OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting (5 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
SlyPokerDog said:
A variant is a mutation when the virus replicates. It has no idea who is or isn't vaccinated. It's not going to seek out vaccinated people. It's not an intelligent being. You're confusing viruses with Aliens.

alien-chestburster_001a_1196992871.jpg
Click to expand...

If the virus is in a vaccinated person, it will adjust to whatever prevents the virus to work. Life finds a way.

That virus then infects others, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. It amplifies when it effects the vaccinated since it has to adjust to survive.
 
jonnyboy said:
Doesn’t make a lot of sense does it?
Click to expand...

The Delta variant is causing more breakthroughs among vaccinated people, and it’s been shown that even asymptomatic vaccinated people shed enough virus to infect others. But, yeah, vaccinated people aren’t likely to get sick enough to need hospitalization or die, so from that standpoint it’s kind of overkill. OTOH, if vaccinated people don’t wear masks in public spaces it’s pretty much a given that the unvaccinated won’t either. I’ll wear a mask if it helps push those who choose not to get vaccinated have a better chance of not getting sick. Wish they would get themselves vaccinated though.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
If the virus is in a vaccinated person, it will adjust to whatever prevents the virus to work. Life finds a way.

That virus then infects others, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. It amplifies when it effects the vaccinated since it has to adjust to survive.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t work like that from what I’ve read. Viruses mutate all the time but it’s totally random. Most mutations don’t confer any advantage to the spread of the virus. Those die out. Once in awhile a random mutation does happen to give an advantage that lets the virus spread more efficiently and that strain can become dominant. The more mutations that happen the greater the chance that one that causes spread will occur. The more virus a body is producing, the more likely an advantageous mutation will occur. Overall, vaccinated people don’t produce or shed as much virus as non vaccinated people so, presumably there’s less chance of producing a variant that causes problems, but it’s certainly not impossible.
 
e_blazer said:
The Delta variant is causing more breakthroughs among vaccinated people, and it’s been shown that even asymptomatic vaccinated people shed enough virus to infect others. But, yeah, vaccinated people aren’t likely to get sick enough to need hospitalization or die, so from that standpoint it’s kind of overkill. OTOH, if vaccinated people don’t wear masks in public spaces it’s pretty much a given that the unvaccinated won’t either. I’ll wear a mask if it helps push those who choose not to get vaccinated have a better chance of not getting sick. Wish they would get themselves vaccinated though.
Click to expand...

Why would you wear a mask for people who won’t even wear one themselves? I mean, I’m probably on the other side of the argument than you and even I find that logic to be a tad ridiculous. You’re gonna have to live life for yourself one of these days. Do you worry about people you don’t know wearing seatbelts? Fuck it.
 
e_blazer said:
It doesn’t work like that from what I’ve read. Viruses mutate all the time but it’s totally random. Most mutations don’t confer any advantage to the spread of the virus. Those die out. Once in awhile a random mutation does happen to give an advantage that lets the virus spread more efficiently and that strain can become dominant. The more mutations that happen the greater the chance that one that causes spread will occur. The more virus a body is producing, the more likely an advantageous mutation will occur. Overall, vaccinated people don’t produce or shed as much virus as non vaccinated people so, presumably there’s less chance of producing a variant that causes problems, but it’s certainly not impossible.
Click to expand...

We don't know. That's just my thoughts on the matter. The vaccines will produce short-term gain, but in the long run, they will be worse for us.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-viruses-evolve-180975343/

As we face the current pandemic, it will be important to understand how SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is likely to evolve in the months and years ahead. It’s possible the virus could lose its lethal character and settle into an evolutionary détente with humanity. It might end up as just another cold virus, as may have happened to another coronavirus in the past. But it could also remain a serious threat or perhaps even evolve to become more lethal. The outcome depends on the complex and sometimes subtle interplay of ecological and evolutionary forces that shape how viruses and their hosts respond to one another.

“One thing you learn about evolution is never to generalize,” says Edward Holmes, an evolutionary virologist at the University of Sydney, Australia, and author of an article on the evolution of emerging viruses in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. “It depends entirely on the biological nuance of the situation.”
Click to expand...

Getting nicer — or nastier
SARS-CoV-2, of course, is well past the teetering stage. The big question now is: What happens next? One popular theory, endorsed by some experts, is that viruses often start off harming their hosts, but evolve toward a more benign coexistence. After all, many of the viruses we know of that trigger severe problems in a new host species cause mild or no disease in the host they originally came from. And from the virus’s perspective, this theory asserts, hosts that are less sick are more likely to be moving around, meeting others and spreading the infection onward.

