Firstly, we're already at the stage where covid is accepted as endemic. Most countries don't measure it unusually heavily anymore, and it has already been placed in the same sort of level of influenza: but bear in mind that influenza is a well monitored illness. The bottom line is that if covid takes a human and economic toll similar to influenza, it will have about the same prominence in media and national consciousness. So like influenza, we'll get occasional headlines and warnings about a likely surge, and so on.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
So... given that Covid-19 mutates more quickly, is just as transmissible and has a greater death toll over the time period of its existence, what exactly is leading you to conclude it will just fade to irrelevance in a way that influenza didn't?
And an annual vaccine for boosting immunity against the (predicted to be) most prevalent strains.
Every other coronavirus. I mean, half of what you said is wrong, but there's no need to nitpick when the answer to your question remains the same.
Maybe, but I'm not betting on that. Historically, pandemics frequently have 3-year cycles to them. We are at the tail end of that, exiting pandemic times. It would be a surprising thing if going forward covid-19 became unique among its family of viruses to cause flu-like population scale issues in perpetuity.
What exactly did I say that was wrong, there? Significantly variable strains and variants do arise at a faster rate, so that's not wrong. The death toll over the period is higher for covid than influenza, so that's not wrong either. And the speed of global transmission also clearly outpaced influenza, so that's not wrong either.
As to your response: every other coronavirus did not result in a global pandemic. I don't know whether you've noticed, but this one has caused one or two more problems than your average coronavirus.
The death toll over the period is higher, unquestionably true. 1 point in your favor.
New strains arise at a faster rate, unquestionably false. 1 point against.
The speed of transmission outpaced influenza? Depends on which influenza you're talking about and when. Half marks.
Half of what you said is true.
That's what you think. 4 of the 7 specific coronaviruses that infect humans predate our ability to identify specific viruses. The were endemic already, they had crossed the globe sometime back in history. When and how they spread are things we can't ever truly know for certain, because there are inherent limitations studying history, but pandemics are the most obvious thing. For one of them, there is increasing evidence that the pandemic of 1889-1890, one of the deadliest pandemics in human history and long believed to be caused by influenza, was actually caused by the coronavirus OC43, which is considered a common cold in the present.
Hmmm... yeah, you're technically correct, in a rather insubstantial way.
So Covid mutates at a lower rate. But the transmission rate and proofreading mechanism result in more significant variants over the same time period in comparison with influenza, which is rather more to the point I was trying to make.
I'm very obviously talking about the strains that are currently around, and the ones to which we've developed endemic health responses to over the past several decades. Influenza hasn't matched covid-19 in over a century, and then during a multi-continental war.
In other words: what you have is speculation.
Restrict yourself to what is known, and you have a global pandemic on an inordinately greater scale than anything previously attributed to a coronavirus.
Oh, please.
If you're seriously going to argue that we should be considering complete speculation about past viruses on the same level as established medical history, you're simply not being serious.
The things you don't know infinitely outnumber the things that you do, especially when discussing past events. You are advocating for deliberate blindness.
Katie Porter for Senate | Official Campaign Website
California needs a warrior in Washington, and when it comes to protecting California families, Katie doesn’t back down.
katieporter.com
Katie Porter is an interesting person. She grills corrupt executives and likely drops the stock prices of large companies. Now, what is the problem? Congress is a corrupt institution and the senate blocks everything, and while I admire her for wanting to go into the senate, she will be 1 of 100. And many people in the senate are sociopaths who will like Manchin state one thing to the press, and then behind closed doors will state I am willing for this entire bill to die. How do you fight that? I don't know. If Bernie Sanders and Warren can't do it how will she do it?
Good lord, you really are.
You're really going to sit here and argue that because we can't know for 100% sure, therefore we should consider complete speculation on the same level as established medical history.
It's hardly complete speculation.
A pandemic happened in 1890 that followed exactly the pattern of 2020: it was highly contagious, was highly dangerous to the elderly but not children, was reported to cause loss of taste and smell among other similar symptoms to covid-19, and was seen to infect other mammals. It happened at exactly the time scientists estimate a common human coronavirus split off of a cow specific coronavirus, at a time in history when mass cow transportation and slaughter was expanding rapidly.
On the other hand, the reason to believe that pandemic was the flu is "we just sort of guessed that every unidentified historical respiratory pandemic was the flu".
Coolsies, there's some supporting evidence. I'm glad we've dropped the absolutely ludicrous solipsism angle.
So: now we have a possible, though not well established, second data point. And you're happy for that to be the basis on which we just assume the current pandemic-- the only actual established data point-- will definitely just fade into irrelevance, and for us to all act as if it will.
The inclination towards complacency and deliberate disregard of caution is incredible sometimes. I wonder how we ever got into this situation!
I mean, this is Tstorm's whole MO- "you can't convince me that I'm wrong, so you have to admit that I'm probably right."
Pro tip. If the colors of my words turn blue, that is a link you can click for more information. I had a source the first time.
Yes, mostly because acting as if it will requires absolutely no change in your actions. Knowing that historically pandemics fall off after a few years and coronaviruses become regular colds can give you hope for the future without changing any of what you're doing now.
Supporting evidence, as in more than one source, from a different group of scientists. I personally dont care as this is just meant to give an esimation and is not intentnded to be completely accurate
Like, I've seen this connection before. I would say they are similar pandemic but not the exactly the same. Nor do I think our response can't be different as our capabilities are different.
I never thought I'd quote Phoenixmgs but - we have maybe been too cavalier with letting 70K Americans die to the seasonal flu. I don't think we can move it to 0, but I think we could reduce it (preferably without masks. And yes, I know I'm bringing this point up for a totally different context that Phoeningmgs intends).
Anyway, yes MERS and the last Avian flu did fall off. I would note that actual quarantines were enforced to help reduce the potential for mutation. Just like most other pandemics in history. We've been deliberately giving Covid to as many people as possible and it's probably going to keep mutating but this is all speculation[/QUOTE]
Yep, i noticed. Neither time did it make that angle any more relevant.
Changing none of your actions in the face of overwhelmingly different circumstances is an example of extreme complacency and lack of caution.
