4 ms·

Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Even if it turns up to actually be true, the fact that so many people want it to be true is an excellent re

Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Even if it turns up to actually be true, the fact that so many people want it to be true is an excellent reason to be cautious in how you look at things here, because that is causing a lot of people to say things that haven’t been proven to be true. The evidence so far looks like cause to be cautiously optimistic, but when the people giving out that evidence say “it’s too soon to be sure”, then pay attention. It’s too soon to be sure.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
According to what I heard through the Covid update of work. Omicron settles more in the nose and not as much in the long ( their source was a doctor). Although it's too early to be sure, it would explain both an increased transmissibility and a milder variant.
- megablast 5y ago
  You understand that what you said is pure nonsense right?
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Based on? The second part seems logical tbh and the first part actually did happen ( 1200 employees and a decent company, so I doubt their would be lies. We're no better.com ). Also, it is similar enough to what i heard before from a conference about covid previous year.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      COVID update from work is actually a weekly online meeting that started because of COVID. I forgot by now that it would sound weird for an outsider. Everything is discussed what's happening in and out of the company ( supply chain shortage, COVID variants, cyber security,...) There's a q&a if someone has questions/concerns. It's actually a worldwide and European meeting ( so 2 times/ week for me actually) and it's a pretty good alternative for keeping company culture and bringing it somewhat online. Yes, it's not required if you don't want to attend :)
  - spurgu 5y ago
    Why is it nonsense? He meant "lung", not "long" btw.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      Aaah. Okay, that could explain it :p Thanks!
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    And... Research from just today confirmed that it's more in the nose and less in the lung. Which is exactly what i mentioned. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/omicron-infects-70-times-faster-but-is-less-severe-study-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/omicron-i... ...
galangalalgol 5y ago
Don't all viruses become more mild over time? Even Ebola gets much less lethal towards the end of an outbreak as it evolves to preserve its habitat. Small pox is a possible counter ecample it seems like it was pretty lethal for millennia.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  There's no guarantee a virus gets more lethal. Viruses select for survival and less lethality is _one_ strategy (though a fairly good one).
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    In the context of a pandemic there's also the relative fitness (strain vs strain) optimization. So a more lethal virus during a pandemic must also be more transmissible, as it's actively competing for the same susceptible hosts with other circulating strains. If another strain gets there first, chances are it's going to prime that host's immune system sufficiently to prevent reinfection. Which means it needs not just more lethal mutations, but also more transmissible ones. The probability of all of those coinciding seems low, as the former are more likely to arise in immunocompromised hosts, and the latter in circulation among dense populations, no?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Even Ebola gets much less lethal towards the end of an outbreak as it evolves to preserve its habitat. No, it doesn't. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-posts/viruses-and-other-pathogens-can-evolve-become-more/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-p... > The claim makes a broad generalization about pathogens that’s not supported by science. It has been well-documented that pathogens can evolve to be more virulent. And many viruses, including HIV and Ebola, have in fact become more lethal over time. As you note, smallpox disproves the idea that viruses automatically become mild. It had thousands of years to do so and carried a 30% mortality rate still.
- iso1631 5y ago
  No, they tend to become more spreadable, but there's no reason they couldn't become even more harmful as they evolve, rather than less. The strains that will win out are those that do less immediate harm (thus become more spreadable as people don't stay in bed ill), but that doesn't mean after a week or two they couldn't get really harmful (we saw in the first wave that covid was generally a week of nothing, a week of symptoms at home, a week in hospital, a week in intensive care, and then into the grave, with a certain chance of recovering each week. Imagine a mutation which reduced that recovering chance, that would cause more death, but not affect the spreading in the first week)
timr 5y ago
> Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Indeed. And wanting something to be false does not make it false. People on both sides of this debate are far too eager to run with their preferred opinion and accuse anyone who disagrees of "misinformation". "I don't like this paper, and I see arguments against it, therefore it is dangerous and wrong." It's petty behavior.
choeger 5y ago
The thing is that even the pessimistic explanation of the data (high immunity due to prior infection) should give everyone (except maybe some countries) hope. After all, most industrialized countries should have a double digit percentage of prior infection by now.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

