kinard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:36 pm
v12 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:54 am
kinard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:53 am
v12 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:11 pm
kinard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:57 pm
v12 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:13 pm
kinard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:38 am
Whether this applies to how covid behaves is as yet unclear, but while covid is becoming more infectious, there are indications the death rate is falling.
That are quite some definitive statements, just in 1 sentence, do you have references ?
Here's a recent
link, but have read other reports of similar observations over the last week or so.
Latest focus is now on the
T cell
I think, you should have another read of the first article. It does not state Covid-19 has become more infectious, nor that the death-rate is declining. It states that one mutant seems to have become most dominant. That can have many, many causes as the article states, including that it is a little more infectious (though it could also be, the old strain can be battled easier by the human body, for example). Also, the death-rate going down, is not something I read in there.
It states the virus is becoming less deadly, so less people are dying given the number of infections.
Sorry, I don't read that in either article. The fact that there is indication that some people might have built up resistance against Covid-19 a long time ago, probably because of another similar virus, does not make the Covid-19 virus itself less deadly.
The word "death" does not even appear in the text and the word less only 2 times in another context.
Please quote........
I may have assumed too much but there has been opinions from virologists over the last few weeks supporting the 'more contagious, less deadly' angle.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/uga-vi ... FM567LN6U/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... id-19.html
https://www.medicaldaily.com/experts-pr ... rus-455067
I may have been too hasty in posting that first link but i surmised it was saying the same thing(and still believe so).
Reading this, I still think, your statements are wrong:
- The infection rate vs. kill rate based on anti-body detection is currently recognized to be seriously flawed: The anti-bodies do disappear after 2-3 months, whereas the protection is still present in the body.
- The first link suggests "might be a little less deadly, however, given the large uncertainly in the underlying figures, this is just reading tea-leaves.
- Since the original outbreak in Italy and France, it has become known that elderly people are significantly more vulnerable as well that the knowledge how to deal with the virus did increase significantly. So, elderly people are now much more separated as well that the PPE used has become available at large scale and (more or less) sufficient in protection.
Or so to say, there are less people dying, but that is quite likely not because of the virus having become less deadly, but all due to the knowledge gained how to deal with the virus infection risk (ehhhhh, masks, social distancing, etc).
The same with Global warming: There is a correlation between CO2 and earth temperature, though that does not imply that CO2 does increase the earth temperature. It could even be the opposite around. IE increasing earth temperature does increase atmospheric CO2 levels.
A quite likely situation, given the earth is just a control system, regulating itself. Higher temperature -> More CO2 -> More greenery stuff -> CO2 bounded (ie energy stored in greenery, later on becoming oil&gas and other fossil fuels in the ground) , so the free thermal energy at the earth surface decreases and the earth surface temperature will decrease. Or so to say, it's more likely an energy chain, than a CO2 chain.
Things are often different from what it appears to be.