Interesting article, I didn’t know all common colds were once deadly epidemics but it seems logical thinking about it. I wonder if the rna vaccines brought out for covid will be applied to more and more viruses. Seems like a path towards eradication of all viral diseases.
Is this something we should wish for? It’s my understanding that for SARS-CoV-2 a lot of people seem to have t-cell immunity because they’ve been infected with other families of coronavirus. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t vaccinating against all of the coronavirusus prevent this from happening? Thus, eradication of all viruses would result in a new virus being much more deadly in a population when no one has had a “previous” less deadly “version”
There's very little functional difference between being immune to a virus because of previous infection and being immune to a virus because of vaccination. The latter basically co-opts the body's response to the former to generate a lasting adaptive defense.
> 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Well a deadly pandemic wouldn’t need immunity, they’d all die.
Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
The new def has a problem though:'protected from ... passing it on'. In my country we are told even after gotten the vaccine we should continue with the measures, because one can still pass it on (meaning it is supposed that the corona vaccine doesnt prevent infection, but prevents all severe cases)
How easy would it be it the future to get a different vaccine course if the one you ended up with was not sterilizing? I assume you would have to pay with your own money, but would you also have to go to a different country and "forget" your immunization record somewhere after you arrive?
I don't think eradicating viruses is a good thing. For one, the human placenta is the result of a virus doing its thing many years ago [1].
My personal opinion is that we should strive to create antidotes when the body fails to fix itself, instead of removing the threat altogether. Evolution needs viruses, in the same way the universe needs entropy.
not just the placenta, we're full of these botched germ-line viruses.
endogenous retroviruses in mammals are amazing. primates owe to one or more ERVs the effectiveness of the p53 gene activation (p52 is a tumor suppressor gene).
The idea that all now common corona viruses started a pandemic sounds very plausible. At the same time, it makes the fact that there is a huge corona virus reservoir in bats very frightening.
Bats are unique when it comes to mammallian viral reservoirs, due to being the only flying mammals.
IIRC their immune system evolved to essentially tolerate foreign/damaged DNA because the heat caused by their flight would regularly damage cells. So viruses can basically move in and make themselves comfortable.
I hope this doesn't come across as inhumane, but hypothetically what would be the bio-diversity/eco-system impact of simply exterminating or at least curbing these huge bat colonies.
I mean technically we already have a precedent with trying to stop mosquito reproduction to curb malaria and other mosquito transmitted diseases.
I understand that from a virology standpoint there is a lot to learn from bats and that they have an insanely robust immune system but is it really reasonable to allow these colonies to thrive unchecked with thousands of bats tightly packed together? It's just that it seems the most recent threats Ebola, MERS, SARS-Cov1, now SARS-Cov2, all seem to have had a bat colony as it's genetic origin.
Another interesting question is, what if we could wipe out all viruses? What would go wrong? I suspect that we know relatively little about the systemic role of viruses in the biosphere. It's imaginable that they play a pervasive role in the gradual transformation of the world's genetic code.
> I hope this doesn't come across as inhumane, but hypothetically what would be the bio-diversity/eco-system impact of simply exterminating or at least curbing these huge bat colonies.
If you rationalize it like this, then why is it bad to slightly reduce human population?
I suppose what is good and what is bad is very much relative to your viewpoint. From a human vantage point we have a vested interest and a genetic imperative of reproduction and self-preservation.
I would guess-estimate that, if given the choice and the cognition, bats would likely also choose to self-preservate to the detriment of Humans.
Depends on the method. We’re already hard at work stopping population growth by getting people out of poverty. Very probable that it’ll turn into population decline in a few decades.
I meant a variety of different corona viruses that have not yet the ability to replicate in humans. Corona virus is a family of viruses. SARS-2 one that made it he jump from animals to humans.
It has probably been everywhere for a long time. The point of the article is that coronaviruses jumping to humans is something that happens fairly often.
So like if bats are so deadly and common carriers of these diseases that could potentially jump to humans, would it be sensible I guess to pass laws who can import, trade, or come in contact with them? People owning them as pets or anything like that...it should almost just be considered a biohazard and illegal without permits.
Idk random idea...I'm by no means an expert, but trying to think ways to mitigate it.
One side effect of following COVID precautions is that I haven't had a cold at all this year. Usually I have 3 or 4 a year. I'm wondering if I'll get them less even after COVID, due to being more cognizant of stuff like washing my hands and not touching my face.
Hopefully all this will also normalize more people staying home or wearing a mask if they feel sick.
I started taking vitamin d when I started my professional life as a software engineer after my studies. I had a minor winter depression, and I’ve never stopped taking. Since then I’ve had no colds at all. Of course this is anecdotal, but I think a LOT of people in western society could benefit from taking 2000-4000 IU daily throughout the year
Don't hesitate to take 10-15k a day for an initial period of couple weeks if you think you might be deficient. Vitamin D requirements are notoriously understated and the supplements underdosed
Same, haven't gotten a cold since I started taking vit D supplements; or when I did get anything close to cold symptoms it was very mild and didn't last more than a day or two. I had done the blood test for vit D and I was very deficient -- like many people.
It's worth noting that it may well be the only vitamin where deficiency is common in developed countries and where supplementation has plausible benefits. In fact the only thing missing to positively say that supplementation is beneficial is that while deficiency is known for certain to be associated with major issues, and that supplementation has recently been shown to be beneficial in some cases, it's not been demonstrated that supplementing in the general case translates into better outcomes. However, since it's certainly not been demonstrated that it doesn't, it seems quite a bit more plausible than it does than otherwise.
The question is, what are the risks of supplementation? For almost everyone, and at doses that are not completely insane to begin with, the risks seem to be close to zero. But there may be some genetic factors that make a small minority susceptible to overdose.
> Same, haven't gotten a cold since I started taking vit D supplements; or when I did get anything close to cold symptoms it was very mild and didn't last more than a day or two.
Funny, those "I never get ill" claimers always do get ill if you follow up, "just very little, it's nothing".
Sometimes I get a runny nose, my throat is slightly sore ... and it's gone the next day. Could be an allergic reaction, too much vaping, inhaling something, or an infection not taking hold; no idea. It's an entirely different experience from getting an infection with a fever, fatigue and so on.
I've been taking D as well, and got two colds almost back to back from my kids as soon as they went back to school. I'd agree it's probably the distancing.
I wasn't taking it to prevent colds in the first place. The main thing that spurred it now is that Vitamin D has been shown to reduce the severity of covid infections. But being up in Canada I assume I'm deficient, so it should have multiple potential benefits. Eventually I'm planning to test my level to confirm, but for now I figured taking it is safer than not.
I've experienced the same. I got sick with something in the summer and distinctly remember feeling achy and tired for about a week. Outside of that time I've been 100%.
Usually it's a constant flow of feeling mostly ok and an unexplained runny nose every now and then, especially in the throes of Winter right now.
I read that typically about 20% of passengers will catch a bug on a commercial flight. The main problem seems to be contaminated surfaces, not air recirculation. A flight steward told me that wearing gloves drastically cut down on infections among the staff.
