> I assume I explained the latter clearly enough, so I'm not sure why you would bring up a distraction like that [...] Also, it's not in very good taste to point the finger at someone else when getting moderated.
I pointed at a single comment in the same tree to better understand your reasoning for the ban (You cannot see each comment, that's obviously unrealistic. Still, I assumed that you at least reviewed the tree).
> there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for
You say my account is agenda-driven. What's my agenda? Where am I fighting an ideological battle? Am I pro- or anti-vaccine? Maybe both? Or maybe I am just trying to have "curious conversations" on a topic I'm currently most curious about. To get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
If that's not OK because it's too focused on one topic and therefore not curious enough, well then I accept the ban.
IMO, it's unfortunate that you see my comments/threads as invariably destructive & agenda-driven, essentially putting them on a level with this [1] (although that user wasn't banned). I'd be glad to continue the discussions about the pandemic. Your site, your decision.
What's wrong with that? Some users really like to talk a lot about Java [1] and I am mainly interested in talking about the ongoing pandemic. HN offers a great format to have balanced discussions with a technical/science-oriented community. Additionally, it doesn't seem like COVID-19 topics are spamming/dominating the main page.
> and neither is using HN primarily for ideological battle
I started the thread to find out more about the current situation. One user replied with an article against vaccines. I tried to offer more context (i.e. defending the vaccines). In a different thread [2], a user underestimated the risks of vaccinating children and, again, I tried to balance it out (i.e. criticizing the vaccines). And sometimes, I just like to add a comment to confront the absurdities of today's governance [3]. Where am I primarily engaging in ideological battle?
> “We're talking a very different virus and very different vaccines. The details in biology really matter a lot. The chicken vaccines we worked with, the first-generation vaccine, definitely reduced disease, severity and death.” But unlike the COVID mRNA vaccines, the chicken vaccine “didn't stop transmission at all.” And this is one of the key differences between what was being studied in Read’s paper and our current situation with the global pandemic. “Those [vaccinated] chickens just kept churning out the virus for weeks and weeks and weeks.” Again, this is a key difference. “It’s a very different virus from SARS-2. A key issue here is transmissibility.”
> “Evolution, at the moment, is all happening in the unvaccinated. That's where the majority of cases are. That's the majority of transmission. Every time a virus replicates, it can mutate. So the evolution is, right now, occurring in the body of people who are not vaccinated."
> These people are often vulnerable. Recent data from South Carolina show 79% of people hospitalized with breakthrough infections there had at least one existing health condition, such as diabetes. In the intensive-care unit, where hospitals treat the most severely ill patients, the percentage increased to 88%.
According to a CDC study, 94.9% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (March 2020 - March 2021) had at least 1 underlying medical condition [1]. I'd argue that COVID-19 hospitalizations (vaccinated/unvaccinated) are always concentrated among the most vulnerable.
Are all vaccinated getting tested in Züri hospitals? How many hospitalized COVID-19 cases have severe acute respiratory symptoms? Age breakdown? Health status? Population representative data? Historic data on hospital capacity?
> For many, a return to regular activities, including school, birthday parties, sleepovers and visits with grandparents will do wonders. "All those things are extremely important for mental health," he said. "The [INSERT PREFERRED MEASURE] is the way that we can get there."
Resolution 2361 (Jan. 27th 2021) [1] urges Member States to:
> 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so;
> 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;
Unfortunately, there is no answer to the parliamentary question yet. Still, I find it important to document and discuss the continuous shift. 10 months ago, discrimination for not having been vaccinated was unthinkable. And now?
I'd argue that Lorem ipsum is the most effective argument for discussions on COVID-19 related measures. Just have a look at your country [1]:
> 1. Für welche der seit Beginn der Corona-Pandemie umgesetzten Schutzmaßnahmen liegen wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse über die Wirksamkeit vor, und welche Erkenntnisse sind dies?
> 2. Für welche der seit Beginn der Corona-Pandemie umgesetzten Schutzmaßnahmen liegen bisher keine wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse über die Wirksamkeit vor, und warum wurden diese Maßnahmen trotzdem ergriffen (bitte jeweils einzeln auflisten)?
> 3. Was unternimmt die Bundesregierung, um die Wirksamkeit der einzelnen Schutzmaßnahmen zu evaluieren und zu untersuchen?
