So the variants do appear to be more dangerous

4,589 Views | 36 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by DCAggie13y
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ramblin_ag02 said:

Even if COVID was released or escaped from a lab, which seems likely, the original virus likely came from bats or pangolins. The lab was actively collecting coronaviruses from both of groups of animals for study. There is zero biochemical evidence that these were fully created in a lab and almost no evidence they were modified. So the most updated thought is that COVID is an unmodified, or only lightly modified, rodent coronavirus that got out of a virology lab in Wuhan.

Some of you people are way too bought into conspiracies
I never realized how many people buy into so many conspiracies until the last five years or so.

That covid is bioengineered to affect people seems more and more unnecessary to explain it.

From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/newly-discovered-bat-viruses-give-hints-to-covid-s-origins/ar-AAPwqmZ?li=BBorjTa

Quote:

In the dead of night, they used mist nets and canvas traps to snag the animals as they emerged from nearby caves, gathered samples of saliva, urine and feces, then released them back into the darkness.

The fecal samples turned out to contain coronaviruses, which the scientists studied in high security biosafety labs, known as BSL-3, using specialized protective gear and air filters.


Three of the Laos coronaviruses were unusual: They carried a molecular hook on their surface that was very similar to the hook on the virus that causes Covid-19, called SARS-CoV-2. Like SARS-CoV-2, their hook allowed them to latch onto human cells.

"It is even better than early strains of SARS-CoV-2," said Marc Eloit, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris who led the study, referring to how well the hook on the Laos coronaviruses binds to human cells. The study was posted online last month and has not yet been published in a scientific journal.

Virus experts are buzzing about the discovery. Some suspect that these SARS-CoV-2-like viruses may already be infecting people from time to time, causing only mild and limited outbreaks. But under the right circumstances, the pathogens could give rise to a Covid-19-like pandemic, they say.

...

n RaTG13, 11 of the 17 key building blocks of the domain are identical to those of SARS-CoV-2. But in the three viruses from Laos, as many as 16 were identical the closest match to date.

Dr. Eloit speculated that one or more of the coronaviruses might be able to infect humans and cause mild disease. In a separate study, he and colleagues took blood samples from people in Laos who collect bat guano for a living. Although the Laotians did not show signs of having been infected with SARS-CoV-2, they carried immune markers, called antibodies, that appeared to be caused by a similar virus.

Note that covid may undergo a reassortment similar to that of the flu virus:
Quote:

If a bat infected with one coronavirus catches a second one, the two different viruses may end up in a single cell at once. As that cell begins to replicate each of those viruses, their genes get shuffled together, producing new virus hybrids.

In the Laotian coronaviruses, this gene shuffling has given them a receptor-binding domain that's very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2. The original genetic swap took place about a decade ago, according to a preliminary analysis by Spyros Lytras, a graduate student at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.

is this reassortment process common for a wide variety of viruses? I first learned of the process in the 1980s, but until now, I've only heard of it being found with the flu virus.

If the coronaviruses can make new variants through reassortment, there could easily be much larger differences between one variant and another (more lethal as well as less lethal) than we would ever be likely to see from simple mutations.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think there are also legitimate, non-malicious research reasons to modify a virus to see if it will better infect human cells. For instance, knowing that only 1 or 2 mutations can make a natural bat virus infect humans is good, valuable information when keeping watch for future outbreaks. You don't get that kind of knowledge without finding a wild virus and tinkering with it. Of course, you'd want the highest amount of transparency, security, and safety protocols in a lab doing that kind of research, and you wouldn't want to do it in the middle of a totalitarian state. China fails on all of those counts
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
DCAggie13y
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

DCAggie13y said:

eric76 said:

According to a posting today on the ProMED mailing list, those with one of the VOCs (Variants of Concern) of covid saw a 51% greater chance of death!

From the posting:
Quote:

COVID-19 variants of concern (VOCs), especially the delta (B1617.2) variant, are more virulent than the wild type, according to an Ontario-based study published in CMAJ [Canadian Medical Association Journal] yesterday [4 Oct 2021] (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2021/10/04/cmaj.211248). The cohort included 212 326 cases of non-VOCs (22.4%) and VOCs with the N501Y mutation (76.7%), such as alpha (B117), beta (B1351), gamma (P1), and delta.

The researchers found that those infected with VOCs had a 52% increased risk of hospitalization (95% confidence interval [CI], 42%-63%), 89% increased risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (CI, 67%-117%), and a 51% increased risk of death (CI, 30%-78%). The delta variant, although only 2.8% of the sample size, was associated with a 108% increased risk of infection (CI, 78%-140%), a 235% increased risk of ICU admission (CI, 160%-331%), and a 133% higher risk of death (CI, 54%-231%). Data also indicated that those infected by VOCs were significantly younger and less likely to have comorbidities than those infected with the wild-type virus.

And regarding vaccinations:
Quote:

Both Patrick and the researchers highlight the usefulness of the COVID-19 vaccines, with the researchers adding, "The effects reported here represent a substantial degree of protection against death conferred by vaccines (about 80%-90%), even when they fail to prevent infection. Such direct protective effects may help reduce the health impacts of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Ontario, even if herd immunity proves elusive, given the high reproduction numbers of VOCs."

There is an idea frequently seen here that mutations of a virus necessarily becomes less dangerous. I have never understood where this notion comes from except, perhaps, wishful thinking. It seems clear that delta is more dangerous, not only in terms of being more aggressive in infecting people, but from the report here, certainly seems to be more dangerous to you once you have it.


If viruses did not generally become weaker with mutation, human beings and other mammals would not exist. The idea that viruses become stronger over time is easily disprovable by the fact that humans and other animals that are constantly attacked by viruses survived millions of years with no vaccines or medicine.

You are asking for papers and studies showing that viruses weaken over time. Where are your papers and studies showing that they tend to get stronger? The one you posted in this thread ain't it.
That may or may not be applicable to the most dangerous of viruses, but it hardly applies to most viruses.

For example, if a virus that causes a disease with 3% mortality were to mutate to one causing a disease with 5% mortality, there would probably be little, if any, difference between passing them on.

Nobody is claiming that a disease that mutates to get more lethal is going to keep mutating to get more and more lethal.


What viruses have mutated and become stronger over time? Out of the billions of viruses in history, how many have done that?
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.