I would certainly think so except I live In Tokyo and people commuted in some of the most crowded trains in the world all through March 2020 until now. The numbers finally started rising in November 2020 but the morning rush hour trains have stayed packed in like sardines the entire time. IIRC at the highest amount of commute avoidance passenger numbers were down 20% (last April) but if you've ever been on a rush out train in Tokyo you know even 50% down would still be considered over crowded in most other cities.
I have no idea why that didn't cause spread like crazy. The only thought that comes to mind is nearly full face mask compliance but who knows?
My mother is notoriously immuno-compromised and gets sick two or three times a month for extended periods of time. This year, due to the increased amount of mask wearing, standing apart, increased cleaning, and seeing people on a limited basis she has only ill a handful of times at all this year.
She's going to likely be wearing masks from here on out.
That's a mistake if you have a +-normal immunity. Ie childhood immunity is in desperate need of opponent so it can train itself. If you keep your kids in sterile environment, its more or less guaranteed they will end up with nasty allergies for the rest of their lives. I would expect this should be true in lesser form for adults too.
Anyway it doesn't make sense at all, most of the time folks are sick its not flu - its due to bacteria/viruses we already have in ie throat or nasal area that spot a weak moment (ie getting cold or eating too cold food) and attack. I basically get sick only like that during winter. One time I had pretty bad case of food poisoning from stale mayo and was so weak, I had sore throat and running nose almost immediately.
If you're an otherwise healthy individual,eating cold food or being moderately cold have no clinical relevance to internal body temperature or how often you get sick from viruses. You're passing off an old grandmother's myth as a medical observation.
That inspires me to check in with someone I know who fell I'll frequently and see how they've been through this period. I want to say they to have had significantly less illnesses this period.
I normally get sick 1-2 a year, havent been sick for 1.5 years now. I still live the same, i dont avoid people, they can cough on me for all i care. I probably havent been sick because other people started being less disgusting or ... maybe... just maybe.. it's coincedence?? but that's a bit far fetched for u guys i think ^_^ i mean u guys are drawing lines, which is fine, but.. i mean, doesnt mean there is one.
A big difference around here is that sick people cannot go to work until healthy, specially in supermarkets and shops that did not close. It was quite common to come across cashiers with obvious strong colds if not worse. That is now named and shamed, sometimes even in the news.
Hypothetically, if the entire world population physically distanced for an entire month (or some appropriate time period) would cold viruses die out altogether?
And likely a net negative for many peoples mental wellbeing.
I'd imagine HN is a pretty significant selection bias for individuals who are not so interested in social interactions with people in person but that's not necessarily true for the rest of society.
I personally find the current situation very mentally taxing but not because I want to necessarily talk to people but rather from a prevaling sense of exclusion, and lack of personal freedom and choice. You may think this is acceptable but for me it's actually quite painful psychologically.
Randal Munroe tried to answer that in the book 'What If?' Basic conclusion is no. Virus would linger in a few hosts long enough to restart.
Also it would destroy the economy and potentially damage our health. 'It's possible mild infections serve serve to train and calibrate our immune system'
Virus can linger in host for months. Also animals can spread some viruses. There are terrorists who could preserve it... Even (re)creating virus is feasible.
Id you can stop touching your face, and wash your hands more often, then yeah you might get a cold less often.
One hope I had, is that companies will stop incentiving workers to work when they are sick. But I've heard nothing from the government. Perhaps once they stop hating trump, they'll do something useful.
I'm glad that covid has made wearing masks acceptable. Now if I feel a little sick or suspect that I may be coming down with a cold I will wear a mask in public without people thinking that I have the plague. I think others will do the same which should reduce the rate of common cold in the winter months.
Assuming that HCoV-OC43 caused the 1889 pandemic, it killed about 0.06% of the world population. By comparison COVID-19 has so far killed about 0.02% of the world population.
Even if we had zero ICUs or ventilators the COVID-19 fatality rate would only be marginally higher. The vast majority of patients who are going to survive will do so regardless of whether they receive ICU level care. The current care protocol recommends mechanical ventilation only as a last resort. Most of the effective treatments can be delivered at lower care levels.
That protocol (MATH+) has received wide marketing but it’s not obviously correct. Paul Marik, the creator, was previously known for some promising studies on vitamin C in hospital care that ultimately didn’t pan put. But he doubled down on it, including in this protocol.
Am not a doctor, just repeating what I read doctors saying.
IIRC from a study in French hospitals, one in three people being ventilated died. Without ventilation, these people would have died with almost 100% certainty (that what “last resort” means BTW), so without ventilation we would have around 3 times more death. Furthermore, in the 19th century, they had no access to antibiotics, so a significant amount of the deaths has probably be caused by bacterial infection on top of the viral one (like what happened with the Spanish flu).
On the other hand, the world population was way younger at that time, so Covid19 would have caused fewer sever cases back then.
I am aware of what last resort means. The point is that the total number of patients saved by ventilators is tiny relative to the worldwide death toll. It's great that doctors were able to save those people but it doesn't move the needle when we're looking at population level statistics.
Unfortunately I believe just being on a ventilator makes you very likely to die in the next few years once you're taken off it - but I'm not sure if that's because it damages your lungs or just because you had to be really sick to be put on one.
Some countries (eg. norway, there way an article in our local news a few days ago) usually don't put elderly, very ill people on ventilators, if the chances of survival are minimum. Some do.
The problem with different treatments and procedures also cause different statistics and comparing between countries is almost impossible.
In my country (France), as of yesterday, 45 635 people have died in hospital (having access to a ventilator with few exceptions) and 19 780 outside (no ventilator). So in my country, the majority of covid19 victims had access to a ventilator and in France alone, ventilation has saved around 90 000 people (for 65k death). I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case elsewhere in Europe too.
On the 1.8 million dead from Covid19, 500k came from Europe, which means around 750k were saved by ventilators there. It is already not “tiny” and I'm counting Europe only.
That utilitarian view can make sense to some. But even a 55-year-old swimmer, cyclist and marathoner can die of this. It's way more than a pious "it was their time" thing. Let's all get past that one.
>even a 55-year-old swimmer, cyclist and marathoner can die of this
...but on average, they won't. It's way more than a pious "this exceptional case confirms an non-existing rule" thing. Let's get past the fear mongering.
That's a meaningless statement. They do die of it, at alarming rates. That's the whole point. Dismissing it with fatalism is fine for you, go ahead and contract it and take the risk. Just quit with the dismissive "everyone has to go sometime" irresponsible nonsense.
But it's not. 55 year olds are not dropping like flies like you're implying in your previous, false, statement [0][1].
Furthermore I have contracted it and guess what, I'm fine _now_ (sure we could argue about "long term effects" but at the moment that is big unknown). I'm also quite young so that played a part of course.
It's not dismissive to say everyone has to go sometime, it's just the truth.
If you're willing to sacrifice resources to give an extra few years to an already dying or sickly subject that's fair enough but pardon me if I beg to differ and look at the other side for the argument and focus on the repercussions for those that will not be _medically_ affected as much.
