Coronavirus Thread

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Hopefully it will begin to matter less and less as the virus becomes endemic 

 

but it will only take some ‘proper’ studies that show the virus has a much higher chance of mutating in the wrong direction in an unvaccinated individual to make that matter more and more. 
 

There is still a lot that we simply don’t know about this virus and the body’s ability to fight it (whether vaxxed or previous infected )

Thankfully, as a rule of thumb, once viruses become less virulent and more transmissible they tend to remain so and keep going in that direction. Evolution for the sake of survival and perpetuation at work.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thankfully, as a rule of thumb, once viruses become less virulent and more transmissible they tend to remain so and keep going in that direction. Evolution for the sake of survival and perpetuation at work.

Appreciate that - accept it’s unlikely but delta was more virulent than alpha and alpha moreso than Wuhan ….is it the case that once a virus heads less virulent that it doesn’t go back the other way ?? 

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Appreciate that - accept it’s unlikely but delta was more virulent than alpha and alpha moreso than Wuhan ….is it the case that once a virus heads less virulent that it doesn’t go back the other way ?? 

In general, yes.  A virus that doesn't kill its host and doesn't make its host feel ill, is more likely to transmit in larger numbers than a virus that does kill its host or make them ill.  Therefore if the two viruses are in competition and can't work together (and few viruses can, a human being tends to get only one virus at once) then the one that transmits better becomes dominant.

 

Omicron also has the advantage of being more transmissible, again reducing the chances of variants (particularly more severe variants) taking hold.  The only likely real danger is if something vastly more transmissible than omicron comes along which is also more deadly.  It's unlikely.

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Appreciate that - accept it’s unlikely but delta was more virulent than alpha and alpha moreso than Wuhan ….is it the case that once a virus heads less virulent that it doesn’t go back the other way ?? 

What he said:

 

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

In general, yes.  A virus that doesn't kill its host and doesn't make its host feel ill, is more likely to transmit in larger numbers than a virus that does kill its host or make them ill.  Therefore if the two viruses are in competition and can't work together (and few viruses can, a human being tends to get only one virus at once) then the one that transmits better becomes dominant.

 

Omicron also has the advantage of being more transmissible, again reducing the chances of variants (particularly more severe variants) taking hold.  The only likely real danger is if something vastly more transmissible than omicron comes along which is also more deadly.  It's unlikely.

 

[shade]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

In general, yes.  A virus that doesn't kill its host and doesn't make its host feel ill, is more likely to transmit in larger numbers than a virus that does kill its host or make them ill.  Therefore if the two viruses are in competition and can't work together (and few viruses can, a human being tends to get only one virus at once) then the one that transmits better becomes dominant.

 

Omicron also has the advantage of being more transmissible, again reducing the chances of variants (particularly more severe variants) taking hold.  The only likely real danger is if something vastly more transmissible than omicron comes along which is also more deadly.  It's unlikely.

long story short, can I crack open my special edition Captain Wes Morgan rum yet?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, shade said:

long story short, can I crack open my special edition Captain Wes Morgan rum yet?

Hopefully soon.

 

Of course, and sorry for being a mood killer here, the bigger elephant in the room, increasing global average temperature and its consequences, will once again require the immediate and undivided attention of the world.

[shade]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Hopefully soon.

 

Of course, and sorry for being a mood killer here, the bigger elephant in the room, increasing global average temperature and its consequences, will once again require the immediate and undivided attention of the world.

I'll leave my kids to deal with that one, 30°c summer days and deep, snowy winters in the UK sounds perfect! (joke). 

[SpacedX]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

In general, yes.  A virus that doesn't kill its host and doesn't make its host feel ill, is more likely to transmit in larger numbers than a virus that does kill its host or make them ill.  Therefore if the two viruses are in competition and can't work together (and few viruses can, a human being tends to get only one virus at once) then the one that transmits better becomes dominant.

 

Omicron also has the advantage of being more transmissible, again reducing the chances of variants (particularly more severe variants) taking hold.  The only likely real danger is if something vastly more transmissible than omicron comes along which is also more deadly.  It's unlikely.