“I believe that viruses tend to become less pathogenic,” says Burtram Fielding, a coronavirologist at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. “The ultimate aim of a pathogen is to reproduce, to make more of itself. Any pathogen that kills the host too fast will not give itself enough time to reproduce.” If SARS-CoV-2 can spread faster and further by killing or severely harming fewer of the people it infects, we might expect that over time, it will become less harmful — or, as virologists term it, less virulent.
Click to expand...
 
jonnyboy said:
Why would you wear a mask for people who won’t even wear one themselves? I mean, I’m probably on the other side of the argument than you and even I find that logic to be a tad ridiculous. You’re gonna have to live life for yourself one of these days. Do you worry about people you don’t know wearing seatbelts? Fuck it.
Click to expand...

In a pandemic where we’re dealing with a virus that can mutate and, potentially launch variants that can render vaccines less effective, this battle isn’t about the individual rights or individual survival. Each person infected becomes a biological experiment that can cause problems for everyone. We all have a stake in ramping down the spread. Beyond that, when the virus is spreading rapidly, hospitals fill up and make it hard for people with other emergency conditions to get care. And on a basic level, I guess I just give a crap about my fellow human beings. If someone chooses not to wear a seatbelt, they are putting only their life at risk. That’s dumb on their part, but I can’t effect that decision in any practical way. I can wear a mask and make a small impact on virus spread though. If it makes it harder for an anti-vaxxer to cheat on a mask mandate, so much the better. More bang for no bucks cost.
 
jonnyboy said:
Why would you wear a mask for people who won’t even wear one themselves? I mean, I’m probably on the other side of the argument than you and even I find that logic to be a tad ridiculous. You’re gonna have to live life for yourself one of these days. Do you worry about people you don’t know wearing seatbelts? Fuck it.
Click to expand...

Wearing a mask doesn't actually prevent anyone from living life.

Why not rebel against wearing pants instead?

Pants-free in '73!

barfo
 
e_blazer said:
It doesn’t work like that from what I’ve read. Viruses mutate all the time but it’s totally random. Most mutations don’t confer any advantage to the spread of the virus. Those die out. Once in awhile a random mutation does happen to give an advantage that lets the virus spread more efficiently and that strain can become dominant. The more mutations that happen the greater the chance that one that causes spread will occur. The more virus a body is producing, the more likely an advantageous mutation will occur. Overall, vaccinated people don’t produce or shed as much virus as non vaccinated people so, presumably there’s less chance of producing a variant that causes problems, but it’s certainly not impossible.
Click to expand...
Bravo. You summed up Darwinian evolution correctly.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
My theory is that a variant infects a vaccinated person. The virus adjusts to the vaccinated person or finds a way to bypass the free spike proteins, and then the infected spreads the new, more deadly variant.
Click to expand...
Not really. The virus constantly mutates. Eventually, if enough infections occur, one of the mutations will survive the vaccine longer, allowing for slightly longer or more effective contagious period before the vaccinated persons trained immune system can shut it down.

This is why it's so critical to get as many people vaccinated as possible to shut down the spread.
 
Over half the deer tested in Michigan have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2
A survey of wild deer finds a lot of antibodies that target the virus.

On Wednesday, the US Department of Agriculture released some rather disturbing news: a survey of wild deer populations has found that large numbers of the animals seem to have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The finding indicates that there's a very large population of wild animals in North America that could serve as a reservoir for the virus, even if we were to get its circulation within the human population under control.

Probably not an error
Why check deer in the first place? The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is studying a variety of species "to identify species that may serve as reservoirs or hosts for the virus, as well as understand the origin of the virus, and predict its impacts on wildlife and the risks of cross-species transmission." This is the same group that identified the spread of the virus to a wild mink in 2020.

Using a captive deer population, the USDA had already determined that deer can be infected by the virus, although the animals display no symptoms. So although direct interactions between deer and humans are relatively limited, checking the wild populations made sense. The USDA checked populations in a total of 32 counties in four different states, obtaining blood samples to look for antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2.

The antibodies were quite common, ranging from a low of 7 percent of the samples in Illinois to a high of 60 percent in Michigan. All told, a third of the deer tested had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

The USDA also took reasonable precautions to make sure the data was accurate. Agency scientists tested samples that were around prior to the pandemic to confirm that the rate of false positives was low (it was). The researchers also ran antibody tests using two different machines to make sure the conclusion wasn't due to some sort of hardware problem (it wasn't). So in all likelihood, a large number of deer have been exposed to the virus.

What does that mean?
By now, we've spent a lot of time studying how SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and prolonged exposure to respiratory droplets is the most efficient method. There aren't many contexts in which this kind of exposure is likely to be happening between humans and wild deer. It's possible that these numbers are generated by a rare transmission to deer that is followed by extensive spread within the population. Or another species, possibly a domesticated one, might be carrying the virus between humans and deer.