True. But hold on: in my country (France), as of yesterday, 45 635 people have died in hospital (having access to a ventilator with few exceptions) and 19 780 outside (no ventilator). So in my country, the majority of covid19 victims had access to a ventilator. And given that a large part of the deaths took place in western countries, that subgroup is big.
Oh, that sounds really interesting. Thanks. That was not what I understood from the aforementioned study and obviously that changes the figures a lot (by a factor 4). Too bad it's behind a paywall :/
Taking that in account, out of the 45k who died in hospital, 12k died after being admitted in ICU. In the meantime, ICU saved 32k people (73%)[1], which is indeed far lower than my previous estimation, I stand corrected.
Travel was less common and slower, but that hardly matters. All it takes is one index case to start exponential spread in each population center. Even in 1889 steamships and railroads were common and allowed people to travel hundreds of miles per day. There's no way to prove it now but I suspect the worldwide infection rate was quite high within a year.
fwiw, the 1889 pandemic returned in 1890 and even re-appeared as late as 1892 with subsequent waves being more deadly then the first.
> The initial 1890 outbreak subsided after six weeks. However, the disease returned the next year and caused nearly twice as many deaths and also reappeared in 1892. The Registrar General calculated the death toll in 1890 as 27,000, in 1891 as 58,000 and in 1892 as 25,000.
> These second and third waves are worrying given that we are still in the first outbreak of Covid-19. Honigsbaum expresses caution, however. “The claim that the ‘Russian influenza’ pandemic could have been due to a coronavirus is intriguing, if speculative. Certainly, one of the pandemic’s key features was the way it attacked the nervous system, sparking remarkable cases of depression, psychosis and insomnia.” One notable victim was another prime minister, Lord Rosebery, who was laid up for six weeks in 1895 with a crippling fatigue.
> There's no way to prove it now but I suspect the worldwide infection rate was quite high within a year.
Worldwide, that might be hard. But for Europe, there's archival material that helps paint a picture:
> Results: The spread of the pandemic was extremely rapid, with a starting point at St Petersburg (peak date = December 7. 1889). The UK and Scottish cities were hit only 6 weeks later. The mean speed of the front wave was approximately 300 Km/Week. The mean basic reproduction rate was 2.15 (range: 2.04–2.32). The mean peak value of the mortality curves was +105% above the base value (range 10%: Christiania to 221%: Brunn). The highest reproduction rates were observed at Stuttgart, St Petersburg, and Amsterdam.
It matters because local infections could flare and die down without leaving the area. Travel speed is most significant in incentivizing more and farther travel.
> I don't think in 1889 they used masks, social distancing and quatantines but also travel was much less back then.
They did. I can't quite find something about masks, but social distancing and quarantining: certainly.
> One major way of controlling Russian flu’s spread was self-quarantine. As with today, nineteenth-century doctors asked flu patients to keep themselves from society. “Every patient who is attacked by influenza ought certainly to keep within doors,” asserted one English physician.
And:
> Quarantine can be just as frightening as the disease itself, making it a target for humorous relief. One such cartoon from Funny Folks occurred early in the epidemic. The illustration depicts an aristocratic lady with influenza soliciting a dance from one of two healthy gentlemen standing in front of her. The lady continually sneezes as she tries to explain how she had not “probised Captaid Bodtgobery” the next “dadse,” and so she was free to “dadse” with someone else. This lady evokes the distress of British socialites as they tried to traverse society during Russian flu. The scene’s backdrop adds to this distress. Everyone stands around the ballroom with red noses, and many hold handkerchiefs near their faces in anticipation of the next sneeze, showing how these socialites chose class duties over convalescence and containment.
Even though "social distancing" wasn't used as a clear phrase. In 1889, the prevailing theories about the spread of disease revolved around "miasma's" in the air. The 1880's is the same timeframe in which a handful pioneers first discovered viruses as a distinct organism. It would take a few more decades before classic theories would be replaced by modern virology and bacteriology. The 1850-1880's was also the same time when people like Joseph Lister, Florence Nightingale and Franz Semelweiss would make the first strides towards introducing hygiene in hospitals which curbed mortality (even though this was often met with fierce opposition by the incumbent medical establishment at the time).
The world population in 1889 was actually in better health relative to the co-morbid conditions that cause bad COVID-19 outcomes. Levels of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic diseases were all much lower. Partly that was because people ate less and moved more, but also unhealthy people just died sooner so they weren't around to be infected by a virus.
"It may continue to cause severe illnesses for some years yet, especially among older people."
What's behind this being raised as a possibility? Is it just that some older people may not be suitable for vaccination, or not accept vaccination, or is there something else?
The flu has special mechanisms that let it evolve every year and change its outer proteins. Coronaviruses don't, and they mutate more slowly because they have a proofreader.
I knew that bats are often the source of zoonotic viral transmission, but not why bats are such persistent and effective reservoirs of virus. This article (and the linked review) does a pretty good job of explaining why: that bats more finely modulate their immune response and thus “tolerate” viral infection over long periods. The article then speculates that various environmental stressors reduce immunity and induce heightened viral shedding, ultimately leading to spillover.
So now that we have proven covid vaccines, is there any chance of them being adapted to treat these other coronaviruses? If four viruses make up ~25% of common colds, knocking those out could have a significant impact on quality of life and productivity. (After dealing with COVID-19, of course.)
Yeah, I've read that. So it certainly seems like it would be possible. I wonder if it's something that would actually happen though, or if minor viruses just aren't considered worth it.
I heard "common colds" are more widespread in winter because:
- viruses involved tend to remain active longer in colder air
- interior air is renewed less frequently in winter, increasing the likelihood to encounter the virus
But there is still this very common belief that we get ill by getting cold in a physical sense, while e.g. being outside with not warm enough clothes. Is it that being exposed to cold air makes out defenses in the lungs or nose less efficient? Is it that we are cold because we actually start developing the illness for which we were infected a few days ago? Or is it just a cognitive bias and only the two factors cited above play a role?
I got curious, because I got a cold or something similar after walking in the snow with wet boots for a few kilometres. It's the second time it happens to me.
From what I gather, that makes you more vulnerable to viral and bacterial infections.
Adding to that, people spend more time in enclosed spaces in the winter, making exposure more likely.
It's easily observable that colds are more common in winter (at least in temperate climates where winter is the cold season). I've just always had trouble buying the argument that "people spend more time in enclosed spaces" in winter. At least not a degree significant enough to make a difference.
I go to an office and spend the same amount of time in it in the winter and in the summer. Employees at meatpacking plants and Starbucks baristas don't get to work outside in the summertime. Children still go to school, their school days are just as long, and they don't have classes outside even if the weather allows it. You still have to walk the dog, whether it's summer or winter.
All the outdoor activities that are easier to do in warmer weather just don't seem to be universal enough to explain effects on a whole population. Most people spend very little time hiking outdoors. As a fraction of the total number of people in the entire country, the number of people who play tennis outdoors is probably tiny. Drinking at the bar versus drinking on an outdoor patio barely seems worth mentioning. Maybe the cold epidemics are driven by agricultural workers who stay indoors in winter? At least they're pretty numerous, there are more of them than there are tennis players...
