A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A coronavirus epidemic hit 20k years ago, new study finds
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/science/ancient-coronavirus-epidemic.html
176 comments
Non pay walled: https://archive.is/L0yoj
People keep posting archive links to "non-paywalled" copies, but the study itself has freely available full-text not behind a paywall. No need to read the NY Times at all. Just go straight to the source: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)...
Here is the source code, AFAICT: https://github.com/DavidPierreEnard/Gene_Set_Enrichment_Pipe...
I've been involved in GWAS before, so have an inkling of what's going on. I love the creativity in this paper.
The stuff is super fascinating, but the pipelines are still very primitive—so I encourage programmers to get involved in bioinformatics if you like this stuff! In the future I expect we see work like this accompanied by not only source code but Spore like simulations that let you explore the ideas like a video game.
I've been involved in GWAS before, so have an inkling of what's going on. I love the creativity in this paper.
The stuff is super fascinating, but the pipelines are still very primitive—so I encourage programmers to get involved in bioinformatics if you like this stuff! In the future I expect we see work like this accompanied by not only source code but Spore like simulations that let you explore the ideas like a video game.
Could you please give some guidance on the topic of “what programmers could do for bioscience”? Or point to any resources doing so? Absolutely serious question.
It's written in Perl.
Perl is (amazingly) still a thing in 2021 in quantitative biology, at least in big national labs I'm familiar with.
See e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Perl-Bioinformatics-James-T...
See e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Perl-Bioinformatics-James-T...
It’s hard to beat Perl when it comes to string matching performance and flexibility.
Actually, no. But it's some sort of technical heritage/baggage.
I actually dug into it, & it's not clear. Rust & many C libraries do outperform Perl if you can stick to an NFA regex. If you like backtracking & lookaround, then it's not clear that Perl loses that much in performance.
The language itself is definitely better suited to writing those regexes all over the place, so if you have two axes of performance & regex usability, I wouldn't discount Perl for those use-cases. I do suspect though that the bioinformatics field overindexes its use of Perl because that's what they know even though it's less well-suited for other things. That being said, that's usually why programmers might choose Python. Something to be said for familiarity & access to a thriving software ecosystem you're familiar with.
The language itself is definitely better suited to writing those regexes all over the place, so if you have two axes of performance & regex usability, I wouldn't discount Perl for those use-cases. I do suspect though that the bioinformatics field overindexes its use of Perl because that's what they know even though it's less well-suited for other things. That being said, that's usually why programmers might choose Python. Something to be said for familiarity & access to a thriving software ecosystem you're familiar with.
I actually programmed it, for that exact scenario, and there's some really nice C++ libraries that outperform Perl, even in the cases you mentioned. Sure, Perl it's easier, but not necessarily faster.
You can downvote this comment as well, code is code at the end of the day :^)
You can downvote this comment as well, code is code at the end of the day :^)
I’m not downvoting you. I shared your prior but I couldn’t find any benchmarks showing it in a fair comparison. Now of course it’s entirely possible that bioinformatics applications don’t really need Perl features in most applications so they would benefit from something else. Rust also has fancy regex crate that has an advanced fused implementation to detect when it can use the faster form automatically. But I haven’t found any benchmarks definitively showing other implementations beating Perl in use cases it’s optimized for (complex backtracking and lookaround).
So?
I have Perl Traumatic Stress Disorder from too much Perl in the 90s. Just looking at Perl code makes me break out in a cold sweat. I wish I were kidding.
Otherwise, just noted that it was written in Perl.
Otherwise, just noted that it was written in Perl.
Ok. It came across as a value judgement. Personally I don't much care what its written in, executable line noise or anything else as long as practitioners of that particular language do not find anything wrong with it.
Scientists typically don't particularly care about the latest and greatest software development environments and practices, they simply need answers. The best way to deal with that is to help out, I personally think they should be applauded for putting their code out there, which is better than the vast majority. Including CS, for that matter.
