KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.

---

It's basic science. You should follow it.

---

There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.

---

If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.

---

Unless those worse variants, which would have been selected against by killing their hosts (as worst case), are allowed to exist and spread efficiently, often without knowing it, because of leaky vaccines that minimize the impact/symptoms only on those who are vaccinated. In that scenario, it is very easy to select for worsening variants that otherwise would not exist if in a more natural environment. So we can actually perpetuate versions that are both worse in severity and more contagious. Human involvement in this case is potentially a very significant factor in how this virus will adapt going forward. We are allowing versions to be successful that otherwise would go away without the vaccines.

Yes, another "conspiracy theory." But only because it's something that goes against what they are told and desperately want to believe, because…"science" as spouted by our favorite politicians, media personalities, and "experts." Oh, and Facebook memes. Unless you consider that, like a lot of the other conspiracy theories, it isn't as crazy as those in denial want to consider. It's easier to shout down things instead of thinking critically, when things are heard that they don't want to hear.

Gordo14 said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.

---

It's basic science. You should follow it.

---

There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.

---

If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.

---

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that any given variant that pops up is less lethal - it just means that over time viruses that mutate a lot tend to become less lethal. But any random mutation could not follow that trend particularly if it comes with other characteristics that increase transmission for example. This nuance is missed by Old Buffalo's assertion that all variants become less lethal.

The truth is this variant looks to be so transmissible that we're going to just have to bite thr bullet and push through this. The vaccines and previous infection better provide at least partial immunity (which I think is very likely) or we're going to be in a world of **** in about a month. If it happens that there is real immune escape here this has the potential to be an absolute disaster. Again I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome but now is the time to prepare for this. Getting a vaccine now can only be a benefit (no matter your immunity status to current variants) and it'll be too late in the very near future.

---

This. In fact, the mere existence of the Spanish Flu is proof that a deadlier strain can happen.

WoMD said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.

---

It's basic science. You should follow it.

---

There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.

---

If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.

---

Unless those worse variants, which would have been selected against by killing their hosts (as worst case), are allowed to exist and spread efficiently, often without knowing it, because of leaky vaccines that minimize the impact/symptoms only on those who are vaccinated. In that scenario, it is very easy to select for worsening variants that otherwise would not exist if in a more natural environment. So we can actually perpetuate versions that are both worse in severity and more contagious. Human involvement in this case is potentially a very significant factor in how this virus will adapt going forward. We are allowing versions to be successful that otherwise would go away without the vaccines.

Yes, another "conspiracy theory." But only because it's something that goes against what they are told and desperately want to believe, because…"science" as spouted by our favorite politicians, media personalities, and "experts." Oh, and Facebook memes. Unless you consider that, like a lot of the other conspiracy theories, it isn't as crazy as those in denial want to consider. It's easier to shout down things instead of thinking critically, when things are heard that they don't want to hear.

---

As long as they kill their hosts after they have reproduced and spread to others, it shouldn't make much, if any, difference to the mutations. In evolution, what matters is which variant/mutation can maximize their reproductive opportunities, not what happens the host afterwards.

Are there any viruses that kill their hosts before they reproduce? How would that work?

Decent news thus far from South Africa's Gauteng province (apparent #Omicron epicenter): Covid hospitalizations are rising much slower than cases. With 7-day lag, we get:

11/30: 7DA Cases up 375% (1 wk) / 1,701% (2 wks)

12/7: Hospitalizations up 88% (1 wk) / 209% (2 wks)

— Craig (@TheLawyerCraig) December 7, 2021

I seem to remember 10%+ mortality rates being reported from Italy in early 2019. Hopefully the kiddo aspect is a similar overstatement and those first indications prove correct: a less harmful strain that outcompetes the more harmful strains.

It is looking like the initial pediatric data was more due to an "abundance of caution" and not really sick kids which is awesome.

I listened to an excellent grand rounds on Omicron today between patients. My only real concern is on the high risk non vaccinated population current experts think the monoclonal antibodies will not be nearly as effective vs omicron due to the location of the 30 + mutations in the spike proteins that alter the targets of the monoclonal antibodies.

deadbq03 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.

---

It's basic science. You should follow it.

---

There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.

---

If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.

---

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that any given variant that pops up is less lethal - it just means that over time viruses that mutate a lot tend to become less lethal. But any random mutation could not follow that trend particularly if it comes with other characteristics that increase transmission for example. This nuance is missed by Old Buffalo's assertion that all variants become less lethal.

The truth is this variant looks to be so transmissible that we're going to just have to bite thr bullet and push through this. The vaccines and previous infection better provide at least partial immunity (which I think is very likely) or we're going to be in a world of **** in about a month. If it happens that there is real immune escape here this has the potential to be an absolute disaster. Again I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome but now is the time to prepare for this. Getting a vaccine now can only be a benefit (no matter your immunity status to current variants) and it'll be too late in the very near future.

---

This. In fact, the mere existence of the Spanish Flu is proof that a deadlier strain can happen.

---

It's not exactly comparable to COVID variants (mutations in the spike protein). As people are vaccinated or exposed the contagiousness of variant was is the same or greater while virulence appears to be waning with omicron.

The Spanish flu was an H1N1 strain. H1N1s don't morph into H3N2s (most common)

H1N1 strains are more virulent with a short incubation period. A more violent disease is easier to isolate and quarantine. The immune system react strongly to the H1N1 and its vaccine. Thus the following years the H1N1 strains affect people less and symptoms are milder today than H3N2. It's an evolutionary disadvantage to cause rapid and profound illness in the host/patient, and stimulates rapid adaptation. The H3N2 is more common year in and year out.

After the 2009-10 H1N1 breakout where vaccines were available, there were a modest 20,000 deaths in the US and the following flu season was less severe with H1N1 and H3N2 flu strains.

We're moving toward an endemic phase, presuming a critical mass vaccine and get boosters, which take advantage of polyclonal technology and avoid "escape" by spike protein mutations.