t tell between corona or the flu.
False: https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check-cdc-pcr-covid-test-d...
False: https://khn.org/news/article/fact-check-cdc-pcr-covid-test-d...
Please, not this misinformation and fake news on HN too. There's enough of it on Facebook and right wing circles.
How? That's what the linked CDC page says.
No, it's not. What the page says is that ONE PCR test (the oldest one) is being phased out. If you look at the page of tests still authorised, you'll see lots of PCR tests: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019...
And the page says nothing about the now-withdrawn test being unable to differentiate between Covid and Influenza (which is not true). It encourages the development of tests that test for BOTH (since the patient is being tested anyway), but points out that those results must be reported separately.
And the page says nothing about the now-withdrawn test being unable to differentiate between Covid and Influenza (which is not true). It encourages the development of tests that test for BOTH (since the patient is being tested anyway), but points out that those results must be reported separately.
That’s not what it says, it says they want to do a new test that can detect both and differentiate between the two.
The cynical take would be that that would mean they can order quarantines for the flu as well, of course.
The cynical take would be that that would mean they can order quarantines for the flu as well, of course.
(I'm no virologist but given that the common cold didn't seem to be impacted by the severe lockdowns in the UK at all, whereas flu was, I've gotten the - uneducated - feeling the cold is a bit like some STDs in the way it can linger around in people and pop up whenever the conditions are right. Maybe some COVID variant will end up similarly persistent and endemic?)