6 ms·

No symptoms, isn't this a good thing?

by chmorgan_ 2y ago

thinkcontext 2y ago
The concern is how much it's spreading
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Why is it a concern if there’s no symptoms? We know diseases spread through the population constantly.
  - MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
    The danger with a widely spread asymptomatic infection is that it might become symptomatic, or might be for some portion of the population. Or chickens.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      But we already have widespread flus every year — which aren’t asymptomatic. How does this compare?
      - kgwxd 2y ago
        [flagged]
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        What’s an example of a statement where I “know everything about flu viruses”?
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Worse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mortality_from_H5N1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mortality_from_H5N1
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        If you look up the general topic, the listed ones are endemic strains — ie, the yearly ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic Being surprised by asymptomatic cases suggests their IFR numbers are high on the page you linked, due to low occurrence and conflation with other colds (or asymptomatic cases). Is there anything to suggest that the asymptomatic strain detected here is worse?
        matheweis 2y ago
        How is that statistic not severely flawed? Unless they are performing large scale sampling of the general population, the denominator (cases of confirmed influenza) is potentially much larger in practice. Moreso because it seems likely that the confirmed cases are sampled from the sickest population seeking treatment. And this article is further evidence of exactly this, since the "silent infections" here were previously uncounted.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        >.< This feels like having COVID arguments again. We both understand that pandemics don't happen under controlled, fully observable situations, yes? And therefore must be studied and predicted based on incomplete information? And this has been the case since the dawn of epidemiology?
  - avs733 2y ago
    for a couple reasons: 1) because it can mutate and develop new and different symptoms (c.f., yearly flu) 2) because the lack of testing/symptoms means its more difficult to identify and track (c.f., early covid) 3) because people can be infectious without knowing and pass it along...see 1 4) because no symptoms now doesn't mean it does not cause harm (c.f., HPV and cervical cancer)
  - thinkcontext 2y ago
    There are bird flu variants that are very deadly to humans. It's been a concern of scientists for a long time that it would evolve to spread more easily to and between humans.
  - taurknaut 2y ago
    No symptoms doesn't imply no side effects. Furthermore the more viruses you're exposed to, the more likely you'll get one mutated to really hurt you. The best way to deal with viruses is to avoid them to the extent possible.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      Sure — but life is a risk tradeoff, ie cost versus benefit. So we should focus our attention on the most dangerous things, not panic over everything. There’s also contrary examples to your general rule, eg, catching cowpox protected you from smallpox — so you were better off being exposed to the relatively weaker cowpox, even if it wasn’t risk free.
      - taurknaut 2y ago
        What would you characterize as more dangerous than a threat like this? What are you seeing that you'd characterize as panic?
        helge9210 2y ago
        Enemy tanks rolling along your street. A mandate to stay indoors with food delivery organized by the army and finding out your family is not on the list to get any. There are a lot of more dangerous threats than another flu virus.
        throwawayqqq11 2y ago
        Id say collapse of societal functions in general is what you should worry about (be it pandemics, climate change or rampant egomaniac billionares). Giving it a "government bad" spin at least still implies some form of order, thus is not the worst case and so imo misses your point of "more dangerous things than the flu". Btw, that erosion of trust in societies, combined with cluelessness and learned helplessness facing known, serious yet solvable issues (like pandemics) esp. in democracies worries me the most.
        2y ago
  - culi 2y ago
    if it kills birds but spreads to humans than it has two hosts it can hop between. Most outbreaks that kill their hosts are maladapted. The black plague didn't kill rats, covid didn't kill bats, HIV didn't kill chimps, etc. If you are a virus and you're killing your host at a rapid rate then you are killing yourself. The only time it can make sense evolutionary to kill your host is when you have multiple host options. This could devastate the poultry industry for far longer than we expected
  - irrational 2y ago
    See Typhoid Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon?wprov=sfti1
- fuckyah 2y ago
  [dead]
dralley 2y ago
Typhoid famously caused silent infections in some people, so no, not necessarily. Just because it's asymptomatic for the original infected doesn't mean it'll stay that way if they transmit it to others. Plus one of the most common ways for a zoonotic strain of a disease to become human-transmissible is to end up mixing around in the same body as an existing human-transmissible strain of that disease.
MrLeap 2y ago
Apparently it kills cats.
Izkata 2y ago
Also expected. I've said for a while the mortality of this virus is inflated because we're not mass testing for it and weren't detecting the asymptomatic cases. Or even the symptomatic-but-not-serious ones that people get over on their own. No way to know how much it's been inflated until we find more of these, though.
thenerdhead 2y ago
For acute yes, who knows for post-acute. Many viruses are linked to cancers, MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, T1D and so on. Research is finding that some of these viruses may actually be low grade infections or left over viral proteins causing constant immune dysfunction. People who claimed they never got SARS-CoV-2 for example were tested with a novel ultra sensitive single molecule assay and found that 99.9% of individuals samples were indeed asymptomatically infected. Here’s an earlier version of this claim showing 95%. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/3/e601/7639429 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/3/e601/7639429 Some of these individuals later went on to develop Long COVID. They are using this assay in an antiviral trial to see if it reduces the amount of SCV2 proteins this assay can detect. https://youtu.be/B1sFSW94JZg?si=7mvHAJGjrJiOLaW7 https://youtu.be/B1sFSW94JZg?si=7mvHAJGjrJiOLaW7
sangnoir 2y ago
You've never played Plague, Inc. and it shows. One of the better strategies in that game was to spend all you points on mutations that improve contagiousness and minimizing "scary symptoms" (like haemorrhaging from the eyes) early on, and then ramping those up later on so you kill everyone before scientists can complete their research into a cure. Research only started when your plague became disruptive.

