Coronavirus - Is this the killer flu that will wipe us out?
Discussion
V6 Pushfit said:
otolith said:
Depends. A host is burnt if it recovers or dies. Either way it stops being useful. So killing the host or killing it too quickly can be maladaptive to the pathogen. Unless your mode of transmission is via mushy corpses, which might explain why Ebola became more lethal during some outbreaks. Or unless doing something really nasty to the host increases the transmission rate at the cost of burning the host out - for instance, the pneumonic form of plague is much more contagious than the bubonic form, because it's spread directly from person to person by bacteria in airborne droplets rather than by flea bites - but it is also more lethal and more rapidly so. Interestingly, plague also illustrates the other principle - the bacterium thought to be its ancestor is lethal to fleas and thus does not spread successfully via them.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mut...
It’s natural mutation in a virus whereby strains develop that aren’t so good at transmitting or reproducing so die out, and the strains that are more effective at keeping themselves alive and reproducing continue to do so. For example a strain that kills in a day won’t last long, so less severe mutations are more likely to survive and these wont necessarily make the virus worse for us - it may mutate into something that’s milder. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mut...
lampchair said:
DanL said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They cancelled all travel to HK and China a few weeks ago. Interesting if it’s extended to be all travel, but I’d be a little surprised...The rest is bolllocks
otolith said:
Yes, that was the point. Generally mutations which make a virus less lethal are selected for but also mutations which make the virus more transmissible (like, for instance, going to town on the host's lungs and giving some of them viral pneumonia) will be selected for and may also have the side effect of making it more deadly. It isn't generally adaptive for a virus to kill the host (unless it is transmitted by the dead, which was a significant factor in Ebola) but mutations which are adaptive may happen to make it more lethal.
The host behaviour is also a powerful selection pressure. Diseases that cause hosts to self isolate (lie in bed watching netflix or lie in a hospital bed dying) don't transmit as easily as a pathogen that makes you feel a bit grotty but you can still face the commute in on the tube (whilst depositing virus everywhere). Which is why we all get colds multiple times a year.Its interesting that the documented super spreading events outside of China have been from people who have had very mild disease. Thus could be evidence of a milder strain or it could be evidence that some people have some level of immunity having encountered coronaviruses in the past. Or it could be none of those things. Certainly immune cross reactivity is something that established pathogens are good at avoiding (another selection pressure) but novel pathogens aren't. We make antibodies that are able to cross react with similar epitopes, so established pathogens are selected for that can differentiate from other closely related pathogens to avoid that cross reactivity.
As a scientist I find this really interesting, as a father of two children and a son to elderly parents I find it quite frightening.
RTB said:
The host behaviour is also a powerful selection pressure. Diseases that cause hosts to self isolate (lie in bed watching netflix or lie in a hospital bed dying) don't transmit as easily as a pathogen that makes you feel a bit grotty but you can still face the commute in on the tube (whilst depositing virus everywhere). Which is why we all get colds multiple times a year.
Its interesting that the documented super spreading events outside of China have been from people who have had very mild disease. Thus could be evidence of a milder strain or it could be evidence that some people have some level of immunity having encountered coronaviruses in the past. Or it could be none of those things. Certainly immune cross reactivity is something that established pathogens are good at avoiding (another selection pressure) but novel pathogens aren't. We make antibodies that are able to cross react with similar epitopes, so established pathogens are selected for that can differentiate from other closely related pathogens to avoid that cross reactivity.
As a scientist I find this really interesting, as a father of two children and a son to elderly parents I find it quite frightening.
So can serum from a recovery be used as an effective treatment in a remote setting ie get a pint of blood from a recovery, stick it in a centrifuge to get the serum and inject a bit into the next 50 patients?Its interesting that the documented super spreading events outside of China have been from people who have had very mild disease. Thus could be evidence of a milder strain or it could be evidence that some people have some level of immunity having encountered coronaviruses in the past. Or it could be none of those things. Certainly immune cross reactivity is something that established pathogens are good at avoiding (another selection pressure) but novel pathogens aren't. We make antibodies that are able to cross react with similar epitopes, so established pathogens are selected for that can differentiate from other closely related pathogens to avoid that cross reactivity.
As a scientist I find this really interesting, as a father of two children and a son to elderly parents I find it quite frightening.
Or isn’t that your science?
aeropilot said:
sherbertdip said:
also not beyond reason is that the pilots and crew and probably medical personal were all from the armed services and based at Boscombe and Porton.
Won't be any 747 rated ALTP pilots serving in RAF, and unlikely any of the Boscombe based ETPS pilots will have ATPL's.Research suggests the virus may do some nasty damage to the testicles and kidneys in otherwise healthy people. Possibly causing infertility in men.
http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418
But remember, it's just the flu.
http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418
But remember, it's just the flu.
booboise blueboys said:
Research suggests the virus may do some nasty damage to the testicles and kidneys in otherwise healthy people. Possibly causing infertility in men.
http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418
But remember, it's just the flu.
Note the frequency of words such as might, may, possibly - full of the usual ambiguity that adorns research that the authors aren't too confident in. Since a serious case of pneumonia can lead to organ failure - a spot of renal damage is possibly not unexpected? http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418
But remember, it's just the flu.
The German 'oh crap everyone is infectious before they show symptoms!' study springs to mind.
Stick to the stuff that has been corroborated by multiple studies.
Looks like they got Wamos to run the flight back for the Diamond Princess lot. Not entirely sure why they went with Boscombe rather than Brize again though.
The situation in Italy worries me a little more, but I’m still not hugely concerned about this just yet. I guess we’ll see.
Of more concern is I’ve got 2 cruises booked and I’m a Carnival shareholder!
The situation in Italy worries me a little more, but I’m still not hugely concerned about this just yet. I guess we’ll see.
Of more concern is I’ve got 2 cruises booked and I’m a Carnival shareholder!
otolith said:
turbobloke said:
IIRC in the microscopic world, this makes for an evolutionary successful virus, i.e. one which infects a lot of hosts and moves from one to another easily, but doesn't kill a large proportion of hosts, thus facilitating transmission and replication.
Depends. A host is burnt if it recovers or dies. Either way it stops being useful. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction...
Recovery is an unavoidable occupational hazard in the virosphere.
Thanks for the link.
More on the potentially successful chloroquine/remdesivir treatment.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
"Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease."
I seem to recall there are already instances of success with both treatments in Covid-19 patients
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
"Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease."
I seem to recall there are already instances of success with both treatments in Covid-19 patients
NiceCupOfTea said:
Tlandcruiser said:
Can we have a separate thread to discuss the death rate, it’s pretty boring to read the constant arguments over the death rate for the last 300 pages. This will allow this thread to focus on the news and story
This. A million times this.NiceCupOfTea said:
Tlandcruiser said:
Can we have a separate thread to discuss the death rate, it’s pretty boring to read the constant arguments over the death rate for the last 300 pages. This will allow this thread to focus on the news and story
This. A million times this.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It won’t have been cancelled because of the virus, not due to group policy anyway. Perhaps because there may be a contingent from HK who are no longer coming (so there’s no point in travelling), but travel to Poland ain’t banned.
Just saying, mainly as ‘big bank cancels all travel due to virus’ is a big hype, and would have a huge impact on business.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff