Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aspagnito on 19/10/2021 20:26:08
-
In the 1970s, Australia decided to fight the rabbit epidemic. So a virus was developed to kill these rabbits. Of course, rabbits in Australia did not become extinct, but the disease spread around the world and was very dangerous to rabbits around the world for many years. However, with time, this virus started to show less and less symptoms, until it became almost completely harmless to rabbits.
It is presumed that the same will be true of coronavirus. When the virus starts to give, say, one symptom - a cough, with no pains, including sore throat, or fever, those not in quarantine (they won't go to the doctor because they think it's something harmless), will go out shopping, to work, or to socialize. . . . and infect many more people than before.
The disease will remain and be worldwide, but those sickened by the weaker version will acquire a eleven-month immunity (the recovered have this immunity - the vaccine gives immunity for 4 months) which will also be immunity to other strains of coronavirus. Hence, before long it is most likely that coronavirus will be harmless and we will all ignore it.
-
In the 1970s, Australia decided to fight the rabbit epidemic. So a virus was developed to kill these rabbits.
No
The virus myxomatosis already existed It was a minor infection in Sylvilagus brasiliensis, but it spread through populations of the European rabbit where it was devastating. (Having been released in France in 1952 ).
No "development" was needed.
In fifty to 100 years time, it's likely that Covid 19 will be less of a problem for humanity- even if it doesn't change at all..
It will circulate among the people who are young (today) and it won't harm many of them.
They will grow up, exposed to it from time to time and protected by natural immunity.
So by the time they are vulnerable "over 50s" they will be much less susceptible.
However it's impossible to say what will actually happen.
The virus has already shown that it can evolve into a more transmissible form, and we simply don't know what it will do next.
It is presumed that the same will be true of coronavirus.
You might presume that, but there's no guarantee.
-
Okay. Science is never sure for 100%.
-
However, with time, this virus started to show less and less symptoms, until it became almost completely harmless to rabbits.
This is rubbish.
The acute form of myxomatosis can kill a rabbit within 10 days and the chronic form within two weeks, although some rabbits do survive this. There are still high risk areas in the uk.
-
Okay.. so I was wrong about the rabbits. That does not change the whole context. Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it. That would solve the problem. So please... let this conversation not be about rabbits, dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters... Okay?
-
Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it.
The traditional approach is to create a weakened virus. We did this with polio and smallpox.
It's called vaccination.
-
So please... let this conversation not be about rabbits, dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters... Okay?
You introduced rabbits. As far as I am aware none of us have mentioned dogs, pigs, hamsters or helicopters, so why are you?
Either such weakened virus appears, or we create it.
The traditional approach is to create a weakened virus. We did this with polio and smallpox.
It's called vaccination.
I’m with @Bored chemist on this, better to prepare a vaccine than wait and see whether a weaken virus appears.
-
Even if a weaker virus appears, that won't help; the strong one won't suddenly "go away"; it will carry on killing people.
There probably have been variations in the virus already which have reduced it's lethality, but three's no reason to imagine they will significantly out-compete the dangerous strains which are doing so well.
What the OP is hoping for is a virus that's much better at spreading, but much worse at killing.
That's not a particularly likely combination.
-
1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.
2. I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker - you said you know the virus, it was not developed and it did not got weaker. Perhaps we are speaking about the different virus - but let's stop it on this.
3. No, the weakened variant would help. The strong one has a low coronavirus reproduction rate and the weakened one would have a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate. I explained it - people get sick, they don't go to a doctor but for example socialise.
4. No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.
-
1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.
I don't think the word appease means what you think it means.I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker
So your idea is to bring the live virus into the lab and cause it to mutate and then test the mutations on people to see if it is less lethal, yeah, what could go wrong?
No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.
I would prefer that they work on making the vaccine more effective than releasing a mutated corona virus into the wild...
-
1. I am speaking about a solution that would eliminate the problem and not "appease" it, like the vaccination.
Do you think we "appeased" smallpox and rinderpest into extinction, or do you just not know what you are talking about?
