Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

Same here.

Congratulations and thanks to everybody who worked so hard on this.

Screw the media for pushing this and lockdown as the only possible solution. This will still take ages to be rolled out.

No, it won't. they are projecting 50 million doses to be ready in 2020 and 1.1 billion next year. That means that mom and dad and grandma are likely to get it within the next few months and that by mid next year, you'll probably have access to it if you are a healthy thirty year old.

Those 1.1 billion doses are not for the US alone. The vaccine was actually developed by Biontech in Germany before Pfizer was involved. Pfizer is the partner to scale up the studies and production. But you can assume that those doses are not US only. And then I'd doubt that a healthy 30 year old will get it in summer of 2021.

I believe 300M of them are accounted for by the EU vaccine purchase program. That said, it looks like those doses will be made in Europe; Pfizer seems set up to make it this in multiple facilities, which is a good sign.

Indeed. If you're in a low-risk group - no comorbidities, under 35 years old, not working in a front line role that exposes you to Covid, it's going to be a long time before you get the vaccine.

A vaccine is most effective if it manages to break chains of transmissions. That means you'd want to optimize for likely chains of transmissions, and not only for giving it to those vulnerably to the virus.

So grandma might need to wait, and the grandkids going to school might get it first, then healthy 20/30-somethings working in public facing jobs etc.

Look, I get that you find lockdowns an inconvenience but the real world isn’t a TV show where a cheap and easily distributed cure will be invented 10 minutes before the end of the episode. People will reliably die until a vaccine or highly effective treatment is widely available, and the only way to slow that is to rely on proven public health techniques.

While you’re being inconvenienced remember that you’re better off than most people who’ve ever lived. Isolation and fear of early death were a pervasive part of life until the 20th century brought vaccination and antibiotics, and we’re getting only a small reminder of what used to be normal.

You criticized the commenter for objecting to lockdown. Why are the people you refer to dying? Is it possible it is because they aren't quarantining and staying at home?

Until we have an effective prevention or cure, we have to reduce the chances of catching it, especially during the period where people are spreading it before they show symptoms. Since it spreads mostly from prolonged time breathing the same air, the point of lockdowns is preventing those situations from arising. Quarantining after you become symptomatic is too late and without legal weight too many people won’t avoid situations to stop community spread.

That matters because there are things that you have to do, and you don’t have a way to control other people’s decisions. Closing high-risk recreational activities means that someone can go shopping with less risk because the people near them weren’t hanging out at the bar the night before.

The vast majority of Americans live in households where someone has to physically go to work in order to feed their family. Many others must leave their homes to purchase basic essentials.

The value of a lockdown isn't in changing the behavior of those who are already voluntarily avoiding exposure -- its value is in changing the behavior of those who inconsiderately spread it to others during their essential travels outside of their house.

That's strange because Argentina and Peru stayed locked down for months over their winter, yet there case numbers kept rising.

Doesn't sound strange to me. Rising case numbers is 100% a likely (or even expected) condition under a successful lockdown.

1. We have no idea what a null hypothesis scenario would be in Argentina or Peru.

2. Regardless, "flattening the curve" is more of a statement about the first or second derivative of case numbers.

1. What would the rate have been without doing anything?

2. Do you have data showing how effective the lockdowns were? Did they have a problem with compliance?

Here’s a recent publication which could inform your opinion - note especially the part about employment forcing people to leave their houses to work:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

“ Latin American countries have long had some of the most scarring income inequalities in the world, and they are predicted to worsen. The informal labour market is huge, making up 54% of all work across the region (up to 70% in some countries, such as Peru). Informal workers have little access to social protection and have no choice but to continue to work daily to earn a living. The result is that their capability to follow quarantine and social distancing measures is limited. Informal workers also have less access to health care.”

…

“The increases in obesity and diabetes in Latin America are surely major contributors to the high mortality rates. In Mexico and Chile, more than 75% of the female population is overweight. Nutrient-poor and energy-dense processed foods are often the only type of food readily affordable to the most disadvantaged people. Although some countries, including Brazil and Costa Rica, have a universal health-care system, most Latin American countries have large gaps in accessibility caused mainly by out-of-pocket health expenditure, which is 34% of total health spending.”

It's difficult to say because most places did lockdown. Everyone expected Sweden to Spiral out of control but they didn't. Neil Fergusons models predicted an order of magnitude more deaths there (https://www.aier.org/article/imperial-college-model-applied-...) .

"Sweden had more deaths than Norway and Finland" yes they screwed up sending people to care homes when it first hit - over half of their deaths occurred there. like most of the countries that got hit early. Plus a lot of dark skinned immigrants (vitamin D levels have been shown to be a big factor). Those alone account for a lot of the difference. There is little reason to believe that lockdown had a very positive effect.

Neil Ferguson is a popular target by people misrepresenting his research. There’s a reason why you’re citing a self-published essay by a guy with no relevant experience who gets a paycheck from the Kochs for general right-wing activism rather than peer-reviewed research by someone with public health or medical expertise.

Victoria, Australia had a lockdown that lasted for only 3 months and completely eradicated covid from the state.

Hypothesis about why Asia and nearby countries got affected so much less than the West, with what seems to be a decent data analysis. TLDR, exposure to bats in these countries and travel between them.

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1298956333941743616?...

Victoria had an exploding case count that was set to match the rest of the world before the government did a hard lockdown. And not just the feel good ones they do in the US, the lockdown meant you could only leave the house for 1 hour a day for exercise within a 5km radius and anyone who absolutely had to leave the house had to show proof and wear a mask. The case count fell sharply only after these measures were put in place.

Nobody can 100% stay home. The more every does though the better the less than 100% works. When someone getting their prescriptions refills gets it they are just as sick as someone who goes to a bar and gets it. The only difference is someone who goes to a bar is out a lot more and so has a higher chance of getting it.

The lockdowns are causing immense economic damage. Even the WHO has pointed out that one of the main things they do is make the poor poorer. I have a feeling that this cure will cause more damage than the virus.

This is a common misunderstanding encouraged by certain politicians but it’s misattributing the cause: the pandemic is causing the economic damage. Most of the businesses worst affected are ones like restaurants and bars, which were going to collapse as soon as their customers realized that patronizing them is inherently risky. For example, Sweden famously didn’t have lockdowns but still saw a major economic decline - perhaps a little better than some other countries in Europe but still ruinous without government bailouts. Even if it’s legal most people will change their buying habits.

The other mistake is assuming that this is endless. Countries which have strict safety measures are able to reopen after having controlled spread - Australia had a hard lockdown and has now gone without any cases for a while. In contrast, the United States’ leaders chose to squander the sacrifice of the spring lockdown by not making it effective and then relaxing restrictions before the viral spread was controlled, ensuring the maximal cost for minimal benefit.

What are the other solutions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com