Hacker News Reader

Comment by ufo | Hacker News Reader

The experts interviewed in the article the OP posted all agree that a persistent infection in an imunocompromised individual is one of the leading theories. Maybe even more plausible than a reverse zoonotic event.

People with a compromised immune system are a good setting for evolving new variante of coronavirus. They stay sick for a long time (meaning more viral replication and more opportunities for mutation) and they apply a weak immune response which while not sufficient to wipe out the disease, provides selective pressure that rewards immune evasion.

There's a common antivaxxer myth that vaccines promote the creation of new variants and that we would be better off without vaccination. I think it's very important to emphasize that is not the case.

View on HN

Experts had all kinds of wrong opinions on lab leak too

You seem like someone who is awfully sure of yourself.

Every single prediction I've made about this entire pandemic, the response to it, and the narrative surrounding it has come true for over a year.

Judging by our other comment exchange, I doubt you'd even notice if you were patently wrong.

Like I said above. Check back in with me in 9 months and we'll see

> a persistent infection in an imunocompromised individual is one of the most plausible theories

> People with a compromised immune system are a good setting for evolving new variante of coronavirus

If it turns out to be the case, should we have HIV / Cancer Patient Passports? After all, these people can be a general danger to public health as they can demonstrably incubate new dangerous strains of diseases, like Omicron.

Of course not! Please don't suggest that I would say such a heartless thing! We're talking about someone who had to be sick for months, probably inside a hospital already.

The important thing to do is get everyone vaccinated, including in Africa where there is a tremendous shortage of vaccines. The more the virus spreads, the more chances it has to mutate into new variants. Also, when everyone is vaccinated, the elderly and immunocompromised are less likely to be exposed to the disease; vaccination should be seen first as a public-health policy, not as a means for individual protection. Not to mention that, even though the vaccination is less effective individually for the immunocompromised, they are one of the groups that are at most risk from covid and therefore most benefit from being vaccinated.

> vaccination is less effective individually for the immunocompromised

> People with a compromised immune system are a good setting for evolving new variants of coronavirus

> They stay sick for a long time (meaning more viral replication and more opportunities for mutation) and they apply a weak immune response which while not sufficient to wipe out the disease, provides selective pressure that rewards immune evasion.

If what you say is true about immunocompromised people I fail to see a public health argument against their quarantine and certification via passports. We already restrict a much larger and healthier subpopulation (the unvaccinated) so restricting this smaller and disproportionately more dangerous one does seem quite obvious to me, based on public health. And as you say, these people are most likely already hospitalized so quarantine procedures should be fairly easy to implement and follow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com