Scientists typically don't particularly care about the latest and greatest software development environments and practices, they simply need answers. The best way to deal with that is to help out, I personally think they should be applauded for putting their code out there, which is better than the vast majority. Including CS, for that matter.
[deleted]
The good thing with perl is, that all the code writen in the 90s still works :)
I’d personally rather read the NYT article because it’s much easier to understand as a layman
I prefer just the opposite, even if the jargon is harder to consume at a glance, the extra layer of editorializing can obfuscate central facts or salience peripheral details based on whatever their target demographic wants to hear (nothing exclusive to NYT).
If I don't have time to do more than to skim the text, then my own lack of understanding / misrecognition of jargon can also "obfuscate central facts or [the] salience [of] peripheral details."
Don't sell yourself short. Your ability to grok the summary (or abstract) of a research paper is probably not much worse--and possibly better--than a typical journalist, even a journalist at the NYT. Especially relative to younger journalists, who seem to rely on Twitter and other social media to contextualize things.
I am generally surprised by the inability of journalists to grok research papers, but I think the age thing goes the other direction than what you suggest.
General scientific/numeric literacy among people who don't work in science seems higher in the younger generation than the older to me.
General scientific/numeric literacy among people who don't work in science seems higher in the younger generation than the older to me.
Younger people will remember their college education better, which will also happen to be more up-to-date with contemporary perspectives and techniques. But that's knowledge, not a skill. Good journalists rely on experts, and better journalists rely on multiple experts (for a topic, but also over time) to derive a sense of what's unknown and uncertain in a field.
On social media nothing is ever unknown because there's always a large and emphatic group--some of whom will have PhDs, MDs, and other high-quality credentials--telling you with absolute certainty the way things are, and that's reflected in modern journalism. Not necessarily the certainty, per se, as outside academia the certainty of most information is inflated; but the shear breadth and depth of what's reported.
To be clear, "young" to me includes people in their 30s and 40s, which also happens to be my age group. I've been watching in real-time the turnover over the past several years of radio journalists (NPR affiliates, etc) and print publications and I definitely see a change. The level of credulity is much too high, as is the level of partisanship. For nearly 15 years I disagreed vehemently with claims that such outlets were too partisan (notwithstanding FOX News and similar outlets), but over the past several years I can no longer sustain such defenses. The latest generation of journalists don't believe they're partisan because they believe the information they share is rooted in science, but real science is contingent, and the further away you get from hard science the greater the uncertainty in various claims, but because "science" discourse has become pseudo-religious and partisan the reality of this is lost.
When you read a research paper, coming across the complexity and diversity of approaches and results is one of the most important aspects of the experience. It's difficult for experts, let alone journalists, to convey uncertainty and inconsistency. That's why it's so important, if you can, to read primary sources yourself. It doesn't matter whether you can understand the chemistry or calculus behind results. You can simply take the results and claims at face value, which in the vast majority of cases is how they'll be presented to you through the media. What matters is synthesizing the importance of the gaps that come into focus after reading many papers in a field.
On social media nothing is ever unknown because there's always a large and emphatic group--some of whom will have PhDs, MDs, and other high-quality credentials--telling you with absolute certainty the way things are, and that's reflected in modern journalism. Not necessarily the certainty, per se, as outside academia the certainty of most information is inflated; but the shear breadth and depth of what's reported.
To be clear, "young" to me includes people in their 30s and 40s, which also happens to be my age group. I've been watching in real-time the turnover over the past several years of radio journalists (NPR affiliates, etc) and print publications and I definitely see a change. The level of credulity is much too high, as is the level of partisanship. For nearly 15 years I disagreed vehemently with claims that such outlets were too partisan (notwithstanding FOX News and similar outlets), but over the past several years I can no longer sustain such defenses. The latest generation of journalists don't believe they're partisan because they believe the information they share is rooted in science, but real science is contingent, and the further away you get from hard science the greater the uncertainty in various claims, but because "science" discourse has become pseudo-religious and partisan the reality of this is lost.