> Die genaue Auswirkung einzelner Maßnahmen auf das Infektionsgeschehen ist immer abhängig von vielen Faktoren, wie z.B. der Bevölkerungsstruktur, dem politischem System, den sozialen, ökonomischen und auch kulturellen Aspekten, die miteinander sowie mit anderen Faktoren wie der Saisonalität und der möglichen Entwicklung des Erregers interagieren. Durch dieses kontextspezifische Zusammenspiel einer sehr großen Anzahl an Variablen ist es nicht möglich, die Auswirkung einer einzelnen Maßnahme auf einen Indikator (z. B. Inzidenz) belastbar und generalisierbar zu quantifizieren und zwischen Ländern zu vergleichen. Die multifaktoriellen Zusammenhänge sind auch eine mögliche Erklärung für die Variationen in der Effektivität einzelner Maßnahmen zwischen unterschiedlichen Regionen oder Ländern. Vergleichende Fallstudien betonen vielmehr die Effektivität von sich verstärkenden Maßnahmen. Die Evidenz zeigt klar, dass es immer die Umsetzung mehrere gleichzeitiger Maßnahmen ist, die den Pandemieverlauf beeinträchtigen, also die Summe der Schutzmaßnahmen, die einen Rückgang von Infektionen herbeiführen.
- - -
TLDR; Measures are needed, but we can't tell you which, but there's evidence, but we won't show you and have no real interest in finding it ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Sounds good. Currently analyzed index case–contact pairs exposed to Delta/B.1.617.2 show that, adjusting for age, ethnicity and index of multiple deprivation (IMD), the R0 increased modestly with genomic pre-alpha (difference of 0·39 [95% credible interval –0·03 to 0·79] in peak log10 viral lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adjusting peak, sed do eiusmod tempotentially explaining its success in infection prevention and control policies internationally.
Regarding the presented studies that assessed mask wearing:
Bundgaard (not Bundagaard) 2021 [1]:
−0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) difference; statistically not significant. Limitations: “Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”
Doung-ngern 2020 [2]:
11% of control not tested; 59.2% of cases linked to boxing stadium; Persons who wore masks were also more likely to practice other measures [e.g. washing hands often (79% vs. 26% for those who did not wear a mask)]
Krishnamachari 2021 [3]:
Heavily confounded. States with no mask mandate had a 2.16x higher case rate, yet “stay at home orders and school closures had no significant influence”? No analysis of “restrictions on gatherings, closing of nonessential business and restaurant closures”?
Lio 2021 [4]:
Retrospective, internet questionnaire with 24 cases.
Wang 2020 [5]:
Telephone interview; Other than that, no issues imo.
Xu 2020 [6]:
“Despite the relatively large sample size, the total cases of COVID-19 infections were still small so that the relationship between NPIs and a COVID-19 infection should be confirmed by other larger epidemiological studies. Fifth, the potential risk compensating effects of wearing a mask against other NPIs should be considered as being of a hypothesis-generating nature given the potential limitations previously outlined. Sixth, all the information collected in the study was self-reported, which could have potential biases. Common to any observational studies with multiple outcomes and modeled with different effective sample sizes, the interpretations and generalization of the results should be strictly limited to the same setting and be aware of multiple tests risks”
- - -
Does it become significant, when we glue it all together? What about RCTs? [7]
"We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18)"
> We were not able to stratify the risk of PASC [Postacute Sequelae of COVID-19] by severity of initial illness (for example, community-based vs hospitalized vs required care in an intensive care unit vs required invasive life-sustaining measures) or by preexisting comorbidities, patient age, or other factors that may affect an individual patient’s risk of PASC
As was mentioned in the comment section of the article, it would be interesting to see if this effect really exists (by trying to shift the numbers backwards).
Furthermore, I think it is a striking reminder that even (seemingly) simple data like mortality can be subject to strong bias.
> The most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations. Would that be true, even if these laws had been enacted by tyrants?
> What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? These no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation, has accepted it.
I pointed at a single comment in the same tree to better understand your reasoning for the ban (You cannot see each comment, that's obviously unrealistic. Still, I assumed that you at least reviewed the tree).
> there's no parallel between how they've been using HN and what we banned you for
How I recently used HN (last 5 comments):
- Provided missing context to unfounded vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328687
- Asked for more information/reasoning behind vaccine skepticism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29328216
- Expanded vaccine skeptical comment without judgement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29322045
- Added statements from original study author to put unfounded vaccine skepticism into perspective - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29316229
- Tried to put hospitalizations into perspective, citing CDC study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29299661
You say my account is agenda-driven. What's my agenda? Where am I fighting an ideological battle? Am I pro- or anti-vaccine? Maybe both? Or maybe I am just trying to have "curious conversations" on a topic I'm currently most curious about. To get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
If that's not OK because it's too focused on one topic and therefore not curious enough, well then I accept the ban.