How many trumptards are going to die during the omicron surge?

It appears to me, Noir was attempting to dispute my claim that viruses tend to get less virulent over time. He did so by pointing to two particularly deadly strains of virus that are exceptions to that claim while not realizing that there are over forty strains of that virus that are not deadly making those two statistical outliers. There are always exceptions.

His next comment seems to sarcastically imply that a virus would act in it's own best interest. It won't. It can't. It doesn't know what it's interests are. It acts in the manner it was genetically programmed to. It will only change how it acts when it accidentally mutates again. Those mutations are random and produce organisms both better and more poorly suited to their environment. So yes, they will act in ways that are against their best interest. And they die out like the vast majority have throughout time.
Thirdly, viruses do evolve over time without a design, but the most successful ones trend towards being less virulent because it is a more efficient way to replicate in new hosts, as a sicker host is less mobile and and less able to spread the infection. Once the host dies the virus dies with it. (becomes inactive) Especially a virus that requires blood to blood contact for transmission. Nature rewards flexibility. That's why viruses have been around so long. They tend to spontaneously mutate a lot. Some survive, most do not.
If Noir is not trying to use the aids viruses to disprove my premise about viruses then I have misread his intent. He is free to clarify the point of his post. We'll see. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

How about I put it more simply.

Viruses don’t have a plan when they mutate. They just mutate, likely based on some cellular interaction when they replicate. There’s no plan to become less virulent or deadly or more easily spread.

Now what happens is that strains that spread easier do just that, spread faster. Strains that kill the host too quickly die our because they can’t spread because the host dies. Strains that take a long time to kill and spread easily get the best of both worlds. Just like strains that aren’t deadly and spread easily.

In any event, the virus itself doesn’t go about planning its future existence. However, environmental factors have a huge impact on what variant of a virus hangs around.

How about I put it more simply.

Viruses don’t have a plan when they mutate. Check They just mutate, likely based on some cellular interaction when they replicate. Intracellular action There’s no plan to become less virulent or deadly or more easily spread. No, but the organism is "rewarded" for becoming more transmissible. It passes on it's genetics

Now what happens is that strains that spread easier do just that, spread faster. Check Strains that kill the host too quickly die our because they can’t spread because the host dies. Check Strains that take a long time to kill and spread easily get the best of both worlds. Umm Just like strains that aren’t deadly and spread easily. There is no both worlds. Killing the host is never an evolutionary benefit especially when competing against organism that doesn't.

In any event, the virus itself doesn’t go about planning its future existence. Check However, environmental factors have a huge impact on what variant of a virus hangs around. Check, and the variants that destroy the source of their survival fail Originally Posted by NoirMan

Viruses tend to become less deadly over time because the ones that are, replicate more effectively. HIV viruses are an anomaly. But you brought them up twice. Why?

To point out that it’s process of replication hasn’t made it less deadly. And that I disagree that killing the host leads to any failure that would cause the virus to die out. Killing the host too quickly, is where the issue comes in.

It’s remained as deadly from the beginning but because it doesn’t kill quickly it gets the same benefit that a less deadly virus does. Transmissibility while still killing the original host.

Other than that, as noted by Tiny, we were essentially saying the same thing.

Tiny, on a related note here is a clip of Jamie Metzl on the Lex Fridman podcast discussing the Covid origin issue and the article by Mobley (sp?). This clip is only about 10 minutes but this podcast is around 4 hours. They cover Mobley and Covid origins for about an hour there but this is more the Readers Digest version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYEUljSI9dY Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Thanks Ducbutter. Looking at his entry in Wikipedia, I don't think Jamie Metzl knows any more about this than you or me, which may have been part of your point. He does appear to say that he does not believe the Chinese developed COVID-19 as a weapon. I agree 100% with that. The idea they'd do that and intentionally unleash it first on their own people is ridiculous. Towards the end he appears to say at one point that there's an 85% probability this came out of the Wuhan Lab. Fair enough. But he also says that COVID 19 didn't have a natural origin. So I'm not sure exactly what he believes.

I believe it's possible that Ecohealth and Peter Daszak were in some way partly responsible for the epidemic, but unlikely. Blaming anything on Fauci, who oversaw something like a $5 billion budget, is crazy though.

Otherwise, we would be foolish to write off natural origin entirely. Yes, this may have come out of the Wuhan Lab, with or without gain of function research. But regardless, there are and will be other dangerous viruses that come from bats. Bats are suspected original reservoirs for the Ebola, SARS, MERS, and Marburg viruses, among others. We need to exert greater control over wet markets, the guano trade, and direct contact between humans and bats.

This I think is worth a read, the Wall Street Journal Article anyway, which points towards research that would indicate a natural origin for the virus:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1062658740

The researchers, notably Michael Worobey, know a lot more about the science than Metzl, and I don't believe they're trying to cover their tracks like Daszak.

To point out that it’s process of replication hasn’t made it less deadly. And that I disagree that killing the host leads to any failure that would cause the virus to die out. Killing the host too quickly, is where the issue comes in.

