|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On April 23 2021 03:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:
The problem is that people are fucking stupid and sensible measures will face a massive backlash. Poland pretty much avoided the first wave altogether by locking down quickly. Did people appreciate that and kept being cautious? Quite the opposite. The success actually made a large portion of the population believe the pandemic was a hoax/overblown and led to widespread vaccine hesitancy. The denialists used it as ammunition against lockdowns, claiming it was completely unnecessary. This resulted in one of the worst performances in Europe during the second and third waves... Yeah, the pandemic is very good at showing just how idiotic relevant parts of the population are. And, as someone else stated, the most frustrating thing will be once the pandemic is finally over, the covidiots and the idiots who just don't care will be insufferable and claim that they have won, that they were always right, and that the pandemic was never a problem, when in fact the rest of us just had to fight even harder because they willfully sabotage our efforts.
I would not call it idiotic, we are only human.
Here in Spain, the obviously most effective measure to control the spread has been prohibiting people from leaving their counties, except for very good reasons. This has had dramatic consequences for social life, maybe especially for grandparents not being able to see their grandchildren for months, some times only kilometers apart. With so many families craving to reunite, you don't have to be a genius to guess what happened when they allowed travel for a few days around Christmas eve... (Spoiler, not exactly flattening the curve, and what people did for Christmas has been a taboo).
Sociology is too often overlooked as a factor.
|
Looks like Brazil may be getting things a little better under control, likely due to the many state governors' disobedience. So at least one major crisis may potentially have been averted in time.
India on the other hand looks worse and worse. They're having to deal with variants of the B.1.617 mutation, but it's unclear at this point what impact those are having.
https://cov-lineages.org/lineages/lineage_B.1.617.html
The UK, right after India, is the second worst hit country by that mutation, but they're getting the incidence rate under control. The reason for that disparity is unclear. It could be due to differences in lockdown policy, but India has enacted a lockdown weeks ago and doesn't seem to plan on discontinuing it. So for the moment there are a few uncertainties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdown_in_India
The following article goes into possible reasons behind the sudden surge. It'll be very important to keep a close eye on the research, as it could either confirm what we already know or it could reveal new and valuable information.
"Some say that emerging variants account for only a small part of India’s surge in infections. In many regions that are experiencing outbreaks, they don’t make up the majority of genomes sequenced, says Anurag Agrawal, director of the CSIR Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology in New Delhi."
So it could be that the surge is simply the aftermath of open travel back before the most recent lockdown, as India had relaxed its measures and people moved about freely. Hopefully it slows down in the coming weeks or days, as that would indicate that the incidence rate may just have a more delayed response to the current lockdown.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01059-y
|
The scary thing about that (beyond the basic scariness of an out-of-control pandemic) is that the more virus cases there are, the larger the amount of new variants. With what is happening in India right now, i would expect a bunch of new scary virus mutations to be grown over there.
|
On April 23 2021 03:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2021 03:15 maybenexttime wrote:
The problem is that people are fucking stupid and sensible measures will face a massive backlash. Poland pretty much avoided the first wave altogether by locking down quickly. Did people appreciate that and kept being cautious? Quite the opposite. The success actually made a large portion of the population believe the pandemic was a hoax/overblown and led to widespread vaccine hesitancy. The denialists used it as ammunition against lockdowns, claiming it was completely unnecessary. This resulted in one of the worst performances in Europe during the second and third waves... Yeah, the pandemic is very good at showing just how idiotic relevant parts of the population are. And, as someone else stated, the most frustrating thing will be once the pandemic is finally over, the covidiots and the idiots who just don't care will be insufferable and claim that they have won, that they were always right, and that the pandemic was never a problem, when in fact the rest of us just had to fight even harder because they willfully sabotage our efforts.
History is quite good at showing how dangerous it is to label sections of people as "idiotic" (and the other descriptors you employ). Let's remember that we're a progressive and tolerant society and not attribute differences of experience and opinion to stupidity.
I refer you to the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy/safety of lockdowns and masks (against which these "idiots" protest). I suspect linking them here would be in breach of the rules and I don't want to miss the ASL round of 16 so I'll leave it to you to find them if you fancy 
People ain't stupid. They can be misled if they allow the information they get from sources they trust to bypass their own reasoning before accepting it as fact. Let's do the sensible thing and apply that principle to ourselves rather than project it on others.
|
On April 25 2021 04:43 Simberto wrote:
The scary thing about that (beyond the basic scariness of an out-of-control pandemic) is that the more virus cases there are, the larger the amount of new variants. With what is happening in India right now, i would expect a bunch of new scary virus mutations to be grown over there.
