2. The evidence of the transmission-virulence tradeoff theory is not that clear. This fantastic paper explains it well. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
The devil is in the details. For example, in the early stages of a pandemic, when most ppl aren't infected (the case now with COVID), virulence tends to increase.
Virulence also tends to increase when the population is highly connected, as we are with COVID, which travels worldwide.
That means we need to turn to specifics.
3. The specifics of COVID make it an unfortunate candidate to increase virulence. Look at this graph of contagions per day after initial infection. Most infections happen before getting symptoms or early thereafter.
If the virus reproduced more quickly, the peak of the curve would be higher, but the right leg would be cut. On balance, would the curve be bigger or smaller? Potentially bigger, which means infectiousness could easily increase.
You could get more virus more quickly, thus infecting other people more and more quickly. Sure, you'd fall sick more quickly, but by that time you're not infecting as many people.
Another factor is asymptomatics. They're probably ~50% of infections but don't cause more than 5% of them. A virus that reproduces faster would make many more of them infectious, potentially exploding the number of cases.
And more people sicker would also mean more deaths. But these happens weeks after infection.
Death and contagiousness are so disconnected with COVID that there's no pressure for the virus to become less deadly.
4. Changes in the spike protein (what the virus uses to hack into cells) have already shown to increase contagiousness. This happened early during the pandemic.
For the new strain, we know it has 3 mutations in the spike protein, we know the strain is winning, and we know those with it have more virus than others.
Massive floods across the Western world. What pattern do you see?
1. Massive floods in Vienna, carrying cars and everything else on its path.
The Danube is mostly embanked, no floodplains
2. Budapest is underwater
The city is also built on the Danube's floodplain. In fact, most of the Danube has embankments, and the floodplains and dams upstream are not enough to absorb all the water
3. Flood disaster in Głuchołazy, Poland, worst one in 100 years. Why? Because the river is fully embanked, has no floodplains anymore, and goes through the middle of the city
One event made these things possible:
Roman civilization
Industrial Revolution
The oil wealth of Arab countries
Russia's invasions
The Mongol Empire
Globalization
Southern Europe richer than Northern Africa
And more
What was it?
The death of an ocean
I'm super excited about this! AFAIK, nobody has put all these facts together. You're learning about it here 1st!
To understand what happened, we need to start in this region of the world. Do you notice something special?
1. SEAS
It has plenty of huge inland seas! Notice how we can't find such seas anywhere else in the world*
The Mediterranean, Black, Azov, Caspian, Aral and Red Seas (and the Persian Gulf) are all in the same area, either cut off from oceans or connected by very narrow passes.
I've been banging my head on a pbm and I need help, Twitter
Why are there huge dunes on some coasts and not others?
You have dunes like these ones in the Namib desert in Namibia. Why? How do they form? Why only here?
I'll update this thread as I get answers!
Apparently strong, dry winds blow from the interior towards the Atlantic ocean, accumulating the sand. As it accumulates, it blows or falls into the ocean, creating these huge slopes. OK.
You can even see these dunes in the satellite
The obvious question becomes: Why just there and not elsewhere on the Namib desert coast?