- This topic has 70 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You’re trying to hijack a thread and divert it onto your own choice of topic, so you can post conspiracy theory propaganda that you’ve picked up from other covid sceptic sites. Surely this is an issue for the mods?!
Well a FOI request did produce emails of the world’s top scientists conspiring so it’s rather more than a theory.
FOI documents on origins of Covid-19, gain-of-function research and biolabs – USRTK (US Right To Know), 10 Jan 2022
Precisely, Fred – that is what hijacking the thread means! The title and the OP make no reference to the dispute over the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but you’ve managed to redirect the conversation onto it, swamping the original discussion.
You should post your interesting (though far from conclusive) information on the “Origins of SARS” thread.
Fred, kindly post any further commentary about the origins of the virus on the appropriate thread: Origins of SARS cov2
You’re welcome to repost the details you posted here in order to build your case on that thread.
Alternatively I could stay here, enjoy the cut and thrust of lively debate on this thread and hope to be heard above the noise.
Fred, you won’t be “heard above the noise” because you’re making most of it yourself.
Meanwhile, our boast of being highly vaccinated and highly boosted is also another demonstration of what Boris Johnson boasted of, being that capitalist greed is good. In Africa less than 25% of the population has had one dose a fertile ground for new variants. Let us see what this greed will do to the virus mutations.
Meanwhile, our boast of being highly vaccinated and highly boosted is also another demonstration of what Boris Johnson boasted of, being that capitalist greed is good. In Africa less than 25% of the population has had one dose a fertile ground for new variants. Let us see what this greed will do to the virus mutations.
New variants are not all bad. It is not in the interests of a virus to kill its host or even make them seriously ill. The purpose of a virus is to keep reproducing, to do that the host must be out and about associating with other people, not laid on a mortuary slab or at home in bed.
The 1918 flu pandemic did not end because of vaccines, it ended because new strains were more virulent but less harmful to young healthy people. The new strains wiped out the old and brought herd immunity.
Fred
Thanks for the lecture on Darwinian adaptive evolution. Sadly the virus has no ‘purpose’ it just happens to be there. It is true that successful viruses and parasites adapt to their hosts but this is a process of trial and error that spans many generations and involve both viral mutations and host immunological responses. During this process of adaptation, which could take years, many hosts will die but of course not all. This death can even get worse with subsequent mutations but as long as it is not an extremely high death rate, the virus will continue to be propagated. It is too simplistic to rely on the ‘good intentions’ of an RNA molecule without life not to hurt us.This virus in terms of lethality is not an existential threat but it can and has caused a lot of disruption in this highly interconnected world. As we have seen with the omicron variant with a high rate of transmissibility but less lethality , enormous disruption nevertheless occurs because many key staff are off sick even with mild symptoms. WE can therefore not just sit back and rely on natural herd immunity to occur in Africa, whilst enjoying high rates of vaccine immunity in developed countries.
And finally, the Spanish Influenza virus mutated eventually to a less lethal strain but that does not have to apply to SARS Cov-2 which is a coronavirus, unrelated to influenza viruses.
And finally, the Spanish Influenza virus mutated eventually to a less lethal strain but that does not have to apply to SARS Cov-2 which is a coronavirus, unrelated to influenza viruses.
Yes, Covid is more like the common cold than flu. The cold has been with us since time immemorial and mutated countless times but doesn’t seem to have become more deadly.
Fred
Are you also aware that SARS-cov1 was a coronavirus? That was much more lethal. The fact that it is in the same family does not mean that it is harmless. And by the way ‘The cold’ is not caused by one virus; it is a clinical syndrome.Fred, if you want to manufacture controversy around a non-issue so that you can “enjoy the cut and thrust of lively debate” (above), why not start a “flat Earth” or “birds aren’t real” forum? That way, you could pander all you liked to conspiracy theorists’ inflated egos and bask in the praise they’d predictably heap upon you, but without having to promote lethal disinformation. I hope that the sense of power conferred by causing preventable deaths and illnesses among people you’ve never met isn’t what’s motivating your incessant click-baiting.
You could go for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11, though it does tend to provide a smokescreen for the US torture policy and NATO exploitation of jihadism. But Flat Earth and Birds Aren’t Real, while they do undermine critical thinking and promote public alienation from science and technology, seem unlikely to result in many actual deaths unless there’s a full cultural revolution and mobs start burning textbooks and hanging technicians and scholars from lamp posts.
“Yes, Covid is more like the common cold than flu.”
Is this an article of the faith Fred? Can you point me to the cathecism of this religion you are proselytizing? Shame that that tenet of faith doesn’t explain the excess deaths nor the mortality related to SARS/MERS both of which were also coronaviruses.