Personally I think the next phase is the scariest of all. The most dangerous time for resistance is when there is a large reservoir of virus mixing with a partially vaccinated population. The variants we've found with resistance so far have developed it serendipitously. We're about to apply a whole lot of selective pressure.
In an ideal world, you would go as fast as possible from ~10% to herd immunity in countries with a lot of active virus, for the same reason that it's dangerous to half-ass a course of antibiotics. The UK and US have smashed this, but given how badly even places like Europe and Australia have botched the roll-out, the chances of India and Brazil doing it quickly are zero. They are about to become gigantic resistance incubators and it worries me a lot.
|
Vaccines are not drugs. They rely on a natural immune response. Vaccines can be updated to make them effective against any new variants, presumably. The scientists behind the vaccines said that it should be fairly easy (a matter of weeks) to modify the mRNA vaccines, for example.
|
On April 25 2021 06:16 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 04:43 Simberto wrote:
The scary thing about that (beyond the basic scariness of an out-of-control pandemic) is that the more virus cases there are, the larger the amount of new variants. With what is happening in India right now, i would expect a bunch of new scary virus mutations to be grown over there. Personally I think the next phase is the scariest of all. The most dangerous time for resistance is when there is a large reservoir of virus mixing with a partially vaccinated population. The variants we've found with resistance so far have developed it serendipitously. We're about to apply a whole lot of selective pressure. In an ideal world, you would go as fast as possible from ~10% to herd immunity in countries with a lot of active virus, for the same reason that it's dangerous to half-ass a course of antibiotics. The UK and US have smashed this, but given how badly even places like Europe and Australia have botched the roll-out, the chances of India and Brazil doing it quickly are zero. They are about to become gigantic resistance incubators and it worries me a lot.
Gonna request mod action here per the rules. If this isn't fear mongering then it'd be cool to see the definition more clearly outlined in the rules at the top.
|
On April 25 2021 06:52 maybenexttime wrote:
Vaccines are not drugs. They rely on a natural immune response. Vaccines can be updated to make them effective against any new variants, presumably. The scientists behind the vaccines said that it should be fairly easy (a matter of weeks) to modify the mRNA vaccines, for example.
I am more than aware of that. Most of the world will not get the mRNA vaccines. For the conventional vaccines this is several months at least, the last I saw. All updates still need to be trialled, manufactured, upscaled and, most importantly, rolled out.
It is far from a snap-of-the-fingers process and the emergence of a seriously resistant variant would affect the recovery worldwide. We will be in an arms race against the virus for the next few years at least.
I'm not sure how this could possibly be controversial, but just in case, here is the lancet commission on public health two weeks ago:
https://theconversation.com/new-covid-variants-have-changed-the-game-and-vaccines-will-not-be-enough-we-need-global-maximum-suppression-157870
No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants. The danger is that variants will arise that can overcome the immunity conferred by vaccinations or prior infection.
What’s more, many countries lack the capacity to track emerging variants via genomic surveillance. This means the situation may be even more serious than it appears.
As members of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission Taskforce on Public Health, we call for urgent action in response to the new variants. These new variants mean we cannot rely on the vaccines alone to provide protection but must maintain strong public health measures to reduce the risk from these variants. At the same time, we need to accelerate the vaccine program in all countries in an equitable way.
Together, these strategies will deliver “maximum suppression” of the virus.
|
On April 25 2021 07:32 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 06:52 maybenexttime wrote:
Vaccines are not drugs. They rely on a natural immune response. Vaccines can be updated to make them effective against any new variants, presumably. The scientists behind the vaccines said that it should be fairly easy (a matter of weeks) to modify the mRNA vaccines, for example. I am more than aware of that. Most of the world will not get the mRNA vaccines. For the conventional vaccines this is several months at least, the last I saw. All updates still need to be trialled, upscaled, manufactured and, most importantly, rolled out. It is far from a snap-of-the-fingers process and the emergence of a seriously resistant variant would affect the recovery worldwide. We will be in an arms race against the virus for the next few years at least. I'm not sure how this could possibly be controversial, but just in case, here is the lancet commission on public health two weeks ago: https://theconversation.com/new-covid-variants-have-changed-the-game-and-vaccines-will-not-be-enough-we-need-global-maximum-suppression-157870Show nested quote +No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants. The danger is that variants will arise that can overcome the immunity conferred by vaccinations or prior infection.
What’s more, many countries lack the capacity to track emerging variants via genomic surveillance. This means the situation may be even more serious than it appears.
As members of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission Taskforce on Public Health, we call for urgent action in response to the new variants. These new variants mean we cannot rely on the vaccines alone to provide protection but must maintain strong public health measures to reduce the risk from these variants. At the same time, we need to accelerate the vaccine program in all countries in an equitable way.
