greg5green's comments

For 5ghz, that's a pretty unusual. You need to be somewhere where DFS isn't an issue to even get 160mhz.

For 6ghz? Yeah, not uncommon.

>The M5 MacBook Pro still gets the Broadcom WiFi chip but the M5 iPad Pros get the N1 and C1X (Sweet).

Is that good? Their cellular modems have been terrible. I'll reserve judgement until trying one out.

>The M1 itself is so powerful

I think this is a bit of a fallacy. Apple Silicon is great for the power consumption to power ratio, but something like a Ryzen 9 7945HX can do 3x more work than an M1 Max. And a non-laptop chip, like an Intel Core Ultra 7 265k can do 3.5x.

You can do it with stash too!

This feels like something that's "security by obscurity" vs. "security by obscurity." Would you rather be obscure because you have the same SSID as everyone else so no one guesses which is yours or obscure because you have the same SSID as everyone else and no one knows which is yours, but it's easier to see what is going on inside the network?

One comes with more easily identifying you/your network while the other comes with being more easily hacked by readily available rainbow tables (I think, but am not sure, that WPA3 fixed this, but WPA1/WPA2 use the SSID as a salt for the password)

I'd really like to see an article that described what the actual variant looks like (in terms of mutations from the Wuhan or D614G strains). Neither this article or the [likely] source Bloomberg article have any info on it. Don't see anything else out there (besides a CNBC article that credits the Bloomberg one).

You can do it now! https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212619

I mean, you can't start a FaceTime call, but at least they finally let you join one.

>I guess what people are suggesting is that the epitopes are distinct enough that a targeted vaccine might not cover both, but not so distinct that they behave like separate infections in vivo. But I would hope that an expert can chime in and shed some light here.

There are sooooo many papers that prove this -- stop pretending you are too important/lazy/etc to search for them yourself because you want to write some anti-vax BS.

>I've seen it repeated pretty extensively on r/covid19, which I have to say comes across as a much more scientifically robust site for covid information than Hacker News. The quality of information here isn't much above Facebook.

I 100% agree with you on the quality of information here vs. there. It is much, much more strictly moderated. But with that moderation, that subreddit does not recommend going out and getting COVID in lieu of a vaccine. Even if initial response is better for COVID.

COVID + Vaccine is by far the best, but that doesn't mean you should skip the vaccine to make sure you go the 'rona frst.

Vaccine + Vaccine (and maybe + vaccine) is, by far, the safest combination for pretty much everyone people.

>People are not usually saying getting covid is better (not without many qualifiers anyway), they are saying that if you already had covid, getting shots might have bad risk/benefit ratio. (you get all the risk for small additional protection).

You should really check what people are saying on random posts on Facebook.

>Is it possible that the heavy mutations detected on the A.30 variant also make it less contagious?

100%. This strain hasn't been seen since May. It has already died out because of Delta.

All of these discussions are academic -- we really are only talking about if a Delta variant can gain these mutations and really wreck havoc. And the answer is "probably not" (for a while, anyways)

>For me the only way a variant can be outperformed is that all people who get infected get also infected with the other variant OR the first variant for whatever reason stop being transmissible

What you are saying isn't logically sound.

Looking at how this commentary has gone -- why do the worse comments gets get the most traffic? And those with actual data behind them -- zero?

As a trial participant, I can confirm to you that we are not dropping like flies. And my cohort isn't either.

>We already know that some of the injury reports coming in have been independently verified by other nation's health departments. After all, there is a reason for some of the vaccine pauses among the young and healthy in the nordic countries.

Those would not be in VAERS. At all.

Everyone, go get vaccinated, please.

Then why spread this terrible argument?

>found they weren't more-effective than a third dose of the original vaccine

This goes against the paper:

>A boost with mRNA-1273.351 appeared to be more effective at neutralization of the B.1.351 virus than a boost with mRNA-1273, evidenced by the higher mean GMT levels in the Part C cohort 1 participants (1400) than the GMT Part B participants (864) against the B.1.351 virus. Additionally, the difference between the wild-type and B.1.351 assays at day 1 dropped from 7.7-fold prior to the boost with mRNA-1273.351 to 2.6-fold at 15 days after the boost.

Thank you for posting this though -- I was looking for it earlier for my own comment and couldn't find it! Bookmarking now.

They don't include the data in the paper, but they do have that data in the supplemental charts under "Convalescent". Looks like a similar dropoff as scene in people vaccinated with BNT162b2.

It should be noted that this convalescent plasma was taken from ICU patients, not people that were asymptomatic or had minor symptoms.

>Note that they are making variant-specific vaccines, not proving that variant-specific vaccines are effective against the target variant, if delivered after the original vaccine.

You are correct that it isn't proving vaccine efficacy, but it is showing a different set of antibodies created by the variant vaccines that are more effective at neutralizing the targeted variant than the antibody collection created by the original, WT-targeted vaccine.

>Side note: I hope we can do better than taking at face value investor press releases by the biopharma corps producing the vaccines.

I hate science by press release too. I wish I was better at bookmarking the pre-prints and journal articles I find/read, but they'd just be a mess I couldn't find anything in either :|

They haven't found original antigenic sin so far. There's a couple links with some data (although I couldn't find a pre-print or published article right now) in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005187

I'm having trouble finding the paper, but I'm pretty I've seen a pre-print for mRNA-1273.351. This press release is the closest I could find on short notice: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d...

Novavax has also been working on a Beta variant booster (and I believe has moved on to a Delta booster that hasn't started NHP trials yet) -- here's some info from a presentation: https://www.novavax.com/sites/default/files/2021-05/NVAX-WVC... (It's slides 17 and 18)

Pfizer/BioNTech definitely has a Delta booster getting ready for NHP trials, but my Google Fu is lacking today, apparently.