No-one wrote about one thing and I'd like to notice that once more. Vaccine immunity is 4 months. Recoverers immunity is 11 months.
Since your other stuff is just plain wrong it's not unreasonable for us to ignore what seem to be a couple of made-up numbers.
I was speaking about the developed virus that got weaker
The virus didn't need to change much.
The susceptible rabbits died.
The survivors were (obviously) less strongly affected by the virus.
Do you think a 1% human mortality rate is acceptable?
The strong one has a low coronavirus reproduction rate and the weakened one would have a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate.
Why would it?
Also, two such viruses in the population would be a disaster.
Viruses "share" DNA from time to time if they meet.
So you would also get the stronger virus but with " a lot greater coronavirus reproduction rate".
Which is apocalyptic.
How, exactly, is that a good thing?
-
Okay. Science is never sure for 100%.
What Is?
Horrorscopes?
-
All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease, otherwise we will be following a path of survival of the weakest. We saw a similar thing in the Colombian exchange where smallpox flu plague measles etcetc destroyed almost entirely the peoples of the americas.
Although,,,,,, a breeding ages, the mated pair usually being at their prime around 15 to 35 for women and 25 to 45 for men, corona virus holds no fear.
-
All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease,
As women have a stronger immune response than men and men are more likely to die from covid, it may be the other way round. Look for the women who had very few symptoms?
-
& to just add to it...
Women are NOT reproduction machines.
They have All Rights & Freedom to say " NO " to such absurd demands.
Ps - Pregnancy should be a self gift, not ordered slavery.
✌️
-
All women need to be impregnated immediately by men who show natural resistance to the lethal covid disease, otherwise we will be following a path of survival of the weakest. We saw a similar thing in the Colombian exchange where smallpox flu plague measles etcetc destroyed almost entirely the peoples of the americas.
Although,,,,,, a breeding ages, the mated pair usually being at their prime around 15 to 35 for women and 25 to 45 for men, corona virus holds no fear.
So you are saying that women should be completely passive and have no say in this? It is like some kind of Incel fantasy..an utterly disgusting attitude.
-
& to add more to it...
15???
FIFTEEN???
Ps - this ain't an Out of the Box solution, it's an Mind Out of place statement.
(Please Use Better Paid for Translators, & kindly Quit using the Cheap & Free ones Comrade!)
✌️
-
If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?
-
If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?
No. The virus can replicate when it passes to another person. Any antibodies that might somehow make their way into another person's body cannot replicate.
-
If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?
No. The virus can replicate when it passes to another person. Any antibodies that might somehow make their way into another person's body cannot replicate.
I agree that immune factors would not multiple like a virus. However, the transferred fluids would provide viral fragments from a healthy immune response.These viral fragments could jump start the immune system of others, similar to a very weak but specific vaccine. Unlike a vaccine shot which takes a second to transfer, this immunity transfer would occur through days of human-human breathing exposure from different immune systems.
This may explain why in the USA, states that covered up with masks had similar statistics to states that remained open without masks. The masks limited both virus and secondary immune factor exposure, while the lack of the masks increased both exposures, so there was a wash.
-
However, the transferred fluids would provide viral fragments from a healthy immune response.
Are you planning to inject snot?
Most of the immune response takes place via blood cells.
The viral fragments would trigger an immune response, but there's no reason to imagine they would do a better job than the virus.
If your idea was right then all viral diseases would act this way.
They don't.
This may explain why in the USA, states that covered up with masks had similar statistics to states that remained open without masks.
YOU DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN.
MASK WEARING REDUCED THE TRANSMISSION OF THE VIRUS.
THE STATS WERE NOT REALLY "SIMILAR".
DON'T POST THAT SORT OF NONSENSE ON A SCIENCE SITE.
