5 ms·

this is an amoeba virus. most viruses do not harm humans. harming or killing your host is generally a bad evolutionary strategy so viruses that do this are rela

this is an amoeba virus. most viruses do not harm humans. harming or killing your host is generally a bad evolutionary strategy so viruses that do this are relatively rare enough that unless a piece of writing explicitly identifies specific harm to humans, you can assume it most likely isn’t harmful and never will be.

monadic2 7y ago
> this is an amoeba virus. most viruses do not harm humans. harming or killing your host is generally a bad evolutionary strategy so viruses that do this are relatively rare enough that unless a piece of writing explicitly identifies specific harm to humans, you can assume it most likely isn’t harmful and never will be. Can you say this virus is not harmful to humans?
- hdiriekei 7y ago
  Amoeba is almost as far away from humans as you can get. It's like a Z80 Spectrum virus infecting a Windows computer.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    I hadn't realized before that the virus analogy carried that far. That's pretty cool.
    - monadic2 7y ago
      Don't be carried away by their rhetoric.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      Viruses by definition can’t replicate without a host’s help so the software/operating system analogy is very apt.
  - pazimzadeh 7y ago
    Well, macrophages are a lot like amoeba. And we already know that diseases that can infect amoeba sometimes infect macrophages. From amoeba to macrophages: exploring the molecular mechanisms of Legionella pneumophila infection in both hosts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949285 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949285 Ancient bacteria–amoeba relationships and pathogenic animal bacteria https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002460 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
  - monadic2 7y ago
    So—no, you can't say that it is non-infectious to humans.
    - ZenPsycho 7y ago
      and you can't say there isn't an invisible pink unicorn standing next to me.
      - monadic2 7y ago
        Sure, but you can say so with near certainty.
        ZenPsycho 7y ago
        and I can also say with the exact same near certainty this virus isn't dangerous to humans. You can prove me wrong by showing only one human getting sick from the virus. However, there's no way to prove it is not dangerous to any humans. there's no possible proof for that, same as there's no possible proof that there's no invisible pink unicorn. I can say nobody has gotten sick from this virus, so far, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of one of the 7 billion humans on the planet possibly having a weirdly specific allergy to this particular virus, nor that it isn't possible for a human to be born with a mutation that makes them vulnerable to this virus. Goal posts can always shift further and further away. and same as the pink unicorn, I don't need to take the concern seriously. Both are unfalsifiable claims. in the strictest logical sense, they're not false. but there's no way to prove they are false either, so worrying about a potentially dangerous virus is just as reasonable as worrying about dangerous invisible pink unicorns, menacing orbital teapots, flying spaghetti monsters or the vengeful diety of your choice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if we ran in a panic at every unfalsifiable claim, nobody would ever leave their beds.
        monadic2 7y ago
        Sure, I am aware of the lack of existence of no black swan proofs, I am simply pointing out the outbreak coverage seems more comparable to say the ebola outbreak than coverage the virality and fatality should imply, ie that of a seasonal flu.
- clucas 7y ago
  I don't think the parent commenter should have the burden of proof here...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ZenPsycho 7y ago
  You can't prove a negative. But since taking a basic biology class in highschool 25 years ago, I haven't heard of any radical new discoveries in virology that would indicate viruses becoming more harmful than 99.9% benign. Highschool biology is definitely not the end all be all. If you find anything, it might make a cool thing to post on hacker news.

monadic2 7y ago

> this is an amoeba virus. most viruses do not harm humans. harming or killing your host is generally a bad evolutionary strategy so viruses that do this are relatively rare enough that unless a piece of writing explicitly identifies specific harm to humans, you can assume it most likely isn’t harmful and never will be. Can you say this virus is not harmful to humans?

hdiriekei 7y ago
Amoeba is almost as far away from humans as you can get. It's like a Z80 Spectrum virus infecting a Windows computer.
- jolmg 7y ago
  I hadn't realized before that the virus analogy carried that far. That's pretty cool.
  - monadic2 7y ago
    Don't be carried away by their rhetoric.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Viruses by definition can’t replicate without a host’s help so the software/operating system analogy is very apt.
- pazimzadeh 7y ago
  Well, macrophages are a lot like amoeba. And we already know that diseases that can infect amoeba sometimes infect macrophages. From amoeba to macrophages: exploring the molecular mechanisms of Legionella pneumophila infection in both hosts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949285 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23949285 Ancient bacteria–amoeba relationships and pathogenic animal bacteria https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002460 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- monadic2 7y ago
  So—no, you can't say that it is non-infectious to humans.
  - ZenPsycho 7y ago
    and you can't say there isn't an invisible pink unicorn standing next to me.
    - monadic2 7y ago
      Sure, but you can say so with near certainty.
      - ZenPsycho 7y ago
        and I can also say with the exact same near certainty this virus isn't dangerous to humans. You can prove me wrong by showing only one human getting sick from the virus. However, there's no way to prove it is not dangerous to any humans. there's no possible proof for that, same as there's no possible proof that there's no invisible pink unicorn. I can say nobody has gotten sick from this virus, so far, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of one of the 7 billion humans on the planet possibly having a weirdly specific allergy to this particular virus, nor that it isn't possible for a human to be born with a mutation that makes them vulnerable to this virus. Goal posts can always shift further and further away. and same as the pink unicorn, I don't need to take the concern seriously. Both are unfalsifiable claims. in the strictest logical sense, they're not false. but there's no way to prove they are false either, so worrying about a potentially dangerous virus is just as reasonable as worrying about dangerous invisible pink unicorns, menacing orbital teapots, flying spaghetti monsters or the vengeful diety of your choice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if we ran in a panic at every unfalsifiable claim, nobody would ever leave their beds.
        monadic2 7y ago
        Sure, I am aware of the lack of existence of no black swan proofs, I am simply pointing out the outbreak coverage seems more comparable to say the ebola outbreak than coverage the virality and fatality should imply, ie that of a seasonal flu.
clucas 7y ago
I don't think the parent commenter should have the burden of proof here...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ZenPsycho 7y ago
You can't prove a negative. But since taking a basic biology class in highschool 25 years ago, I haven't heard of any radical new discoveries in virology that would indicate viruses becoming more harmful than 99.9% benign. Highschool biology is definitely not the end all be all. If you find anything, it might make a cool thing to post on hacker news.