Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[Jabberwocky]

Look at the top chart, and answer this, if this was an an extremely virulent and lethal virus why is the purple line diverging from the red line?
send your answer on a postcard to the WHO Geneva.

WHO geneva will already know because it is (or should be) explained in every introduction to virilogy lecture course. virulence and pathogenicity are completely different. the graph is precisely what we expect given natural selection, which favours virulence, and does not favour killing/isolating your host.

how is a combination of mRNA that will break down in a couple of hours and ingredients found in plenty of other pharmaceuticals guaranteed to have long term effects? are you not just ignoring your own biases there?

@Xorkoth sorry you're feeling so shitty! hope you don't get any long term effects.

 

[negrogesic]

Feels like a really bad flu so far. Whenever I stand up I hobble around like an old man. The limb soreness us pretty intense, plus headache. So far my fever hasn't gone above 101.5. My grip is weak enough that it's hard to open a bottle of ibuprofen. I hope I don't have one of those weeks-long cases because this sucks.

On the plus side, I've been really struggling to not keep taking kratom periodically, but it's pretty easy now to just lay around and not go anywhere... going to get some would be an asshole move. So hooray for finally taking the final step there, even if it was forced on me.



How do you figure they're "guaranteed" to have long term effects, if, as you point out, we don't know whether they will or not?

Also, they didn't come out of nowhere, they were the continuation of work on a vaccine for SARS.

So you think you have it? Any coughing?

 

[Fire&Water]

Last March Fuckcci said ibuprofen makes the vaids much worse

 

[novaveritas]

WHO geneva will already know because it is (or should be) explained in every introduction to virilogy lecture course. virulence and pathogenicity are completely different. the graph is precisely what we expect given natural selection, which favours virulence, and does not favour killing/isolating your host.

what is virulence?
how does pathogenicity (disease causing ability) relate to virulence (ability to do damage)?
Are virulence and pathogenicity really completely different?
I think you mean transmissability and virulence are completely different.

The natural selection argument is theoretically sound however The problem happens when you have the most significant transmission in a hospital environment you inadvertently select for nastier variants. This happened with the original SARS, which had been circulating widely in China and elsewhere for a many months without even being noticed, it mutates to be virulent enough to hospitalize someone, and then the more virulent strain runs through the hospital....IIRC it was the Prince of Wales Hospital Hong Kong then patients were sent to other hospitals and the whole thing was off to the races.
There is some evidence exactly the same thing happened with the current coronavirus, it was circulating before it maybe it mutated to become more virulent which meant it popped up in a hospital in Wuhan, it was then widely transmitted in the hospital leading to the very high CFRs initially seen.
It is interesting to wonder what lockdowns tend to select for, increased virulence and pathogenicity (leading to transmission in hospitals) or increased transmissability and reduced virulence?
Singapore can give you a partial answer on that, lockdown eliminated a reduced virulence strain which was replaced by a nastier imported strain.

how is a combination of mRNA that will break down in a couple of hours and ingredients found in plenty of other pharmaceuticals guaranteed to have long term effects? are you not just ignoring your own biases there?

If it doesn't have long term effects, positive, negative or otherwise and breaks down in a couple of hours that means it is a pretty worthless vaccine. Unless you get infected with covid a couple of hours post vaccination.

You are displaying your own bias there. You assume that long term effects are necessarily negative, they might be or they might be positive or they may be a mix of both and that is the unknown.

What is for certain is that the current Covid vaccines were developed very rapidly with corner cutting and rather less scrutiny of the results than is normal. I am not going to argue whether that was right or wrong. It is just a fact.

None of these vaccines are licensed, none have marketing authorization and it is unlikely any of the current ones ever will get a proper license or marketing authorization. Again that is just a fact.

It is a truism to say it is better to be lucky than good, lets hope pharma got lucky with the covid vaccines.
Personally I think it is likely we are going to see some unfortunate effects from some of these early vaccines when they are reviewed in a couple of years. There are very good reasons for the P1 P2 P3 trial system and it should all be backed with solid data, right now we have not got this so we are hoping to be lucky.

 

[Jabberwocky]

what is virulence?

virulence refers to the ability of a bacteria/virus to replicate. as a biproduct it causes toxicity to infected hosts.

how does pathogenicity (disease causing ability) relate to virulence (ability to do damage)?

pathogenicity is the degree of disease, and thus depends on the host-virus interaction. there is an interplay between pathogenicity and virulence, but obviously given you can have asymptomatic carriers, one is more a property of the virus itself (though other conditions also), and the other depends strongly on the host.

if you don't understand this then stop posting graphs that make complete sense as if they prove some point while patronising people making perfectly sensible posts, and instead learn some virology.

ebola, your example, is not airborne and therefore not directly comparable to SARS-COV2, because it is far easier to contain.

