ppf

I suppose it depends what you think is the bigger calamity - CO2 emission, or energy scarcity.

And that might be the biggest plot twist - a government-mandated switch from something that works, to something badly thought out with large unintended consequences.

Let's not forget (at least in the EU), power-limited vacuum cleaners that don't clean.

>> I could also make very similar arguments about the AZ vaccine, as a younger person.

>How would that look?

You really can't see the parallel? "There's data coming in that suggests the AZ vaccine is deadly to a small but significant population, so while we wait for more data, we're going to halt its use".

>Content of the statements does. Check them with your favorite evolutionary biologist or virologist.

The onus is on the person making the statements to back them up. What you've said on the subject sounds very reasonable, but I can't find anywhere else.

As for your linked article on the British variant B117:

"Dr. Julian Tang, honorary associate professor and clinical virologist at the University of Leicester, said in a statement that he is "still not yet very convinced by these results" from the study."

Because they can't yet control for winter conditions affecting health.

>"since the situation is in flux and information is still trickling in"

>I won't find you the data that doesn't exist yet.

Right, so not exactly something that you can base much on (yet). I could also make very similar arguments about the AZ vaccine, as a younger person.

Declaring your statements to be "basic evolution" does not make them true.

>How that milder variant is doing now? Compared to, let's say, the British one, or the Brazilian one?

The article was talking about the British one. I am also in the UK, and not dead. Yes, it was written soon after the initial outbreak, because Covid-19 mutated quite quickly. Using some similar fuzzy evidence, it would seem that "long Covid" sufferers are primarily people who caught Covid in March/April 2020.

Indeed, and the worldwide response to Covid has highlighted just how far down this path we have already come as a (Western) society. We already were a society of isolated, atomised, under-developed and ineffectual individuals, and that has only accelerated in the last year.

Your source says this:

>It's unclear exactly what the age breakdown is when it comes to this variant strain

It seems you need to spend more than 10 seconds researching your ideas.

The rest of what you've said in response to my requests for further information and sources is just personal opinion, presented as "reasonable" arguments.

>Becomming less deadly is a typical direction viruses evolve but at a time scale of hundreds and thousands of years, not few months.

An idea not supported by my 10 seconds of research:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2252699-covid-19-is-bec...

>There were initially hopes that this virus won't be capable of evolving this fast.

I would ask for some sources to back that statement up too, but I don't hold much hope for a reasonable reply. Influenza is a non error-checking RNA virus, coronaviruses are error-checking RNA viruses. The slowest to mutate are DNA viruses. The relative speed of mutation of these types is well understood.

>You never heard that while viruses evolve they sometimes gain ability to spread to organisms they had trouble infecting before?

Yes, I have, but never in the context of "younger examples of the existing infected organism". Even so, and as I've already said, we don't even know if younger people are already being infected with the existing strains, so I can't get myself too worked up about hypothetical possible future variants.

You've also mixed in your personal opinions on supposedly how bad life was before Covid, how little you value small businesses, and how life should be drastically re-modelled so that everyone works and learns remotely. I disagree, but that's ok, it's opinion. I think that remote (learning or working) places people at a huge disadvantage - against those who already have in-person connections, and against institutions that have the sense not to do such a thing.

>sars-cov-2 is so mild in objective terms

We certainly agree here.

>It already did evolve this way and will continue to do so.

I'll need a soruce for that, as all reports I've read indicate that Covid has mutated the typical direction - that is, to be less deadly.

>Any novel virus evolves in ways that helps its spread into popularions previously unavailable for infection. And only after it is at risk of wiping populations it infects it evolves milder variants that are careful no to kill too many hosts to quick.

Also a source for that, as this is an idea I have never heard of before.

I haven't even seen any definitive answer whether younger people are just less affected by Covid, or really do not become infected. The whole "asymptomatic carrier" idea really makes it hard to prove anything.

Saying that, how will we stop a virus mutating with a vaccine that is between 60% and 90% effective at preventing symptoms, and with a currently unknown effect on transmission?

If we are just delaying the inevitable, then why wait? If it's about the young (which would be quite the reversal, as to date, it's all been about "not killing granny"), then we need to consider the effects of on-going lockdown and destruction of opportunity for young people (which is very real).

If I had been told at the start that we would be under effective house arrest until researchers had developed a series of vaccines with the intention of stopping Covid from mutating into hypothetical potentially worse variants, I would have called BS right then.

