@dgurdasani1 Yes and idea it will evolve to mild is based on 4 coronaviruses. 229E + NL63 may have a common ancestory around the year 1100.
+ we don't know for sure any were originally serious or if so how long they took to become mild.
My summary:
Graphic from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
@dgurdasani1 Timescale of 1-2 years comes from flu, a very different virus. Some think the pandemic in 1889 was OC43 but evidence is weak, could easily be just another flu pandemic. Polio, smallpox, measles, don't change virulence after decades of evolution. No experience from coronaviruses.
@dgurdasani1 If OC43 was always mild and pandemic in 1889 was flu - that eliminates the only observational evidence for rapid loss of virulence.
We noticed SARS / COVID / MERS because serious.
Suppose HKU1 was recent and always mild?
+ COVID could be the exception. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
@dgurdasani1 I mean - they might be right but it's often said with a lot of confidence, when you look at the evidence they have it is very weak indeed, on both timescale and whether the end result is less severe. It's certainly not enough to plan policy around it.
@dgurdasani1 Question. Apart from flu (a very different disease), is there any other case of a deadly human disease that evolves to be mild on a timescale of 1-2 years?
@dgurdasani1 More on evolution of coronaviruses. HKU1 is now though to have crossed to humans in the 1950s. cell.com/action/showPdf…
It was likely milder than COVID since we'd have notice a disease as serious as COVID even back then. IFR about 3 in 1000 for 1950s USA. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…
@dgurdasani1 Modern virulence theory sees virulence as a trade off. For SARS-CoV2, decreased virulence might not have much advantage because severe symptoms and death occur at > 14 days.
Meanwhile increased virulence may be associated with increased transmissibility early on in disease.
@dgurdasani1 They discuss the avirulence theory. But they observe that specializing in colonizing the upper respiratory tract might increase transmission, and reduce severity. The D614G variant however seems to have increased affinity for URT but without reducing its affinity for the LRT.
@dgurdasani1 They also mention one variant of interest that seems to have increased transmissibility although it has more affinity for the lower respiratory tract. They speculate it might achieve this by evading nasal swabs, so Test Trace Isolate may be an evolutionary pressure to move to LRT
1/ Most deaths start after 14 days. Evolution favours more infectiousness. Almost no pressure to reduce death.
@dgurdasani1 2/ HKU1 may have been mild all along.
No evidence of acute pandemic of HKU1 in 1950s
Other coronaviruses had centuries of evolution.
@dgurdasani1 3/ Three possible scenarios for trade off of virulence & transmission rate.
So far virulence of COVID is increasing. Trade offs could mean it becomes more virulent as a side effect of the increased viral loads to become more transmissible. Or delta might be most virulent it gets
@dgurdasani1 4/ COVID could get milder by specializing
in infecting upper respiratory tract
- more transmissible & immune
response weaker
However D614G increases load in URT
without reducing loads in LRT.
One VOI infects lower respiratory tracts, perhaps to evade nasal swabs.
@dgurdasani1 5/ COVID could become less virulent by infecting kids when it's less severe so adults are already immune.
However immunity from COVID is short lived.
When variants evolve to escape immunity, this may not reduce virulence.
@dgurdasani1 This shows the importance of the WHO advice to continue with public health measures and #DOITALL to stop emergence of variants and keep transmission down as we DON'T KNOW how this virus will evolve. debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Yes-we-can-sti…
@dgurdasani1 So, we need to do better than "live with it".
Marvellous 2nd & 3rd generation vaccines on the way.
WHO say we can tame this virus - endemic but low prevalence.
No need for COVID to be hyperendemic like flu, killing thousands every year.
BLOG: Far right Republican Project 2025 is mostly an illegal fantasy - most of it can’t be done at all - “Schedule F” would face legal challenges and likely be struck down
CLICK HERE TO READ:
2/ This is impossible. I 'll do a new post when I get time. Most things require new laws and they can't get a far right majority in either house. Schedule F is the main executive decision option. If he tries again it is likely shot down as illegal. Meanwhile short thread.
3/ for LGBT things remember that the vast majority in both houses supported the respect for marriage act. So it is not possible for Congress to pass laws that remove the right for marriage for gay people never mind harsher restrictions.
1/n Yes we ARE headed for 1.7°C if countries keep to announced pledges
- most make realistic pledges and achieve or overachieve
- 77% of IPCC authors CAN be wrong if it is the remaining 23% who study how countries translate pledges into action
2/ About why climate scientists often are so pessimistic about action on climate change.
- hardly any study the economic models
- IPCC / AR6 had a cut off date just before the COP26 net zero pledges
- so couldn't evaluate the feasibility of India / China's net zero plans.
3/ The big IPBES report in 2019 was the only recent major study with a large element of social scientists and it was the most optimistic, saying we can achieve this transformative change, not just scientifically - that it is economically and socially feasible.
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 1/ This is an inaccurate summary. It is about exceptions to the law not overturning it. There are many exceptions already itif.org/publications/2…
This case is specifically about how YouTube recommends videos to users (continues)
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 2/n The case is about whether Google is liable if its algorithm recommends illegal content to users. It is NOT liable for hosting user generated illegal content - that's established. Video summary. c-span.org/video/?c503199…
1/4 Many people are misreading what Putin said in his annexation speech. He did NOT say Hiroshima and Nagasaki create a precedent for the world to use nukes today
- that would be a very radical
- that would reverse all Russian nuclear policy for decades.
2/4 It is very clear in context that Putin said
- the Allied carpet bombing in WW2 in Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne
- set a precedent for the use of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They clip the video just before the second paragraph which makes that clear.
3/4 I go into it in my blog post using the official English translation of Putins' speech as published by the Kremlin.
I look at two other ways to intepret those two sentences, neither makes sense in the context of the paragraph that follows.
Putin speech misleadingly clipped
- said nukes against civilians are BAD
- did NOT say bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a precedent for Russia to follow
- said US / UK used carpet bombing in Germany as a precedent
- for nuclear bombs in Japan debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Putin-speech-m…
I don't speak Russian. But this is based on the official Kremlin translation into English. That section of the speech is always clipped just before the next bit which makes it clear he is talking about USA using carpet bombing in Germany as a precedent for nuclear bombs in Japan.
There is one other reading, I've now set them out with headings as the natural reading and two alternative forced and unnatural readings in the context of the rest of the speech.
See my debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Putin-speech-m…
For Putin to try to use a nuke to stop Ukraine from doing its counteroffensive is like trying to use a cannon ball to stop midges that are already biting you. debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Russia-can-t-w…
Russia's tactical nukes likely can be dialed down very small like the US ones. If a 1 kiloton tactical nuke was detonated at one end of an airport runway you'd not even get sick at the other end if the small radioactive cloud blew another way or you got inside within 15 minutes