Together, these strategies will deliver “maximum suppression” of the virus.
Who are you? What is your role? My name is (removed). I am employed by (removed).
Who are you, and what is your role?
EDIT: removed my personal information and retract my enquiries on yours; apologies for the drunk aggression last night
|
Many countries have deployed military units to combat misinformation. This is why I ask. Don't feel targeted
|
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country.
|
On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country.
...mods?
|
On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods?
Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here.
|
On April 25 2021 08:32 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods? Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here.
Yep, making you angry bud. Because feelings are super important. Look at the rules as stated above about fear mongering and come to your own conclusions.
"Commonly understood by most people" used to be a rather dangerous extremist thing in itself. Fun that this is something you identify with now.
|
On April 25 2021 08:39 fonger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:32 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods? Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here. Yep, making you angry bud. Because feelings are super important. Look at the rules as stated above about fear mongering and come to your own conclusions. "Commonly understood by most people" used to be a rather dangerous extremist thing in itself. Fun that this is something you identify with now.
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. If what Belisarius and I have said is fearmongering then please explain to us why most of our world leaders have decided to shut down huge sectors of their respective economies for more than a year? Please do us all the favor, because I'm certainly curious to hear what you have to say about that, that wouldn't be considered a "conspiracy theory". Please go ahead.
|
On April 25 2021 08:45 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:39 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:32 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods? Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here. Yep, making you angry bud. Because feelings are super important. Look at the rules as stated above about fear mongering and come to your own conclusions. "Commonly understood by most people" used to be a rather dangerous extremist thing in itself. Fun that this is something you identify with now. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. If what Belisarius and I have said is fearmongering then please explain to us why most of our world leaders have decided to shut down huge sectors of their respective economies for more than a year? Please do us all the favor, because I'm certainly curious to hear what you have to say about that, that wouldn't be considered a "conspiracy theory". Please go ahead.
I'm saddened that you don't understand the dangers I've outlined  I'm calling out hate, of which I see/hear a lot of coming out of you and your mates. You represent the "new normal" of terribly clever people telling the rest of us how we're wrong. Frankly that's nauseating.
It's not your job to figure out what fear mongering is so don't put too much effort into it. That's up to the mods.
In terms of why many people have had their businesses removed, hey who knows, just don't follow the money or you'll end up a conspiracy theorist...
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts
fonger, stop backseat moderating. If we see fearmongering, then we'll take care of it.
Also, I already non-actioned your mod reports. I read their posts, and that's not what fearmongering is. Everyone, please carry on and be civil to each other.
|
On April 25 2021 09:06 Seeker wrote:
fonger, stop backseat moderating. If we see fearmongering, then we'll take care of it.
Also, I already non-actioned your mod reports. I read their posts, and that's not what fearmongering is. Everyone, please carry on and be civil to each other.
What is fear mongering?
|
On April 25 2021 08:59 fonger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:45 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:39 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:32 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods? Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here. Yep, making you angry bud. Because feelings are super important. Look at the rules as stated above about fear mongering and come to your own conclusions. "Commonly understood by most people" used to be a rather dangerous extremist thing in itself. Fun that this is something you identify with now. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. If what Belisarius and I have said is fearmongering then please explain to us why most of our world leaders have decided to shut down huge sectors of their respective economies for more than a year? Please do us all the favor, because I'm certainly curious to hear what you have to say about that, that wouldn't be considered a "conspiracy theory". Please go ahead. I'm saddened that you don't understand the dangers I've outlined I'm calling out hate, of which I see/hear a lot of coming out of you and your mates. You represent the "new normal" of terribly clever people telling the rest of us how we're wrong. Frankly that's nauseating. It's not your job to figure out what fear mongering is so don't put too much effort into it. That's up to the mods. In terms of why many people have had their businesses removed, hey who knows, just don't follow the money or you'll end up a conspiracy theorist...
If you read my comment history in this thread you'll notice that I've expressed my desire for freedom before restrictions numerous times. I'm not in favor of lockdowns unless absolutely necessary (which I think right now is the case in many countries), especially not strict ones. I'm not in favor of forced vaccinations, which I've also expressed numerous times. I'm not in favor of travel restrictions for unvaccinated people, I believe there are other ways. I believe many politicians got many things wrong with their policies (both strict and soft ones). I've expressed all those things and more in this thread. I'm not sure but I think I can even recall myself stating that I'm an anarchist at heart - which puts me in a position where I couldn't be more disinterested in wanting to tell people how to live their lives even if I tried. As it concerns me, you (or anyone else) should do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my freedom and my rights.
Does any of that sound "hateful" to you?
