Science! (Herd Immunity)
A virus is a very bizzare critter. They exhibit many, but not all of the aspects of a "living" being. I suspect that viruses have been around as long as there has been life on earth. There must be "good useful" viruses, but I cannot think of any right now.
sprout said:
Adding: Like immunizations for herd immunity: If a few people decide not to get immunized, the disease is likely to go away anyway.
But if the anti-vaxxing approach starts to be promoted as the more "superior/reasonable" approach to the masses, and only a small percentage of people end up vaccinating (the "unreasonable" as indicated by this Libertarian article), then the probability of risk changes.
Classic free rider problem.
RobertRoe said:
A virus is a very bizzare critter. They exhibit many, but not all of the aspects of a "living" being. I suspect that viruses have been around as long as there has been life on earth. There must be "good useful" viruses, but I cannot think of any right now.
And another:
RobertRoe said:
A virus is a very bizzare critter. They exhibit many, but not all of the aspects of a "living" being. I suspect that viruses have been around as long as there has been life on earth. There must be "good useful" viruses, but I cannot think of any right now.
I appreciate this comment Robert. Normally nature has some benefit for organisms.
If I took Biology now, I expect it would be very different from the way I learned it 50 years ago. We learned about Watson and Crick and DNA and RNA, but not like now. Of course you have to do continual learning, but the DNA and RNA knowledge and technology now is totally amazing. I watched the recent show on PBS about what CRISPER could mean for our future..... Here is a question: Since type O blood people have been found to have a lesser danger from Covid-19, do you think this may be due to some sort of ancient viral DNA attachment? I am just thinking out loud on this and have no real info.
RobertRoe said:
Here is a question: Since type O blood people have been found to have a lesser danger from Covid-19, do you think this may be due to some sort of ancient viral DNA attachment? I am just thinking out loud on this and have no real info.
Other than as a small medical clue, it appears that the practical amount of reduced risk for Type O blood catching Covid is negligible.
The team examined nearly half a million people in the Netherlands who were tested for COVID-19 between late February and late July. Of the roughly 4,600 people who tested positive and reported their blood type, 38.4 percent had Type O blood. That's lower than the prevalence of Type O in a population of 2.2 million Danish people, 41.7 percent, so the researchers determined that people with Type O blood had disproportionately avoided infection.
The difference between 38.4% of the Covid-positive group having Type O blood, when 41.7% of the population has Type O blood is relatively small:
41.7%-38.4% is only a difference of 3.3 percentage points.
Statistical significance? Sure -- you have a sample of 4,600 people, you're going to get statistical significance even for very small differences.
But at a practical level, one shouldn't go around thinking their risk of catching Covid is low if they have Type O blood.
And another finding, while it has a larger percentage point difference, also does not indicate that those with Type O blood should feel free to start going out to bars and gyms:
They did, however, find that only 61 percent of the patients with Type O or B blood required a ventilator, compared to 84 percent of patients with Type A or AB.
Sprout, do they (or anyone) accurately know the percentage of, say, a city’s most vulnerable population’s blood type?
i mean, apparently we know the proportions of general humanity who fall into which blood type, so the Blood Bank knows its general target reserves. But the researchers couldn’t say with credibility, ‘so we can predict that 1252 people over age 67years with type AB are most at risk’ (figures and blood group inserted at random) in the average city of X size’. Could they? (Scratching my head) Stats/math aren’t as intuitive for me as much as words, but none of definitions i used to proofread with would withstand such an interpretation, even if it was a small difference that they’re talking about.
Am I being clear? I’m both battling a cold and on painkillers (not handling them well).
Wouldn't blood types be normally distributed throughout a population?
I dunno. Are there ethnic differences in the distribution?
Why yes there are!
https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2014/11/07/distribution-of-blood-types.html#prettyPhoto
On the seemingly low risk of transmission by surface contact:
RobertRoe said:
A virus is a very bizzare critter. They exhibit many, but not all of the aspects of a "living" being. I suspect that viruses have been around as long as there has been life on earth. There must be "good useful" viruses, but I cannot think of any right now.
A lot we're not sure of.
Half a year ago a virologist wrote that the virus will become less deadly because it wants to spread, not kill of its food source.
My new theory is that a virus has intelligence, a hive mind. You may say that's ridiculous. But how much intelligence does one brain cell or one bee have? We just have to figure out what communication engenders their intelligence.
Floyd said:
A lot we're not sure of.
Half a year ago a virologist wrote that the virus will become less deadly because it wants to spread, not kill of its food source.
My new theory is that a virus has intelligence, a hive mind. You may say that's ridiculous. But how much intelligence does one brain cell or one bee have? We just have to figure out what communication engenders their intelligence.
It's the effect of natural selection.
A virus that kills its host "too fast" won't spread, so less people will be infected by it.
A virus that lets it's host wander around for a few days (or longer in some cases) will spread.
The virus doesn't actually care what its effect is on the host. We only notice the ones that cause an adverse effect, usually.
drummerboy said:
Wouldn't blood types be normally distributed throughout a population?
I dunno. Are there ethnic differences in the distribution?