> I go to an office and spend the same amount of time in it in the winter and in the summer. Employees at meatpacking plants and Starbucks baristas don't get to work outside in the summertime. Children still go to school, their school days are just as long, and they don't have classes outside even if the weather allows it. You still have to walk the dog, whether it's summer or winter.
This is very different in my case (France). In the summer, windows are often open, which suffice to make a big difference I believe, work and home. Never in winter. In summer, half or our work meals are eaten outside or in well ventilated restaurants. Winter -> at most you walk fast 2 minutes to get in a hot building again. Social activites are all closed rooms in winter.
Ah! What a fascinating world. The parts of the US that I am familiar with make extremely widespread use of indoor climate control. Many buildings, such as offices and schools, have windows that barely open or don't open at all. And even if the weather permits you to eat outdoors, there usually isn't enough public space where you could do it comfortably and safely. I guess you could drive to a restaurant and then eat in your car with the windows rolled down.
Notably the US had high summer covid cases in the AC belt, in contrast to the northeast and also in contrast to canada and europe, where hermetically sealed environments are less common.
I’d be curious to know what flu and cold season is like in the south.
There may also be seasonal changes to hvac systems in milder climates. They all have varying degrees of recirculation vs bringing in outside air. If you are running heavy ac or heavy heating, it costs more to bring in outside air. So there may be seasonal variations in recirculation settings even within the same sealed environment. I’m less confident on this point though as I don’t know hvac’s very well and they are supposed to filter viruses.
The messaging telling people not to spend time outside was terrible. With reasonable spacing it isn't a big risk, and there is less opportunity for it now.
Exactly, especially when vitamin D (the one your body generates from sunlight) appears to be a factor in severity of infections.
So much of the response doesn't make sense. Lockdown because China did it. Then keep on locking down despite it not appearing to make a big difference. I just heard that beds in the UK hospitals were reduced so allow for social distancing.
Even if offices are similar summer/winter a tom of other places are not:
- schools ventillate more
- people sit outside vs inside in restaurants and bars
- public transit is way more crowded if you live in a city center (because people don’t walk as much)
Also, at least in Poland, the flu season usually comes
in Autumn and Spring, not Winter, when the temperatures are the lowest.
My personal bet: children go to schools in September, and distribute germs across population in October/November. February-March is an afternath of Christmass and winter holidays in Jan/Feb.
I don't know about Poland, but those factors don't really apply in the parts of the US I am familiar with.
- If buildings have climate control, which many schools and offices do, you are generally discouraged or prevented from opening windows. For example, a typical architecture for American public schools creates many entirely windowless classrooms.
- A significant majority of American restaurants, in my experience, only have indoor seating, except for maybe a small number of tables outside. This is because sidewalks are narrow, and many restaurants are located in strip malls with shared parking lots. The strip mall is probably the most common form of American retail development. While burger chains like McDonald's and Burger King will typically occupy free-standing buildings in the middle of a parking lot, they also rarely have any outdoor seating, probably because of the hazard presented by cars at the drive-thru line.
- In my experience, public transit in many American cities is insignificant. In the cities where public transit is a lifeline (such as the New York City subway, the DC metro, and the California Caltrain), ridership is high year-round and you also don't have much freedom to open windows. (And in a subway tunnel, why would you?)
Not that I want to contradict your experience, it is actually very common. But I would truly be interested in knowing the causality relationship between having the feet wet and cold and having a "common cold", that is an infection of the nose/sinuses/throat/lungs.
It has been suggested that cold reduces flow in the nasal blood vessels and this hinders immune response, giving the virus a foothold for infecting the organism. I read a study about a bunch of people being left with their feet in a pool of cold water and it showed an increased infection rate vs the control group, but I don't remember how significant and I cannot find it anymore.
>> But there is still this very common belief that we get ill by getting cold in a physical sense, while e.g. being outside with not warm enough clothes.
This is kinda true, the body produce mucus (snot) in the nasal passages. Microbes sticks to this, and when swallowed are neutralized by our stomach acid. But cold air slows down this process, so our first line of defence doesn't work as well during winter.
There are also factors such as behaviour changes like spending more time indoors, closed windows and a lot of other stuff that also likely helps spread infections.
I think there are multiple factors, each of which only increases R by a little bit, but when combined produce a noticeable increase.
Lack of ventilation is certainly a major factor. The temperature difference between indoors and outdoors is much larger in the winter, so people are more reluctant to let in fresh air.
We also don't wash winter clothes as often as we do summer clothes, so viruses that stick to fabric might have more chances to get into our bodies. Homes and public spaces get cleaned less often, too, as they don't feel as sticky and smelly as they do in the summer. Ditto for our own hands, which is probably more important that any of the other factors mentioned here.
In the United States, two of the largest mass migration and shopping events of the year take place in the early to mid-winter: Thanksgiving and Christmas. In China, COVID-19 began to spread in earnest outside of Wuhan around Chinese New Year. Even societies that don't have a special holiday in the wintertime might be impacted by cascading infections from those that do.
Should I summarize the article, cold (low temperature) has no relation with being infected: two groups of people inoculated with a virus, one with wet suits in a cold environment, the other in a normal environment, develop a cold (the disease) at equal rate.
Being in cold weather causes the same symptoms as "having a cold": teary eyes, runny nose and chills. The article postulates this is the root of the belief that cold weather causes "common cold".
> The covid-19 virus isn't the first coronavirus to jump from animals to humans. What can we learn from previous encounters
But we don't. We're heavily to addicted to animal products. Not only on individual level (i'm vegan and it's bizarre to see how people are clinging to "their" animal product indulgence, many straight up admit it is cruel and unnecessary), but also institutionalized (subsidies for animal farms, animal feed products, gov't paid advertising campaigns, etc.).
This covid is an animal abuser's disease. It's about time (or long overdue as we can read in this article) we revisit our relations to the animal kingdom.
Sci-fi thought: if everybody was vegan we’d have a crazy plant-based industry that would do crazy thing to scale and we would start having plant-based diseases.
If we need less crop produce (because we dont need to feed the live stock) then the crop produce related pollution will decrease by the same factor, right?
No also consider all the pollution from the live stock (which is huge! see the documentary Cowspiracy or Dominion for details).
A lot of pollution come directly or indirectly from animal produce. I count CO2, NOx, phosphor, methane, water use/pollution/acidification, land use/pollution/acidification. It's said that it is one of the most polluting industries, up there with transport and residential heating/cooling.
I don't 100% understand this mindset. There are plenty of carnivorous animals on the planet and they (likely) never deal with viruses on this scale. But somehow humans should stop consuming animal product? It doesn't make sense unless there is a serious health concern. The main issue would be attempting to purchase from sustainable, responsible animal product sources, rather than the mass-produced/institutionalized ones.
It's not about hunting down an animal in the wild. It's about bio industry: having great numbers of animals on the smallest possible area, with the least amount of care.
