Trump: “Take the vaccine! I did.”

[Rigby5]

But that is also a fantasy that could not happen.

Not true.
Full quarantine is exactly what happened with Ebola, and could have been done with any illness.
It is just difficult because you have to deal with thousands of travelers who would need 12 days of hotel quarantine.
But it could have been done.

 

[Rigby5]

Embarrassing lie

As I explained, there are several realistic explanations as to where these variants came from, but anyone who knows physics, biology, archeology, anthropology, of anything that involved actual mutation, knows that covid did not and can not mutate in a time from of 1 year or even 100 years.
Mutations take on the order of ten thousand years at least.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But that is also a fantasy that could not happen.

It actually could have happened, if someone had wanted it to happen.

Put quarantine up for 3 weeks, charge $1000 a week for the privilege and see how many people enter. Stop people from foreign countries getting in.

So many things that others have done, and found it worked, that the US govt could have done. But couldn't be bothered.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I explained, there are several realistic explanations as to where these variants came from, but anyone who knows physics, biology, archeology, anthropology, of anything that involved actual mutation, knows that covid did not and can not mutate in a time from of 1 year or even 100 years.
Mutations take on the order of ten thousand years at least.

How fast can the coronavirus mutate?

The new coronavirus, like all other viruses, mutates, or undergoes small changes in its genome.

www.livescience.com

"The researchers found the "L" type, which they deemed the more aggressive type, in 70% of the virus samples. They also found that the prevalence of this strain decreased after early January. The more commonly found type today is the older, "S" type, because "human intervention" such as quarantines may have reduced the ability of the "L" type to spread, researchers wrote in the paper."

"Figuring out the mutations that a virus underwent worldwide takes "a nontrivial amount of effort and sometimes takes years to complete," he said."

This guy says "years". You say "ten thousand years at least"

"These viruses "are still so genetically similar that these mutations shouldn't alter a new vaccine," Grubaugh said. It's "unlikely that the developers have to worry about this." Once the vaccine is out, however, the virus could adapt to it and develop resistance, he said"

Viral evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"in particular RNA viruses—have relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication)"

This means when an RNA virus spreads from one person to another, a "mutation" can change, which means one part of its structure can change.

The coronavirus is an RNA virus.

So, you're wrong. You don't need to reply to this post, I'm not conversing with you about it unless you're willing to accept science.

 

[Rigby5]

How fast can the coronavirus mutate?

The new coronavirus, like all other viruses, mutates, or undergoes small changes in its genome.

www.livescience.com

"The researchers found the "L" type, which they deemed the more aggressive type, in 70% of the virus samples. They also found that the prevalence of this strain decreased after early January. The more commonly found type today is the older, "S" type, because "human intervention" such as quarantines may have reduced the ability of the "L" type to spread, researchers wrote in the paper."

"Figuring out the mutations that a virus underwent worldwide takes "a nontrivial amount of effort and sometimes takes years to complete," he said."

This guy says "years". You say "ten thousand years at least"

"These viruses "are still so genetically similar that these mutations shouldn't alter a new vaccine," Grubaugh said. It's "unlikely that the developers have to worry about this." Once the vaccine is out, however, the virus could adapt to it and develop resistance, he said"

Viral evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"in particular RNA viruses—have relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication)"

This means when an RNA virus spreads from one person to another, a "mutation" can change, which means one part of its structure can change.

The coronavirus is an RNA virus.

So, you're wrong. You don't need to reply to this post, I'm not conversing with you about it unless you're willing to accept science.

As I already explained, any noticed change in the main strain, they are calling "mutations".
That is just poor use and understanding of the word "mutation".

When a species like humans produce an offspring through normal meiosis, the offspring is not identical to either parent.
Would you call that a "mutation"?
Well I would not.
A "mutation" is a random and totally unpredictable change, like from radiation damage.
Sexual reproduction is NOT random, or damage, but is a constructive recombination of existing trait segments of DNA.
So sexual preproduction is NOT "mutation".
Simlarly, when 2 or more covid viruses inject their RNA into the same cell nucleous, it is possible for fragments to combine.
But that is more like a hybrid, and is NOT "mutation".

Another explanation could be that the variants did mutate, but hundreds of thousands of years ago.
So then why is it only now suddenly being noticed 6 months later?
Because there are always genetic variants around, but depending on host conditions, there will be a process of natural selection that favor some over others. And eventually that can tip the balance in favor of that once obscure variant, until that is the dominant or even only variant.
Evolution is NOT just mutation, but the combined process of mutation along with natural selection.
Ignoring one of the 2 is just ignorance, and the mutation part always takes on the order of tens of thousands of year for something like a virus.
With longer lived organism and more complex organisms like humans, mutations take on the order of millions of years.

