WARNING

It's hilarious how many here get tied up on semantic details and overlook meaning of content. That's how I have fun here pointing out the illogical. I'm a poker player and equate it to the other guy who "knows" he is likely holding the second best hand, but is "po committed", but continues to bet to an untimely end. Those are the best fish to fry.

It was close enough for intelligent people to understand... Originally Posted by royamcr

Close is only good in the game of "Horse Shoes". Either know what you are talking about or shut the fuck up.

Nope... Tested quickly though and proved to be effective. The Vaccines will evolve. Originally Posted by royamcr

'r' - really?

Vaccines do not evolve - vaccines are manufactured.
Viruses mutate, ; living being/species evolve ( theory of evolution) ,and this years wuhan virus will have mutated into something of different characteristics next year.



Each year the characteristics of teh Influenza A vaccine must be changed for predicted mutation of the Influenza a virus - and it is a hit /miss prediction.
It is why the vaccine for Influenza A is given yearly, and the efficacy varies -

Rather than tell me I am lying - please go to teh CDC web site.



wuhan virus is a very mutable ( it mutates ) virus. . w will likely need to address new strains over time. At this point - are the current vaccines reasonably effective against teh Delta variant - Probably so. time will tell./



for those with 30 years of laboratory science - You know better - or should!
No - I am not frying in the 'pan'.
LOL

I'm no virologist and maybe completely wrong but I had to laugh at an "expert" when she went on about how a virus is smart enough to know it can't evolve into something that will kill every human because then it would kill itself.


So, the question to those smarter than me when it comes to viruses, are they "thinking" or reacting and have no earthly idea if what they have "evolved" to, will be there demise?

HF - thank you - it would be inetresting to critique the person you quote.

Viruss are not considered 'Living" - they are simply dna/rna with a glycoprotein coat and One function - reproduction inside a cell.



Viruses are incapable of thought.
Viruses have no concept of evolution.



Hmmm - why am i reminded of ..........

HF - thank you - it would be inetresting to critique the person you quote.

Viruss are not considered 'Living" - they are simply dna/rna with a glycoprotein coat and One function - reproduction inside a cell.



Viruses are incapable of thought.
Viruses have no concept of evolution.



Hmmm - why am i reminded of .......... Originally Posted by oeb11

Never fails - the broken record of TDS and Trump hatred.

but - suit yourself - hatred is self-destructive.

be my guest!

Never fails - the broken record of TDS and Trump hatred.

but - suit yourself - hatred is self-destructive.

be my guest! Originally Posted by oeb11

cool

Perseveration.

HF - thank you - it would be inetresting to critique the person you quote.

Viruss are not considered 'Living" - they are simply dna/rna with a glycoprotein coat and One function - reproduction inside a cell.



Viruses are incapable of thought.
Viruses have no concept of evolution.



Hmmm - why am i reminded of .......... Originally Posted by oeb11

The more I look into this, the more people I find who seem to be saying the same thing. Here is another example.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...dly-180976288/

The idea that circulating pathogens gradually become less deadly over time is very old. It seems to have originated in the writings of a 19th-century physician, Theobald Smith, who first suggested that there is a “delicate equilibrium” between parasite and host, and argued that, over time, the deadliness of a pathogen should decline since it is really not in the interest of a germ to kill its host.This notion became conventional wisdom for many years, but by the 1980s, researchers had begun challenging the idea.


Like the older conventional wisdom, the theory of virulence recognizes that many germs will evolve less virulence as they circulate and adapt to the human population. But Ewald’s theory also proposes that germs all have their own strategies to spread, and some of those strategies allow the germ to maintain high virulence and transmissibility.

That sounds to me, that the virus is "thinking", I better back off or I will kill this host and others". I just think it is a random crap shoot and the virus is not "thinking, wondering, calculating", it changes, evolves because it encounters something different in a new host and there is a chemical, biological change based on what it has encountered and there is no "thinking" going on.

But I have to admit, I know not of which I speak..

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article244027057.html

The coronavirus actually wants infected people to stay alive. Here’s why

“You have to understand that the virus doesn’t want to kill us. It does not want to be deadly,” Dr. Andria Rusk, an assistant professor specializing in infectious disease at Florida International University’s College of Public Health and Social Work, told McClatchy News. “It wants for the human host to survive and be symptomatic for as long as possible because that perpetuates itself. The longer it’s able to keep us contagious, the better off the virus is.”

