Fuji_Abound wrote:
Yes, no pathogen ulitmately does itself much good if it wipes out its host, …AIDS on the other hand seems to defy some of this logic,
As long it is likely that the host infects more than one other before being killed, it doesn’t matter so much from a “virus strategy” point of view.
The “best” virus would be one that is highly contagious but doesn’t cause any symptoms for 6 months at all, so that a huge part of population gets infected before even noticing. If it kills the infected after these 6 months doesn’t really matter…
kwlf wrote:
If a virus is replicating faster and entering cells more easily then you might generally physiologically expect it to be more likely to damage its host.
Don’t see any real reason why this should be the case.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
They have also resisted any investigation for purely political reasons, arguing essentially it would seem “the time isnt right”.
Unfortunately they are quite right! As long as we don’t expect any insights into how to fight this disease from knowing its source (and up until now I haven’t read an idea about this), the mere purpose of such an investigation is to “blame someone”. And during an acute phase of a global pandemic it might not be the right time to invest time of clever people (and travel internationally) just for the purpose of finding someone to blame.
One could also turn the question around: Why is it important and urgent to find out, where this virus came from? What would we do differently in handling this situation, if we knew?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Fuji_Abound wrote: They have also resisted any investigation for purely political reasons, arguing essentially it would seem “the time isnt right”.Unfortunately they are quite right! As long as we don’t expect any insights into how to fight this disease from knowing its source (and up until now I haven’t read an idea about this), the mere purpose of such an investigation is to “blame someone”. And during an acute phase of a global pandemic it might not be the right time to invest time of clever people (and travel internationally) just for the purpose of finding someone to blame.
One could also turn the question around: Why is it important and urgent to find out, where this virus came from? What would we do differently in handling this situation, if we knew?
I tend to believe scientific wisdom should not be tarnished by political expedient. While you make a good point, there is a sage argument that it is difficult to judge the benefits or lack of when you dont know the facts on which you will be basing the evidence. For example, to take an extreme, if the virus had been manipulated for genuinely sound scientific purposes, it could be hugely advantageous to know how. I can think of numerous similiar examples. Unfortunately when things go wrong (if they have) there will always be a blame game, (thalidominde) but nothing good will come of trying to cover it up, although you might think so at the time. Whether it is a good use of resources at the time, I dont know, but the resources seem to be available and again I would offer that it isnt up to the Chinese to dictate how the resources should be used. I also come back to my earlier point, the longer time marches on the more likely the evidence is to be lost. It is like a murder (sorry about the analogy, I dont mean to imply there is any intention), but if you wait a year for the forensic work, you will probably have missed all the vital clues.
Malibuflyer wrote:
As long it is likely that the host infects more than one other before being killed, it doesn’t matter so much from a “virus strategy” point of view.
What about comparing a virus that does just this, with a mutant version that does the same but is more infectious so that it infects 4 other people. The second is surely more likely to be selected for, even if it kills fewer of those it infects. In other words its infectiousness trumps all, and will be the primary selective driver.
Your second is an interesting scenario. However, as I indicated before it is likely even in these circumstances those infected would be aggressively quarantined before the virus had spread to the whole population, so, if the quarantine is effective, this strain would gradually be eliminated from the population. I appreciate in the real world who knows if we would be aggressive enough. It is also likely some members of the population would be resistant and so when most of the population had been killed the virus would not be able to spread any further and would die out. The higher the level of natural resistance in the population the quicker this would occur.
China has acknowledged destroying early samples and evidence of the virus link . We know the history of misinformation and that China is willing to do experiments and harvesting that most are unwilling to do in the west.
Was it also the case with SARS or MERS that it developed a more infectious far less dangerous strain which helped drop it down?
How viruses mutate within a species, (or in other species between jumps), seems to be addressed by this wikpedia article on serial passage and their examples show increased virulence over time. It also describes how you can use this effect in a different species to create a vaccine.
No doubt real life is more complicated, and indeed no human virus has yet acquired the virulence to wipe us out as a species, but we are still here to say that so “we would say that wouldn’t we” 
is it true that the reportedly new variant is more contagious, but less deadly ? I have read that somewhere, I don’t remember anymore where, but it was an official source.
If that is the case, and if that lesser serious illness phase can be proven, wouldn’t it be better to actually let that variant take over instead of inhibiting its spreading ? I am well aware that this logic only can be argued on the basis of scientific hard evidence.
If a virus is replicating faster and entering cells more easily then you might generally physiologically expect it to be more likely to damage its host.
Don’t see any real reason why this should be the case.
Why wouldn’t it be? We know that viral loads correlate with disease severity, which admittedly might reflect a differing course of infection in the most vulnerable. However we also believe that the initial viral dose correlates with disease severity (presumably because it allows the virus more time to replicate before inducing an adaptive immune response).
is it true that the reportedly new variant is more contagious, but less deadly ?
What I have heard is ‘too early to tell’ and ‘there is no evidence that this strain causes more severe disease’ (which is not to say that there is evidence that it will not’.
EuroFlyer wrote:
is it true that the reportedly new variant is more contagious, but less deadly ?
We can only diagnose this new strain and tell it apart from the old one reliably for 4 weeks. First symptoms to death for Corona is more in the ballpark of 4-6 weeks. So the patients where we have reliable enough diagnosis for the new strain are at large not sick long enough to know mortality for this strain.
kwlf wrote:
We know that viral loads correlate with disease severity,
Only for the same virus! Virus load for different viruses doesn’t say anything about severity – exactly for the reason that a virus might have very powerful cell entry mechanisms but not so powerful “sick making mechanisms”.
Yes, exactly compare and contrast haemmorhaggic fever and the common cold. I think virulence is far more connected with the cells targeted and the mechanism involved.
I have seen no evidence at all despite some fake news this new variant has any increased mortality associated with it. Evidence that is as opposed to conjecture.