When you read a research paper, coming across the complexity and diversity of approaches and results is one of the most important aspects of the experience. It's difficult for experts, let alone journalists, to convey uncertainty and inconsistency. That's why it's so important, if you can, to read primary sources yourself. It doesn't matter whether you can understand the chemistry or calculus behind results. You can simply take the results and claims at face value, which in the vast majority of cases is how they'll be presented to you through the media. What matters is synthesizing the importance of the gaps that come into focus after reading many papers in a field.
I don't think it's only just an age thing, although that probably is a large part of it. I also think media outlets have gotten to what seems like a more partisan stance as a reaction to the other networks pulling farther and farther away from truth and hard science. And I'm not saying they haven't changed, that it's only the far right fringes pulling farther away, but that the changes are reactionary and pull left-ward because of that action.
Add in that youth tend to skew left and you get a bit of a perfect storm. I want to believe that the ecosystem is ripe for some sort of centrist, fact-based news reporting, but not sure there is a big enough audience, unfortunately.
And partly that is because the mainstream media outlets actually do a decent job of conveying the facts. It's just that it's 5min of every hour while the other 35 is talking heads "interpreting it for the layman". So if you're able to mentally sift through the bias and are willing to dig deeper yourself into other sources, you do get the basic information you need to become relatively fully educated. And I don't think that's the case these days with some of the more extreme networks.
edit to add: I fully support your main point of encouraging people to read papers for themselves!
Add in that youth tend to skew left and you get a bit of a perfect storm. I want to believe that the ecosystem is ripe for some sort of centrist, fact-based news reporting, but not sure there is a big enough audience, unfortunately.
And partly that is because the mainstream media outlets actually do a decent job of conveying the facts. It's just that it's 5min of every hour while the other 35 is talking heads "interpreting it for the layman". So if you're able to mentally sift through the bias and are willing to dig deeper yourself into other sources, you do get the basic information you need to become relatively fully educated. And I don't think that's the case these days with some of the more extreme networks.
edit to add: I fully support your main point of encouraging people to read papers for themselves!
Boy you sure linked some concepts here.
The news isn't more partisan because young reporters are introducing some kind of hyper-partisanship. Young reporters are not in charge. Old money people are. Old money people see that hyper-partisanship makes money because old people with money enjoy consuming it.
Young people are much, much less partisan on average than older media consumers and that isn't something new. The older you get the more entrenched, generally, you get in your views.
The news isn't more partisan because young reporters are introducing some kind of hyper-partisanship. Young reporters are not in charge. Old money people are. Old money people see that hyper-partisanship makes money because old people with money enjoy consuming it.
Young people are much, much less partisan on average than older media consumers and that isn't something new. The older you get the more entrenched, generally, you get in your views.
[deleted]
As an active researcher, I'm not surprised at all. It's common enough that people in the same field but a different subfield cannot properly understand a published paper. The same is often true for people working in the same subfield but on different topics. Just read all the horror stories about Reviewer 2.
With some scientific literacy, you may be able to understand the central claims made in a paper. Or you may misunderstand them, because you may not be aware of the specific meanings of some words that are also used in everyday language. You may not be familiar with the context the paper was written in or with the best practices in the field. Hence you may not see the implicit assumptions that were made or know the justifications for certain choices. Because you are not an expert in the topic, you may not see the immediate consequences of the claims and are likely to take them too literally.
It doesn't help that the authors probably didn't understand the results fully either. Most papers are difficult to understand, because they discuss early insights rather than final results. Clarity often comes with a better understanding years after the initial publication.
With some scientific literacy, you may be able to understand the central claims made in a paper. Or you may misunderstand them, because you may not be aware of the specific meanings of some words that are also used in everyday language. You may not be familiar with the context the paper was written in or with the best practices in the field. Hence you may not see the implicit assumptions that were made or know the justifications for certain choices. Because you are not an expert in the topic, you may not see the immediate consequences of the claims and are likely to take them too literally.