"Widespread utilization of face masks combined with social distancing increases the odds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission control. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457618/
"Our analysis suggests high adherence to mask wearing could be a key factor in reducing the spread of COVID-19. This association between high mask adherence and reduced COVID-19 rates should influence policy makers and public health officials to focus on ways to improve mask adherence across the population in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249891
The study provides evidence that US states mandating the use of face masks in public had a greater decline in daily COVID-19 growth rates after issuing these mandates compared with states that did not issue mandates.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
-
The current estimates are that the vaccine only works for a certain amount of time before we need a booster. I heard an estimate of 13 months. The question I have is, do masks and social distancing cause this expiration date problem for the vaccinated?
Consider the following scenario. Say I get vaccinated, but I stay in social circulation without a mask and without concern for social distancing. I will more than likely get the virus again. However, since my immune system is primed by the vaccine, I will overcome the virus easier. This needed immune response should reset the expiration date, since my immune system was engaged like a natural immune response with vaccine crutches.
If I do the opposite and use a mask and avoid social interaction, I may stay clean and healthy. However, my clock ticks and runs out after a year, since I never exercised my immune system to reset the clock. The vaccine reaction was the only exercise, This may be a better free market prescription, but it will delay herd immunity. Herd requires immune system training and exercise, so one is always prepared with a fresh immune clock. This may not be a beneficial free market strategy compared to annual shots.
If I kept myself in a state of periodically resetting the immune clock, by living life in a normal way, I would be releasing both virus and broken down virus to those around me, helping to prime their immune systems, so their clocks can also keep ticking, so they don't need annual overhauls, due to lack of immune system activity.
-
The question I have is, do masks and social distancing cause this expiration date problem for the vaccinated?
No
It's essentially a consequence of how the immune system works and how viruses mutate.
It's no coincidence that flu jabs also require boosters every year or so.
And they did that when practically nobody wore masks.
So the obvious evidence answers your question.
Why did you ask it?
it will delay herd immunity.
Herd immunity, in the absence of a good vaccine, means "we let the susceptible ones die".
Is that what you want?
In 50 years or so, your model will sort-of work, because everyone will have grown up getting this bug from time to time.
But for now, it's not a good plan.
I heard an estimate of 13 months.
How long is it since the first vaccination tests in human?
What a coincidence!
-
The question I have is, do masks and social distancing cause this expiration date problem for the vaccinated?
No
It's essentially a consequence of how the immune system works and how viruses mutate.
It's no coincidence that flu jabs also require boosters every year or so.
And they did that when practically nobody wore masks.
So the obvious evidence answers your question.
Why did you ask it?
it will delay herd immunity.
Herd immunity, in the absence of a good vaccine, means "we let the susceptible ones die".
Is that what you want?
In 50 years or so, your model will sort-of work, because everyone will have grown up getting this bug from time to time.
But for now, it's not a good plan.
I heard an estimate of 13 months.
How long is it since the first vaccination tests in human?
What a coincidence!
Science and atheism accept evolution in theory, but they avoid it in practice. Instead they practice a type of man made creationism, based on synthetic additives and unnatural outcomes.
I was proposing a natural path, while the consensus of science assumes one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator. This is enforced with guilt and fear and not the principles of evolution. It is strange religion of hypocrisy. It seems to be connected to the oracles of statistics generating worse case scenarios, to help lead thinking.
The path I suggested, which is to exercise the immune system, allows one to overcome mutations faster and easier. The immune system does not require all aspect of a virus to have a successful immune response. The Pfizer vaccine only provides surface protein and this is very effective. Immune system exercise, will gather fragments of both the outer and inner virus under favorable body conditions. If there is a mutation, that will be many other way to recognize this virus type. No virus will totally change 100%. If we get to avoid immune exercise and the immune system goes off alert in 13 months, then you will be vulnerable. This is part of a good business model.
In the wild of the natural world, herd of deer do not mask up, but somehow they continue to exist. They do not change behavior other than slow down a little. They will continue to interact with each until natural selection makes the herd stronger.
If this does not apply to humans, does that mean human are not under evolution and natural selection? Does it mean we are a creation that can learn to avoid natural selection through will and choice? You can take science out of religion but not religion out of science.
-
The question I have is, do masks and social distancing cause this expiration date problem for the vaccinated?