If we are as addicted as we are to animal products we cannot all get that from "from sustainable, responsible animal product sources", or have that hunted in the wild. We simply do not have enough earths for that.
This is a baseless assumption, and lets be honest you're only making the argument because you want people to be vegan.
Industrialized animal farming is almost never going to cause a COVID crisis like this, this is going to come from game meat. Which is funny, because if you seriously expect anyone to transition to veganism over time then only allowing a limited amount of hunted meat would be a good intermediate period.
So transitioning to global veganism would make it temporarily worse!
Read the article. It names other instances that did come from industrial meat production. And there are other issues on the rise: mad cow disease, antibiotic resistance.
> if you seriously expect anyone to transition to veganism over time then only allowing a limited amount of hunted meat would be a good intermediate period.
You dont make sense here.
> So transitioning to global veganism would make it temporarily worse!
Still not making sense: what'd be worse?
Glad you acknowledged that on the long term veganism does provide a solutions to some global issues.
Sure you have. You continually make reference a 'communist' and 'authoritarian' conspiracy in the US. You make the unsubstantiated claim that our government will enforce permanent lockdowns. You ignore the fact that even the most unabashedly communist and authoritarian regime in the world (China) has not done this.
Wanting to discuss virus origins should not be political or knee jerk censored. At the very surface, natural origins next to a P4 lab doing gain of function coronavirus research is already asking a lot from us.
Wasn't this inspected by leading virus scientists and concluded that its way different to anything that lab ever found and there is no current technology to modify it so much? The lab isn't secretive about its stash of viruses they find in the wild IIRC.
I recall reading some interview with lead scientist in this lab few weeks ago someplace but can't find it now.
It's impossible to prove they didn't randomly mutate a virus until it reached its current state, so people who want a conspiracy theory are already falling back to that, Russell's teapot style. But there's also no reason to care if they did or not.
> But there's also no reason to care if they did or not.
I would liken it to Chernobyl if they did accidentally release it. If it wasn't natural then it could have been prevented, including the 2 million dead.
No reason to care? If SARS-CoV-2 is a lab accident, the labs need to be shut down and heavily regulated before reopening if ever. There is plenty of reason to care.
Will we ever know for sure one way or the other? That seems less likely. If it is an accident, China will hide it forever. If it’s not, it will be hard to prove unless you find the intermediary host somehow.
Sure, but are you going to shut down a lab in China? I'm not. Essentially any discussion of this topic in English is a waste of time unless we're going to shut down the US CDC.
(Which I've lived next to most of my life and never got sick, so it seems fine.)
The problem is that, if it did end up as a leak from a lab, then all current virus labs would come under much more scrutiny from the authorities as well as from the public in general.
So there is a good reason for labs to not publicly declare that this entire problem was caused by a research lab.
Incentives for researchers in labs are not so clean cut. There is also strong motivation to expose the truth, not only because it’s the right thing to do but also for the reputation earned by being the one to expose the truth.
If there is any sign that the virus was indeed created in a lab I suspect we’ll hear about it in detail sooner or later.
The science is over my head and it’s, yknow, some guy on the Internet so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems to present a pretty compelling case that SARS-CoV-2 is in fact very similar to two viruses the WIV would have had on hand, and that the way it’s structured looks an awful lot like a bunch of other chimeras the people there had built.
> Wasn't this inspected by leading virus scientists and concluded that its way different to anything that lab ever found and there is no current technology to modify it so much?
Yes, but this only refutes the notion that the virus was actively modified/developed in the lab. A lab-leak doesn't necessarily mean Covid-19 is some genetic monstrosity cooked up by the CCP. It includes the very real possibility that Chinese researchers gathering bat specimens for research and careless with their containment policy ended up being the source of the crossover into the human population. There isn't any scientific evidence that makes it more or less likely that the virus was contracted by some bushmeat vendor contacting the wrong bat than a virologist contacting the wrong bat. There is however, lots of circumstantial evidence that the lab-leak theory should at the very least be as strongly considered as anything:
1. The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 that has been found in wild bats was in a species hundreds of miles away from Wuhan, and is known to have been studied at the viroligy lab in Wuhan. Its the equivalent of a crossover event occuring down the road from the CDC in Atlanta, even though the closest thing to an animal reservoir we've found is native to Ohio.
2. Every alternative animal reservoir has been debunked. Initially there were theories about snakes, and most prominently, pangolins. But the scientific community has pretty thoroughly determined these are unlikely.
3. The lab in question raised alarms even prior to the pandemic and 2020. International inspectors wrote memos dating back years expressing concern with the level of cleanliness and standards at the lab.
4. The Chinese government has been extremely unhelpful, if not actively working to hinder, efforts to discover the source of the virus. They refused to allow WHO inspectors into the country in the early days of the pandamic, they systematically purged the wet market initially believed to be the source of the outbreak, over the protests of the scientific community as it would make it very difficult to trace potential reservoirs. And they to date have not let WHO teams into Wuhan to investigate. In fact, the WHO has been negotiating for a year and was supposed to have a team given access this week, only for China to balk at the last moment due to claims about visa processing.
Obviously this doesn't amount to a smoking gun in any respect. There is still a substantial probability of no lab-leak. But there has been a tendency to dismiss the theory of a lab-leak in part because it's been conflated with a genetically engineered conspiracy theory, and in part due to politics. I think the fact that populists like Trump insisting on associating the virus with the Chinese government has led to reflexive dismissals of a potential lab leak as conspiracy.
It's interesting to note that the peak death rate for Spanish Flu was for ages around 28 which represents the infants born around the time of the Russian Flu. There might be some causation there along the lines of "being exposed to a potent flu in infancy leads to a dysregulated immune response for new strains" [1]. Maybe there are studies out there looking at this in the case of Covid, already?
183 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 248 ms ] thread> 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
Individual immunity is different.
Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
That doesn't make much sense; vaccines aren't topical treatments for current infections but systemic preparation against future infections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoglobulin_A
My personal opinion is that we should strive to create antidotes when the body fails to fix itself, instead of removing the threat altogether. Evolution needs viruses, in the same way the universe needs entropy.
1. https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protom...
endogenous retroviruses in mammals are amazing. primates owe to one or more ERVs the effectiveness of the p53 gene activation (p52 is a tumor suppressor gene).
But the cost for individuals is tremendous, 99.9999999% cases the infection would not be beneficial.
Perhaps in a short while we can do much better ourselves, it certainly seems we humans want to transcend evolution and death.
Yep, if nothing else, we need them to "train" our immune systems.
Treating the coronavirus as a flu would be a best option... vaccinate the most exposed and vulnerable groups, and let others get it.
The question is do we need the blind god of evolution.
The spread only increases the probability of more mutations and variants. I can’t imagine a future without it.
IIRC their immune system evolved to essentially tolerate foreign/damaged DNA because the heat caused by their flight would regularly damage cells. So viruses can basically move in and make themselves comfortable.
I mean technically we already have a precedent with trying to stop mosquito reproduction to curb malaria and other mosquito transmitted diseases.