Are virulence and pathogenicity really completely different?

yes. if you have to consider things from an evolutionary/genomic perspective then it is essential to take the differences into account.

You are displaying your own bias there. You assume that long term effects are neccesarily negative, they might be or they might be positive or they may be a mix of both and that is the unknown.

you literally said 'some might be bad'- that is an actual thing you wrote, not my bias.

 

[novaveritas]

virulence refers to the ability of a bacteria/virus to replicate. as a biproduct it causes toxicity to infected hosts.

no it doesn't. This is really basic shit.

virulence is the ability to cause damage.
it comes from virulentas latin for poison.

look it up if you don't believe me.

productivity or capacityor competence is the ability to replicate

 

[Jabberwocky]

virulence is the ability to cause damage.
it comes from virulentas latin for poison.

vaccine comes from Latin for 'cow' - what's your point?

a virus cannot do damage if it is not able to replicate and the smallest possible viral genome contains only the machinery for replication. other things can be encoded in virulence factors, but they are not necessary for a virus to be considered virulent.

virulence factors are part of the viral genome and hence do not depend on host (as in pathogenicity, though obviously a host is required for them to actually do anything) or environment (competence)- these are very important distinctions to make but if you are able to ignore them and go about your life, then fine.

 

[novaveritas]

vaccine comes from Latin for 'cow' - what's your point?

a virus cannot do damage if it is not able to replicate and the smallest possible viral genome contains only the machinery for replication. other things can be encoded in virulence factors, but they are not necessary for a virus to be considered virulent.

virulence factors are part of the viral genome and hence do not depend on host (as in pathogenicity, though obviously a host is required for them to actually do anything) or environment (competence)- these are very important distinctions to make but if you are able to ignore them and go about your life, then fine.

you are clearly wrong here but instead of accepting this you go for evasion and obfuscation, frantically waving your arms around. Strike 2.
I threw you a life ring but you have decided to drown yourself instead. your choice.

virulence = capacity to cause damage or harm. That is the definition of virulence.

Granted that definition is only the very widely accepted scientific definition.

you are most welcome to lobby to change the definition of virulence, let everyone know when you succeed and we can all switch to using Chinups' microbiological terminology. Maybe until then perhaps stick to using the traditional accepted terminology, so long as you don't mind.

Virulence is separate from ability to reproduce or infect a host. hence we talk about avirulent or attenuated strains.
in viruses:
For example the MMR vaccine contains essentially avirulent or attenuated strains of measles, mumps and rubella viruses, all of them are fully capable of reproduction and are all capable of infecting host cells. I can even tell you why vaccine strain measles is avirulent and attenuated vs virulent WT.

or bacteria:
for example the common bacteria E Coli has strains that show the whole range of virulence.
E. Coli O157 is highly virulent
E Coli K12 is avirulent
they all grow and reproduce and colonize in pretty much the same way. both reproduce at exactly the same rate, both can colonize humans. E Coli is a textbook example where virulence factors come in to play.

 

[Jabberwocky]

do you know what @novaveritas you are right. i feel like a prat. i've check my old lecture notes and yes, other factors are included in the definition of virulence. apologies. i have spent too long focusing on one tiny area at work and apparently in a very sleep deprived state, forgotten that viruses can do literally anything else. if i'm on strike 2 then just block me already.

this does not change the fact that the original graph you posted does not show the overall conclusion you claim it does- you use it to dismiss SARS-COV2 as a threat when all available evidence suggests the opposite, an the graph shows nothing unexpected. but you always deflect and use obtuse readings to get off track when people challenge you when you're being unreasonable, so they end up on the defensive and you don't have to admit you were wrong.

 

[novaveritas]

do you know what @novaveritas you are right. i feel like a prat. i've check my old lecture notes and yes, other factors are included in the definition of virulence. apologies. i have spent too long focusing on one tiny area at work and apparently in a very sleep deprived state, forgotten that viruses can do literally anything else. if i'm on strike 2 then just block me already.

this does not change the fact that the original graph you posted does not show the overall conclusion you claim it does- you use it to dismiss SARS-COV2 as a threat when all available evidence suggests the opposite, an the graph shows nothing unexpected. but you always deflect and use obtuse readings to get off track when people challenge you when you're being unreasonable, so they end up on the defensive and you don't have to admit you were wrong.

OK we are cool.
back to the subject..
what does the graph show in your view?

I see the number of test confirmed infections going exponentially upwards and I see the deaths going up linearly, which suggests to me the following possibilities....