So when a doctor says "mutation", they do not really mean literally "mutation", but a shorthand for neophytes where they really just mean "change".
But in reality, "mutation" does not mean just any change. They are using the word "mutation" wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As I already explained, any noticed change in the main strain, they are calling "mutations".
That is just poor use and understanding of the word "mutation".

When a species like humans produce an offspring through normal meiosis, the offspring is not identical to either parent.
Would you call that a "mutation"?
Well I would not.
A "mutation" is a random and totally unpredictable change, like from radiation damage.
Sexual reproduction is NOT random, or damage, but is a constructive recombination of existing trait segments of DNA.
So sexual preproduction is NOT "mutation".
Simlarly, when 2 or more covid viruses inject their RNA into the same cell nucleous, it is possible for fragments to combine.
But that is more like a hybrid, and is NOT "mutation".

Another explanation could be that the variants did mutate, but hundreds of thousands of years ago.
So then why is it only now suddenly being noticed 6 months later?
Because there are always genetic variants around, but depending on host conditions, there will be a process of natural selection that favor some over others. And eventually that can tip the balance in favor of that once obscure variant, until that is the dominant or even only variant.
Evolution is NOT just mutation, but the combined process of mutation along with natural selection.
Ignoring one of the 2 is just ignorance, and the mutation part always takes on the order of tens of thousands of year for something like a virus.
With longer lived organism and more complex organisms like humans, mutations take on the order of millions of years.

So when a doctor says "mutation", they do not really mean literally "mutation", but a shorthand for neophytes where they really just mean "change".
But in reality, "mutation" does not mean just any change. They are using the word "mutation" wrong.

And does it matter? Does it matter whether a change is a "mutation" or not a "mutation"?

Seems like you want to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic and it's annoying.

 

[Rigby5]

And does it matter? Does it matter whether a change is a "mutation" or not a "mutation"?

Seems like you want to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic and it's annoying.

Its the other way around in that using the wrong word is what is so annoying.
Mutation has a very specific meaning, and is what so dramatically slows down evolution.
But it implies anything goes.
And the actual forces behind these rapid changes are either natural selection or hybridization, which are not at all random.
We can not predict mutations, but we can very strongly predict natural selection and hybridization.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its the other way around in that using the wrong word is what is so annoying.
Mutation has a very specific meaning, and is what so dramatically slows down evolution.
But it implies anything goes.
And the actual forces behind these rapid changes are either natural selection or hybridization, which are not at all random.
We can not predict mutations, but we can very strongly predict natural selection and hybridization.

Then you'll annoy people with your pedantry.

 

[Rigby5]

Then you'll annoy people with your pedantry.

The point is the virus can't become more lethal.
Whether the rapid change is from natural selection or hybridization, both will always make it less lethal.
Only random mutation could make it more lethal, and that can't happen in that short of a time frame.
It has nothing at all to do with being picky.
It is necessary in order to predict accurately.
Precision is necessary in this case.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point is the virus can't become more lethal.
Whether the rapid change is from natural selection or hybridization, both will always make it less lethal.
Only random mutation could make it more lethal, and that can't happen in that short of a time frame.
It has nothing at all to do with being picky.
It is necessary in order to predict accurately.
Precision is necessary in this case.

And why are we talking about the virus being more lethal? I'm quite sure this wasn't part of the conversation.

The point being made was that the virus can change, and change enough that someone can get it a second time.

 

[Rigby5]

And why are we talking about the virus being more lethal? I'm quite sure this wasn't part of the conversation.

The point being made was that the virus can change, and change enough that someone can get it a second time.

No, there was a post warning us the virus was becoming more lethal.
And no, the virus changing does not effect recovery immunity, but likely will rapidly end fake vaccine immunity that is only based on a spike protein.
But no immunity prevent multiple infections.
All immunity does is reduce symptoms, including ability to spread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Full quarantine is exactly what happened with Ebola, and could have been done with any illness.

Yet it hasn't. Paranoid delusion.

 

[Rigby5]

Yet it hasn't. Paranoid delusion.

Ok, I agree we did not do full quarantine for covid, like we did do for Ebola.
So what?
Are you saying you don't think we should have, that it would not have worked if we had, or what?
We certainly did not do full quarantine. That involves contact tracing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, there was a post warning us the virus was becoming more lethal.
And no, the virus changing does not effect recovery immunity, but likely will rapidly end fake vaccine immunity that is only based on a spike protein.
But no immunity prevent multiple infections.
All immunity does is reduce symptoms, including ability to spread.

