@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
@dgurdasani1 My graphic summary:

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 Timeline for coronavirus crossovers from:
cell.com/action/showPdf…
Family graphic from:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
Nasal swab graphic
cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
Main paper summarized:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…
@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.

See my:
debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Easy-to-tweak-…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people

Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DoomsdayDebunks

Jul 8
If worried about project 2025:

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:

Screenshot of first page. doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right…
Image
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.

doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right…


Image
Image
Image
Read 14 tweets
Jun 15
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

See BLOG: robertinventor.substack.com/p/yes-we-are-h…
    TEXT ON GRAPHIC      As technology improves we expect it to be EASIER to achieve these pledges and improve on them.      APS [Announced Pledges Scenario]      Most of these pledges are      - economically feasible      - from countries that historically equal or exceed pledges.      The 1.7°C scenario assumes countries achieve their announced pledges.      Why do so many say 1.7°C is impossible?      It can't be, by definition.      Highlighted text: "In the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), the temperature rise in 2100 is 1.7 °C"      This graphic is from the latest IEA repor...
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.     Text on graphic: IPCC / AR6 cut-off date was before the net zero pledges of India and China.      More important figure : 23% of climate scientists expect a rise of 2 C or less      Less than 10% of IPCC scientists study the economics of climate change and Integrated Assessment Models use older simpler economic methods
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.     Transformative change maximizes good quality of life with GROWTH, material, non material and economic - IPCC and IPBES Increasingly we are following this path makes sense [Scroll down page to see second copy of this graphic for the rest of the text] Graphic from page 33 of the appendix to chapter 4 of the IPBES report in 2019 https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-01/GA_chapter_4_supplementary_materials.pdf
Read 25 tweets
Oct 3, 2022
@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…
@GerogeBush6 @mikestabile This is the basic argument for the defendant

news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/hi… Image
Read 11 tweets
Oct 3, 2022
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.
Read 6 tweets
Oct 1, 2022
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… ImageImage
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… ImageImageImageImage
Read 7 tweets
Sep 21, 2022
Reminder you can't use a nuke to win wars. Image
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… Image
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 Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(