1) The virus is attenuating (maybe but the virus still seems very similar)
2) The virus is running in populations with a much lower risk of death therefore the overall infection fatality rate IFR was over estimated early on, because it was seen primarily very vulnerable sub populations and that the virus IFR is same ball park as influenza.
3) The more you test the more infections you find, and most of these positive tests are not associated with deaths or hospitalisation, and wouldn't even have been noticed if you didn't throw huge numbers of tests at a population.
4) Medical treatment of covid cases has gotten exponentially better, (it hasn't, hospitalized CFRs have hardly changed) It would have to be exponentially better to make exponential confirmed infections into linear increases in deaths, leaving aside whether all deaths assigned to covid are due to covid.

open to any other explanations for the divergence between the two lines.

 

[Xorkoth]

So you think you have it? Any coughing?

I played a party with my band 2 weeks ago. Now all of my bandmates have verified COVID as well as a couple of other people at the party. For some reason my test results haven't come back yet, but yeah I would be extremely surprised to find that's not what's going on.

I am really good at not coughing when I have a tickle because it's been my experience that coughing when you have a dry couigh makes things worse. So yeah I could be coughing but I'm not that much (sometimes it happens). Mostly it's fever, intense body aches, and I can still taste and smell but not as much. Some things are affected more than others. My mint toothpaste tastes strange. Cheese tastes normal. My old cat has really intense, awful breath, normally when he meows at you you feel like your eyebrows are going to burn off, but I can't smell it at ALL now, which is really strange. I'd say my smell is affected a lot more than my taste, which is kind of strange.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I see the number of test confirmed infections going exponentially upwards and I see the deaths going up linearly, which suggests to me the following possibilities....

right, fact checking myself before posting but fuck knows if i'm making any sense at this point lol.

all of the above explain the difference. your original question started 'if this was an extremely virulent or lethal virus....' - you're using a graph that plots number of deaths to argue a virus isn't lethal, just because number of deaths does not track confirmed cases in the way you think it should, despite being perfectly able to articulate why this might be. a single graph with two lines is not sufficient to show a full picture.

number of deaths does not count number of people who'se lives are severely impaired for a long time following infection. if you look just at case fatality rates then yes, it doesn't look too bad compared to other viruses, but that does not take into account transmissibility, and being airborne is huge here, or long term health problems. granted ebola causes these too, but it is not airborne and hence poses less of a threat overall.

there is a comparison of mortality rates for different pandemics, adjusted for population sizes, here. and the only one that comes close is 1918 inf a. this is really old data too so actual number will be far larger now. even if we only consider actual deaths, SARS-COV2 looks pretty bad, and i would go as far as to describe its lethality as extreme.

According to this 20% of those aged 18-34 in good health experienced prolonged symptoms (this does seem surprisingly high and i've heard the figure of 10% more recently but can't find the source now)- surely meets anyone's definition of a virus that is extremely able to cause disease. Given the number of infections, that is a significant proportion of the working aged population, which poses issues for society as a whole.

 

[novaveritas]

right, fact checking myself before posting but fuck knows if i'm making any sense at this point lol.

all of the above explain the difference. your original question started 'if this was an extremely virulent or lethal virus....' - you're using a graph that plots number of deaths to argue a virus isn't lethal,

I'm open to other suggestions of what to look at other than deaths to determine whether something is "extremely lethal" as you put it. To be extremely something it is reasonable to say that it must be towards the extreme limit, high low, hot, cold, lethal not lethal but SARS-CoV-2 just isn't at the edge.

Put the numbers in context and you get a different perspective. Using global numbers adjusted for the increased population...
take global numbers,
1969 flu global pop 3.6bln 1-4 million deaths equivalent to 2-8 mln deaths adjusted for current population
'57 flu global pop 2.9 bln 1.1 mln deaths equivalent to 2.7 mln deaths with current pop
1918 flu pop 1.9bln 17mln to 20mln deaths equivalent to 70 to 83 million with current pop.

SARS-CoV-2 is same ball park as '57 or '69 flu or 10x less severe than 1918 flu.

In the future when the science is less polarized and politicized this will be looked at again, hopefully more objectively in a less febrile environment.
You are free to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is extremely lethal and extremely virulent, objectively this is simply not true. I am not trying to change you beliefs. You are entitled to hold whatever belief you like but I hope you can stop and look at it more scientifically and objectively to moderate and calibrate your position.

It is easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled. Twain

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Spanish Flu was more devastating for the world, but COVID-19 is a new virus. It's not a strain of influenza. It's a brand new beast, already comparably dangerous to (the worst strains of) influenza which has existed in human populations for thousands of years. COVID-19 will continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. That's a lot of additional people to die. It's a dangerous virus because it's stealthy and highly contagious. I like that we are saying no to this virus. Fuck this virus. We don't need to live with it. It can fuck right off. We should also get rid of the flu while we're at it.