No symptoms, isn't this a good thing?

thinkcontext 2y ago

The concern is how much it's spreading

zmgsabst 2y ago
Why is it a concern if there’s no symptoms? We know diseases spread through the population constantly.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  The danger with a widely spread asymptomatic infection is that it might become symptomatic, or might be for some portion of the population. Or chickens.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    But we already have widespread flus every year — which aren’t asymptomatic. How does this compare?
    - kgwxd 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        What’s an example of a statement where I “know everything about flu viruses”?
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Worse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mortality_from_H5N1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mortality_from_H5N1
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        If you look up the general topic, the listed ones are endemic strains — ie, the yearly ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic Being surprised by asymptomatic cases suggests their IFR numbers are high on the page you linked, due to low occurrence and conflation with other colds (or asymptomatic cases). Is there anything to suggest that the asymptomatic strain detected here is worse?
      - matheweis 2y ago
        How is that statistic not severely flawed? Unless they are performing large scale sampling of the general population, the denominator (cases of confirmed influenza) is potentially much larger in practice. Moreso because it seems likely that the confirmed cases are sampled from the sickest population seeking treatment. And this article is further evidence of exactly this, since the "silent infections" here were previously uncounted.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        >.< This feels like having COVID arguments again. We both understand that pandemics don't happen under controlled, fully observable situations, yes? And therefore must be studied and predicted based on incomplete information? And this has been the case since the dawn of epidemiology?
- avs733 2y ago
  for a couple reasons: 1) because it can mutate and develop new and different symptoms (c.f., yearly flu) 2) because the lack of testing/symptoms means its more difficult to identify and track (c.f., early covid) 3) because people can be infectious without knowing and pass it along...see 1 4) because no symptoms now doesn't mean it does not cause harm (c.f., HPV and cervical cancer)
- thinkcontext 2y ago
  There are bird flu variants that are very deadly to humans. It's been a concern of scientists for a long time that it would evolve to spread more easily to and between humans.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  No symptoms doesn't imply no side effects. Furthermore the more viruses you're exposed to, the more likely you'll get one mutated to really hurt you. The best way to deal with viruses is to avoid them to the extent possible.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    Sure — but life is a risk tradeoff, ie cost versus benefit. So we should focus our attention on the most dangerous things, not panic over everything. There’s also contrary examples to your general rule, eg, catching cowpox protected you from smallpox — so you were better off being exposed to the relatively weaker cowpox, even if it wasn’t risk free.
    - taurknaut 2y ago
      What would you characterize as more dangerous than a threat like this? What are you seeing that you'd characterize as panic?
      - helge9210 2y ago
        Enemy tanks rolling along your street. A mandate to stay indoors with food delivery organized by the army and finding out your family is not on the list to get any. There are a lot of more dangerous threats than another flu virus.
        throwawayqqq11 2y ago
        Id say collapse of societal functions in general is what you should worry about (be it pandemics, climate change or rampant egomaniac billionares). Giving it a "government bad" spin at least still implies some form of order, thus is not the worst case and so imo misses your point of "more dangerous things than the flu". Btw, that erosion of trust in societies, combined with cluelessness and learned helplessness facing known, serious yet solvable issues (like pandemics) esp. in democracies worries me the most.
        2y ago
- culi 2y ago
  if it kills birds but spreads to humans than it has two hosts it can hop between. Most outbreaks that kill their hosts are maladapted. The black plague didn't kill rats, covid didn't kill bats, HIV didn't kill chimps, etc. If you are a virus and you're killing your host at a rapid rate then you are killing yourself. The only time it can make sense evolutionary to kill your host is when you have multiple host options. This could devastate the poultry industry for far longer than we expected
- irrational 2y ago
  See Typhoid Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon?wprov=sfti1
fuckyah 2y ago
[dead]

dralley 2y ago

Typhoid famously caused silent infections in some people, so no, not necessarily. Just because it's asymptomatic for the original infected doesn't mean it'll stay that way if they transmit it to others. Plus one of the most common ways for a zoonotic strain of a disease to become human-transmissible is to end up mixing around in the same body as an existing human-transmissible strain of that disease.

MrLeap 2y ago

Apparently it kills cats.

Izkata 2y ago

Also expected. I've said for a while the mortality of this virus is inflated because we're not mass testing for it and weren't detecting the asymptomatic cases. Or even the symptomatic-but-not-serious ones that people get over on their own. No way to know how much it's been inflated until we find more of these, though.

thenerdhead 2y ago

For acute yes, who knows for post-acute. Many viruses are linked to cancers, MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, T1D and so on. Research is finding that some of these viruses may actually be low grade infections or left over viral proteins causing constant immune dysfunction. People who claimed they never got SARS-CoV-2 for example were tested with a novel ultra sensitive single molecule assay and found that 99.9% of individuals samples were indeed asymptomatically infected. Here’s an earlier version of this claim showing 95%. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/3/e601/7639429 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/3/e601/7639429 Some of these individuals later went on to develop Long COVID. They are using this assay in an antiviral trial to see if it reduces the amount of SCV2 proteins this assay can detect. https://youtu.be/B1sFSW94JZg?si=7mvHAJGjrJiOLaW7 https://youtu.be/B1sFSW94JZg?si=7mvHAJGjrJiOLaW7

sangnoir 2y ago

You've never played Plague, Inc. and it shows. One of the better strategies in that game was to spend all you points on mutations that improve contagiousness and minimizing "scary symptoms" (like haemorrhaging from the eyes) early on, and then ramping those up later on so you kill everyone before scientists can complete their research into a cure. Research only started when your plague became disruptive.