Smith's 'Law of Declining Virulence' holds that a virus will become more transmissible and less pathogenic over time and as has already been stated - from an evolutionary perspective it makes no sense for a pathogen to harm the host on which it depends for its survival. According to this reasoning, virulence is little more than a temporary evolutionary imbalance.

 

However, the subsequently postulated 'Trade-Off' model (May and Anderson) recognised that pathogen virulence will not always limit the ease by which a pathogen can transmit from one host to another, in fact it might even enhance it. In the absence of the assumption that there is an evolutionary cost to virulence, there is no reason then to suppose that disease severity will decrease over time. It instead proposes that the optimal level of virulence for any given pathogen will be determined by a range of factors, such as the ready availability of susceptible hosts, and the duration between infection and symptom onset. That in particular is a very significant aspect of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. The longer time period between infection and the possibility of death means that it has a greater window in which to replicate and spread, long before it kills its current host.

 

This means that each host-pathogen relationship must be considered individually and that actually, there is no general evolutionary law for predicting how these relationships will pan out, and certainly no precedence or basis to assume decreased virulence. Although there are examples of this, there are also a great many exceptions. That said, such examples to the contrary do not mean that the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 will not decline over time. Declining virulence is as plausible as one of many potential outcomes under the trade-off model. But it could be the case that conversely, continuing mutations may simultaneously heighten both virulence and transmissibility by increasing viral replication rate.

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, shade said:

long story short, can I crack open my special edition Captain Wes Morgan rum yet?

Not necessarily...see previous post 

 

Actually do - so long as you share it. I have one too. 

Edited 10 January 2022 by Line-X

[shade]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Not necessarily...see previous post 

 

Actually do so long as you share it. I have one too. 

Gone back in the cupboard mate, you've effectively ruined my day!

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

Gone back in the cupboard mate

What has? - you or the bottle? 

[shade]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

What has? - you or the bottle? 

ooph, next you'll be telling me to get the vaccine, it's only a little pr*ck?

 

who let bernard manning in here?

Edited 10 January 2022 by shade

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Smith's 'Law of Declining Virulence' holds that a virus will become more transmissible and less pathogenic over time and as has already been stated - from an evolutionary perspective it makes no sense for a pathogen to harm the host on which it depends for its survival. According to this reasoning, virulence is little more than a temporary evolutionary imbalance.

 

However, the subsequently postulated 'Trade-Off' model (May and Anderson) recognised that pathogen virulence will not always limit the ease by which a pathogen can transmit from one host to another, in fact it might even enhance it. In the absence of the assumption that there is an evolutionary cost to virulence, there is no reason then to suppose that disease severity will decrease over time. It instead proposes that the optimal level of virulence for any given pathogen will be determined by a range of factors, such as the ready availability of susceptible hosts, and the duration between infection and symptom onset. That in particular is a very significant aspect of the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. The longer time period between infection and the possibility of death means that it has a greater window in which to replicate and spread, long before it kills its current host.

 

This means that each host-pathogen relationship must be considered individually and that actually, there is no general evolutionary law for predicting how these relationships will pan out, and certainly no precedence or basis to assume decreased virulence. Although there are examples of this, there are also a great many exceptions. That said, such examples to the contrary do not mean that the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 will not decline over time. Declining virulence is as plausible as one of many potential outcomes under the trade-off model. But it could be the case that conversely, continuing mutations may simultaneously heighten both virulence and transmissibility by increasing viral replication rate.

Interesting.

 

Would it be reasonable to assume that most of the time there is an evolutionary cost to virulence, though? I would, if humans are the vector the virus is relying upon.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting.

 

Would it be reasonable to assume that most of the time there is an evolutionary cost to virulence, though? I would, if humans are the vector the virus is relying upon.

