DOOM: "Omicron Covid cases ‘doubling every two to three days’ in UK"

[malvolio]

You are making a logical error here and your view is heavily coloured by survivorship bias. Yes, for a pathogen to survive in the long run, killing all of your hosts is a bad idea, so viruses that have managed to survive for centuries are unlikely to kill all of their hosts - so what? None of that is remotely applicable to a novel virus who's continued existence (in the short term) depends simply on infecting the next person before (or soon after) the current host dies. That's it.

Well no, it's not, it's a lot more complicated but I'm not going to try to argue why. It's not a novel virus either, it's just another strain of Coronavirus (hence "19").

Also Covid-19 lethality is not as clear cut as you seem to think. Certainly in the UK they are counting people who die with a positive Covid test as being killed by Covid. Reality is rather different and many of the "Covid" deaths are down to other chronic causes, not least of which obesity and/or old age and the concomitant reduced immune responses, not helped by having a serious lung infection of course. And of the several thousand in hospital with a severe Covid reaction and who potentially are liable to die from Covid itself the vast majority have not been vaccinated.

It's still bloody dangerous, of course it is. But so are measles and rubella. We - or at least those proclaiming the sky is falling - need a sense of proportion

[mattster]

It has quite a lot of truth. Smallpox is dangerous and killed many victims, but enough survived to pass it on. The Black Death was highly and quickly lethal, those with a natural immunity to it survived. The Sweating Disease of the late Middle Ages had the lethality profile and did not persist (at least, not in the lethal form, it may be behind other lesser diseases). Sickly Cell Anaemia is a nasty genetic condition that should have died off long ago, but it confers a partial but significant immunity to malaria. There is always a balance between parasite and victim, be it physiological or environmental.

Also worth noting I started working life as a microbiologist, and am still married to one with a current practical knowledge of disease, infection and immunology, so unlike some I'm not totally driven by the popular press.

You are making a logical error here and your view is heavily coloured by survivorship bias. Yes, for a pathogen to survive in the long run, killing all of your hosts is a bad idea, so viruses that have managed to survive for centuries are unlikely to kill all of their hosts - so what? None of that is remotely applicable to a novel virus who's continued existence (in the short term) depends simply on infecting the next person before (or soon after) the current host dies. That's it.

[malvolio]

Because it has an element of truth about it and is easy to understand. HTH.

It has quite a lot of truth. Smallpox is dangerous and killed many victims, but enough survived to pass it on. The Black Death was highly and quickly lethal, those with a natural immunity to it survived. The Sweating Disease of the late Middle Ages had the lethality profile and did not persist (at least, not in the lethal form, it may be behind other lesser diseases). Sickly Cell Anaemia is a nasty genetic condition that should have died off long ago, but it confers a partial but significant immunity to malaria. There is always a balance between parasite and victim, be it physiological or environmental.

Also worth noting I started working life as a microbiologist, and am still married to one with a current practical knowledge of disease, infection and immunology, so unlike some I'm not totally driven by the popular press.

[mattster]

Because it has an element of truth about it and is easy to understand. HTH.

But the first part isn't true, is it? Making ease or otherwise of understanding irrelevant.

But experts say this expectation has no scientific basis. “Put simply, this has been one of the most baffling misinformation myths peddled during the pandemic,” said Prof Alan McNally, director of the Institute of Microbiology and Infection at the University of Birmingham. “There is almost no evidence of any human pathogenic virus evolving towards reduced virulence.”

[NotAllThere]

Why do people keep repeating this?

Because it has an element of truth about it and is easy to understand. HTH.

[NotAllThere]

Is this the same Professor who ignores nearly 200 years of immunology 2 years of covid research that says that if you have had Covid you are immune from catching the same strain again?

FTFY

The 200 years of immunology includes viruses such as measles, which has been demonstrated fairly conclusively that once you've had it, then you're immune for life. https://www.science.org/content/arti...-people-longer

I suggest that Neil Ferguson may have got some things wrong, but he knows far more about immunology than you do - or other idiots who routinely deride him. So don't be a prat.

[mattster]

That's basic Darwinism. Any parasitic organism that doesn't reach a balance between transmission and lethality will not survive.

Why do people keep repeating this? Did smallpox reach a balance between transmission and lethality? No, it didn't, despite a mortality rate in excess of 30% - only vaccines stopped smallpox. I've already quoted the immunoligist who called your position "one of the most baffling bits of misinformation on the internet" so I won't do it again, but really - you should stop.

[AtW]

That's basic Darwinism. Any parasitic organism that doesn't reach a balance between transmission and lethality will not survive.

Yeah, it won't survive if mortality is 90%.

But 10% mortality for a virus with very high R (like Omicron) won't make a dent in transmission, plus people don't drop dead straight away from it - takes weeks whilst main infection is spread early on.

[SueEllen]

But still 'jabbed' anyway ...

You reminded me that NF posted this as part as his Monday links - https://undark.org/2021/11/12/from-c...s-of-vaccines/

[d000hg]

That's basic Darwinism. Any parasitic organism that doesn't reach a balance between transmission and lethality will not survive.

No, it's rollocks. The "diseases mutate to become less dangerous" line is just not true. When mortality is <10% there are always loads of people to infect. Neither does ChimpMaster have access to medical data to make the claims he does. Nobody does yet.

You're starting to sound like some of the anti-vaxxers in the fringes of my church.