Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I should really have put variant/mutation, The language is nebulous and imprecise. Mutations were originally defined as heritable changes in phenotype - but that was prior to the discovery of DNA. A mutation is a heritable change in DNA sequence, NOT a change in phenotype.  All genetic variants are due to a mutation. There is great contention and clinical debate about the application of either term. There has been an evolving shift in the application of 'mutation' and 'variant' in which the latter has supplanted for the former. The terminology conundrum has been tackled by experts who have preferred the term “variant” so as to avoid the negative connotations that have accrued from the lay perspective. But it is actually more complex than that. 

 

In response to you original post, neither term is the same thing as a strain which is crucially where your confusion lay. 

The original post was asking whether or not a virus that was being investigated or studied at the wuhan lab could have "evolved" into the virus we have now. You said  that there have been no known studies conducted or publications surrounding the current strain, which would be perfectly correct  if they weren't studying the current strain, but if they had been studying, or replicating or experimenting with a sars like virus, not the current strain, and that virus mutated into what we have now, then the lab would be responsible for the pandemic, because, if they hadn't any involvement the current virus would probably not be with us.  

Edited by yorkie1999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

I struggle to understand this continual preoccupation with 'government' and 'media' when you can simply follow the science directly.

 

As you say, all viruses naturally mutate over time, and SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease being no exception. In the main, these changes are 'silent' - so minute that they have little impact on the virus but occasionally a virus mutates in a way that can benefit it, for example allowing it to spread more quickly. These are changes in the genome and this is why the sequencing capability has been so crucial - to monitor changes in the genome of the virus over time. It's important to clarify that the number of mutations has little actual relevance because many mutations emerge and disappear continuously. Understand that science uses the words ‘variants’ to describe viruses with mutations that are transmitting in the general population - and far from being government spin or the media scaremongering that you refer to, we absolutely need to take this seriously.

 

Of those that have been in the news, the South African variant (501Y.V2), the Brazilian variant (P.1) and the Kent variant (B117) all contain a range of mutations, some of which are justify the concern. As I'm sure you know, both the South African variant and the Kent variant contain a mutation called N501Y, which is believed to make the virus more contagious than older variants. The South African variant also contains mutations known as E484K and K417N, and early evidence suggests that these make the virus better able to evade neutralising antibodies produced by the body, meaning that current Covid vaccines will prove less effective against this variant. There is also the possibility that the emergence of different variants may increase the chance of someone getting Covid a second time.

 

In spite of all this, known mutations make it easier to predict how a new variant might behave. This then means that vaccines can be tweaked to take into account common newly evolved mutations and boost protection against several new variants at once. Also on the plus side, as the virus becomes more adapted to us, and more transmissible, it might well cause less disease, not more disease as has been found to historically be the case with some other viruses.

 

None of this has anything to do with either the "government" agenda or "media" narrative that you perceive. 

I am not debating the science. Not for one second am I suggesting any of what is coming though the media is made up.

 

But it's possible to take an element of truth (the variants) and present it in a much more daunting light than is appropriate, to suit an agenda.

 

The dialogue, tone and angle coming out of media outlets is a farcry from the measured stance you take at the end of your post.

Edited by Nod.E
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I am not debating the science. Not for one second am I suggesting any of what is coming though the media is made up.

 

Yes, I absolutely understand that. 

 

Concerns in the media are justified, but since some sources can be prone to sensationalism or even inaccuracy, it is best to follow the science directly. 'Nature' provide regular information updates based upon current data and findings and an amalgamation of publications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Yes, I absolutely understand that. 

 

Concerns in the media are justified, but since some sources can be prone to sensationalism or even inaccuracy, it is best to follow the science directly. 'Nature' provide regular information updates based upon current data and findings and an amalgamation of publications. 

But of course by definition of it being mainstream, most people just watch the news for their updates.

 

I was simply trying to encourage people not to let the sensationalism and high frequence negativity get to them. 

 

Because actually all sensible and scientific rationale suggests we will deal with variants. So let the scientists worry about it, sit tight and know that in a month or so we will gradually return to something near normal.

 

It undoubtedly benefits the government if the general perception is that we were dealt a tough hand. Shouldn't I be annoyed that the government's PR is prioritised over the mental well-being of millions of people? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The original post was asking whether or not a virus that was being investigated or studied at the wuhan lab could have "evolved" into the virus we have now. You said  that there have been no known studies conducted or publications surrounding the current strain, which would be perfectly correct  if they weren't studying the current strain, but if they had been studying, or replicating or experimenting with a sars like virus, not the current strain, and that virus mutated into what we have now, then the lab would be responsible for the pandemic, because, if they hadn't any involvement the current virus would probably not be with us.  

And in answer to your question, this virus was an entirely new strain which clearly originated in nature and could not have resulted from any existing study or strain. The virus's receptor binding domain, which makes it an efficient human pathogen, is also found in coronaviruses in pangolins proposed as an intermediary host between bats and humans. It's something that's fully natural, so it's not something that happens in tissue culture. As for "mutation into what we have now", SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged virus infecting humans and the rapidity of this and lack of antigentic drift can only be attributed to zoonotic overspill, particularly since we know that there are hundreds of these viruses strewn across the animal kingdom. Moreover, the genetic sequences of isolates from the coronaviruses studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, (a biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) lab) bear no resemblance whatsoever to COVID-19 which they would still be the case. If there was a published sequence for the virus coinciding with the outbreak, then we would have known it came from the lab. Again, to reiterate, you are confusing mutations and strains. 