 

[novaveritas]

Spanish Flu was more devastating for the world, but COVID-19 is a new virus. It's not a strain of influenza. It's a brand new beast, already comparably dangerous to (the worst strains) of influenza which has existed in human populations for thousands of years. COVID-19 will continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. That's a lot of additional people to die. It's a dangerous virus because it's stealthy and highly contagious. I like that we are saying no to this virus. Fuck this virus. We don't need to live with it. It can fuck right off. We should also get rid of the flu while we're at it.

I like the idea, it shows great ambition. Belief is not enough, unfortunately it will collide with reality in the way someone dressed as superman collides with the sidewalk or gets flatttened by the speeding train.

Saint Jacinda of Ardern despite the widespread delusional belief cannot heal the sick walk on water or prevent coronavirus from getting into NZ long term, a more pragmatic plan needs to be used.

There are pragmatic lessons to be learned from the winter performance of the western and northern hemisphere which are being worked out.

You aren't going to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus globally and you aren't going to eliminate influenza ever. Influenza will be back next year by unpopular request. Is that a big deal, no probably not.

Both will have to be lived with, Ironically the lack of circulating flu has set the world up for some rough flu seasons going forwards. Given time most people will no longer be susceptible to the worst effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection most people never were at any great risk, I'm sorry if that upsets some people but the evidence is pretty clear. If you are unlucky it will hurt you or possibly kill you most people will not be unlucky, even members of highly vulnerable groups. Be impressed with the capability of the human immune system, almost like it is the result of millions of years of modification, improvement and testing.

So pragmatism will rule. Idealism will merely get crushed by the wheels of reality. The naked apes have shown themselves to be rather capable, but still we cannot control the wind, the tide or prevent toast falling butter side down.

this remnds me of the Vietnam war phrase,

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

The coronavirus response has most certainly destroyed the village, but has it saved it? the jury is very clearly still out.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Eliminating it globally doesn't matter.

I think vaccinating 50% of the population will allow the world to open back up again. You presume to know things about vaccines that nobody knows. Perhaps you're right. Time will tell. I hope you are wrong.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm open to other suggestions of what to look at other than deaths to determine whether something is "extremely lethal" as you put it. To be extremely something it is reasonable to say that it must be towards the extreme limit, high low, hot, cold, lethal not lethal but SARS-CoV-2 just isn't at the edge.
....

SARS-CoV-2 is same ball park as '57 or '69 flu or 10x less severe than 1918 flu.

the data in table 3 of the lancet paper i posted before directly contradict (by orders of magnitude) your unreferenced claims regarding the comparative morbidity, showing SARS-COV2 to be second only to 1918 inf a, so i will trust that over some randomer on the internet.

objectively, left unchecked, this virus has the capacity to significantly reduce the productivity of the working population for a protracted period of time. if you take the 20% value from the last reference in my previous post and assume 50% of the population would get infected without lockdowns (apparently for UK 1 in 7 have been infected, with all our measures), that is 10% of workers being impacted for weeks, a significant proportion of which would be impacted months later.

you are welcome to claim that neither of these qualify SARS-COV2 as extremely anything, and that we have overreacted, but the data and history are already against you- cf references above and many, many others; New Zealand; and the impact of lockdowns on hospitalisations and numbers of new cases.

 

[novaveritas]

the data in table 3 of the lancet paper i posted before directly contradict (by orders of magnitude) your unreferenced claims regarding the comparative morbidity, showing SARS-COV2 to be second only to 1918 inf a, so i will trust that over some randomer on the internet.

what does table 3 in the lancet paper show exactly?

do you dispute the veracity of the global estimated tolls from 1957 1969 and 1918 flu?

It is all very well trusting something but you need to know and understand what you are looking at, and you need to cross check, If you don't understand what you are looking at whether you trust it or not is of no importance. Critical thinking 101.

You are a randomer on the internet too !

get back to me when you can answer the first question.

I will deal with your other statements when you do that.

 

[novaveritas]

Eliminating it globally doesn't matter.

I think vaccinating 50% of the population will allow the world to open back up again. You presume to know things about vaccines that nobody knows. Perhaps you're right. Time will tell. I hope you are wrong.

I agree, I will go further than that, vaccinating the 15-20% who represent 98% or the deaths and 80% of the hospitalisations is enough. The rest of the population is not anywhere near as important from the perspective of reducing mortality and morbidity.

At this point several western countries are close to doing this, if this really was about saving the most lives then these Western countires would then make their excess vaccines available globally for other countries to vaccinate their most vulnerable. Only the cold hard reality shows for all the talk is this it isn't about saving the most lives and not all lives are considered equally valuable.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Dude, no. We bought vaccines and we're going to use them. Countries like NZ and Australia have made sacrifices. We shouldn't give away our vaccines. That doesn't make any sense. We should vaccinate everyone and open the fuck back up for good.

Not all lives are equally valuable to me. My dog's life is more important than my neighbour's dog. My daughter is more important than some kid in Norway... That doesn't mean anything. It is just nature.