Why yes there are!
https://blogs.sas.com/content/iml/2014/11/07/distribution-of-blood-types.html#prettyPhoto
I dunno - apart from not being up to date in terms of population figures (so migration ratios will affect the points the writer is trying to make about genetic heritage), Oceania is more than us & NZ: there’s no accounting for PNG, Fiji, Noumea, Vanuatu, Tahiti, Cocos & Keeling Islands, etc which means we really don’t have a proper accounting for Polynesia or Micronesia let alone Indonesia and Timor; Noongar, Murri and Koori in Australia and Maori in NZ. And then we’d still need to break it all down further into age groups; and perhaps try calculating for decades or centuries of interracial families in parts of the world that were assumed until relatively recently (100-250 yrs or so) thought to be unreachable, savage and remote.
I appreciate the link, though! Thanks for the research.
nohero said:
Floyd said:
A lot we're not sure of.
Half a year ago a virologist wrote that the virus will become less deadly because it wants to spread, not kill of its food source.
My new theory is that a virus has intelligence, a hive mind. You may say that's ridiculous. But how much intelligence does one brain cell or one bee have? We just have to figure out what communication engenders their intelligence.
It's the effect of natural selection.
A virus that kills its host "too fast" won't spread, so less people will be infected by it.
A virus that lets it's host wander around for a few days (or longer in some cases) will spread.
The virus doesn't actually care what its effect is on the host. We only notice the ones that cause an adverse effect, usually.
In this case natural selection should not have inhibited the variations that are more lethal to us.
Its food pool (us) is very large. The more deadly strain at this point in time is not inhibited, even if it were to kill 100%, because it moves and replicates on to new hosts when we are recently infected. By the time someone is drowning on their fluids in ICU it has had ample opportunity to spread on.
With this virus natural selection occurs when the food supply is reduced enough to cause inhibition of the virus spread (less offspring).
As I said, can one brain cell be intelligent or one bee be intelligent enough to cause hive intelligence? I doubt it. So, why can't a virus cloud not have a hive like intelligence?
I read the same thing about HIV many years ago, that it will eventually mutate to become a much milder disease. That article said it would take at least a thousand years, if not more, for this to happen. The only reason HIV is no longer the deadly killer it was in the 80’s is because of scientific advances in medicine, not because it evolved to not kill its host.
I donate blood about three to four times a year and I think that it is a good thing to do. Even at age seventy, if you are in relatively good health, you can donate. It appears right now that covid antibody plasma if given at the right time and at the right antibody levels may still be very helpful to persons with serious infection. This thinking can certainly change as more info is known.
My own biological philosophy is that we humans and all living creatures live in a biological soup. We all keep our species identity, but we are always in contact with the rest of the biological world soup. There are more bacteria in our intestines than we have cells in our body. Every breath that we take has pollen and mold, etc. Most parts of the soup do not harm us and are in fact helpful and symbiotic.
But there are a few bad actors just like there are some bad people who want to do us harm. A Maplewood resident wrote a book entitled, "Good Germs, Bad Germs" about ten years ago and it had lots of interesting info. I think this book is in the library. The trick is to stop these bad actors from hurting us.
Sorry for the thread drift.
That question assumes that viruses have the ability to express genetic material in different patterns based on outside information it senses (information that would be passed around in such a hive). Cells, like the neurons in our brains, have all the different levels of gene expression regulation to make such adaptations. A virus does not have a nucleus so it cannot manipulate its own gene expression. It hi-jacks the nuclear components in the host's cells to produce more of itself depending on whether it is an RNA or a DNA-based virus. It does not do anything like thinking, It just gets its host's cells to replicate itself zillions of times.
Whatever properties its proteins and enzymes have are reproduced and its life goes on. When the replication process has glitches, which it always has, some mutations won't code for an amino acid that lets its enzyme or whatever work and so it dies. But others wind up being tolerable ("eh, close enough for jazz...") and that mutated virus doesn't immediately die. Maybe that new version is okay but just not as efficient as the one that invaded the cell - maybe it reproduces, maybe not. There are so many possibilities when zillions are made quickly. Every once in a while, a mutation results in something that gives the virus a new property like now being able to stick to some other exterior thing on a potential host cell. That's something new that may make a virus able to spread better or maybe do something more or less harmful to the host.
Okay, so now we have a new version of the virus going around. If it is more toxic, maybe it kills the host quickly. That's bad for the host but maybe it is also bad for the virus' long-term prospects since the host may die before it makes a lot of new virus particles that can spread. So many other possible variations of this every day. Some are bad for humans, some not and it's all a matter of degrees. It's almost a dang miracle we haven't been wiped out before now.
I heard some wag a long time ago say that perhaps viruses are part of the earth's immune system to protect it from invading organisms like us.
Floyd said:
As I said, can one brain cell be intelligent or one bee be intelligent enough to cause hive intelligence? I doubt it. So, why can't a virus cloud not have a hive like intelligence?
Dr Sunetra Gupta pens opinion piece on the reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration
As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.
But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.
I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all.
I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera.
Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.
I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.
sprout said:
There is a Libertarian think-tank article at: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/522293-voting-dont-bother titled: Voting? Don't bother.
