5 ms·

> All viruses get less lethal as time goes on, not stronger, This isn't true. Given certain assumptions, it's true on average, but those assumptions don't appl

> All viruses get less lethal as time goes on, not stronger, This isn't true. Given certain assumptions, it's true on average, but those assumptions don't apply in this case.

infamouscow 5y ago
It's not an assumption, it's obvious to anyone that looks at data rather than of blindly listening to sensationalized media bullshit.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  No, it comes from this model: Highly-deadly diseases will kill their hosts quickly, limiting their spread. Therefore, one of two things will happen: • A less-deadly variant will emerge, spread faster, and outcompete its more deadly cousin. • The deadly disease will kill enough of the population that its R number drops below 1, and thus the deadly disease will die out. Therefore, observed diseases will tend to get less deadly over time. --- If you look at the data, we're firmly in “kill enough of the population” town (to the extent you can stretch this model to our situation). The variants we're seeing spread are getting more virulent over time, not less, because: • we don't want to die and we're doing stuff about that, meaning any model with “most individuals infected are removed from the model” in it is a flawed model; and • we have fast long-distance travel, so any population model that relies on Euclidean locality is a flawed model.
  - infamouscow 5y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with you (yet), but thanks for providing info rather than downvoting!
- dddddddan 5y ago
  You haven't cited any data.
  - infamouscow 5y ago
    > Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated > Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
eitland 5y ago
Agree. For a specific example the Spanish Flu hit harder later on.

> All viruses get less lethal as time goes on, not stronger, This isn't true. Given certain assumptions, it's true on average, but those assumptions don't apply in this case.

infamouscow 5y ago

It's not an assumption, it's obvious to anyone that looks at data rather than of blindly listening to sensationalized media bullshit.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
No, it comes from this model: Highly-deadly diseases will kill their hosts quickly, limiting their spread. Therefore, one of two things will happen: • A less-deadly variant will emerge, spread faster, and outcompete its more deadly cousin. • The deadly disease will kill enough of the population that its R number drops below 1, and thus the deadly disease will die out. Therefore, observed diseases will tend to get less deadly over time. --- If you look at the data, we're firmly in “kill enough of the population” town (to the extent you can stretch this model to our situation). The variants we're seeing spread are getting more virulent over time, not less, because: • we don't want to die and we're doing stuff about that, meaning any model with “most individuals infected are removed from the model” in it is a flawed model; and • we have fast long-distance travel, so any population model that relies on Euclidean locality is a flawed model.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with you (yet), but thanks for providing info rather than downvoting!
dddddddan 5y ago
You haven't cited any data.
- infamouscow 5y ago
  > Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated > Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

eitland 5y ago

Agree. For a specific example the Spanish Flu hit harder later on.