3 ms·

> Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. Let's hope the die keep rolling up to that result with each succeeding variant!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
timr 5y ago
This is a perfect illustration of the point. In the face of ample documented evidence of the actual risk, your response is to speculate wildly about future events that are completely inconsistent with what we know.
- majormajor 5y ago
  The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. It's likely, yes, but why on earth would we want to just accept that? The flu, for instance, bounces around in severity and kills tens of thousands per year in the US. Few of those are kids, so what? If we're happy to let the virus continue to transmit in any populations, it'll change in various ways. One year a variant may pop up that'll be more harmful to those kids. At some other point a variant may pop up that'll be more elusive against adult immunity, etc. Over years, how many lives does that add up to? Why wouldn't we aggressively try to vaccinate as many people as possible before those things happen? Success wouldn't be guaranteed even if people weren't opposed to it for various spurious reasons but it would be nice if we believed we could accomplish hard things...
  - lordloki 5y ago
    Is it defeatism or just accepting reality? What are the chances that Covid19 is ever globally eradicated?
  - timr 5y ago
    > The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. Well first, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I made a very specific argument about how fear -- hysteria, really -- is driving our reaction to what is right to do for children. But second, it isn't "statistically foolish"...it's just a basic understanding of biology and our rather poor history of eradicating viral diseases. Statistics don't come into play here either way. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Covid can be eradicated, but you have to be delusional to think that this will be accomplished on any sort of timeline that is relevant to our lifetimes.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Since there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2, the virus will always be endemic regardless of what we do. That's not defeatism, just scientific reality.
- anyonecancode 5y ago
  First, I'll note that my initial comment was in the context of "when do we get on with our lives", which I took as a different question from "when _should_ we get on with our lives." What I think we _should_ do is not the same as what I think we _will_ do. Plenty of debate to be had around the "should" question of course, but it is a different question. That noted, and since I did engage in your comment on the risk to children, I am curious about your statement that my response is inconsistent with what we know. As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? I've seen plenty of theorizing, but I haven't seen any reporting indicating these are more than theories so far. If there's some reliable reporting on this topic I missed, I'd definitely be happy to see it!
  - timr 5y ago
    > As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? Well, everything is a theory, but the most plausible one I've seen is that ACE2 expression is age-dependent. Young kids don't have much of the receptor the virus needs.
- dude187 5y ago
  The response to controlling people and taking away their freedom in the name of COVID has been ran deliberately and openly run through fear mongering. It's no wonder people keep defaulting to that, but we must actively reject and counter fear mongering.
  - ericb 5y ago
    > run through fear mongering More than 4 million people have died so far. If you're going to say it was "fear mongering" then buzz off.
    - dude187 5y ago
      If you aren't aware of all the fear mongering, you're not paying attention.
      - ericb 5y ago
        "If it bleeds, it leads" has been true since news began. 4 million died, so COVID coverage has the most accurate fear-to-reality alignment the news has ever had.
- ericb 5y ago
  From delta, we clearly have evidence that on a short timeframe a version with _wildly_ enhanced transmissibility has evolved. So speculating that changes will continue is reasonable. Additionally, we know that leaky vaccines and continued spread may cause greater pathogenicity. > https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... So that's not wild speculation, it's a well-educated concern.
  - timr 5y ago
    > we clearly have evidence that on a short timeframe a version with _wildly_ enhanced transmissibility has evolved. So speculating that changes will continue is reasonable. So let's be clear: the claim is that the virus can mutate, therefore, any particular outcome is equally likely? If I speculate that the virus will mutate into a hemorrhagic fever, like marburg or ebola, is that reasonable? If I speculate that the virus will lose its pathogenicity, is that reasonable? (hint: all of our best data suggests that the IFR of the Delta strain is considerably lower than previous strains: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) There's obviously a limit to how much you can speculate about "continued change". At some point, it just becomes a scary story.
    - ericb 5y ago
      > the claim is that the virus can mutate, therefore, any particular outcome is equally likely? No. Did you actually read the study I linked? Outcomes that enhance transmissibility are always being selected for. Things like higher viral load in the vaccinated. That which spreads, spreads. All things being equal, pathogenicity is neutral and gets down-selected when the pathogenicity conflicts with the ability to spread. But with two different populations, the feedback loop that of down-selective pressure against spread limitations due to pathogenicity may be broken. If it spreads in one population which requires characteristics that make it lethal in the other population.
      - 5y ago
colordrops 5y ago
Could say the same about the flu, no? How do you think the flu got so deadly in 1918? Far more deadly than Covid by the way.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  It was actually the perverse effects on viral selection created by World War I. The relatively mild first wave turned into a deadly second wave because soldiers who became mildly ill stayed put in the trenches, while those who had severe cases were put on trains and sent to crowded field hospitals, where they spread the more lethal variants. If they simply suppress symptoms without reducing transmission, the current vaccines being administered may have a similar perverse evolutionary effect (although at least they're not actively selecting for worse strains).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

timr 5y ago

This is a perfect illustration of the point. In the face of ample documented evidence of the actual risk, your response is to speculate wildly about future events that are completely inconsistent with what we know.