It’s remained as deadly from the beginning but because it doesn’t kill quickly it gets the same benefit that a less deadly virus does. Transmissibility while still killing the original host.

Other than that, as noted by Tiny, we were essentially saying the same thing. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Please take a gander at this article from Northeastern edu:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/1...rus-evolution/

Or from the article:

"Variants of the coronavirus have come to represent the ultimate danger: A curveball in our plans to bring an end to the pandemic that has ravaged our world and taken millions of lives. And here’s another one—omicron—that may embody the worst fear of pandemic observers, because it seems to evade some vaccine protections.

But a mutating virus might not necessarily be a specter of doom.

“If you think about a virus, what’s the purpose? What’s the virus trying to do?” asks Jared Auclair, who is an associate teaching professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern, leads the Biopharmaceutical Analysis Training Lab, and runs the university’s COVID-19 testing facility, the Life Sciences Testing Center in Burlington, Massachusetts.

It’s trying to stay alive, he says. And “if the virus kills someone, if it kills the host, it dies with the host. So it totally defeats the purpose.”


Jared Auclair, associate teaching professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern, head of the Biopharmaceutical Analysis Training Lab, and the university’s COVID-19 testing facility, the Life Sciences Testing Center in Burlington, Massachusetts. Photo by Adam Glanzman/Northeastern University

Because the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread, it tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly. There are exceptions and other factors, but in general, says Auclair, that’s what virologists expect to see occur with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19."

The underline is mine.

You were saying?

Interesting posts. Can’t believe folks are still dying from Covid.

And how many of these reports are fake? Anyone can report something on there. https://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index.jsp

Healthcare is required to report, but anyone can report info bogus or not. I wouldn't put it past trumptards putting out 90% of the reports and not even have one real case to back it up.

“The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable”. When downloading the data, users are presented with a further disclaimer that the data does not include information from investigations into reported cases. The disclaimer also says “the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality”

The latest VAERS data has been published.

Dr. Peter McCullough (@PeterMcCulloughMD) estimates that VAERS is underreported by a factor of "4 to 5".

983,756 Adverse Events
108,572 Hospitalizations
107,860 Urgent Care
12,317 Bell's Palsy
10,429 Heart Attacks
20,560 Myocarditis
34,615 Permanently Disabled
20,622 Deaths

100% Safe And Effective

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

@KanekoaTheGreat Originally Posted by bambino

Please take a gander at this article from Northeastern edu:
https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/1...rus-evolution/

Or from the article:

"Variants of the coronavirus have come to represent the ultimate danger: A curveball in our plans to bring an end to the pandemic that has ravaged our world and taken millions of lives. And here’s another one—omicron—that may embody the worst fear of pandemic observers, because it seems to evade some vaccine protections.

But a mutating virus might not necessarily be a specter of doom.

“If you think about a virus, what’s the purpose? What’s the virus trying to do?” asks Jared Auclair, who is an associate teaching professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern, leads the Biopharmaceutical Analysis Training Lab, and runs the university’s COVID-19 testing facility, the Life Sciences Testing Center in Burlington, Massachusetts.

It’s trying to stay alive, he says. And “if the virus kills someone, if it kills the host, it dies with the host. So it totally defeats the purpose.”


Jared Auclair, associate teaching professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern, head of the Biopharmaceutical Analysis Training Lab, and the university’s COVID-19 testing facility, the Life Sciences Testing Center in Burlington, Massachusetts. Photo by Adam Glanzman/Northeastern University

Because the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread, it tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly. There are exceptions and other factors, but in general, says Auclair, that’s what virologists expect to see occur with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19."

The underline is mine.

You were saying? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

As it says. There are exceptions. And I’ve already point out that the mutations, when they facilitate it’s ability to spread, will become the predominate variant while more deadly variants don’t spread.

To impart a survival instinct or whatever in a virus, I believe (even wrongly, and admittedly I’m no virologist or scientist for that matter) is just categorizing the result rather than a plan.

That said, I see your point and have no reason to dispute the good Docs (butter and auclair).

But I have also read the following.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ly/7839167002/

Experts say viral mutation is a complex calculus but there are several instances where viruses have evolved into more lethal strains.

How viral mutation works.

Viruses that are given enough time to replicate and spread are more likely to develop a mutation that aids their survival. Which types of mutations are helpful to a virus, however, can be difficult to predict.

What scientists want to understand about any given pathogen are the selective pressures, or external factors that affect their ability to survive, that push them to become more or less infectious and harmful over time.

Also.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ime-nervtag-uk

Thanks Ducbutter. Looking at his entry in Wikipedia, I don't think Jamie Metzl knows any more about this than you or me, which may have been part of your point. He does appear to say that he does not believe the Chinese developed COVID-19 as a weapon. I agree 100% with that. The idea they'd do that and intentionally unleash it first on their own people is ridiculous. Towards the end he appears to say at one point that there's an 85% probability this came out of the Wuhan Lab. Fair enough. But he also says that COVID 19 didn't have a natural origin. So I'm not sure exactly what he believes.