No
It's essentially a consequence of how the immune system works and how viruses mutate.
It's no coincidence that flu jabs also require boosters every year or so.
And they did that when practically nobody wore masks.
So the obvious evidence answers your question.
Why did you ask it?
it will delay herd immunity.
Herd immunity, in the absence of a good vaccine, means "we let the susceptible ones die".
Is that what you want?
In 50 years or so, your model will sort-of work, because everyone will have grown up getting this bug from time to time.
But for now, it's not a good plan.
I heard an estimate of 13 months.
How long is it since the first vaccination tests in human?
What a coincidence!
Science and atheism accept evolution in theory, but they avoid it in practice. Instead they practice a type of man made creationism, based on synthetic additives and unnatural outcomes.
I was proposing a natural path, while the consensus of science assumes one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator. This is enforced with guilt and fear and not the principles of evolution. It is strange religion of hypocrisy. It seems to be connected to the oracles of statistics generating worse case scenarios, to help lead thinking.
The path I suggested, which is to exercise the immune system, allows one to overcome mutations faster and easier. The immune system does not require all aspect of a virus to have a successful immune response. The Pfizer vaccine only provides surface protein and this is very effective. Immune system exercise, will gather fragments of both the outer and inner virus under favorable body conditions. If there is a mutation, that will be many other way to recognize this virus type. No virus will totally change 100%. If we get to avoid immune exercise and the immune system goes off alert in 13 months, then you will be vulnerable. This is part of a good business model.
In the wild of the natural world, herd of deer do not mask up, but somehow they continue to exist. They do not change behavior other than slow down a little. They will continue to interact with each until natural selection makes the herd stronger.
If this does not apply to humans, does that mean human are not under evolution and natural selection? Does it mean we are a creation that can learn to avoid natural selection through will and choice? You can take science out of religion but not religion out of science.
Do you know what this symbol "?" means?
-
HeeY PP
" In the wild of the natural world, herd of deer do not mask up, but somehow they continue to exist. "
They don't have a way of consuming Bat soup i guess.
So overcooking or undercooking it might not be a huge concern for them.
" They do not change behavior other than slow down a little. They will continue to interact with each until natural selection makes the herd stronger. "
They don't seem to have other options available to them, no masks, no vaccines & no virologists.
" If this does not apply to humans, does that mean human are not under evolution and natural selection? "
Humans have probably freed themselves from the tight grasp of uncertain fate & unknown destiny.
CRISPR is a fine exsmple.
" Does it mean we are a creation that can learn to avoid natural selection through will and choice? "
We do possess Free Will, do we not?
" You can take science out of religion but not religion out of science. "
There isn't much work for Faith or Belief in Science, it's mostly about
critical thinking & logical reasoning & evidental facts that's all.
Ps - Haven't you heard that spectacular Quote from Prof Neil Degrasse Tyson about Science?
-
Science and atheism accept evolution in theory
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It has no requirement to accept or reject anything other than that premise.
Immune system exercise, will gather fragments of both the outer and inner virus under favorable body conditions.
How is the immune system recognizing the inside of a virus going to help? The viruses that are actually dangerous will be intact and thus not expose their guts to the immune system.
In the wild of the natural world, herd of deer do not mask up, but somehow they continue to exist. They do not change behavior other than slow down a little. They will continue to interact with each until natural selection makes the herd stronger.
Animal populations endure crashes (i.e. a whole lot of them dying in short time span) as well. The only thing unique about the human condition is that we can put the brakes on such crashes with medical technology and by changing behavior. Could you just let natural selection fix the COVID problem? Yes, but that requires letting a lot of people die. Not the most ethical of options.
-
Could you just let natural selection fix the COVID problem? Yes, but that requires letting a lot of people die. Not the most ethical of options.
PP is apparently content with it as a "solution".
I pointed out that
Herd immunity, in the absence of a good vaccine, means "we let the susceptible ones die".
and he didn't comment on it.
-
The question I have is, do masks and social distancing cause this expiration date problem for the vaccinated?
No
It's essentially a consequence of how the immune system works and how viruses mutate.