According to what I heard through the Covid update of work. Omicron settles more in the nose and not as much in the long ( their source was a doctor). Although it's too early to be sure, it would explain both an increased transmissibility and a milder variant.

megablast 5y ago
You understand that what you said is pure nonsense right?
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Based on? The second part seems logical tbh and the first part actually did happen ( 1200 employees and a decent company, so I doubt their would be lies. We're no better.com ). Also, it is similar enough to what i heard before from a conference about covid previous year.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    COVID update from work is actually a weekly online meeting that started because of COVID. I forgot by now that it would sound weird for an outsider. Everything is discussed what's happening in and out of the company ( supply chain shortage, COVID variants, cyber security,...) There's a q&a if someone has questions/concerns. It's actually a worldwide and European meeting ( so 2 times/ week for me actually) and it's a pretty good alternative for keeping company culture and bringing it somewhat online. Yes, it's not required if you don't want to attend :)
- spurgu 5y ago
  Why is it nonsense? He meant "lung", not "long" btw.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Aaah. Okay, that could explain it :p Thanks!
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  And... Research from just today confirmed that it's more in the nose and less in the lung. Which is exactly what i mentioned. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/omicron-infects-70-times-faster-but-is-less-severe-study-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-15/omicron-i... ...

galangalalgol 5y ago

Don't all viruses become more mild over time? Even Ebola gets much less lethal towards the end of an outbreak as it evolves to preserve its habitat. Small pox is a possible counter ecample it seems like it was pretty lethal for millennia.

mmastrac 5y ago
There's no guarantee a virus gets more lethal. Viruses select for survival and less lethality is _one_ strategy (though a fairly good one).
- ethbr0 5y ago
  In the context of a pandemic there's also the relative fitness (strain vs strain) optimization. So a more lethal virus during a pandemic must also be more transmissible, as it's actively competing for the same susceptible hosts with other circulating strains. If another strain gets there first, chances are it's going to prime that host's immune system sufficiently to prevent reinfection. Which means it needs not just more lethal mutations, but also more transmissible ones. The probability of all of those coinciding seems low, as the former are more likely to arise in immunocompromised hosts, and the latter in circulation among dense populations, no?
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Even Ebola gets much less lethal towards the end of an outbreak as it evolves to preserve its habitat. No, it doesn't. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-posts/viruses-and-other-pathogens-can-evolve-become-more/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-p... > The claim makes a broad generalization about pathogens that’s not supported by science. It has been well-documented that pathogens can evolve to be more virulent. And many viruses, including HIV and Ebola, have in fact become more lethal over time. As you note, smallpox disproves the idea that viruses automatically become mild. It had thousands of years to do so and carried a 30% mortality rate still.
iso1631 5y ago
No, they tend to become more spreadable, but there's no reason they couldn't become even more harmful as they evolve, rather than less. The strains that will win out are those that do less immediate harm (thus become more spreadable as people don't stay in bed ill), but that doesn't mean after a week or two they couldn't get really harmful (we saw in the first wave that covid was generally a week of nothing, a week of symptoms at home, a week in hospital, a week in intensive care, and then into the grave, with a certain chance of recovering each week. Imagine a mutation which reduced that recovering chance, that would cause more death, but not affect the spreading in the first week)

timr 5y ago

> Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Indeed. And wanting something to be false does not make it false. People on both sides of this debate are far too eager to run with their preferred opinion and accuse anyone who disagrees of "misinformation". "I don't like this paper, and I see arguments against it, therefore it is dangerous and wrong." It's petty behavior.

choeger 5y ago

The thing is that even the pessimistic explanation of the data (high immunity due to prior infection) should give everyone (except maybe some countries) hope. After all, most industrialized countries should have a double digit percentage of prior infection by now.