I understand that from a virology standpoint there is a lot to learn from bats and that they have an insanely robust immune system but is it really reasonable to allow these colonies to thrive unchecked with thousands of bats tightly packed together? It's just that it seems the most recent threats Ebola, MERS, SARS-Cov1, now SARS-Cov2, all seem to have had a bat colony as it's genetic origin.
This comment helped me to think to find out – thank you – and indeed: https://www.batswithoutborders.org/role-of-bats-in-our-ecosy...
I see it such that we must learn from bats. And nature. And learn to collaborate better among ourselves.
If you rationalize it like this, then why is it bad to slightly reduce human population?
I would guess-estimate that, if given the choice and the cognition, bats would likely also choose to self-preservate to the detriment of Humans.
As we can see with 7+ billions people on earth (or lemmings) too much reproduction threatens self-preservation, hence my previous comment.
If we take out any emotion and go by pure logic, a virus culling the herd doesn't seem to be a bad thing.
Now I'm like anyone else, I'd rather not be culled but I understand that if we don't find solutions, nature will.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/badger-c...
> I can’t imagine a future without it.
And a past? Coronaviruses have been around in animals for at least nearly a hundred years.
The domestic cat edition (FIP) isn't too rare. Many cats live with it unaffected their entire life. It's a type of virus, and viruses are everywhere.
Just because a virus hops species doesn't mean it does anything interesting to/with that species. I'd wager most mutations are benign.
I would be surprised if there was a (reasonably near) past without it.
It has probably been everywhere for a long time. The point of the article is that coronaviruses jumping to humans is something that happens fairly often.
Idk random idea...I'm by no means an expert, but trying to think ways to mitigate it.
Hopefully all this will also normalize more people staying home or wearing a mask if they feel sick.
But most likely it is the social distancing.
It's worth noting that it may well be the only vitamin where deficiency is common in developed countries and where supplementation has plausible benefits. In fact the only thing missing to positively say that supplementation is beneficial is that while deficiency is known for certain to be associated with major issues, and that supplementation has recently been shown to be beneficial in some cases, it's not been demonstrated that supplementing in the general case translates into better outcomes. However, since it's certainly not been demonstrated that it doesn't, it seems quite a bit more plausible than it does than otherwise.
The question is, what are the risks of supplementation? For almost everyone, and at doses that are not completely insane to begin with, the risks seem to be close to zero. But there may be some genetic factors that make a small minority susceptible to overdose.
Funny, those "I never get ill" claimers always do get ill if you follow up, "just very little, it's nothing".
Usually it's a constant flow of feeling mostly ok and an unexplained runny nose every now and then, especially in the throes of Winter right now.
I blame my very own live in bio-terrorist, also known as my 2 year old child.
I have no idea why that didn't cause spread like crazy. The only thought that comes to mind is nearly full face mask compliance but who knows?
I suspect the US loves telling you to wash your hands to distract you from how they've designed all office windows to never open.
The issue is people switch to permamently closed windows, but „forget” to track co2, which causes a ton of issues with office work.
She's going to likely be wearing masks from here on out.
Anyway it doesn't make sense at all, most of the time folks are sick its not flu - its due to bacteria/viruses we already have in ie throat or nasal area that spot a weak moment (ie getting cold or eating too cold food) and attack. I basically get sick only like that during winter. One time I had pretty bad case of food poisoning from stale mayo and was so weak, I had sore throat and running nose almost immediately.
I'd imagine HN is a pretty significant selection bias for individuals who are not so interested in social interactions with people in person but that's not necessarily true for the rest of society.
I personally find the current situation very mentally taxing but not because I want to necessarily talk to people but rather from a prevaling sense of exclusion, and lack of personal freedom and choice. You may think this is acceptable but for me it's actually quite painful psychologically.
Also it would destroy the economy and potentially damage our health. 'It's possible mild infections serve serve to train and calibrate our immune system'
Made me rethink all the security precautions, and I’m way more paranoid now :,)
- nothing
- next time - you get a cold, but have an easier time because of a healthy and unloaded immune system
- next time - you just get a cold
- next time - you get a cold, but have a harder time
- next time - you get a 3 colds at once from many directions (either separately evolved or lots of micro-populations)
One hope I had, is that companies will stop incentiving workers to work when they are sick. But I've heard nothing from the government. Perhaps once they stop hating trump, they'll do something useful.
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_...
Am not a doctor, just repeating what I read doctors saying.
On the other hand, the world population was way younger at that time, so Covid19 would have caused fewer sever cases back then.
Some countries (eg. norway, there way an article in our local news a few days ago) usually don't put elderly, very ill people on ventilators, if the chances of survival are minimum. Some do.
The problem with different treatments and procedures also cause different statistics and comparing between countries is almost impossible.
On the 1.8 million dead from Covid19, 500k came from Europe, which means around 750k were saved by ventilators there. It is already not “tiny” and I'm counting Europe only.
It may sound super cynical and all, but perhaps we've forgotten that natural conclusion to life is death
...but on average, they won't. It's way more than a pious "this exceptional case confirms an non-existing rule" thing. Let's get past the fear mongering.
Furthermore I have contracted it and guess what, I'm fine _now_ (sure we could argue about "long term effects" but at the moment that is big unknown). I'm also quite young so that played a part of course.
It's not dismissive to say everyone has to go sometime, it's just the truth.
If you're willing to sacrifice resources to give an extra few years to an already dying or sickly subject that's fair enough but pardon me if I beg to differ and look at the other side for the argument and focus on the repercussions for those that will not be _medically_ affected as much.
[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1327 [1] https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatalit...
Maybe 25’000 assuming two were saved for each one who died on it.
In that subgroup. A large part (I'd say a majority) of the people who died never used a ventilator.
True. But hold on: in my country (France), as of yesterday, 45 635 people have died in hospital (having access to a ventilator with few exceptions) and 19 780 outside (no ventilator). So in my country, the majority of covid19 victims had access to a ventilator. And given that a large part of the deaths took place in western countries, that subgroup is big.
« Pourquoi une grande majorité des morts du Covid-19 à l'hôpital ne sont jamais passés par la réanimation ? »
https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2020/12/11/pourquoi-une-...
Edit: https://42info.fr/les-morts-a-lhopital-qui-ne-sont-pas-passe...
Taking that in account, out of the 45k who died in hospital, 12k died after being admitted in ICU. In the meantime, ICU saved 32k people (73%)[1], which is indeed far lower than my previous estimation, I stand corrected.
[1]: https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dd67.pdf (page 17) which is the document quoted in your article.
Of course, back in 1889 there would be also multiple aspects that would lower the rate, if only the average density of populations.
We just don't know how much % of the population got that virus then so we can't really compare.
> The initial 1890 outbreak subsided after six weeks. However, the disease returned the next year and caused nearly twice as many deaths and also reappeared in 1892. The Registrar General calculated the death toll in 1890 as 27,000, in 1891 as 58,000 and in 1892 as 25,000.
