Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I would say this is a very effective virus though to be honest mate the amlunt of damage this has done its crazy

It is pretty effective and it's long been speculated that a virus like this was going to pop up sooner or later purely by how viruses work and mutate then cross the food chain.

If you have one that's really severe, it tends to kill people before they can pass it on. If you have one that doesn't kill people quickly so they can pass it on, the human body has a pretty good chance of being able to fight it off.

This one is about in the middle. Severe but not enough to stop people spreading it first.

If you think that's evidence of being engineered rather than pure natural selection which we see all around us all the time then you should also be questioning all evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Yeah the more credible conspiracy is that the virus was found in a mine/cave a number of years back and was brought to Wuhan for study. It was so infectious it managed to escape their quarantine at the end of 2019. 

My guess is that’s exactly what happened. Read recently the French had been participating in the Wuhan lab (the one that focused on coronavirus’ research across the road from the outbreak...) but withdrew staff before the outbreak over safety concerns. 

The *very* strange thing imo is the way it’s mutating. A wild virus mutates to enable faster/better spread, but loses lethality in the process. This one is evolving to become a better spreader but also more deadly.  

Definitely remember reading early in the pandemic that this wasn’t a concern because that’s not the way natural viruses work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very unlikely the virus was created as a weapon. Viruses are terrible choices as weapons, especially something like this, an easily spread one. Why? Because you can't control it, and you'll end up being hit with it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's very unlikely the virus was created as a weapon. Viruses are terrible choices as weapons, especially something like this, an easily spread one. Why? Because you can't control it, and you'll end up being hit with it as well.

Agreed, but experimenting with viruses to better understand them and what they could become is normal practice. 

I reckon this pandemic is the worst industrial accident since Chernobyl. That the WHO investigative team aren’t being allowed to access the Wuhan lab or any of the scientists who worked there is further cause for suspicion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The thing that's most frustrating about the Wuhan lab conspiracy theory is that - in common with a lot of conspiracy theories - it ignores the actual conspiracy lying hidden in plain sight in favour of a baroque one with no or little real evidence.

The plain, obvious conspiracy is - the Chinese government lied for weeks about the virus. They denied human-human transmission long after it had started happening. They blocked all mention of the whistleblower doctor on social media. If you want something to get mad about, get mad about that!

Indeed. ANd they did that while barring people from leaving Wuhan for other parts of China, but not stopping international travel (and thus spread of the corollafungus internationally).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the suggestion it was created as a weapon or deliberately released is definitely in the realms of conspiracy theory, but anyone dismissing any kind of link altogether with the Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory are being more than a little naive. Put it like this, if the virus had been accidentally leaked from there would China lie about it and try to cover it up? You bet they would!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Awol said:

My guess is that’s exactly what happened. Read recently the French had been participating in the Wuhan lab (the one that focused on coronavirus’ research across the road from the outbreak...) but withdrew staff before the outbreak over safety concerns. 

The *very* strange thing imo is the way it’s mutating. A wild virus mutates to enable faster/better spread, but loses lethality in the process. This one is evolving to become a better spreader but also more deadly.  

Definitely remember reading early in the pandemic that this wasn’t a concern because that’s not the way natural viruses work. 

I could be wrong here but I don’t believe their is any evidence it, yet at least, that it is more deadly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The thing that's most frustrating about the Wuhan lab conspiracy theory is that - in common with a lot of conspiracy theories - it ignores the actual conspiracy lying hidden in plain sight in favour of a baroque one with no or little real evidence.

The plain, obvious conspiracy is - the Chinese government lied for weeks about the virus. They denied human-human transmission long after it had started happening. They blocked all mention of the whistleblower doctor on social media. If you want something to get mad about, get mad about that!

Oh no, you're going to have @villakramall over your ass now suggesting that China have been less than honest about this.

tenor.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TrentVilla said:

I could be wrong here but I don’t believe their is any evidence it, yet at least, that it is more deadly.

Marginally, but the Kent strain is thought to be. The CMO said a few nights ago that for an average 65 yr old male with the original strain, 10 of 1000 hospital cases would be expected to die. With the Kent strain that rises to 13 or 14 per 1000. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Awol said:

 

The *very* strange thing imo is the way it’s mutating. A wild virus mutates to enable faster/better spread, but loses lethality in the process. This one is evolving to become a better spreader but also more deadly.  

Definitely remember reading early in the pandemic that this wasn’t a concern because that’s not the way natural viruses work. 

It's not that there's anything *particularly* unusual about a virus becoming more deadly, it's that more deadly infectious diseases tend to spread less well, due to the host dying. There also tends to be trade-offs when there are mutations so a virus "improving" in one way tends to do so at a cost.

There's no general principle that viruses will become less deadly, it's simply typical for "successful" viruses, there are no guarantees when talking about mutation.

Mutation occurs essentially at random, but inefficient mutations die out quickly. In this case it seems to have hit a sweet spot of being more deadly, but not so much more deadly that it has a significant impact on its ability to spread itself.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Awol said:

Agreed, but experimenting with viruses to better understand them and what they could become is normal practice. 

I reckon this pandemic is the worst industrial accident since Chernobyl. That the WHO investigative team aren’t being allowed to access the Wuhan lab or any of the scientists who worked there is further cause for suspicion. 

Oh I've no doubt that every major developed nation on the planet is pushing some nasty shit around a Petri dish to see if there's anything useful to be found.

And I could easily see the virus taking been released in an lab outbreak. It happens, worryingly often. I'm not sure I'm that bothered if it was an accidental release or whether it is a truly natural case of someone catching this thing at source - the virus is bat derived and bats were sold as food in Wuhan, likely from the same colonies that these viruses are being studied from. Either way it's happened and pointing the finger can wait.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Marginally, but the Kent strain is thought to be. The CMO said a few nights ago that for an average 65 yr old male with the original strain, 10 of 1000 hospital cases would be expected to die. With the Kent strain that rises to 13 or 14 per 1000. 

That sort of comment isn’t statistically supported though is it? I mean they are I assume approximations or judgment calls based on what they are seeing.

I’m absolutely not saying it isn’t more deadly, just querying if that has actually been established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55639096

Covid: Large trial of new treatment begins in UK

Early findings suggested the treatment cut the odds of a Covid-19 patient in hospital developing severe disease - such as requiring ventilation - by almost 80%.

 

remember reading this a couple of weeks ago which was also hot on the heels of another story about 2 new drugs being approved which would cut deaths by 1/4.

Not sure what they mean by "large trial" but surely if you have the opportunity you would roll it out to as many as possible. 

Anyway I was hoping that 2 - 4 weeks after these announcements we would see a decent enough drop off in deaths.  Not sure that has happened although maybe these benefits have now been countered by the more deadly strain taking hold. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â