Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinus_hn | Hacker News Reader

Now if only COVID didn’t spread through wildlife this would be some kind of victory. But it does, so a few weeks after the end of the lockdowns COVID will be back and all this sacrifice will be for nought.

View on HN

Based on the evidence available, there is no reason to believe COVID spread from wildlife is anything other than rare.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...

It doesn't matter whether animal to human transmission is rare or common, all it takes is once to start things going again. Remember how the pandemic started in 2019?

The difference between now and 2019 is the proximity to herd immunity.

The virus is sufficiently contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect those who lack immunity. We should expect that almost everyone will eventually be infected.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

It’s known to happen and there is absolutely no way to test how often it happens, so this kind of handwaving is opinion masked as science. And it doesn’t really matter, because the lockdown tactic only works with COVID-zero, not with COVID-one. So even if only one infection spreads from wildlife, you’re back at square one and you can start your lockdowns all over again. And don’t think you can just detect the infection before it spreads because a large proportion is asymptomatic and even if it is not, the spread starts before the symptoms.

Shenzhen currently tests almost everybody every 48 hours.

"Whenever someone asks to see my health code, I feel embarrassed. On the lower left-hand side of my code, in the “nucleic acid testing” section, a green code with the words “within a week” flashes up – not the blue “24-hour negative” or the purple “48-hour negative” codes needed to enter most public venues in Shenzhen."

My residential compound even installed a new electronic door, linked to a scanner. When someone enters, they must scan their health code, and that will open the door if it detects a test result taken within 48 hours. Otherwise, it lets out a loud screech: “Unqualified, unqualified!”[1]

Yes, it takes a surveillance society. There's phone tracking. There's face recognition. There are checkpoints. But there are not mass deaths.[2]

[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3176014/sta...

[2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3172642/chinese-tec...

Saving lives is not a sufficient reason to introduce a surveillance state.

Mass deaths of 80+ years olds you mean?

50+ year olds is more like it.[1] Below 50, not many deaths. After that, many.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

That data needs to have a time dimension. I think vast reduction in elderly deaths, even though they are still susceptible they are less susceptible.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that COVID transmission from wildlife happens other than in rare cases. Suggesting that it does happen because we just don't know is considered an argument from ignorance.

It's important to make these evidence-based distinctions because there are a variety of people looking to grab on to whatever they can to support their biases wrgt science and COVID.

How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way? There is no evidence for nor against widespread transmission from wildlife, so handwaving statements about biases and evidence-based distinctions are no more than demonstrations of a prejudice about sources. Your prejudice is that it must be incontrovertible science because the CDC mentions it. In reality nobody knows either way, and the CDC merely states they think something is unlikely, and there is no evidence for it. But there is no evidence against it either.

And no matter how widespread it is, it only takes one infection for COVID zero to fail. So it doesn’t matter if it is widespread or not. That is the major flaw of COVID zero policies. Sure, you can test everyone every two days and hope no infections fall through the cracks. Are they going to keep that up for the next decade? Because COVID isn’t going anywhere, it’s endemic.

>How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way?

There are plenty of evidence-based conclusions made about the new virus, but it is still new so not enough observation has been done to make claims (either way) about certain things yet.

There is no evidence about the amount of spread through wildlife apart from evidence that it does happen. So you were just talking about evidence-based distinctions about some unrelated claims?

I support your assessment. That said, it would nonetheless be wise to ensure Boo is masked as well for everyone's mutual protection.

Thankfully, miniature space hamsters can't catch the evil that is COVID.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com