Edit: Also, interesting that you point out that "it became known that Covid mutates rapidly". That's not at all surprising, it's long been known that coronaviruses mutate fairly rapidly. In fact, whenever I pointed out this fact, and that it makes vaccine development difficult and pointless unless we are going for continual vaccination, the "online Covid expert" crowd gave me a lot of flak for it.

It's absolutely true, and something that is forgotten in the rush for "green" EVs. In the long run, the fuel is not the unsustainable part of mass public car ownership, it's the rest of the car (or at least, the idea of owning a multi-ton high-speed metal box that can carry you and a large amount of your possessions as far as you like).

Using EVs to transition to something else, leaving behind craters and huge scars from mineral extraction, and huge amounts of e-waste, is just absurd on its face (but very profitable).

Will it definitely evolve into such a version? What's to stop any other virus doing the same? How do you intend to stop this, without continuous vaccination and social control? What new piece of information do we have, that justifies the apparent change in policy from "flatten the curve for a few weeks" to "global control and vaccinations until...(?)"?

It's also the level of absurdity I'm seeing in the response to Covid itself.

In this case, I'm glad that, around the time everyone was talking about moving to Signal, I threw out the baby with the bathwater and ditched my smartphone entirely. I'm so disappointed in this action by Signal, and very glad I never bothered to loudly promote Signal to friends and family.

I am so glad I left Portland. It is an astoundingly beautiful city, set in world class scenery, that is being driven into the ground by absurd and dogmatic ideology. You reap what you sow.

I have the same issue with Microsoft Teams. Someone once invited me to join a group on Teams, and now (years later) I get occasional but persistent emails from Teams. I can't stop them, because the setting apparently needs me to be signed in, but I don't have an account. I mark them as spam, because it's all I can do.

It's something I learned to be true on a personal level, and I'm sure it applies to many other levels - giving yourself away for free on Facebook and other social media devalues your social contributions and presence as a human being.

>the ID.4 is the first product to be sold nationwide that confirms the company’s commitment to sustainable mobility.

Exactly what about the mass extraction of lithium is at all sustainable to provide the energy storage for all motorised personal transport?

Same here. As a tech-interested kid growing up in the 90's, a very significant amount of my formative years and social development has happened online. I'm now starting to realise what a mistake that may have been (not that I could have avoided the temptation, even if I knew it for what it is).

I have recently completed a digital purge, and now have no social media accounts at all (except HN), and no smartphone. Fortunately I live in a country where that is still viable, but I am excited to re-build my life in "real life".

It's already well underway. In my opinion, a combination of tech and the entertainment industry has transformed the populations of many Western countries into atomised, ineffectual and under-developed veal calves.

That's not ideal, as it would eat through the battery's cycle life at a much quicker rate.

My OS doesn't let me waste my time in such a way. It's a feature ;-)

By "narrative", I assume you mean the idea that "Covid doesn't affect the young by very much".

Taken as a proportion of total Covid deaths, that is very true.

Given that practically no young people die in developed countries, it doesn't take much to make a big change to the excess mortality figure for that age group.

Except that everyone is running to keep up with all the new web standards introduced by Google. I assume you also don't use Android.

It wasn't popular on here last time I said it, but Google has won the web. Time to move on.

Also - Google is the natural result of the Silicon Valley business model. You got what you wanted!

But that's the whole point of the SV business model! Strangle any competition by initially offering your products for free (and funded by huge amounts of VC), and then raise prices at your leisure once you're the last one standing.

But that's the whole point of the SV business model! Strangle any competition by initially offering your products for free (and funded by huge amounts of VC), and then raise prices at your leisure once you're the last one standing.

I thought the accepted solution to these problems was "disrupt!", not regulation.

Edit: It seems that not even Silicon Valley likes the monsters it has created.

I read it. None of that says anything about how effective the vaccine is at reducing transmission.

So far, there is one pre-print of a non-peer reviewed study suggesting this is the case.

As you (and the article) say, much more research is needed.

What is incorrect about my reasoning?

No, not silly, but potentially justified, in the case of a pandemic. However, these changes obviously increase the risk to the recipient of the vaccine. There's a higher chance of something going wrong with the actual injection, as a broader spectrum of people are administering it (where I live, there was a call for volunteer vaccinators in the local paper), and also very little legal recourse if something is found to be harmful with the vaccine itself.

For those reasons, along with the lack of any information as to whether the vaccine has a meaningful effect on reducing transmission, I have decided that the risk (relative to the reward) to me is too high.