'A Few Mutations Away': The Threat of a Vaccine-Proof Variant (symptom, eye)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two opposing dynamics which are impacted by nature and natural selection going on and those two characteristics are infectivity and pathogenicity.
In general the nature of the host parasite relationship favors a high transmissibility agent with low pathogenicity potential that both the host and parasite can thrive on. That is what driving force that can make both successful in a commensal relationship.
In general when a highly pathogenic organisms infects a host with an inadequate immunity the viral load will be in direct proportion to the host damage. The greater the host damage the greater the disease severity and the greater the viral load can be seen. The outcome is death and a poor commensal relationship. The pathogenicity of the organism also impacts its ability to transmit itself. The greater the pathogenicity the window period between infection and symptoms is decreased and the time one is sick is increased or one succumbs to the infection limits the exposures in its ability to transmit.
When one hears that an organism is more infectious because of increasing viral loads in both asymptomatic states and in disease states compared to the previous virus then one assumes that there is attenuation of pathogenicity going on.
Any future variants that would be more pathogenic would be more deadly and less transmissible because of its deadliness and because of the innate viral pathogenicity causing tissue tissue resulting in symptoms with a shortened incubation period. That's what we mean when we say something is more virulent. Something more virulent is easier to control such as with SARS. Something less virulent but highly contagious is much less easier to control.
I would not panic but one also has to do as much as we can do to prevent morbidity and mortality of a virus of which we can develop vaccines for.
As usual, a wonderfully thought out science backed response. Even I learned something
No, they are typically MORE transmissible and less deadly. It's counterproductive for a virus to mutate into a form LESS likely to spread itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medical Lab Guy
In general the nature of the host parasite relationship favors a high transmissibility agent with low pathogenicity potential that both the host and parasite can thrive on. That is what driving force that can make both successful in a commensal relationship.
It's how natural selection works -- for viruses as well as bigger organisms.
A mutation that makes an organism more deadly over time will cause the organism to go extinct. Because it will completely destroy its host (or food source) -- also known as Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg.
Where's the flu organism that caused the 1918 pandemic? It's still around. Same will be true of COVID-19. Take a look at the CDC graphs for daily deaths and cases: the cases are rising across the U.S., but the deaths are not. New daily cases are at a level we haven't seen since last October but not deaths. Which means as you say, more transmissible and less deadly. See for yourself:
People who don't understand biology, evolution, and genetics are trying to make SARS-COV-2 into some kind of "perfect" superorganism like the xenomorphs in the Alien movies. It's not - and if it did originate in a lab, we don't have the knowledge or tools to produce an organism that will make us extinct. We're not living in a freaking Ridley Scott movie.
A year from now, I'll bet money that SARS-COV-2 will still be around -- and those who are vulnerable will be getting their yearly booster shots. Those who choose not to get the shot will come down with something similar to a bad cold or the flu.
Where's the flu organism that caused the 1918 pandemic? It's still around. Same will be true of COVID-19. Take a look at the CDC graphs for daily deaths and cases: the cases are rising across the U.S., but the deaths are not. New daily cases are at a level we haven't seen since last October but not deaths. Which means as you say, more transmissible and less deadly.
A couple things wrong with the above. The vast majority of the high risk people are vaccinated so that takes a whole lot of people out of the equation regarding deaths. So is it less deadly if most of the people likely to die are vaccinated and not part of those numbers? Is a unvaccinated 70 yo any less likely to die today compared to 5 months ago if they contract covid? We don't know. My guess is it might be more deadly.
Deaths lag new cases by several weeks. 3 weeks ago we were below 20K new cases a day which was the lowest in over a year. And deaths are trending higher. We hit a low of 7 day average of daily deaths at 227 per day on July 7th. Three weeks later its at 305 a day and rising. Last 2 days have averages 450 per day and today we are just below 400 so far with 19 states still not reporting data yet. We will quickly be double the lows of 3 weeks ago. My guess is since we are going to pass 100k new cases a day probably next week deaths will be over 1000 a day in a couple weeks. And that should be with younger people dying. To me that points to more deadly.
Why would a virus be driven to improve it's mechanisms if it's current mechanisms are working well? Which means the vulnerable unvaccinated would not be driving the variants. We didn't hear too much about variants until the vaccinations began.
Maybe you just weren't listening. There were variants all over the place during vaccine trials, before their emergency use was approved.
Maybe you just weren't listening. There were variants all over the place during vaccine trials, before their emergency use was approved.
There are four recognized variants. Yes, documented samples extend back to last year, mostly late last year, but didn't have a big impact until this year. Tried pasting the chart but it displayed all mangled.
There are four recognized variants. Yes, documented samples extend back to last year, mostly late last year, but didn't have a big impact until this year. Tried pasting the chart but it displayed all mangled.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,073 posts, read 7,511,991 times
Reputation: 9798
A longtime ago, IIRC, article in Scientific American describes a typical pandemic.
OP is correct.
JMO, I will expect that humans will generally be 1-2 steps behind this virus. On the other hand, any pathogen will eventually die off as it kills off its host (humans) with the less virulent strains overtaking the virulent strains. The other scenario is the remaining hosts become resistant to the pathogen.
Survival to those who can adapt most successfully. May the Humans be the better adaptable.
Backups:
Plan I: Isolation in place.
Plan M: Sealed Mine colonies.
Plan S: Cruise Ship colonies.
Plan R: Silent Running.
Plan StarTrek-K: Khan survival.
Plan W: Wall-E
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
