Generally speaking, yes, viruses want their hosts to be up and moving around, going about their normal business, rather than staying in bed because the host is sick. So, the sweet spot for, say the flu, might be a situation where you cough and sneeze more than usual, but not so much that you decide to use a sick day.
The argument Cuse is making is that, because Covid takes a long time for noticable symptoms to develop in someone and it seems like it is highly infectious in this pre symptomatic period, there is less pressure on the virus to mutate into a form where the ultimate symptoms are milder, because it already has a nice long timeframe to find new hosts before the original host gets sick and stops spreading.
[As far as the 1918 flu goes, thereās speculation that WWI might have messed up the normal evolutionary patterns because the people who got the most severe strain were the ones who were taken out of the front lines and transported to new areas while those with a mild strain stayed in the trenches.]
If people werenāt dying, we wouldnāt be taking active measures to slow it down or to create a vaccine, thatās all Iām saying here. We donāt shut down nations for the common cold. From an evolutionary perspective, the normal endemic coronaviruses are much more likely to be around for many, many years. Itās a better long-term business model, thatās what we mean by evolutionary pressure.
Youāll notice that COVID19 isnāt nearly as lethal in bats. Itās subject to the same pressures other viruses are. This virusā business model is to spread as far as it can in bats.
Look, Iām not saying we shouldnāt be talking this seriously or that we can just wait for this to just naturally become less lethal. I donāt know why you think Iām Mr. Sunshine, Iām mostly just being nitpicky about the science here.
This reminds me: has anyone happened to been bored enough to watch Bill Maher the last couple of weeks? Iāve been meaning to but havenāt. Heās been whining a LOT about how woefully unfair it is that he has to do his show from his backyard and he canāt do stand up in a comedy club yet what about Sweden and what about airplanes and what about restaurants blah blah blah argh blargh. Heās good friends with DL Hughley and it turns out his onstage collapse a couple weeks ago was (possibly/probably) caused by the rona. I bet he hasnāt even mentioned it, but Iād like to know anyway.
In order for a strain that benefits from this to overtake the more lethal strain, it has to be given circumstances in which to ply its evolutionary advantage. In other words, the strain that benefits from us being open can only take hold if we open up. But weāre not doing that as long as the lethal strain is out there. So how is the less lethal strain going to overtake the more lethal strain?
You canāt explain that, because thereās no reason it will under the current conditions. We would have to know it existed and be able to distinguish between the two, then it would have to occur in a region without the more lethal strain and be allowed to grow and take hold thereā¦ Then it would have to jump to another location with the same circumstances.
These. Circumstances. Donāt. Exist.
Even in places where thereās a shutdown, they donāt exist, because it relies on our behavior to make this happen, but if we relax our lockdowns anywhere in the world, the deadly strain will come back and kill us.
So, again, the only current evolutionary pressure on COVID-19 is to become as contagious as possible.
Yeah Iām not 100% sure. If this was at all common, I think youād be reading a lot more about it.
Most of the other cases were people that keep testing positive but they think itās just the same virus lingering in various places, and they donāt think those people are contagious. Could be her.
Right, but thatās why Iād be concerned about your friend. If the virus is lingering somewhere, she could still be contagious. We donāt have any evidence this is the case, but we also donāt have any proof that itās not.
We have a conspicuous absence of evidence that you can really catch it and go through the whole infectious cycle again, though.
We also have studies where theyāve tested the viral load of people who keep testing positive, and found none.
The Korean study examined 285 patients who tested positive again for the new coronavirus after they recovered from COVID-19, which had been confirmed via a negative test result.
The researchers swabbed the patients and examined the viral material to determine whether it was still actively infectious.
The team was unable to isolate live viral material, indicating that the positive diagnostic tests were picking up dead virus particles.
ā[This] may speak for the fact that the virus may be dead or not be fit enough to grow ā therefore the virus may not be fit enough to infect a new host,ā said Dr. Andres Romero, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Saint Johnās Health Center in Santa Monica, California.
The researchers also tested 790 people whoād been in close contact with the āre-positiveā patients. Of the 27 who tested positive, no cases appeared to be caused from exposure to someone who appeared to have a reinfection.
