sgo said..
Oops. I must confess I didn't watch more than a minute of that video. Just seeing that it was Alan Jones on Sky was enough for me.
So the point l was making was more about the messenger than the message. A view l still keep.

More importantly, should a surf sup have two or only one leash plug installed?

Probs 2

FormulaNova said..
What did he actually say? I thought there was something about sunlight as well.

Either way, he was treated with proper drugs, by his doctor.

What am I, google?

What's that got to do with misreporting and misrepresenting what he said?

A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%

Or ebola. Not upper respiratory infections?

Well, in the case of Ebola I think its because it also lives in other species where it doesn't kill them and then people get infected from those animals where it is much more aggressive in humans. It doesn't linger in the human population so cannot mutate and evolve into less deadly forms.

Did Smallpox kill people quickly or allow them to pass on the virus well before death? If so, this could explain why it could be passed on despite having such a high mortality rate. It does show symptoms obviously, so it can't just linger in the population and evolve into less virulent forms.

My understanding is that if you have a virus that exists in a population it will be mutating all the time. If one of those mutations results in a variant that spreads much more quickly it will end up being the dominant strain as people pass it along before showing signs of infection. If it were fatal immediately or showing obvious signs of infection then it can be identified and controlled more quickly.

A variant that kills the host immediately is doomed, yet a variant that presents very few symptoms can be passed quickly and without being identified. If it killed the host days later after infection then it is too late and that virus could be very effective at spreading and deadly at the same time, so you can have a virus that spreads quickly and is very deadly.

I think the control of SARS was effective because the symptoms were able to be identified pretty quickly compared to its level of contagiousness.

I think the answer to my own question has come to me. It boils down to reproductive rates. If it only takes two children per woman to maintain population, then if you have three you can lose one to smallpox without it affecting the overall population level. And since women in underdeveloped countries and Europe a couple of centuries ago had as many children as they had sexual encounters, there were plenty of spare kids to go around to allow for the various causes of stock wastage.

Now this is interesting to me.
About the TTS death of a 43yo Tassie man.
A 1/50,000 chance, sure, I can accept that as pretty good science.
But the part where he says "this gentleman's age group". I'm from the same group, and I've been pushed emphatically from multiple sources to take any jab I can get as quick as I can get it, some might say with threats of discrimination for non participation.----

Tasmania's Director of Public Health Mark Veitch said the incidence of TTS after AstraZeneca was now estimated to be about 2 in 100,000.
"People in this gentleman's age group had been advised to weigh up the risks benefits [of the AstraZeneca vaccine] carefully for several months certainly before this vaccine was provided," he said

psychojoe said..
I don't know why my comments always post as quotes

are you hitting the reply or quote button?

If you are quoting someone else, you can edit out the surplus 'quote' entries in 'plain text mode'.

I had to sign a form once saying that if I contracted Ebola and died then I accepted that my body wouldn't be repatriated to Australia for burial.

I figured by then I wouldn't care so I signed away.

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
Well, in the case of Ebola I think its because it also lives in other species where it doesn't kill them and then people get infected from those animals where it is much more aggressive in humans. It doesn't linger in the human population so cannot mutate and evolve into less deadly forms.

Did Smallpox kill people quickly or allow them to pass on the virus well before death? If so, this could explain why it could be passed on despite having such a high mortality rate. It does show symptoms obviously, so it can't just linger in the population and evolve into less virulent forms.

My understanding is that if you have a virus that exists in a population it will be mutating all the time. If one of those mutations results in a variant that spreads much more quickly it will end up being the dominant strain as people pass it along before showing signs of infection. If it were fatal immediately or showing obvious signs of infection then it can be identified and controlled more quickly.

A variant that kills the host immediately is doomed, yet a variant that presents very few symptoms can be passed quickly and without being identified. If it killed the host days later after infection then it is too late and that virus could be very effective at spreading and deadly at the same time, so you can have a virus that spreads quickly and is very deadly.

I think the control of SARS was effective because the symptoms were able to be identified pretty quickly compared to its level of contagiousness.

Ebola has been detected in non-human animals but they're not considered natural hosts. It spreads by contact with bodily fluids and excretions, and in places where handling of dead bodies is tradition, it spreads rapidly. Doctors who study it -- for years -- use the right precautions and are perfectly fine.

I just Googled it, and it seems that it is expected that it has a natural reservoir host, its just that they don't know what it is. Apparently it dies off in apes and chimpanzees and other mammals, but they suspect fruit bats. Another article suggested that one outbreak was likely from a human host hosting the virus for 5 years or so, and then somehow spreading it.

From this, whichever way you want to see the source of the virus, its not 'floating around' the human population and mutating. Its either lying dormant in a human host, or existing in another species until it crosses over. Without that mutation amongst human hosts, its unlikely that it would mutate into a less aggressive virus.

TonyAbbott said..

It must be exciting to see a conspiracy everywhere.

azymuth said..
It must be exciting to see a conspiracy everywhere.

Yeah, except all the new lockdowns, laws and restrictions really dull the excitement.

FormulaNova said..
Yes, this was in answer to why Ebola has not evolved to be less deadly.

No, that wasn't an answer to that question

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
Yes, this was in answer to why Ebola has not evolved to be less deadly.

No, that wasn't an answer to that question

Your smiley face does nothing to address your logic. Is it because you don't want to work out the answer or something else?

What was the bit that was hard to get? Ebola does not exist in humans without killing them quite fast (usually). Hence there is no opportunity for it to mutate in humans to become a variant that is less deadly.

You have already said that Ebola in other animals are not the normal hosts. It appears that scientists disagree with you and think that there is a natural host out there, even though they are unsure of what it is. If this were not true, where would Ebola come from if it kills the human hosts quickly?

Kamikuza said..

We were talking about "susceptibility" if I remember correctly...
www.oie.int/en/disease/ebola-virus-disease/

That's not the right question: the implication is the origin of a contagious disease determines the lethality. If bats *are* the natural hosts, they're also the hosts of such things as ... coronaviruses ... which are a lot less deadly.

I was talking about the ability for viruses to evolve to be less deadly to their host, which I had presumed you were replying to.

If you were talking about susceptibility, I missed it entirely.

Kamikuza said..

Mr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%

Or ebola. Not upper respiratory infections?

Macroscien said..
Yep, I get AZ two days ago, and I am stil alive...
To be fair didn't sleep whole night, had terrible fever and headache...
but not I am fine nowdoc said that to clot may get me in few days or not at all, and there is none of the wind to enjoy

Hopefully you are all good now.

One of the sadder things is when you read stories about people that refused it and then ended up dying. There was a story from some GP in the USA that said that at the end dying patients ask to be given the vaccine, not understanding that its too late and that's not how vaccines work'. Pretty sad stuff if you are unfortunate enough to be affected.

As someone else here asked, I wonder if the reactions by some people are indicative of the way they would have reacted to Covid had they gotten it? Of course there is no way to know.