 

As I said, the most plausible scenario is a natural zoonotic spillover. Serology studies have shown that some people in China living near bat colonies have antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses in their blood, suggesting that people are exposed to related viruses in the course of their daily lives. A virus with pandemic potential is still rare but to be expected every decade. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnson said last week he's hoping summer holidays will be able to be booked, while Hancock is planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Shapps, this morning, says people shouldn't think about booking holidays this year, either here or abroad. 

 

 

So which is it :dunno:?

 

Why does it seem so difficult to get the same message from different people in the same government? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Johnson said last week he's hoping summer holidays will be able to be booked, while Hancock is planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Shapps, this morning, says people shouldn't think about booking holidays this year, either here or abroad. 

 

 

So which is it :dunno:?

 

Why does it seem so difficult to get the same message from different people in the same government? 

Well if they all say the same thing they are accused of the following the party line or being robots, if they say different things they are accused of being inconsistent and Boris can't keep his cabinet in line.  Maybe they just have different ideas on the details.  Some people will happily book and get a refund later if needed.  Some would rather book last minute, and some not go at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Johnson said last week he's hoping summer holidays will be able to be booked, while Hancock is planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Shapps, this morning, says people shouldn't think about booking holidays this year, either here or abroad. 

 

 

So which is it :dunno:?

 

Why does it seem so difficult to get the same message from different people in the same government? 

Because there numpties of the highest order and care not for society.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Johnson said last week he's hoping summer holidays will be able to be booked, while Hancock is planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Shapps, this morning, says people shouldn't think about booking holidays this year, either here or abroad. 

 

 

So which is it :dunno:?

 

Why does it seem so difficult to get the same message from different people in the same government? 

Both Johnson & Hancock said their piece a few weeks back & Shapps spoke this morning, there has been a lot going on inbetween with regards to the virus & variants of not only around the world but in this country, uncertain times Stan uncertain times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Well if they all say the same thing they are accused of the following the party line or being robots, if they say different things they are accused of being inconsistent and Boris can't keep his cabinet in line.  Maybe they just have different ideas on the details.  Some people will happily book and get a refund later if needed.  Some would rather book last minute, and some not go at all.

If they have different ideas on the details, how do they expect Joe Public to follow them? If any member of the public has a different idea on the details, will this wash with the police if they break the law? I very much doubt it. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Both Johnson & Hancock said their piece a few weeks back & Shapps spoke this morning, there has been a lot going on inbetween with regards to the virus & variants of not only around the world but in this country, uncertain times Stan uncertain times.

They add to the uncertainty, in my opinion. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

If they have different ideas on the details, how do they expect Joe Public to follow them? If any member of the public has a different idea on the details, will this wash with the police if they break the law? I very much doubt it. 

 

 

They add to the uncertainty, in my opinion. 

 

Everyone has different ideas regarding this though, don't they? I've booked a couple of holidays already, if they don't go ahead, so be it, I'll rearrange. I have friends who have done the same, and other friends who won't book anything yet.

 

I don't really see the issue? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Johnson said last week he's hoping summer holidays will be able to be booked, while Hancock is planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Shapps, this morning, says people shouldn't think about booking holidays this year, either here or abroad. 

 

 

So which is it :dunno:?

 

Why does it seem so difficult to get the same message from different people in the same government? 

At least we'll know the places to avoid. Who wants to be anywhere near Hancock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-56008081 

 

Utterly baffling that a higher proportion of BAME people would refuse the jab when we are led to believe that south asian people in particular are more vulnerable. This presents a massive issue surely.

  

They associate it with mistrust in the government - not condoning it but they've feel like they've fvcked over by the authorities in general so its difficult to judge on that aspect as I dont spend anytime in their shoes. Saying that, there needs to be more of a push from the influencial black and south asian role models to encourage vaccine uptake in those communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

In happier news, I see the WHO has approved the use of the Oxford/AZ vaccine for all adults including older age groups.

Here in Spain the Pfizer vaccination is being given to the older people and the AZ is only being given to the under 55's. Hopefully this news may start to speed things up a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Everyone has different ideas regarding this though, don't they? I've booked a couple of holidays already, if they don't go ahead, so be it, I'll rearrange. I have friends who have done the same, and other friends who won't book anything yet.

 

I don't really see the issue? 

One minister says they're planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Another minister suggests not to book holidays domestically or internationally. 

 

Do you see the contradiction? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

One minister says they're planning a summer break in Cornwall. 

 

Another minister suggests not to book holidays domestically or internationally. 

 

Do you see the contradiction? 

Surely people can make up their own minds whether or not to take the risk of booking something now? Or do people want absolutely everything spelled out for them, every single day as the situation changes? What Schapps said is correct, there are a lot of things which need to change before we can travel, and obviously he doesn't know when that will be.  I know that, we all know that. I've booked holidays hoping that said things do change,  I guess Hancock is hoping for the best too. If you want to book, book. If you don't, don't. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...