> These second and third waves are worrying given that we are still in the first outbreak of Covid-19. Honigsbaum expresses caution, however. “The claim that the ‘Russian influenza’ pandemic could have been due to a coronavirus is intriguing, if speculative. Certainly, one of the pandemic’s key features was the way it attacked the nervous system, sparking remarkable cases of depression, psychosis and insomnia.” One notable victim was another prime minister, Lord Rosebery, who was laid up for six weeks in 1895 with a crippling fatigue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/31/did-a-coronavi...
> There's no way to prove it now but I suspect the worldwide infection rate was quite high within a year.
Worldwide, that might be hard. But for Europe, there's archival material that helps paint a picture:
> Results: The spread of the pandemic was extremely rapid, with a starting point at St Petersburg (peak date = December 7. 1889). The UK and Scottish cities were hit only 6 weeks later. The mean speed of the front wave was approximately 300 Km/Week. The mean basic reproduction rate was 2.15 (range: 2.04–2.32). The mean peak value of the mortality curves was +105% above the base value (range 10%: Christiania to 221%: Brunn). The highest reproduction rates were observed at Stuttgart, St Petersburg, and Amsterdam.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)00369-X/ful...
They did. I can't quite find something about masks, but social distancing and quarantining: certainly.
> One major way of controlling Russian flu’s spread was self-quarantine. As with today, nineteenth-century doctors asked flu patients to keep themselves from society. “Every patient who is attacked by influenza ought certainly to keep within doors,” asserted one English physician.
And:
> Quarantine can be just as frightening as the disease itself, making it a target for humorous relief. One such cartoon from Funny Folks occurred early in the epidemic. The illustration depicts an aristocratic lady with influenza soliciting a dance from one of two healthy gentlemen standing in front of her. The lady continually sneezes as she tries to explain how she had not “probised Captaid Bodtgobery” the next “dadse,” and so she was free to “dadse” with someone else. This lady evokes the distress of British socialites as they tried to traverse society during Russian flu. The scene’s backdrop adds to this distress. Everyone stands around the ballroom with red noses, and many hold handkerchiefs near their faces in anticipation of the next sneeze, showing how these socialites chose class duties over convalescence and containment.
Even though "social distancing" wasn't used as a clear phrase. In 1889, the prevailing theories about the spread of disease revolved around "miasma's" in the air. The 1880's is the same timeframe in which a handful pioneers first discovered viruses as a distinct organism. It would take a few more decades before classic theories would be replaced by modern virology and bacteriology. The 1850-1880's was also the same time when people like Joseph Lister, Florence Nightingale and Franz Semelweiss would make the first strides towards introducing hygiene in hospitals which curbed mortality (even though this was often met with fierce opposition by the incumbent medical establishment at the time).
The entire article is a must-read really:
https://nursingclio.org/2020/03/24/joking-in-the-time-of-pan...
What's behind this being raised as a possibility? Is it just that some older people may not be suitable for vaccination, or not accept vaccination, or is there something else?
I read this as there’s no reason the virus can’t mutate and render a vaccine ineffective.
Long but an interesting read
https://knowablemagazine.org/article/health-disease/2020/why...
- viruses involved tend to remain active longer in colder air
- interior air is renewed less frequently in winter, increasing the likelihood to encounter the virus
But there is still this very common belief that we get ill by getting cold in a physical sense, while e.g. being outside with not warm enough clothes. Is it that being exposed to cold air makes out defenses in the lungs or nose less efficient? Is it that we are cold because we actually start developing the illness for which we were infected a few days ago? Or is it just a cognitive bias and only the two factors cited above play a role?
From what I gather, that makes you more vulnerable to viral and bacterial infections.
Adding to that, people spend more time in enclosed spaces in the winter, making exposure more likely.
I go to an office and spend the same amount of time in it in the winter and in the summer. Employees at meatpacking plants and Starbucks baristas don't get to work outside in the summertime. Children still go to school, their school days are just as long, and they don't have classes outside even if the weather allows it. You still have to walk the dog, whether it's summer or winter.
All the outdoor activities that are easier to do in warmer weather just don't seem to be universal enough to explain effects on a whole population. Most people spend very little time hiking outdoors. As a fraction of the total number of people in the entire country, the number of people who play tennis outdoors is probably tiny. Drinking at the bar versus drinking on an outdoor patio barely seems worth mentioning. Maybe the cold epidemics are driven by agricultural workers who stay indoors in winter? At least they're pretty numerous, there are more of them than there are tennis players...
This is very different in my case (France). In the summer, windows are often open, which suffice to make a big difference I believe, work and home. Never in winter. In summer, half or our work meals are eaten outside or in well ventilated restaurants. Winter -> at most you walk fast 2 minutes to get in a hot building again. Social activites are all closed rooms in winter.
I’d be curious to know what flu and cold season is like in the south.
There may also be seasonal changes to hvac systems in milder climates. They all have varying degrees of recirculation vs bringing in outside air. If you are running heavy ac or heavy heating, it costs more to bring in outside air. So there may be seasonal variations in recirculation settings even within the same sealed environment. I’m less confident on this point though as I don’t know hvac’s very well and they are supposed to filter viruses.
Beach trips, playgrounds, etc probably do add up.
It's killed quite quickly in UV light.
The messaging telling people not to spend time outside was terrible. With reasonable spacing it isn't a big risk, and there is less opportunity for it now.
So much of the response doesn't make sense. Lockdown because China did it. Then keep on locking down despite it not appearing to make a big difference. I just heard that beds in the UK hospitals were reduced so allow for social distancing.
Also, at least in Poland, the flu season usually comes in Autumn and Spring, not Winter, when the temperatures are the lowest.
My personal bet: children go to schools in September, and distribute germs across population in October/November. February-March is an afternath of Christmass and winter holidays in Jan/Feb.
- If buildings have climate control, which many schools and offices do, you are generally discouraged or prevented from opening windows. For example, a typical architecture for American public schools creates many entirely windowless classrooms.
- A significant majority of American restaurants, in my experience, only have indoor seating, except for maybe a small number of tables outside. This is because sidewalks are narrow, and many restaurants are located in strip malls with shared parking lots. The strip mall is probably the most common form of American retail development. While burger chains like McDonald's and Burger King will typically occupy free-standing buildings in the middle of a parking lot, they also rarely have any outdoor seating, probably because of the hazard presented by cars at the drive-thru line.
- In my experience, public transit in many American cities is insignificant. In the cities where public transit is a lifeline (such as the New York City subway, the DC metro, and the California Caltrain), ridership is high year-round and you also don't have much freedom to open windows. (And in a subway tunnel, why would you?)
It doesn't look hard to test experimentally.
This is kinda true, the body produce mucus (snot) in the nasal passages. Microbes sticks to this, and when swallowed are neutralized by our stomach acid. But cold air slows down this process, so our first line of defence doesn't work as well during winter.
There are also factors such as behaviour changes like spending more time indoors, closed windows and a lot of other stuff that also likely helps spread infections.
Lack of ventilation is certainly a major factor. The temperature difference between indoors and outdoors is much larger in the winter, so people are more reluctant to let in fresh air.
