5 ms·

TL;DR: we don't know

by eric__cartman 5y ago

rafale 5y ago
Which is way better than what the media has been "speculating".
- afavour 5y ago
  I do wish people would be more specific when saying “the media”. There are a lot of media outlets out there, some are level headed, some are hysterical.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Which ones do you believe are level headed?
    - iamdamian 5y ago
      The Economist.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        The financial press is always better on this sort of thing because they are only really interested in the economic outcomes.
        unmole 5y ago
        Not really, the FT was the first one to go hysterical.
  - aninteger 5y ago
    Yes, but media outlets that go "hysterical" are the ones that get the most views and get talked about most. Nothing we can do about that in a free society, it's just human nature.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Usually when people say "the media", they mean the mainstream liberal leaning news companies like CNN[1] or New York Times[2]. When talking about Fox (conservative media), people usually just say that. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/28/world/coronavirus-omicron-variant-spreading-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/28/world/coronavirus-omicron-var... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/governors-omicron-covid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/governors-omicron-covi...
    - afavour 5y ago
      You’re kind of proving the point here, the media does not only exist in some “conservative vs not conservative” binary. CNN is a cable news network, NYT is a subscription based newspaper. Their output differs accordingly.
      - reglkjlkjaegr 5y ago
        No it doesn't. You might as well say CNN is the commie news network. The NYT was actually exposed last year as have many CCP members employed there. So shut the fuck up libtard.
EugeneOZ 5y ago
I just caught myself on the funny fact, that my level of trust for some stranger on HN is higher than the level of trust for WHO. They worked hard to ruin their reputation.
- gukov 5y ago
  Yeah, not after this: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    We're still doing this? "Preliminary" is a key word, as is "clear". The clear evidence came (to the WHO, at least) about a week later. On the same day as the tweet, they provided further information that doesn't fit in a tweet indicating they expected things to potentially change: > The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official noted in a press briefing that there "may have been" limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus between family members and that there was "a risk of a possible outbreak." The WHO doesn't have a covert intelligence arm, so they only had what information the Chinese were willing to provide at the time. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/30/brian-fitzpatrick/no-world-health-organization-didnt-miss-coronaviru/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/30/brian-fitz...
  - Taywee 5y ago
    Wasn't that the most up-to-date data at the time? Are you claiming that they did find clear evidence and were lying about it, or that they somehow should have had evidence to the contrary at that time? Just like any burgeoning subject, you should generally keep up with the expert recommendations. Expecting them to have had all the answers and get everything exactly right in a circumstance with as many unknowns as this pandemic has had is foolish. It's silly how many people are treating medical agencies like this as if they're complete amateurs because some of their educated guess have ended up not being ideal, or that they've updated their recommendations regularly based on recent data. It seems like people are expecting medical organizations to be like politicians. Updating recommendations based on new data regularly isn't "double backing" or flip-flopping, it's updating recommendations based on new data. It does mean that sometimes their advice will not be correct, especially when the data is thin, but it's literally the best choice you have available. I really expect a technical community to be better about this kind of stuff. Limited data means less reliable conclusions.
chana_masala 5y ago
How then did this even become a"variant of concern" if so little is known about it?
- Trasmatta 5y ago
  The rate at which they noticed it spreading in SA and the number and type of mutations.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The "concern" in "variant of concern" is a function of the number of potentially significant mutations in the spike protein. It's an indicator of unknowns (and therefore unknown risks), not a positive indicator of risk.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  Because it's it became the most dominant strain of covid in SA in about two weeks. And it has a massive number of mutations compared to other strains. The former might be partly due to the collapse of last wave of delta. Latter tends to scare immunologists.

TL;DR: we don't know

rafale 5y ago

Which is way better than what the media has been "speculating".

afavour 5y ago
I do wish people would be more specific when saying “the media”. There are a lot of media outlets out there, some are level headed, some are hysterical.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Which ones do you believe are level headed?
  - iamdamian 5y ago
    The Economist.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      The financial press is always better on this sort of thing because they are only really interested in the economic outcomes.
      - unmole 5y ago
        Not really, the FT was the first one to go hysterical.
- aninteger 5y ago
  Yes, but media outlets that go "hysterical" are the ones that get the most views and get talked about most. Nothing we can do about that in a free society, it's just human nature.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Usually when people say "the media", they mean the mainstream liberal leaning news companies like CNN[1] or New York Times[2]. When talking about Fox (conservative media), people usually just say that. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/28/world/coronavirus-omicron-variant-spreading-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/28/world/coronavirus-omicron-var... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/governors-omicron-covid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/governors-omicron-covi...
  - afavour 5y ago
    You’re kind of proving the point here, the media does not only exist in some “conservative vs not conservative” binary. CNN is a cable news network, NYT is a subscription based newspaper. Their output differs accordingly.
    - reglkjlkjaegr 5y ago
      No it doesn't. You might as well say CNN is the commie news network. The NYT was actually exposed last year as have many CCP members employed there. So shut the fuck up libtard.

EugeneOZ 5y ago

I just caught myself on the funny fact, that my level of trust for some stranger on HN is higher than the level of trust for WHO. They worked hard to ruin their reputation.

gukov 5y ago
Yeah, not after this: https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21 https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?s=21
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  We're still doing this? "Preliminary" is a key word, as is "clear". The clear evidence came (to the WHO, at least) about a week later. On the same day as the tweet, they provided further information that doesn't fit in a tweet indicating they expected things to potentially change: > The timeline states that on that date, a WHO official noted in a press briefing that there "may have been" limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus between family members and that there was "a risk of a possible outbreak." The WHO doesn't have a covert intelligence arm, so they only had what information the Chinese were willing to provide at the time. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/30/brian-fitzpatrick/no-world-health-organization-didnt-miss-coronaviru/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/30/brian-fitz...
- Taywee 5y ago
  Wasn't that the most up-to-date data at the time? Are you claiming that they did find clear evidence and were lying about it, or that they somehow should have had evidence to the contrary at that time? Just like any burgeoning subject, you should generally keep up with the expert recommendations. Expecting them to have had all the answers and get everything exactly right in a circumstance with as many unknowns as this pandemic has had is foolish. It's silly how many people are treating medical agencies like this as if they're complete amateurs because some of their educated guess have ended up not being ideal, or that they've updated their recommendations regularly based on recent data. It seems like people are expecting medical organizations to be like politicians. Updating recommendations based on new data regularly isn't "double backing" or flip-flopping, it's updating recommendations based on new data. It does mean that sometimes their advice will not be correct, especially when the data is thin, but it's literally the best choice you have available. I really expect a technical community to be better about this kind of stuff. Limited data means less reliable conclusions.

chana_masala 5y ago

How then did this even become a"variant of concern" if so little is known about it?

Trasmatta 5y ago
The rate at which they noticed it spreading in SA and the number and type of mutations.
woodruffw 5y ago
The "concern" in "variant of concern" is a function of the number of potentially significant mutations in the spike protein. It's an indicator of unknowns (and therefore unknown risks), not a positive indicator of risk.
Gibbon1 5y ago
Because it's it became the most dominant strain of covid in SA in about two weeks. And it has a massive number of mutations compared to other strains. The former might be partly due to the collapse of last wave of delta. Latter tends to scare immunologists.