Viruses rely on the cells of other organisms to survive and make copies of themselves, so killing or making their host really sick means they are eliminating their chances of a long life shared with many.


That suggests a "strategy" and a strategy suggest thinking.

Preservation. Originally Posted by oeb11

I think that's the word you wanted and again, preservation would mean thinking.

Oeb is correct that viruses are technically not living and their only function, biologically/genetically, is to reproduce as is true for all species (plant, animal, virus, prion, etc.) in the broad sense. No species have the means to control evolution, although you might argue humans try. Mother Nature rules and the one with the best characteristics suited to the environment is generally the one most likely to reproduce and pass those characteristics to offspring, but YMMV. Humans might "fiddle" in some areas, such as some crops, but there can also be unintended consequences...hence the theory that covid was man made....subject of many threads and no need to pollute this one with that.

Interesting factoid about viruses; they do not reproduce per se. They hijack the host cell reproductive mechanism, so any mutations are likely due to transcription errors by the host during the replication process.

In any event, it seems that nothing "thinks" or "plans" evolution; it just happens...although there is probably a lab in Wuhan evolving men with two dicks. Sorry, lame attempt at humor.

Oeb is correct that viruses are technically not living and their only function, biologically/genetically, is to reproduce as is true for all species (plant, animal, virus, prion, etc.) in the broad sense. No species have the means to control evolution, although you might argue humans try. Mother Nature rules and the one with the best characteristics suited to the environment is generally the one most likely to reproduce and pass those characteristics to offspring, but YMMV. Humans might "fiddle" in some areas, such as some crops, but there can also be unintended consequences...hence the theory that covid was man made....subject of many threads and no need to pollute this one with that.

Interesting factoid about viruses; they do not reproduce per se. They hijack the host cell reproductive mechanism, so any mutations are likely due to transcription errors by the host during the replication process.

In any event, it seems that nothing "thinks" or "plans" evolution; it just happens...although there is probably a lab in Wuhan evolving men with two dicks. Sorry, lame attempt at humor. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Kinda like when the fly flew into Jeff Goldblum's teleportation chamber.

I think that's the word you wanted and again, preservation would mean thinking. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thank you - the word I chose was in relation to a poster. and on-going behavior.

Perseveration is when someone “gets stuck” on a topic or an idea. You may have heard the term in regard to autism , but it can affect others, too. People who perseverate often say the same thing or behave in the same way over and over again. But they can get stuck on their emotions, actions, and thoughts, too.


Including TDS and Trump Hatred.

HF - thank yo for psot #55 - and the quotes.

and 'r' in post #57 - somewhat addressed teh issue.



Bottomline - viruses are not living - and do not 'think' in a conscious way as humans do.

i disagree with the concept that 'viruses want something" - and could change their behavior in response to host mortality.



People die every day from Wuhan or other viral infections, and bacterial infections.

the course of an infection is basically a race between viral reproduction and cell destruction, and binging teh immune response to bear to shut down and remove viral particles from teh body.

It is basically a war between a simple virus - and a complex immune response.

In most cases - the immune system wins - but not always.

That does not mean conscious thought, purpose, and action predicated on a purpose - as presented by the sources you quote.



Viruses mutate - that is natural evolution and change - and different mutations affect patients differently. The 1919 spanish flu (Influenza A ) was particularly virulent and killed rapidly from pulmonary edema in many cases- Millions of people died of it.

Those infected that survived became a reservoir of immune resistance - which might be passed on to progeny.

After a couple of years - the spanish flu pandemic resolved - by survivors with immune systems equipped to fight the infection - and also possibly by new mutations of Influenza A not as virulent to the patient. What happened was not because of any 'thought' of teh spanish flu virus to quit infecting people and causing death - but rather the human immune system in survivors adapted to this new variant of a common virus.





Bottom Line - my opinion is that Viruses are not living, thinking organisms with conscious thought and 'purpose' of action predicated on conscious thought. Not possible with an organism composed only of a small strand of DNA/RNA.


IMHO - Dr. Rusk is over-simplifying a viral -human interaction - as teh immune response is complex and still only partially understood.



Try a mind experiment - as did Einstein in much of his research - reverse the terms virus and 'host/human'patient' - and read it that way. Humans want viruses dead/destroyed because of teh effect they have with an infection. Viruses just 'reproduce'.

the common cold - which most people get over promptly - is a good example.



For those who read this missive - thank you!