Then how does herd immunity stop most of these deaths? Because you made an absolutely ridiculous claim that only a few thousand people would die if they were exposed to the virus.

You've been around and around saying things that seem to not be very important for your argument, trying to claim that herd immunity is all important, now you seem to be saying it's not very important at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Then how does herd immunity stop most of these deaths? Because you made an absolutely ridiculous claim that only a few thousand people would die if they were exposed to the virus.

You've been around and around saying things that seem to not be very important for your argument, trying to claim that herd immunity is all important, now you seem to be saying it's not very important at all.

Its very simple.
Herd immunity is what normally ends all epidemics, including seasonal flu, measles, polio, etc.
The way herd immunity works is that the virus can only survive 12 days in any particular human host, and if it can't infect another in that time, it is gone.
So the initial spike is what normally kills off any epidemic.
It uses up too many of the easy local hosts, so then can't find anyone to transfer to, and dies.

So why didn't this happen with covid last March?
Because we deliberately prevented the initial spike.
Instead we used masks and social distancing to "flatten the curve", which essentially conserves hosts, so that the epidemic never runs out of easy hosts.

How does killing more save lives?
Because the initial spike would have been twice as many that month.
A normal spike would have killed as many as 60,000 people in one month, but then be over and done with, gone.
When you "flatten the curve", you reduce the death toll to only 30,000 instead of 60,000. but you ensure it will keep infecting others, month after month, essentially forever.

It is actually a little more complicated than that because I would have greatly reduced the death toll way below 60,000 even.
Go back to Fauci's estimate on herd immunity, and you see he posed 2.4 million would die.
That is 2% lethality of the 70% of 330 million, you need to gain herd immunity.
That is already too high because he ignored the asymptomatic, who not only mean about half the population started out already immune, but also that his lethality figure was at least double what it really is.
But the main reason Fauci's number is off is that he was assuming you do not select who gets infected, and wait for the vulnerable to just die.
And that is not how you end an epidemic properly.
Instead you use variolation.
{... Variolation was the method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against an epidemic (Variola) with material taken from a patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild, but protective, infection would result. ...}
The point being that if you deliberately infect the young/healthy, then you reduce the death rate by a factor of 400.
Take Fauci's 2.4 million death from random infection spread, and reduce by 400 if you confine it to only those under 40 and healthy, and you only get 6,000 deaths as a final result.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its very simple.
Herd immunity is what normally ends all epidemics, including seasonal flu, measles, polio, etc.
The way herd immunity works is that the virus can only survive 12 days in any particular human host, and if it can't infect another in that time, it is gone.
So the initial spike is what normally kills off any epidemic.
It uses up too many of the easy local hosts, so then can't find anyone to transfer to, and dies.

So why didn't this happen with covid last March?
Because we deliberately prevented the initial spike.
Instead we used masks and social distancing to "flatten the curve", which essentially conserves hosts, so that the epidemic never runs out of easy hosts.

How does killing more save lives?
Because the initial spike would have been twice as many that month.
A normal spike would have killed as many as 60,000 people in one month, but then be over and done with, gone.
When you "flatten the curve", you reduce the death toll to only 30,000 instead of 60,000. but you ensure it will keep infecting others, month after month, essentially forever.

It is actually a little more complicated than that because I would have greatly reduced the death toll way below 60,000 even.
Go back to Fauci's estimate on herd immunity, and you see he posed 2.4 million would die.
That is 2% lethality of the 70% of 330 million, you need to gain herd immunity.
That is already too high because he ignored the asymptomatic, who not only mean about half the population started out already immune, but also that his lethality figure was at least double what it really is.
But the main reason Fauci's number is off is that he was assuming you do not select who gets infected, and wait for the vulnerable to just die.
And that is not how you end an epidemic properly.
Instead you use variolation.
{... Variolation was the method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against an epidemic (Variola) with material taken from a patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild, but protective, infection would result. ...}
The point being that if you deliberately infect the young/healthy, then you reduce the death rate by a factor of 400.
Take Fauci's 2.4 million death from random infection spread, and reduce by 400 if you confine it to only those under 40 and healthy, and you only get 6,000 deaths as a final result.

The problem with "herd immunity normally ends all epidemics" is that this isn't "normally".

