Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hfufigivknog 2294 days ago
His sentiment is correct. The source for what I’m saying is a veteran virologist with 40 years of experience dealing with these exact kinds of things. A two hour interview was linked from a previous HN thread.

Despite what ceejayoz might try to tell you, corona viruses do not mutate in the way that influenza does. Influenza mutates in a way that evades the immune system but retains other qualities. This is why new vaccines for the flu are always being developed. Despite the fact that corona virus family viruses are responsible for a very small amount of “common cold,” they do not exhibit this behavior. They do mutate though, which is why we are seeing two “versions” of covid-19. The ultimate meaning of all this is that once a population gains collective immunity, the virus will basically disappear. In layman's terms, the virus will go away probably between 3 to 6 months from now in the United States. If anyone tries to refute this, post actual evidence or expert testimony showing that covid-19 mutates in a similar way to influenza.

Like Elon musk points out, only those with immune system problems are at risk. This includes some people of advanced age, some people with diabetes and various other people.

The virus appears to kill people like many other similar illnesses: if the infection spreads to deeply within the lungs, gas transfer is interrupted and secondary bacterial infection sets in, commonly known as pneumonia. The treatment for which is antibiotics and an oxygen line. This is why you see Italy asking specifically for more oxygen equipment, in my non expert opinion. Both these treatments are widely available and do not require special skill to acquire or administer. Patients who do not benefit from these would require mechanical ventilation.

The fatality rate is massively skewed toward severity because of the lack of testing. If all the benign cases were taken into account, the facility rate would be much smaller although still high enough to take seriously.

Remote administration of oxygen and antibiotics, washing hands, and light self-quarantine, all very easy to do, will blunt the impact on hospitals significantly.

Overall, the threat that this virus poses to most people and society in general has been overblown by the for-profit media.

I would like to apologize for being so impolite in addressing this topic previously.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089684112...

https://youtu.be/WWNuDT4t-TM

2 comments

>the virus will go away probably between 3 to 6 months

It took 3 weeks to fuck up Italy in a royal way, so "3 to 6 month" does not instill confidence, tbh

> In layman's terms, the virus will go away probably between 3 to 6 months from now in the United States.

No one (serious) disputes this, and the number of cases in China and South Korea is already on the way down. The question is how many people it will kill along the way.

> only those with immune system problems are at risk

1. What immune system problem did Wenliang Li have? (If you want to say "mostly," sure, but "only" is an unsubstantiated claim.)

2. People can become asymptomatic carriers pretty easily. That's a good reason why someone with authority over groups of people that contain some at-risk folks should attempt to prevent or reduce the frequency of such gatherings, at least until we develop collective immunity or a vaccine. (Such people include CEOs, pastors, concert organizers, politicians, etc.) Furthermore, asymptomatic carriers can pass the virus onto other asymptomatic carriers, so until we've started developing some immunity, it's a good idea for even groups of entirely not-at-risk people to limit gatherings, to reduce secondary transmission to at-risk people.

People with immune system problems aren't doomed to die immediately, and it's worth taking steps to prevent them from getting infected, if you can. (Yes, people with immune system problems, older people, etc. have some chance of dying soon anyway. But everyone is going to die at some point. It is a widely-accepted moral principle that this doesn't excuse causing people to die early.)

> secondary bacterial infection sets in, commonly known as pneumonia

This is incorrect - SARS-CoV-2 is unusual in that it's capable of causing pneumonia on its own, without a secondary bacterial infection. Antibiotics won't help. See, for instance, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2... .

> Overall, the threat that this virus poses to most people and society in general has been overblown by the for-profit media.

What's the profit angle here? What's the benefit to big media from people being unwilling to attend movies and concerts?

Meanwhile, how do you explain the absolute terror in the voices of medical professionals unaffiliated with the media, such as https://twitter.com/tina_nguyen/status/1238879814863519744 or https://left.it/2020/03/13/covid_19-open-letter-from-italy-t... (or, you know, Wenliang Li)?

Lots of people dispute it although not professionals. I’m just trying to get the word out.

What immune deficiency did he have? I don’t know. I have tried to make many edits to my post and can’t for some reason, one of which is to addd the word “significant” before “risk.”

The link you provide doesn’t state that the virus can cause pneumonia on its own but I’ll hand it to you anyway. It weakens my point but it’s still true that antibiotics and oxygen could precede going to the icu for more serious treatment.

As for the media, they make money when people are glued to their television sets because it’s better for advertising. This is why they have a tendency to cover things that are shocking and exaggerate, although they don’t always do it. This is a widely held belief and it’s true.

> No one (serious) disputes this

Spanish flu (second wave) was far more deadly. Mutation is a possibility. Not saying it will happen but I wouldn't rule it out 100% either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave

Spanish flu (influenza A) was not a coronavirus. Our anonymous friend's assertion is that extrapolations from influenza A don't apply to SARS-CoV-2, which is a coronavirus (otherwise we'd expect e.g. an annual coronavirus flu season with new strains every so often, much the way there's an annual influenza A season). That much, at least, appears to be correct.

I don't disagree it's a possibility, but influenza A isn't particularly informative on how likely the possibility is.

The likelihood of a mutation that evades (or is more severe because of) immune response to previous infections is directly proportional to the number of cases, i.e. is growing exponentially.

There is some evidence that prior exposure to other coronavirus (including vaccination) is an additional risk factor for loss of lung function.

So, yes, the influenza A experience is relevant. In that instance, those with a strong immune response had a greater fatality rate.