Covid spreading
Moderator: Moderators
- Rose2020
- Scholar
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:54 am
- Has thanked: 36 times
- Been thanked: 57 times
Covid spreading
Post #1Are they happy now, all those who complained so vociferously against restrictions? They have their wish. This is what happens. Everyone I know is sick with it, along with every other virus going round. Here are the fruits of personal freedom.
Re: Covid spreading
Post #21. Coronavirus (CoV)
The virus that causes Covid-19, dubbed SARS-CoV-2, belongs to the coronaviridae family. Its genome contains positive sense RNA about 30kb long and its genetic material consists of two major open reading frames (ORFs): ORF 1a/b encoding polyproteins pp1a and pp1ab, and ORF 2 encoding protein components of viral replication complexes. These viruses are enveloped, have an icosahedral capsid, and bud from the endoplasmic reticulum into the Golgi apparatus. The spike glycoprotein (S), membrane glycoproteins, and nucleocapsid protein (N) form the three-dimensional structure of the virion.
2. Transmission
Transmission occurs through close contact between infected people and animals, mainly via respiratory droplets produced when an infectious person coughs or sneezes. Airborne transmission can occur if the right conditions exist; however, this has not been proven at this time. Infections may be asymptomatic and spread unknowingly, but they usually produce mild symptoms like fever, coughing, and shortness of breath. Symptoms generally appear from two days to 14 days after exposure, and include flu-like symptoms including dry cough, headache, muscle aches, and malaise. In some cases, severe complications occur causing pneumonia, organ failure, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and even death.
The virus that causes Covid-19, dubbed SARS-CoV-2, belongs to the coronaviridae family. Its genome contains positive sense RNA about 30kb long and its genetic material consists of two major open reading frames (ORFs): ORF 1a/b encoding polyproteins pp1a and pp1ab, and ORF 2 encoding protein components of viral replication complexes. These viruses are enveloped, have an icosahedral capsid, and bud from the endoplasmic reticulum into the Golgi apparatus. The spike glycoprotein (S), membrane glycoproteins, and nucleocapsid protein (N) form the three-dimensional structure of the virion.
2. Transmission
Transmission occurs through close contact between infected people and animals, mainly via respiratory droplets produced when an infectious person coughs or sneezes. Airborne transmission can occur if the right conditions exist; however, this has not been proven at this time. Infections may be asymptomatic and spread unknowingly, but they usually produce mild symptoms like fever, coughing, and shortness of breath. Symptoms generally appear from two days to 14 days after exposure, and include flu-like symptoms including dry cough, headache, muscle aches, and malaise. In some cases, severe complications occur causing pneumonia, organ failure, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and even death.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #3I'd estimate most are still very happy. I know people who got it and still denied it was real and or as contagious as they were told. For some of those people, only death will eliminate their 'happiness'.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #4We can either let the weak and vulnerable die, or accept that eventually we'll all live in sanitary bubbles.
Neither of these options is a good one but it's the choice we have, because some people will die of the flu too, usually the old. If we lock down for one million why not for ten thousand? Is there some magic number of people who have to be at risk of dying if we don't?
Neither of these options is a good one but it's the choice we have, because some people will die of the flu too, usually the old. If we lock down for one million why not for ten thousand? Is there some magic number of people who have to be at risk of dying if we don't?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #5There is one little thing that you are not taking into account. This is the idea of 'vaccine'. People have the option of getting vaccinated, and the more people who get vaccinated, particularly among the older and vulnerable, the less likely that the cause of their deaths will be covid (unless they have severely compromised immune systems anyway).Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 8:29 pm We can either let the weak and vulnerable die, or accept that eventually we'll all live in sanitary bubbles.
Neither of these options is a good one but it's the choice we have, because some people will die of the flu too, usually the old. If we lock down for one million why not for ten thousand? Is there some magic number of people who have to be at risk of dying if we don't?
When it comes to the people who are dying of covid these days, the unvaccinated are much more likely to die of covid than the vaccinated.