It's no coincidence that flu jabs also require boosters every year or so.
And they did that when practically nobody wore masks.
So the obvious evidence answers your question.
Why did you ask it?
it will delay herd immunity.
Herd immunity, in the absence of a good vaccine, means "we let the susceptible ones die".
Is that what you want?
In 50 years or so, your model will sort-of work, because everyone will have grown up getting this bug from time to time.
But for now, it's not a good plan.
I heard an estimate of 13 months.
How long is it since the first vaccination tests in human?
What a coincidence!
Science and atheism accept evolution in theory, but they avoid it in practice. Instead they practice a type of man made creationism, based on synthetic additives and unnatural outcomes.
I was proposing a natural path, while the consensus of science assumes one size fits all based on the lowest common denominator. This is enforced with guilt and fear and not the principles of evolution. It is strange religion of hypocrisy. It seems to be connected to the oracles of statistics generating worse case scenarios, to help lead thinking.
The path I suggested, which is to exercise the immune system, allows one to overcome mutations faster and easier. The immune system does not require all aspect of a virus to have a successful immune response. The Pfizer vaccine only provides surface protein and this is very effective. Immune system exercise, will gather fragments of both the outer and inner virus under favorable body conditions. If there is a mutation, that will be many other way to recognize this virus type. No virus will totally change 100%. If we get to avoid immune exercise and the immune system goes off alert in 13 months, then you will be vulnerable. This is part of a good business model.
In the wild of the natural world, herd of deer do not mask up, but somehow they continue to exist. They do not change behavior other than slow down a little. They will continue to interact with each until natural selection makes the herd stronger.
If this does not apply to humans, does that mean human are not under evolution and natural selection? Does it mean we are a creation that can learn to avoid natural selection through will and choice? You can take science out of religion but not religion out of science.
More word salad from the sites premier garbage merchant. The only thing it achieves is to demonstrate a lack of scientific knowledge and an inability to understand concepts like 'science' and 'athiesm'.
-
Reverting back to the OP...
I believe Mutations are a Major Concern.
I also believe that this ain't gonna end soon.
I do not know how the Spanish Flu faded out.
Thou I'm aware it did not originate in Spain, it's just that Spaniards were pretty Transparent and did not hide facts, hence that reference got stuck.
Ps - PP i hope ur eye is good now.
Be calm n just swallow the red pill.
& Remember...there is No Spoon!
🤭
-
Well it looks like I am a prophet or some kind of a visioner huh? 'Cause I was chatting with YOu about the Omikron variant. It gives:
- headaches
- caugh
...and nothing more.
Well, the next step in my prophetising - I tell Ya! - that won't be the last variant. The last variant will give no symptoms at all and lasting immunity. And people won't understand it, but it will look like a miracle - like people will totally stop being ill. And if you ask me? This process has already started a while ago.
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 481L17Y 70 4D4P7 70 CH4NG3
No - you got that totally wrong. One has got to be invasive to adapt to a change. Animals don't have to be intelligent to adapt to a change - neither plants, mushrooms or viruses or bacterias... etc. etc.. Intelligence is fluency in explicating logical constructs.
-
Intelligence is the ability to surprise.
So far, COVID has demonstrated more intelligence than any government.
-
One has got to be rather irrational, than intelligent to surprise.
-
Omikron variant. It gives:
- headaches
- caugh
...and nothing more.
How do you know? This variant has only been studied for a few weeks.
- It has been studied in a mostly young population. What happens when it gets into an aged-care facility near you? Nobody knows.
- It took several months for Long COVID to be recognized as a syndrome. It won't be obvious yet if this variant produces less (or more) long COVID.
We won't be able to make confident assertions about this variant for a few more weeks - maybe a month (and academic papers will continue being published for a few years...). In the meantime, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence:
- Symptoms did seem milder (to one doctor): Promising that it might be less virulent/lethal
- Loss of smell was not so common: Promising that it may cause less nerve/brain damage
- It did seem to overtake Delta in one province: Concern that it may be more transmissible.