Flagpole wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Well, thanks for truncating the sentence, which no doubt makes it seem like it's easier for you to be right about this.
But you're not. Here's the sentence in its entirety: "Actually, when a virus mutates its lethality is *most* likely not to be affected--a great many mutations are possible in these RNA viruses and only a few would affect lethality."
RNA viruses are subject to frequent mutations and MOST of the mutations--i.e. minor (usually) changes in genetic code--have nothing at all to do with lethality, one way or the other, which is what I said.
Ask your genius wife (no snark--I know she is), out of the TOTALITY of mutations that a given RNA virus might be subject to, whether MOST of those mutations have *any* effect on lethality.
Simple summary of mutation info:
https://www.breakthroughs.com/advancing-medical-research/how-do-viruses-mutate-and-what-it-means-vaccineFor those interested, a more comprehensive review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/Vati hat je wieder mal recht gehabt.
We were talking of this variant. Again, it is COMMON for viruses to become less lethal with mutations. That is my statement, and that is true.
FP, your original statement was that this new variant is less lethal.
I haven't read every post but do you have any evidence of findings you can site which support this assertion?
I think it behooves us to be accurate as possible on a public forum in discussing the nature of a deadly virus. And it is a very different thing to say that something commonly happens as opposed to that is the case in this circumstance unless it can be supported.
One of your statement follows:
"The new variant is actually a GOOD thing. It is more contagious, but it is less lethal. That is typical of what viruses do. Don't want to kill the host, you know. The vaccines still work on it, and the fools who won't get the vaccine have less of a chance of dying from it."