“The cold has been with us since time immemorial”……….”and mutated countless times”
How do you know this? Could you possibly be referring to the scientific research which has determined this? You know, that same science that was used to inform us of disease burden, to determine the genome of SARS-Cov-2 and produce vaccines etc etc. You cannot use the same science to both argue in support of your religion and then again to attempt to undermine the actual knowledge base.
“but doesn’t seem to have become more deadly”
It didn’t have to when introduced into a previously unexposed population as happened when the spanish invaded the south americas.
You are correct to say that evolutionary pressure on mutations is towards a more transmissible and less virulent virus and that seems to be the direction of travel with SARS-Cov-2. It’s not however guaranteed. Let’s hope it continues in that direction.
ET, I think I should challenge this:
– “…evolutionary pressure on mutations is towards a more transmissible and less virulent virus…”
Yes, being more transmissible confers an immediate selection advantage, but decreased virulence does not. SARS-CoV-2 has precipitated the deaths of about 0.22% of the UK population so far, and nearly 0.9% of Bulgaria’s, ie. SARS-CoV-2’s death toll has decreased its potential to replicate in humans by less than one hundredth in the worst case.
Natural selection works retroactively not teleologically, so if we rule out self-protective behaviour such as masks, social restraint and vaccination (as Fred seems to be advising), even if a 100% lethal strain were to arise, it would have to wipe out half the population before its reproductive potential was halved. Eventually it would extinguish itself, but only by extinguishing its human hosts.
Humans can act teleologically which would appear to be a decisive advantage over a mere virus, but apparently we need “the cut and thrust of lively debate” to decide whether we should do so. The virus suffers no such quaint inhibitions.
Clark, when I use the term “virulence” I mean it defined as the relative capacity of an infectious agent to cause disease/damage in a specific host. The greater the virulence the higher the propensity to cause more severe disease/damage to a host and either kill or reduce the host’s capacity to further transmit the infectious agent. I don’t think this is teleological and I’ll stand by my statement for now.
A highly virulent infectious agent will either decrease the host population by killing it off thus decreasing it’s ability to thrive or debilitate the host population’s efficiency in spreading the infection. Both those are pressures against virulence. A more transmissible agent that enables a host to carry on is more efficient at spreading and even better if said agent could enhance a host’s chance of survival 😀 (if only, I am aware I am fantasising about symbiosis). However, parts of viral genomes are in human DNA so perhaps one time they did just that, enhance human survival.
Memo to Fred: That is discussion and debate.
Although it is off topic :(, sorry SA.
—
[ Mod: It’s not off topic – it follows a clear logical link. ]ET, I did not mean to imply that your statement was teleological. Rather, I was saying that such selection pressure does not help us, meaning us living now, because the virus has to kill a large proportion of us before such selection can hinder the virus.
Highly virulent viruses seem to have no problem surviving. Smallpox was around for millennia before vaccination eliminated it.
– “…even better if said agent could enhance a host’s chance of survival.”
Just this evening I heard it suggested that bats may harbour so many viruses because risk of infection helps to keep predators out of their caves.
Are you also aware that SARS-cov1 was a coronavirus? That was much more lethal.
I’m not saying that viruses are not lethal when they first cross from one species to another, the 1918 flu epidemic was caused by avian flu crossing to humans. I said that new strains of a virus developing in the unvaccinated is not a bad thing because the new strains which are milder will dominate, as Omicron has wiped out Delta.
Is this an article of the faith Fred? Can you point me to the cathecism of this religion you are proselytizing?
Both Covid and the cold are a Coronavirus, flu is part of the Orthomyxoviridae family.
It’s like horses and zebras both being equines so a zebra is more like a horse than an alligator is.
F: ” I said that new strains of a virus developing in the unvaccinated is not a bad thing because the new strains which are milder will dominate, as Omicron has wiped out Delta. “
Yet Alpha was pushed aside (not wiped out) by the much more virulent Delta. Strange that.
Yet Alpha was pushed aside (not wiped out) by the much more virulent Delta. Strange that.
Yes and Delta pushed aside by the more virulent Omicron. If Delta was more severe than Alpha or not seems to be a matter for debate, opinions are divided.
So milder strains aren’t an inevitable follow-on, as you were pretending.
I know you’re only trolling, Fred, writing – as always – in completely bad faith, because there’s not an honest bone in your body.
I don’t think you’ve made a useful contribution yet, or even one in which you remotely believe – stupidity alone cannot provide you cover there. I wonder what makes you such an individual? But don’t bother telling us, because nobody would believe it.