Its opening premise:
It’s important to begin with a simple (if infuriating) fact: your vote doesn’t matter. Even if you live in a swing state, optimistically, you “have a 1-in-10 million chance of deciding the presidential election,” a fact that, on its own, ought to suffice to make a reasonable person sit out the voting ritual.It's a bizarre perspective. It only makes sense if the author's core assumption is that only a few people are "reasonable" and will follow this "don't bother voting" advice. For example, if instead, 99.99999% of people are "reasonable" and took the advice, then the presidential outcome will be determined by just the few "unreasonable" people voting.
It's self-serving BS. But it gives an interesting perspective into how Libertarianism seems to conceptualize itself as the most "reasonable"... and reasonable people of course have approaches that are superior to how the rest of us "unreasonable" people approach our role in society.
In summary: This article exposes how a lawyer from the small group of Libertarian "superior" people defends his Libertarian "superior" perspectives. But these "superior" Libertarian perspectives are not actually meant for the masses.... or the whole thing falls apart.
What an odd non sequitur. Anyhoo, This is a much better piece on not voting
terp said:
What an odd non sequitur. Anyhoo, This is a much better piece on not voting
What a dismal piece. ugh He basically tried to say why I don't vote for non-libertarians. I've seen videos with him - he's all over the place. I'm not going to debate this any further here - because we're trying to keep this discussion non-political. You should start a Mike Malice - voting is useless thread in the politics area.
terp said:
sprout said:
There is a Libertarian think-tank article at: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/522293-voting-dont-bother titled: Voting? Don't bother.
Its opening premise:
It’s important to begin with a simple (if infuriating) fact: your vote doesn’t matter. Even if you live in a swing state, optimistically, you “have a 1-in-10 million chance of deciding the presidential election,” a fact that, on its own, ought to suffice to make a reasonable person sit out the voting ritual.It's a bizarre perspective. It only makes sense if the author's core assumption is that only a few people are "reasonable" and will follow this "don't bother voting" advice. For example, if instead, 99.99999% of people are "reasonable" and took the advice, then the presidential outcome will be determined by just the few "unreasonable" people voting.
It's self-serving BS. But it gives an interesting perspective into how Libertarianism seems to conceptualize itself as the most "reasonable"... and reasonable people of course have approaches that are superior to how the rest of us "unreasonable" people approach our role in society.
In summary: This article exposes how a lawyer from the small group of Libertarian "superior" people defends his Libertarian "superior" perspectives. But these "superior" Libertarian perspectives are not actually meant for the masses.... or the whole thing falls apart.
What an odd non sequitur. Anyhoo, This is a much better piece on not voting
You can't have a "better piece" about not voting. The premise itself makes it fail.
Some people have the luxury, the privilege, of not caring so not bothering to vote.
terp said:
Dr Sunetra Gupta pens opinion piece on the reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration
...
My goodness. Dr. Gupta discovered that there was a negative consequence (one could even say it was "viral") as a result of the group's "don't worry about people getting infected" argument. It's better than the alternative of actually following that advice.
I don't agree with her conclusion (not that my layman opinion counts for much) but I can't say she comes off as unsympathetic in her piece. She certainly doesn't seem like a front for Trumpian no-nothing denial of the virus or its seriousness.
Seems like those doctors are tilting at straw men. Where is anyone in lockdown? A lot of businesses are open. We could debate which types should or should not be open at this time. But arguing against lockdowns is arguing against something we stopped doing months ago in the US.
True. What exactly is "lockdown" anyway? Nobody here was forced to stay in their house, were they? This isn't Wuhan China.
nohero said:
terp said:
Dr Sunetra Gupta pens opinion piece on the reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration
...My goodness. Dr. Gupta discovered that there was a negative consequence (one could even say it was "viral") as a result of the group's "don't worry about people getting infected" argument. It's better than the alternative of actually following that advice.
What a silly, disappointing article. Instead of addressing any of the rather serious critiques of the Declaration (non lethal long-term risks, how to handle intergenerational households, the likely extra half million US deaths, etc.), she simply complains about how she has been treated. Kind of shows where her priorities are. Not an impressive outing — insisting we should be talking facts while responding to none of the criticisms or questions about her plan.
susan1014 said:
nohero said:
terp said:
Dr Sunetra Gupta pens opinion piece on the reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration.
I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration
...My goodness. Dr. Gupta discovered that there was a negative consequence (one could even say it was "viral") as a result of the group's "don't worry about people getting infected" argument. It's better than the alternative of actually following that advice.
What a silly, disappointing article. Instead of addressing any of the rather serious critiques of the Declaration (non lethal long-term risks, how to handle intergenerational households, the likely extra half million US deaths, etc.), she simply complains about how she has been treated. Kind of shows where her priorities are. Not an impressive outing — insisting we should be talking facts while responding to none of the criticisms or questions about her plan.
The constructive response to complaints that people focus on politics over substance would be to... focus on substance over politics. I certainly won't dispute that our public discourse is often shallow and overly politicized, but there are serious substantive questions on the proposal Gupta put forth that she's declined to address.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
How much do you want to bet that the author votes in every election?