Hacker News Reader

Comment by heurisko | Hacker News Reader

> 2021: "Coronaviruses do not mutate" and "You won't catch it more than once"

> 2022: "Viruses become less deadly over time... so if we just bear with it a bit longer..."

I can't remember anyone saying that viruses don't mutate.

And nobody is currently saying "bear with it a bit longer". The media has just moved onto Ukraine as the next crisis fit for news saturation.

As long as healthcare systems are not being overwhelmed, there is no rationale for any further restrictions.

We just accept it as part of this risk of living, like using motorways, which are one of the biggest killers amongst younger cohorts.

View on HN

>I can't remember anyone saying that viruses don't mutate.

In 2020-21 there were plenty of articles claiming stuff like:

"The coronavirus is not mutating significantly as it circulates through the human population, according to scientists who are closely studying the novel pathogen’s genetic code. "

You can google the phrase for the source.

That phrase quickly "mutated" into "Coronaviruses don't mutate" on social media. I have examples, but I don't know how to link them while maintaining privacy.

"As long as healthcare systems are not being overwhelmed, there is no rationale for any further restrictions." - I'd express that as "as long as healthcare systems aren't at risk of becoming overwhelmed, there's no rationale for high- cost restrictions". I wouldn't consider mask wearing mandates and vaccination requirements as "high cost". I'd love it if we could just rely on folks to "do the right thing" but when it requires a significant percentage of the population to maintain particular preventative behaviours for them to be effective, mandates really are the only option. OTOH, testing/isolation is better off left as a strong recommendation, as mandating isolation does come with high costs, where the pros often don't outweigh the cons.

There's no reason for any restrictions, if the healthcare system is not in danger of being overwhelmed.

Risk is a fact of life. And arguably your wish for everyone to wear masks and have compulsory vaccinations focuses disproportionately on one particular, small, risk, in comparisons to other much larger risks, such as travelling on public roads.

Road traffic accidents are a bigger killer of young people, and yet no-one is calling for the speed limit to be drastically reduced.

I think the preoccupation with COVID comes from particular human fear of viruses (invisible, lack of control), rather than an actual measured response assessing all the risks we deal with everyday living normally.

"yet no-one is calling for the speed limit to be drastically reduced"

Actually they have been, and fairly successfully - speed limits have been gradually and significantly reduced over the last few decades in built-up areas in many parts of the world. And I totally agree we need to do more to contain the risks of driving.

However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially.

As far as there being "no reason" for any restrictions goes, the reality is there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients. If cases are not steadily decreasing (or at steady but negligible levels), that risk always exists. All restrictions/regulations have some balance of pros vs cons, and it's the job of governments to determine for which of them the balance is sufficiently on the "pro" side to enact and enforce them.

(Having said that, it does seem that recent data isn't really backing up the "pros" of mask mandates, at least in the US. Though the studies seemed focused on hospitalisations, rather than actual infection rate.)

Regarding speed limits, I had reducing speed on major roads more in mind.

> However, infectious diseases ARE qualitatively different from risks from traffic accidents, as the latter can't spread exponentially.

Which is no longer the case for COVID, hence there no longer being a rationale for restrictions.

> there's no way to be sure the healthcare system won't reach a point where healthcare workers are constantly overworked just in order to be able to provide the extra care required for infected patients.

Then that's a case for increasing resources to a level of care that is deemed appropriate by society.

Not turning society itself into a sick patient.

"All Australian states and territories now have a Reff greater than 1, meaning that even with the current levels of immunity, we are seeing an exponential growth in case numbers."

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-to-expect-fro...

Published July 6th.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com