Stanford researchers have engineered a dual-antibody therapy effective against all known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including Omicron subvariants. This treatment uses two antibodies that bind to distinct, non-overlapping regions of the virus's spike protein, making it harder for the virus to develop resistance. The combined antibodies neutralize the virus more potently than either antibody alone and have shown promise in preclinical models, preventing infection and severe disease. This approach offers a potential broad-spectrum therapeutic option against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Facing a terminal cancer diagnosis, Stanford professor Bryant Lin refused to abandon his students. Instead, he integrated his experience with esophageal cancer into his final course, "Living With Cancer," offering a uniquely personal and real-time perspective on the disease. He openly shared his treatment journey, physical struggles, and emotional reflections, providing students with invaluable insights into the medical, social, and ethical dimensions of cancer. Lin's dedication to teaching and his willingness to be vulnerable transformed his classroom into a space of shared humanity and learning, inspiring students even as he confronted his own mortality.
HN commenters discuss the Stanford professor's decision to teach a class about his cancer journey. Several praise his bravery and openness, viewing it as a powerful way to educate students and destigmatize illness. Some question the emotional toll on both the professor and the students, wondering about the appropriateness of such a personal subject in an academic setting. Others express skepticism about the framing of the NYT piece, suggesting it's overly sentimentalized. A few commenters also share their own experiences with cancer and teaching, drawing parallels to the professor's situation. The potential for triggering students facing similar challenges is also brought up, along with concerns about the blurring of lines between professional and personal life.
The original poster is deciding between Physics PhD programs at Stanford and UC Berkeley, having been accepted to both. They're leaning towards Stanford due to perceived stronger faculty in their specific research interest (quantum computing/AMO physics) and the potential for better industry connections post-graduation. However, they acknowledge Berkeley's prestigious physics department and are seeking further input from the Hacker News community to solidify their decision. Essentially, they are asking for perspectives on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program, particularly regarding career prospects in quantum computing.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Physics PhD at Stanford or Berkeley" post largely revolve around the nuances of choosing between the two prestigious programs. Commenters emphasize that both are excellent choices, and the decision should be based on individual factors like specific research interests, advisor fit, and departmental culture. Several commenters suggest visiting both departments and talking to current students to gauge the environment. Some highlight Stanford's stronger connections to industry and Silicon Valley, while others point to Berkeley's arguably stronger reputation in certain subfields of physics. The overall sentiment is that the OP can't go wrong with either choice, and the decision should be based on personal preference and research goals rather than perceived prestige. A few commenters also caution against overemphasizing the "prestige" factor in general, encouraging the OP to prioritize a supportive and stimulating research environment.
Summary of Comments ( 82 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43315634
HN commenters discuss the potential of the dual-antibody treatment, highlighting its designed resistance to viral mutations and broad effectiveness against various SARS-CoV-2 variants. Some express cautious optimism, noting the need for further research and clinical trials to confirm its efficacy in humans. Others question the long-term viability of antibody treatments given the virus's rapid mutation rate, suggesting that focusing on broader-spectrum antivirals might be a more sustainable approach. Several comments also touch on the accessibility and cost of such treatments, raising concerns about equitable distribution and affordability if it proves successful. Finally, there's discussion about the delivery method, with some wondering about the practicality of intravenous administration versus other options like nasal sprays.
The Hacker News post titled "Stanford researchers develop dual-antibody treatment for ALL SARS-CoV-2 variants" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43315634) has a modest number of comments, focusing primarily on the practicality and potential impact of the research. No one directly challenges the science presented in the article.
Several commenters express cautious optimism, acknowledging the promising nature of the research while also recognizing the hurdles that remain before such a treatment becomes widely available. One commenter highlights the difficulty in predicting the long-term effectiveness of such a treatment given the virus's propensity to mutate. They emphasize that while the dual-antibody approach seems promising now, it doesn't guarantee efficacy against future variants.
Another commenter raises the critical issue of cost and accessibility, questioning whether this treatment, if successful, would be affordable and accessible to everyone, or primarily benefit wealthier nations and individuals. This concern reflects a broader discussion about equitable distribution of healthcare resources, particularly in the context of global pandemics.
A recurring theme in the comments is the comparison of this dual-antibody approach to existing and emerging antiviral treatments. One commenter notes the relative ease of administration of a nasal spray compared to other treatments like monoclonal antibodies, which often require intravenous administration in a clinical setting. This points to the potential for broader applicability if the treatment can be self-administered at home.
The conversation also touches upon the challenges of clinical trials and the regulatory approval process, with one user mentioning the need for rigorous testing and the often lengthy timeline involved in bringing new treatments to market. Another commenter speculates about the potential for this treatment to be effective not just as a prophylactic measure, but also as a treatment for long COVID, although this is presented more as a hopeful speculation rather than a conclusion based on the research.
Overall, the comments reflect a measured response to the research, acknowledging its potential while remaining grounded in the realities of drug development and deployment. There's a clear interest in the potential benefits, but also a recognition of the significant challenges that lie ahead before this treatment could become a widely available solution.