We also don't wash winter clothes as often as we do summer clothes, so viruses that stick to fabric might have more chances to get into our bodies. Homes and public spaces get cleaned less often, too, as they don't feel as sticky and smelly as they do in the summer. Ditto for our own hands, which is probably more important that any of the other factors mentioned here.
In the United States, two of the largest mass migration and shopping events of the year take place in the early to mid-winter: Thanksgiving and Christmas. In China, COVID-19 began to spread in earnest outside of Wuhan around Chinese New Year. Even societies that don't have a special holiday in the wintertime might be impacted by cascading infections from those that do.
You Don’t Get Colds from Being Cold
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25572907
Being in cold weather causes the same symptoms as "having a cold": teary eyes, runny nose and chills. The article postulates this is the root of the belief that cold weather causes "common cold".
> The covid-19 virus isn't the first coronavirus to jump from animals to humans. What can we learn from previous encounters
But we don't. We're heavily to addicted to animal products. Not only on individual level (i'm vegan and it's bizarre to see how people are clinging to "their" animal product indulgence, many straight up admit it is cruel and unnecessary), but also institutionalized (subsidies for animal farms, animal feed products, gov't paid advertising campaigns, etc.).
This covid is an animal abuser's disease. It's about time (or long overdue as we can read in this article) we revisit our relations to the animal kingdom.
And then feeding most of that crop produce to our livestock. Eating plants directly solves the problem: we'd have abundance.
No also consider all the pollution from the live stock (which is huge! see the documentary Cowspiracy or Dominion for details).
A lot of pollution come directly or indirectly from animal produce. I count CO2, NOx, phosphor, methane, water use/pollution/acidification, land use/pollution/acidification. It's said that it is one of the most polluting industries, up there with transport and residential heating/cooling.
Most of our crop produce is for the live stock we keep.
If we are as addicted as we are to animal products we cannot all get that from "from sustainable, responsible animal product sources", or have that hunted in the wild. We simply do not have enough earths for that.
Industrialized animal farming is almost never going to cause a COVID crisis like this, this is going to come from game meat. Which is funny, because if you seriously expect anyone to transition to veganism over time then only allowing a limited amount of hunted meat would be a good intermediate period.
So transitioning to global veganism would make it temporarily worse!
> if you seriously expect anyone to transition to veganism over time then only allowing a limited amount of hunted meat would be a good intermediate period.
You dont make sense here.
> So transitioning to global veganism would make it temporarily worse!
Still not making sense: what'd be worse?
Glad you acknowledged that on the long term veganism does provide a solutions to some global issues.
I swear there's a certain religious strain of thought that pervades coronavirus discussion.
As though someone must be responsible for the plague. Find the dirty people! Find the sinners! Burn them!
Scarlet letter, 1984, The Crucible, etc. seems like all these things are converging at once.
You are just spreading FUD. If our reality matches any work of fiction it is Idiocracy.
You, and many others, continue to put politics ahead of common sense.
If everyone stayed home COVID would go away. I challenge you to dispute this.
A plan that requires 100% compliance and fundamentally works against the grain of human nature is a plan bound to fail from the start.
You seem to be the type of ivory-tower utopian that's blinded by end-justifies-the-means thinking.
Your "plan" will end in disaster because it's intractable by design.
> You, and many others, continue to put politics ahead of common sense.
How is utopianism just common sense? I haven't said anything about politics either. So maybe you're projecting and revealing your mindset?
Sure you have. You continually make reference a 'communist' and 'authoritarian' conspiracy in the US. You make the unsubstantiated claim that our government will enforce permanent lockdowns. You ignore the fact that even the most unabashedly communist and authoritarian regime in the world (China) has not done this.
Sigh, while controversial to state, there has of yet been no refutation of the lab leak hypothesis presented by scientists like Brett Weinstein [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug
Wanting to discuss virus origins should not be political or knee jerk censored. At the very surface, natural origins next to a P4 lab doing gain of function coronavirus research is already asking a lot from us.
I recall reading some interview with lead scientist in this lab few weeks ago someplace but can't find it now.
I would liken it to Chernobyl if they did accidentally release it. If it wasn't natural then it could have been prevented, including the 2 million dead.
Will we ever know for sure one way or the other? That seems less likely. If it is an accident, China will hide it forever. If it’s not, it will be hard to prove unless you find the intermediary host somehow.
(Which I've lived next to most of my life and never got sick, so it seems fine.)
We still talk and try to address climate change even though we can't do much to force China to change.
Also, the facts matter. If they did accidentally release it it they at least should be reprimanded by the world for it.
Movies should be written about it, don't let them forget.
Btw seen Chernobyl on Netflix? It's good.
So there is a good reason for labs to not publicly declare that this entire problem was caused by a research lab.
If there is any sign that the virus was indeed created in a lab I suspect we’ll hear about it in detail sooner or later.
The science is over my head and it’s, yknow, some guy on the Internet so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems to present a pretty compelling case that SARS-CoV-2 is in fact very similar to two viruses the WIV would have had on hand, and that the way it’s structured looks an awful lot like a bunch of other chimeras the people there had built.
Yes, but this only refutes the notion that the virus was actively modified/developed in the lab. A lab-leak doesn't necessarily mean Covid-19 is some genetic monstrosity cooked up by the CCP. It includes the very real possibility that Chinese researchers gathering bat specimens for research and careless with their containment policy ended up being the source of the crossover into the human population. There isn't any scientific evidence that makes it more or less likely that the virus was contracted by some bushmeat vendor contacting the wrong bat than a virologist contacting the wrong bat. There is however, lots of circumstantial evidence that the lab-leak theory should at the very least be as strongly considered as anything:
1. The closest virus to SARS-CoV-2 that has been found in wild bats was in a species hundreds of miles away from Wuhan, and is known to have been studied at the viroligy lab in Wuhan. Its the equivalent of a crossover event occuring down the road from the CDC in Atlanta, even though the closest thing to an animal reservoir we've found is native to Ohio.
2. Every alternative animal reservoir has been debunked. Initially there were theories about snakes, and most prominently, pangolins. But the scientific community has pretty thoroughly determined these are unlikely.
3. The lab in question raised alarms even prior to the pandemic and 2020. International inspectors wrote memos dating back years expressing concern with the level of cleanliness and standards at the lab.
4. The Chinese government has been extremely unhelpful, if not actively working to hinder, efforts to discover the source of the virus. They refused to allow WHO inspectors into the country in the early days of the pandamic, they systematically purged the wet market initially believed to be the source of the outbreak, over the protests of the scientific community as it would make it very difficult to trace potential reservoirs. And they to date have not let WHO teams into Wuhan to investigate. In fact, the WHO has been negotiating for a year and was supposed to have a team given access this week, only for China to balk at the last moment due to claims about visa processing.
Obviously this doesn't amount to a smoking gun in any respect. There is still a substantial probability of no lab-leak. But there has been a tendency to dismiss the theory of a lab-leak in part because it's been conflated with a genetically engineered conspiracy theory, and in part due to politics. I think the fact that populists like Trump insisting on associating the virus with the Chinese government has led to reflexive dismissals of a potential lab leak as conspiracy.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...