It hasn't necessarily always been observed. It think the significant factor with SARS-CoV-2 as I mentioned, is the lag between infection and symptom onset which affords a much larger window to in which to replicate and spread in comparison to its predecessor, the less successful but more severe SARS virus which lacked that. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

It hasn't necessarily always been observed. It think the significant factor with SARS-CoV-2 as I mentioned, is the lag between infection and symptom onset which affords a much larger window to in which to replicate and spread in comparison to its predecessor, the less successful but more severe SARS virus which lacked that. 

Yeah - hence me using "most".

 

That lag period between infection and symptoms where the virus is transmissible is definitely an issue, though I would think that would have also been an issue with novel viruses in the past that ended up disappearing or becoming endemic, too. Perhaps this is too much wishful thinking on my part, though.

[SpacedX]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah - hence me using "most".

 

There are surprisingly a great many exceptions which is why each host-pathogen relationship must be studied on an individual basis.  

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Hopefully soon.

 

Of course, and sorry for being a mood killer here, the bigger elephant in the room, increasing global average temperature and its consequences, will once again require the immediate and undivided attention of the world.

Once again? It needs to happen a first time yet

Edited 10 January 2022 by Carl the Llama
Yes I know what you meant I'm just being a cock

[z-layrex]

On 07/01/2022 at 21:50, Paninistickers said:

Idiot? You people really don't do yourselves any favours. I've called out your name calling before  I think.

 

The fella has a different view to you and delivered his view politely and with some justification (namely, antibodies are antibodies, regardless how you acquired them). He came across as less of a 'idiot' than your good self

I know I said I wasn't going to reply again, but your attitude grated me.

 

I know of this guy in RL. He is standing in CCUb at Kings College, a covid area, and you'll note the only one in a surgical mask doing nothing to protect himself, other staff, nor the vulnerable patients he is responsible for. This is against trust policy and totally irresponsible, not to mention the unfounded "science" he had the audacity to spout on live television.

 

But yeah I'm the idiot.

 

 

Edited 10 January 2022 by z-layrex

[Farrington fox]

Support or follow  @NHS100K on twitter.

[Wymsey]

He really needs to admit it..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59930733

[Spudulike]

BBC News - Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59929638

 

[z-layrex]

https://www.ficm.ac.uk/index.php/rcoa-and-ficm-encourage-covid19-vaccinations

[Leicester_Loyal]

On 08/01/2022 at 20:19, brucey said:

 

37 billion well spent

[Samilktray]

Had my booster this morning and I’ve felt grim ever since. Hopefully back to normal tomorrow 

[Dunge]

12 hours ago, danny. said:

No worries - do you know that for a fact, or conjecture? I can't find data that breaks down infection prevention and hospitalisations. Probably a lot of guess work anyway at this point.

Sorry, meant to reply to this earlier:

 

It is conjecture, but so would it be for the guy in the clip. And yet he’s presenting it as fact. The UK government and their scientists were only the other day reporting their latest findings on the matter, that a fourth booster is “not yet needed”. They’ll be looking at what their data is telling them about hospitalisation rates crossed with length since booster (which they can calculate thanks to patient data in the the UK being centralised in the NHS), and I also think it’s fair to assume that the scientists (not necessarily the politicians, but the scientists) will lean on the cautious side for this matter. All the evidence from the most significant experts and the reaction to hospitalisation figures (remember that the booster program has been going for months, it just picked up in December when Omicron came knocking) suggests that those who would be most likely to show concern at such a situation are not doing so.

 

Long story short: The actions of the cautious suggest that a fourth jab isn’t required yet. The guy in the video is implying the vaccines are useless after a matter of weeks. He makes no mention of symptomatic infection, picking only the shortest timeframe he can and (I’m going to say) deliberately misrepresenting it. The whole setup of that video is classic propaganda to me: Start off with reasonable statements and suggestions that are at least a fair point, don’t rant and rave, sound and act simply like the good guy trying to offer a viewpoint. Then extrapolate incorrectly and see how many people you can take along with you. And then “please share” is the confirmation beyond confirmation that this guy’s intention isn’t to offer an opinion but to spread a message.