I don't care if anyone here or elsewhere feels nauseated by scientific research. I can provide you with links to all the information you need, I've posted some of it in this thread. Science isn't hateful, it's the pursuit of knowledge. If me laying out scientific information in this thread puts you at odds with me, then I seriously hope the mods don't side with you on this issue.
|
On April 25 2021 09:10 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2021 08:59 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:45 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:39 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:32 Magic Powers wrote:On April 25 2021 08:29 fonger wrote:On April 25 2021 08:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Belisarius is not technically wrong in saying there's a sort of "selective pressure". I myself wouldn't use that term per se because the context matters very much, but the idea is correct in principle. For example, a more infectious variant is likely to outperform a less infectious variant (resulting in R going up). Or a more deadly variant could be outperformed by a less deadly variant (e.g. R may go down in a more deadly variant, allowing for R of a variant with lower mortality to go up). Then there's the incubation period and maybe various other factors that can also change R.
The pressure on any given variant exists in the form of such "new and improved" variants. Sometimes selective pressure can make a disease worse (for us humans), sometimes it can make it better. In some sense one could even say that our ability to survive this virus is one of the reasons why it can flourish in the first place. If we all just keeled over, the virus would probably just disappear. In that sense the human ability to survive from an evolutionary, societal, political, economical and other standpoint prolongs the survivability of the virus as well, which means some unusually severe variants can pop up and wreak havoc for the rest of humankind's existence (or even beyond), simply because we've made ourselves so durable (but without ever defeating the virus).
This is why the emphasis must be on eradicating this virus, and not just "surviving". Because - and this is something that many people haven't understood yet - sars-cov-2 is one of the most severe viruses (in almost every way) that humankind has had to deal with in recorded history. It's not like influenza, which was in some way considered "acceptable" to live with, because we had it under control despite not having eradicated it, and it wasn't killing people at a rate that could destroy all of civilization.
Sars-cov-2 is very different in that regard. It actually has such potential - that is if we don't act smartly, consistently and collectively. If we follow the science, we could eradicate the virus from the planet. I say "could" because, well... there's the theory, which says we can do it, and then there's the applied policy of each individual and every country. ...mods? Ok, you're making me angry right now. What exactly is "fearmongering" about my comment or Belisarius' comment? All of this is easily available scientific information, and I can provide you with all the links you need to confirm everything I said. The reason why I didn't add any links is because over the past months I came to believe that much of this was commonly understood by many people in here. Yep, making you angry bud. Because feelings are super important. Look at the rules as stated above about fear mongering and come to your own conclusions. "Commonly understood by most people" used to be a rather dangerous extremist thing in itself. Fun that this is something you identify with now. I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. If what Belisarius and I have said is fearmongering then please explain to us why most of our world leaders have decided to shut down huge sectors of their respective economies for more than a year? Please do us all the favor, because I'm certainly curious to hear what you have to say about that, that wouldn't be considered a "conspiracy theory". Please go ahead. I'm saddened that you don't understand the dangers I've outlined I'm calling out hate, of which I see/hear a lot of coming out of you and your mates. You represent the "new normal" of terribly clever people telling the rest of us how we're wrong. Frankly that's nauseating. It's not your job to figure out what fear mongering is so don't put too much effort into it. That's up to the mods. In terms of why many people have had their businesses removed, hey who knows, just don't follow the money or you'll end up a conspiracy theorist... If you read my comment history in this thread you'll notice that I've expressed my desire for freedom before restrictions numerous times. I'm not in favor of lockdowns unless absolutely necessary (which I think right now is the case in many countries), especially not strict ones. I'm not in favor of forced vaccinations, which I've also expressed numerous times. I'm not in favor of travel restrictions for unvaccinated people, I believe there are other ways. I believe many politicians got many things wrong with their policies (both strict and soft ones). I've expressed all those things and more in this thread. I'm not sure but I think I can even recall myself stating that I'm an anarchist at heart - which puts me in a position where I couldn't be more disinterested in wanting to tell people how to live their lives even if I tried. As it concerns me, you (or anyone else) should do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my freedom and my rights. Does any of that sound "hateful" to you? I don't care if anyone here or elsewhere feels nauseated by scientific research. I can provide you with links to all the information you need, I've posted some of it in this thread. Science isn't hateful, it's the pursuit of knowledge. If me laying out scientific information in this thread puts you at odds with me, then I seriously hope the mods don't side with you on this issue.
You apparently support the very dangerous "zero virus" view that will lead to the future we'll end up in anyway. Your question on whether it sounds hateful, yes. You will hate the unvaccinated (for as long as they're around) because you think you're cleverer than them and that they're making your planet worse. What a shame, but thankfully the law will support and eventually enforce your opinion
Please try to think outside your box
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