In Texas for example (as of the may data), the unvaccinated at 8 times more likely to test positive for covid, and 25 times more likely to die of covid, over all age groups.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/cov ... on-status/
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #6Those with compromised immune systems are a big part of the cat the lockdowns let out of the bag: The idea of locking down to protect some at the expense of massively inconveniencing others is now on the table.Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:51 am There is one little thing that you are not taking into account. This is the idea of 'vaccine'. People have the option of getting vaccinated, and the more people who get vaccinated, particularly among the older and vulnerable, the less likely that the cause of their deaths will be covid (unless they have severely compromised immune systems anyway).
The idea that lives > livelihoods is something most people would agree is sound, buuuuut....
When do we do it? Always? Why not for the flu then? Why not for AIDS? You lock down for a full generation and AIDS is gone, and you wouldn't even have to do a full lockdown. It's not airborne. If a population is to accept massive inconvenience to avoid some deaths, I think we should be doing something about AIDS first and foremost.
Only for some and not for others? Only when the deaths are high enough? Well then I think I'm in the right to demand to know how many, demand to know the threshold, and demand an explanation satisfying to me of how that figure is arrived at. If not I'm going to be forced to side with the conservatives who suspect the whole thing may be political in nature, and admit that at least, they have every reason to have that suspicion.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #7No, that is incorrect. The idea of the lockdowns was to 'flatten the curve' so that the health systems does not get overloaded at any one time. It hit NYC before a lot was known about theraputics, and how contagious it was , and about the various methods it was transmitted. As a result we had an overload of people in the hospital, and an excessive deaths because of that. There was information about 'flattening the curve' way back in april/may of 2020. Too bad the US didn't see the lessons learned about the excessive deaths in Italy before, and honestly, things were out of control in NY because it got hit early, and there is a huge population density in that area. However, other places that got hit later should have known better, but 'freedom' was more important than people's lives and it was politicizedPurple Knight wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:11 pmThose with compromised immune systems are a big part of the cat the lockdowns let out of the bag: The idea of locking down to protect some at the expense of massively inconveniencing others is now on the table.Goat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:51 am There is one little thing that you are not taking into account. This is the idea of 'vaccine'. People have the option of getting vaccinated, and the more people who get vaccinated, particularly among the older and vulnerable, the less likely that the cause of their deaths will be covid (unless they have severely compromised immune systems anyway).
The idea that lives > livelihoods is something most people would agree is sound, buuuuut....
When do we do it? Always? Why not for the flu then? Why not for AIDS? You lock down for a full generation and AIDS is gone, and you wouldn't even have to do a full lockdown. It's not airborne. If a population is to accept massive inconvenience to avoid some deaths, I think we should be doing something about AIDS first and foremost.
Only for some and not for others? Only when the deaths are high enough? Well then I think I'm in the right to demand to know how many, demand to know the threshold, and demand an explanation satisfying to me of how that figure is arrived at. If not I'm going to be forced to side with the conservatives who suspect the whole thing may be political in nature, and admit that at least, they have every reason to have that suspicion.
Then , after that, there was the conspirasy theories from the anti-vaxxers, and people did not learn the lessons.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #8That still serves the purpose of fewer deaths and ultimately to trade livelihoods for lives. Whether they would be lost because they'd die of covid with or without care, or whether the lives would be lost because the hospitals were packed and they couldn't get care, is not of consequence to the fundamental question which is when exactly we may trade livelihoods for lives and when exactly we may not. If it's just, when the hospitals will probably overflow, I don't find that satisfactory.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #9Well, We saw what happened in NYC , and Italy when the hospitals overflowed. The refusal to take the proper precautions, after good protocols to avoid that were put into place else where down in El Paso Texas. You might not find it satifisfying , but the flattening the curve saved 10's of thousands of lives, if not morePurple Knight wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:53 pmThat still serves the purpose of fewer deaths and ultimately to trade livelihoods for lives. Whether they would be lost because they'd die of covid with or without care, or whether the lives would be lost because the hospitals were packed and they couldn't get care, is not of consequence to the fundamental question which is when exactly we may trade livelihoods for lives and when exactly we may not. If it's just, when the hospitals will probably overflow, I don't find that satisfactory.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Covid spreading
Post #10I'll find it satisfying when I know beforehand what the rules are for when we trade livelihoods for lives and when we don't. If it's ten thousand then fine. The problem is, I don't know that. No one does.
Something like 80 million people have died of AIDS and nobody even whispers of restrictions.