Understanding how the transmission takes place will be critical to determining whether the existence of a large viral reservoir in deer poses a threat to humans. While there's been no indication of a human picking up an infection from deer, the virus is so common in the US population that it would be difficult to rule out human-to-human transmission as an alternative explanation for any cases. Still, if the US ever does manage to control the spread of the virus, being aware of any alternative routes of infection would be a good idea.

Another issue is that the virus can pick up mutations that help it adapt to deer as a host and prove dangerous to humans if the virus jumps back to humans. So far, the one case where this has been studied with SARS-CoV-2 is a strain that is adapting to mink. That virus is becoming less efficient at infecting human cells, but it's also changing in ways that make it less susceptible to the immune response generated by vaccines or prior infections. There is, of course, no reason to think that a deer-adapted SARS-CoV-2 would follow a similar trajectory.

In any case, both of these issues—the presence of a difficult-to-control reservoir and the prospect for further evolution of the virus—means that it will be important to understand how the virus is reaching the deer population and whether it's spreading between deer.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...qNOTMUrKIPgZxQJD9nirqSwG6rBE5JSsKSL_fQav9c5Bc
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Over half the deer tested in Michigan have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2
A survey of wild deer finds a lot of antibodies that target the virus.

On Wednesday, the US Department of Agriculture released some rather disturbing news: a survey of wild deer populations has found that large numbers of the animals seem to have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The finding indicates that there's a very large population of wild animals in North America that could serve as a reservoir for the virus, even if we were to get its circulation within the human population under control.

Probably not an error
Why check deer in the first place? The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is studying a variety of species "to identify species that may serve as reservoirs or hosts for the virus, as well as understand the origin of the virus, and predict its impacts on wildlife and the risks of cross-species transmission." This is the same group that identified the spread of the virus to a wild mink in 2020.

Using a captive deer population, the USDA had already determined that deer can be infected by the virus, although the animals display no symptoms. So although direct interactions between deer and humans are relatively limited, checking the wild populations made sense. The USDA checked populations in a total of 32 counties in four different states, obtaining blood samples to look for antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2.

The antibodies were quite common, ranging from a low of 7 percent of the samples in Illinois to a high of 60 percent in Michigan. All told, a third of the deer tested had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

The USDA also took reasonable precautions to make sure the data was accurate. Agency scientists tested samples that were around prior to the pandemic to confirm that the rate of false positives was low (it was). The researchers also ran antibody tests using two different machines to make sure the conclusion wasn't due to some sort of hardware problem (it wasn't). So in all likelihood, a large number of deer have been exposed to the virus.

What does that mean?
By now, we've spent a lot of time studying how SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and prolonged exposure to respiratory droplets is the most efficient method. There aren't many contexts in which this kind of exposure is likely to be happening between humans and wild deer. It's possible that these numbers are generated by a rare transmission to deer that is followed by extensive spread within the population. Or another species, possibly a domesticated one, might be carrying the virus between humans and deer.

Understanding how the transmission takes place will be critical to determining whether the existence of a large viral reservoir in deer poses a threat to humans. While there's been no indication of a human picking up an infection from deer, the virus is so common in the US population that it would be difficult to rule out human-to-human transmission as an alternative explanation for any cases. Still, if the US ever does manage to control the spread of the virus, being aware of any alternative routes of infection would be a good idea.

Another issue is that the virus can pick up mutations that help it adapt to deer as a host and prove dangerous to humans if the virus jumps back to humans. So far, the one case where this has been studied with SARS-CoV-2 is a strain that is adapting to mink. That virus is becoming less efficient at infecting human cells, but it's also changing in ways that make it less susceptible to the immune response generated by vaccines or prior infections. There is, of course, no reason to think that a deer-adapted SARS-CoV-2 would follow a similar trajectory.

In any case, both of these issues—the presence of a difficult-to-control reservoir and the prospect for further evolution of the virus—means that it will be important to understand how the virus is reaching the deer population and whether it's spreading between deer.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...qNOTMUrKIPgZxQJD9nirqSwG6rBE5JSsKSL_fQav9c5Bc
Click to expand...

When it comes to the flu it seems like animal versions are never good, bird flu, swine flu, let's hope rat covid doesn't kill us all.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Not really. The virus constantly mutates. Eventually, if enough infections occur, one of the mutations will survive the vaccine longer, allowing for slightly longer or more effective contagious period before the vaccinated persons trained immune system can shut it down.

This is why it's so critical to get as many people vaccinated as possible to shut down the spread.
Click to expand...
But the latest data is showing that the vaccine is not significantly reducing the spread.

Getting everyone vaccinated won't change anything
 
tester551 said:
But the latest data is showing that the vaccine is not significantly reducing the spread.

Getting everyone vaccinated won't change anything
Click to expand...
Which data is that? The most pessimistic data I've seen thus far is 80% protection from the Delta variant...

If 80% fewer people were being infected we'd be doing real well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top