majormajor 5y ago
The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. It's likely, yes, but why on earth would we want to just accept that? The flu, for instance, bounces around in severity and kills tens of thousands per year in the US. Few of those are kids, so what? If we're happy to let the virus continue to transmit in any populations, it'll change in various ways. One year a variant may pop up that'll be more harmful to those kids. At some other point a variant may pop up that'll be more elusive against adult immunity, etc. Over years, how many lives does that add up to? Why wouldn't we aggressively try to vaccinate as many people as possible before those things happen? Success wouldn't be guaranteed even if people weren't opposed to it for various spurious reasons but it would be nice if we believed we could accomplish hard things...
- lordloki 5y ago
  Is it defeatism or just accepting reality? What are the chances that Covid19 is ever globally eradicated?
- timr 5y ago
  > The "give up and let it be endemic forever" defeatism attitude appears very statistically foolish. Well first, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I made a very specific argument about how fear -- hysteria, really -- is driving our reaction to what is right to do for children. But second, it isn't "statistically foolish"...it's just a basic understanding of biology and our rather poor history of eradicating viral diseases. Statistics don't come into play here either way. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Covid can be eradicated, but you have to be delusional to think that this will be accomplished on any sort of timeline that is relevant to our lifetimes.
- nradov 5y ago
  Since there are animal reservoirs for SARS-CoV-2, the virus will always be endemic regardless of what we do. That's not defeatism, just scientific reality.
anyonecancode 5y ago
First, I'll note that my initial comment was in the context of "when do we get on with our lives", which I took as a different question from "when _should_ we get on with our lives." What I think we _should_ do is not the same as what I think we _will_ do. Plenty of debate to be had around the "should" question of course, but it is a different question. That noted, and since I did engage in your comment on the risk to children, I am curious about your statement that my response is inconsistent with what we know. As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? I've seen plenty of theorizing, but I haven't seen any reporting indicating these are more than theories so far. If there's some reliable reporting on this topic I missed, I'd definitely be happy to see it!
- timr 5y ago
  > As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? Well, everything is a theory, but the most plausible one I've seen is that ACE2 expression is age-dependent. Young kids don't have much of the receptor the virus needs.
dude187 5y ago
The response to controlling people and taking away their freedom in the name of COVID has been ran deliberately and openly run through fear mongering. It's no wonder people keep defaulting to that, but we must actively reject and counter fear mongering.
- ericb 5y ago
  > run through fear mongering More than 4 million people have died so far. If you're going to say it was "fear mongering" then buzz off.
  - dude187 5y ago
    If you aren't aware of all the fear mongering, you're not paying attention.
    - ericb 5y ago
      "If it bleeds, it leads" has been true since news began. 4 million died, so COVID coverage has the most accurate fear-to-reality alignment the news has ever had.
ericb 5y ago
From delta, we clearly have evidence that on a short timeframe a version with _wildly_ enhanced transmissibility has evolved. So speculating that changes will continue is reasonable. Additionally, we know that leaky vaccines and continued spread may cause greater pathogenicity. > https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou... So that's not wild speculation, it's a well-educated concern.
- timr 5y ago
  > we clearly have evidence that on a short timeframe a version with _wildly_ enhanced transmissibility has evolved. So speculating that changes will continue is reasonable. So let's be clear: the claim is that the virus can mutate, therefore, any particular outcome is equally likely? If I speculate that the virus will mutate into a hemorrhagic fever, like marburg or ebola, is that reasonable? If I speculate that the virus will lose its pathogenicity, is that reasonable? (hint: all of our best data suggests that the IFR of the Delta strain is considerably lower than previous strains: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) There's obviously a limit to how much you can speculate about "continued change". At some point, it just becomes a scary story.
  - ericb 5y ago
    > the claim is that the virus can mutate, therefore, any particular outcome is equally likely? No. Did you actually read the study I linked? Outcomes that enhance transmissibility are always being selected for. Things like higher viral load in the vaccinated. That which spreads, spreads. All things being equal, pathogenicity is neutral and gets down-selected when the pathogenicity conflicts with the ability to spread. But with two different populations, the feedback loop that of down-selective pressure against spread limitations due to pathogenicity may be broken. If it spreads in one population which requires characteristics that make it lethal in the other population.
    - 5y ago

colordrops 5y ago

Could say the same about the flu, no? How do you think the flu got so deadly in 1918? Far more deadly than Covid by the way.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
It was actually the perverse effects on viral selection created by World War I. The relatively mild first wave turned into a deadly second wave because soldiers who became mildly ill stayed put in the trenches, while those who had severe cases were put on trains and sent to crowded field hospitals, where they spread the more lethal variants. If they simply suppress symptoms without reducing transmission, the current vaccines being administered may have a similar perverse evolutionary effect (although at least they're not actively selecting for worse strains).