6 ms·

Because malaria has been killing people consistently for thousands of years? You can easily add Tuberculosis to the makes-covid-look-like-sniffles list as well

by reddog 5y ago

Because malaria has been killing people consistently for thousands of years? You can easily add Tuberculosis to the makes-covid-look-like-sniffles list as well. Over the last 200 years 1 billion people have died of TB. https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a https://www.nature.com/articles/502S2a

eloff 5y ago
Yes. Add HIV to that list as well. Polio, which is almost gone now. It's a long list.
throwaway5752 5y ago
It's incorrect to say it looks like sniffles in comparison. This is basically severity / priority in software. If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. You compare things over relevant intervals. There are far more influenza deaths over the last 3 decades than ebola, but ebola is far more severe and greater concern.
- jefftk 5y ago
  > If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. This is different from malaria, which is much more deadly.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Yes. Also evolution tends to favor making diseases better adapted to their hosts and note virulent, but less deadly. We have a number of Coronaviruses endemic to humans that cause the common cold (among other viruses.) That's probably how covid19 would turn out, left to its own devices.
    - estaseuropano 5y ago
      That's not correct. The virus doesn't care whether you die or heal. It cares how long you are contagious, so generally the time until death after infection tends to stretch, not general deadliness.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    That's a pretty fair amount of speculation about the future evolution of sars-covid-19, but you might be right. I hope you are. To be direct with you - I disliked the framing altogether, neither of them are sniffles, and it's unhelpful and barely meaningful to compare an acute respiratory transmitted virus with a mosquito borne parasite over such wildly different timeframes. This is wonderful news about the vaccine for the terrible disease malaria. Covid is also a terrible disease.
  - amalcon 5y ago
    It is as yet unclear how long effective immunity lasts after catching the disease, but pessimistic estimates put it at less than six months. While the pessimistic estimates are likely wrong (hence the term "pessimistic"), there certainly isn't confidence in the sort of lifelong immunity that one gets to some other contagions. Part of what's so exciting about the vaccines is that the antibodies seem to decay at a slower rate, meaning that it could result in longer immunity (though we obviously don't know for sure yet).
    - jefftk 5y ago
      > pessimistic estimates put it at less than six months If that were the case we would see large amounts of re-infection, since the pandemic started over a year ago
  - Someone 5y ago
    I think the most likely outcome is that it will become like the flu: not that deadly in Western society, but mutating too rapidly for protection to last long, and still killing many elderly and people with chronic health conditions each year (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza, Influenza kills over half a million people each year) (Both are RNA viruses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthornavirae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthornavirae)
  - soperj 5y ago
    >I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. Then why hasn't that happened with malaria?
    - jefftk 5y ago
      Malaria is a very different sort of disease? Among other things, covid is something that (a) doesn't seem to badly affect children and (b) seems to give some kind of immunity. Malaria does not have (a).
      - warrenm 5y ago
        Malaria also doesn't [seem] to have (b) Getting malaria doesn't inherently make you less likely to get it again (if anything, it's the other way around)
soperj 5y ago
So somehow it being around longer makes the more lethal disease the sniffles? That doesn't make sense.

by reddog 5y ago

eloff 5y ago

Yes. Add HIV to that list as well. Polio, which is almost gone now. It's a long list.

throwaway5752 5y ago

It's incorrect to say it looks like sniffles in comparison. This is basically severity / priority in software. If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. You compare things over relevant intervals. There are far more influenza deaths over the last 3 decades than ebola, but ebola is far more severe and greater concern.

jefftk 5y ago
> If we left sars-covid-19 without mitigation for a century, it would catch up rapidly. I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. This is different from malaria, which is much more deadly.
- eloff 5y ago
  Yes. Also evolution tends to favor making diseases better adapted to their hosts and note virulent, but less deadly. We have a number of Coronaviruses endemic to humans that cause the common cold (among other viruses.) That's probably how covid19 would turn out, left to its own devices.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    That's not correct. The virus doesn't care whether you die or heal. It cares how long you are contagious, so generally the time until death after infection tends to stretch, not general deadliness.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  That's a pretty fair amount of speculation about the future evolution of sars-covid-19, but you might be right. I hope you are. To be direct with you - I disliked the framing altogether, neither of them are sniffles, and it's unhelpful and barely meaningful to compare an acute respiratory transmitted virus with a mosquito borne parasite over such wildly different timeframes. This is wonderful news about the vaccine for the terrible disease malaria. Covid is also a terrible disease.
- amalcon 5y ago
  It is as yet unclear how long effective immunity lasts after catching the disease, but pessimistic estimates put it at less than six months. While the pessimistic estimates are likely wrong (hence the term "pessimistic"), there certainly isn't confidence in the sort of lifelong immunity that one gets to some other contagions. Part of what's so exciting about the vaccines is that the antibodies seem to decay at a slower rate, meaning that it could result in longer immunity (though we obviously don't know for sure yet).
  - jefftk 5y ago
    > pessimistic estimates put it at less than six months If that were the case we would see large amounts of re-infection, since the pandemic started over a year ago
- Someone 5y ago
  I think the most likely outcome is that it will become like the flu: not that deadly in Western society, but mutating too rapidly for protection to last long, and still killing many elderly and people with chronic health conditions each year (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza, Influenza kills over half a million people each year) (Both are RNA viruses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthornavirae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthornavirae)
- soperj 5y ago
  >I think that's probably wrong? The most likely outcome would be that after the initial pandemic subsided (with lots of deaths), most people would catch it when they were reasonably young and then be mostly protected. Then why hasn't that happened with malaria?
  - jefftk 5y ago
    Malaria is a very different sort of disease? Among other things, covid is something that (a) doesn't seem to badly affect children and (b) seems to give some kind of immunity. Malaria does not have (a).
    - warrenm 5y ago
      Malaria also doesn't [seem] to have (b) Getting malaria doesn't inherently make you less likely to get it again (if anything, it's the other way around)

soperj 5y ago

So somehow it being around longer makes the more lethal disease the sniffles? That doesn't make sense.