• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

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

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    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.
    Blog? What blog...?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by malvolio View Post

      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.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by mattster View Post

        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
        Blog? What blog...?

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by malvolio View Post
          It's not a novel virus either, it's just another strain of Coronavirus (hence "19").
          It's yet another strain with major changes in a novel coronavirus that was only out for 2 years and that humanity still does not understand anywhere well enough.



          Comment


            #35
            WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! The SKY is Falling!

            Ivan akkerov says so, it Must be true

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by malvolio View Post

              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").
              Of course it is a novel virus, by every definition of that term, just as sufficiently different flu strains can also be classed as novel. It is not an entirely new class of viruses, but no one is suggesting that. What are you even talking about?

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                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.
                You're right of course, people aren't dying of Covid, they're simply having their deaths brought forward.
                And vaccines don't save lives, they just postpone your inevitable death.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by mattster View Post
                  sufficiently different flu strains can also be classed as novel.
                  Strains of existing viruses by definition are not novel (new) viruses.

                  Originally posted by mattster View Post
                  It is not an entirely new class of viruses, but no one is suggesting that. What are you even talking about?
                  A novel virus does not have to be in an entirely new class.

                  HTH

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post

                    Strains of existing viruses by definition are not novel (new) viruses.
                    Well the CDC and >38m search results suggest otherwise.

                    A novel influenza A virus is one that has caused human infection, but is different from current seasonal human influenza A viruses that circulate among people. Novel influenza A viruses are usually influenza A viruses that circulate among animals.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by mattster View Post
                      Well the CDC and >38m search results suggest otherwise.
                      It's novel because -

                      "A novel influenza A virus is an influenza A virus that has infected humans and is antigenically and genetically distinct from seasonal influenza A viruses circulating among humans"

                      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...274-6/fulltext

                      NEXT!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X