I believe it's possible that Ecohealth and Peter Daszak were in some way partly responsible for the epidemic, but unlikely. Blaming anything on Fauci, who oversaw something like a $5 billion budget, is crazy though.

Otherwise, we would be foolish to write off natural origin entirely. Yes, this may have come out of the Wuhan Lab, with or without gain of function research. But regardless, there are and will be other dangerous viruses that come from bats. Bats are suspected original reservoirs for the Ebola, SARS, MERS, and Marburg viruses, among others. We need to exert greater control over wet markets, the guano trade, and direct contact between humans and bats.

This I think is worth a read, the Wall Street Journal Article anyway, which points towards research that would indicate a natural origin for the virus:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1062658740

The researchers, notably Michael Worobey, know a lot more about the science than Metzl, and I don't believe they're trying to cover their tracks like Daszak. Originally Posted by Tiny

Firstly, I used Mobely or something equally stupid earlier. Of course it's Worobey. My mistake.
But I think you give Metzl short shrift. He's got a degree from Oxford and two Ivy League schools as well so I'd judge him a pretty serious guy. PhD in South Asian history so he has some insight into the region I'd bet. And if he's on Fridman's podcast I'm confident of his boa fides. Besides books of science fiction he also wrote a non fiction titled "Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity" I'm not knowledgeable enough to write that book.
I believe what he's saying is that the virus was produced in a lab without any ill intentions and simply escaped the controls of the facility.
Daszak is dirty as fuck and Fauci is complicit cause he knew all of it. Hell, he's the money guy. He's the one who got this research backdoored through China after Obama shut it down here! I'm going to have to go back and look but I'm pretty sure a lot of the money came through Fauci. He's been a money guy (read scumbag) since the AIDs crisis.
I too think the 85% certainty that it came from the lab is pretty close, and my opinion is worth every penny you paid for it. I also think that the CCP is only covering this up to save face and is not responsible for the leak. But I know enough about Chinese history to know their leadership hasn't been afraid in the past, to sacrifice large numbers of folks to play the long game. Since the time of Shih Huang Ti!
You oughta listen to the first hour of the Fridman podcast. I'll try to post a link.

As it says. There are exceptions. And I’ve already point out that the mutations, when they facilitate it’s ability to spread, will become the predominate variant while more deadly variants don’t spread.

To impart a survival instinct or whatever in a virus, I believe (even wrongly, and admittedly I’m no virologist or scientist for that matter) is just categorizing the result rather than a plan.

That said, I see your point and have no reason to dispute the good Docs (butter and auclair).

But I have also read the following.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ly/7839167002/

Experts say viral mutation is a complex calculus but there are several instances where viruses have evolved into more lethal strains.

How viral mutation works.

Viruses that are given enough time to replicate and spread are more likely to develop a mutation that aids their survival. Which types of mutations are helpful to a virus, however, can be difficult to predict.

What scientists want to understand about any given pathogen are the selective pressures, or external factors that affect their ability to survive, that push them to become more or less infectious and harmful over time.

Also.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ime-nervtag-uk Originally Posted by NoirMan

That's funny. I saw your post before you added "But I have also read the following" etc.
Couldn't let it go could you?
Yes! I said there exceptions. You've now documented it. I never denied that. But those exceptions don't disprove the assertion that "Viruses tend to become less virulent over time." It's entirely possible Covid could mutate to become even more deadly, though evidence suggests otherwise.
For fucks sake!

And in a prior post in another thread I said. Maybe Omicron will be our way out of this by being less deadly and more widespread, providing broad immunity.

Once again. Though we disagree on some aspect of the premise, 90% of what we are saying is the same.

Interesting posts. Can’t believe folks are still dying from Covid. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Welcome back Blackman! Good to have a keen left-of-center legal mind back on board again. In your absence a new guy, NoirMan, some Cajun Frenchie I guess judging from his handle and location, picked up part of the load but he's not half the lawyer you are. Looking forward to reading your posts.

https://t.me/rrndaily/146920

Welcome back Blackman! Good to have a keen left-of-center legal mind back on board again. In your absence a new guy, NoirMan, some Cajun Frenchie I guess judging from his handle and location, picked up part of the load but he's not half the lawyer you are. Looking forward to reading your posts. Originally Posted by Tiny

Those two put together aren’t half a lawyer.

Welcome back Blackman! Good to have a keen left-of-center legal mind back on board again. In your absence a new guy, NoirMan, some Cajun Frenchie I guess judging from his handle and location, picked up part of the load but he's not half the lawyer you are. Looking forward to reading your posts. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you good sir. I’m sure he acquitted himself well in my absence.

Those two put together aren’t half a lawyer. Originally Posted by bambino

I see in my time away Bambi has gone full retard and gotten even more idiotic. Who would’ve thought that even possible.