The flu isn't as deadly as the coronavirus, at least right now. Perhaps when kids have all got vaccines and many of them have had it, in 20 years time it'll be much less serious and flu + coronavirus deaths will be the same as flu deaths before.

But right now the situation is different. The flu has been around for I don't know how many years/centuries/millennia. The coronavirus was always going to be a big problem for older people and people with health problems. Perhaps this is nature's way of culling the population, but humans don't want to sit around and say "hey, let's just let all old and unhealthy people die"

Your "math" was well out, based on total nonsense. The coronavirus has killed 600,000 in the US. Had all these people got it at the same time, then 600,000 people or more would have died in a short period of time. The US can't cope with that.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you love spewing lies.
President Trump never said covid 19 was a hoax

AP FACT CHECK: Biden distorts Trump's words on virus 'hoax'

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is presenting a distorted account of President Donald Trump's words on the coronavirus, wrongly suggesting Trump branded the virus a hoax.

apnews.com

He should sense while the virus is real it’s no more dangerous than the common flu.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem with "herd immunity normally ends all epidemics" is that this isn't "normally".

The flu isn't as deadly as the coronavirus, at least right now. Perhaps when kids have all got vaccines and many of them have had it, in 20 years time it'll be much less serious and flu + coronavirus deaths will be the same as flu deaths before.

But right now the situation is different. The flu has been around for I don't know how many years/centuries/millennia. The coronavirus was always going to be a big problem for older people and people with health problems. Perhaps this is nature's way of culling the population, but humans don't want to sit around and say "hey, let's just let all old and unhealthy people die"

Your "math" was well out, based on total nonsense. The coronavirus has killed 600,000 in the US. Had all these people got it at the same time, then 600,000 people or more would have died in a short period of time. The US can't cope with that.

The covid virus IS normal and no more deadly than the flu, on a per month basis.
WE have deliberately prevented it from ending, and we could do the same with the flu if we wanted to.
What makes covid SEEM more deadly is only that we allowed it to keep killing, month after month, for over 18 months.

You still did not understand the math.
The 600,000 who died were almost all over 70 or compromised.
The ideal is that you don't let those over 70 or compromised ever get infected.
Instead you deliberately infect 60 million under 40, who are not compromised.
Then you get 400 times fewer deaths.
You have substituted those who survive covid, to replace those who would have died if they got it.
It is a very common and simple procedure used though out history, in places like ancient Egypt, China, and even England.

The whole point of variolation is that instead of random people getting infected, you get to choose who and when the infections occur.
That not only allows you to select those who will survive, but ensures you know when they got infected, so you know when to quarantine them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The covid virus IS normal and no more deadly than the flu, on a per month basis.
WE have deliberately prevented it from ending, and we could do the same with the flu if we wanted to.
What makes covid SEEM more deadly is only that we allowed it to keep killing, month after month, for over 18 months.

You still did not understand the math.
The 600,000 who died were almost all over 70 or compromised.
The ideal is that you don't let those over 70 or compromised ever get infected.
Instead you deliberately infect 60 million under 40, who are not compromised.
Then you get 400 times fewer deaths.
You have substituted those who survive covid, to replace those who would have died if they got it.
It is a very common and simple procedure used though out history, in places like ancient Egypt, China, and even England.

The whole point of variolation is that instead of random people getting infected, you get to choose who and when the infections occur.
That not only allows you to select those who will survive, but ensures you know when they got infected, so you know when to quarantine them.

Like try some simple math.

618,000 people have died, according to the CDC, of the coronavirus. (the actual number is not important here).

If all the people who have had the coronavirus in the last year and a half had gotten it in the space of a month, do you think that instead of 618,000 people dying, only 6,000 people would have died?

 

[Rigby5]

Like try some simple math.

618,000 people have died, according to the CDC, of the coronavirus. (the actual number is not important here).

If all the people who have had the coronavirus in the last year and a half had gotten it in the space of a month, do you think that instead of 618,000 people dying, only 6,000 people would have died?

You are ignoring what I wrote.
The point was variolation, which is deliberately picking who you are going to infect, by the fact they are young and healthy.

You keep saying that if the elderly and compromised who died, had all got it at one early on, they still would have died, only earlier, all at once.
That is true, but has nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is variolation.

Again, the whole point of variolation is that you pick who you are going to infect, and when you are going to do it.
So then you get to deliberately ensure that only those likely to survive will get infected, and no one else.

Those under 40 are 400 times less likely to die than those over 70.
So you take Fauci's 2.4 million death estimate from covid herd immunity, and divide by 400.
That results in only 6,000 dead.
And it would then have been over that first month.