It doesn't help that the authors probably didn't understand the results fully either. Most papers are difficult to understand, because they discuss early insights rather than final results. Clarity often comes with a better understanding years after the initial publication.
The journalist has more attention to spare, though, because extracting meaning from opaque text is, in large part, their job—the thing they're putting intentional focus and man-hours into; rather than something they're doing half-heartedly + absent-mindedly + in fits-and-starts as procrastination from their job.
Certainly, as a dabbler in a lot of scientific fields, I might make fewer errors in comprehension than a typical journalist "on the science beat" who doesn't actually get much immersion in science.
But, as someone who comes across this journal paper while scrolling HN on the bus and knows I get off at the next stop, I more-likely-than-not just won't pick up / comprehend any useful facts from reading the scientific abstract, before I get up and forget about the open tab, never coming back to it again. Whereas skimming a few paragraphs of an editorialized version of the paper, might be enough to at least let me absorb a nonzero amount of information, in that same distracted two minutes. Even if I don't absorb a precisely-correct + objective reiteration of the conclusion, then at least I might learn what the novel research method was, to the point that it piques my curiosity to go back and learn more later!
Certainly, as a dabbler in a lot of scientific fields, I might make fewer errors in comprehension than a typical journalist "on the science beat" who doesn't actually get much immersion in science.
But, as someone who comes across this journal paper while scrolling HN on the bus and knows I get off at the next stop, I more-likely-than-not just won't pick up / comprehend any useful facts from reading the scientific abstract, before I get up and forget about the open tab, never coming back to it again. Whereas skimming a few paragraphs of an editorialized version of the paper, might be enough to at least let me absorb a nonzero amount of information, in that same distracted two minutes. Even if I don't absorb a precisely-correct + objective reiteration of the conclusion, then at least I might learn what the novel research method was, to the point that it piques my curiosity to go back and learn more later!
The difference is with one you know you don’t know, with the other “authority” gives people a false confidence at scale and worst case you join the botnet of the narrative warfare.
PS: to salience: to make salient.
PS: to salience: to make salient.
That's not helpful if what the NYT article says is wrong, which it probably is. As a general rule, any popular-press story about a scientific paper is wrong, usually dramatically, spectacularly wrong. I'm invariably better off just reading the paper's abstract.
Even better: The data is readily available in the world! All you need to do is a bit of research and travelling and you could come to a similar conclusion!
“It should make us worry,” said David Enard, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona who led the study, which was published on Thursday in the journal Current Biology. “What is going on right now might be going on for generations and generations.”
Should it though? Seems like we've survived this many times as a species, and now have the technology to combat it! I'm more optimistic with this information, and hopefully we can eradicate coronavirus forever with mRNA and next-gen vaccinations.
Should it though? Seems like we've survived this many times as a species, and now have the technology to combat it! I'm more optimistic with this information, and hopefully we can eradicate coronavirus forever with mRNA and next-gen vaccinations.
> Seems like we've survived this many times as a species
I'm reasonably sure the species will survive climate change. Some nation states, civilizations and cultures' odds look more iffy.
I think your bar for worry may be a bit higher than mine.
I'm reasonably sure the species will survive climate change. Some nation states, civilizations and cultures' odds look more iffy.
I think your bar for worry may be a bit higher than mine.
It's not the climate change that'll get us, but each other.
Left to nature alone, we'd likely evolve and adapt and survive in some form or fashion. But the advancement of humanity has led to all kinds of ways we could do ourselves in if we put our minds to it.
And those nation states and civilizations facing iffy odds aren't likely to go down quietly. In the throws of desperation, all bets are off (why care about stuff like MAD[1] when you're already facing imminent destruction by nature).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Left to nature alone, we'd likely evolve and adapt and survive in some form or fashion. But the advancement of humanity has led to all kinds of ways we could do ourselves in if we put our minds to it.
And those nation states and civilizations facing iffy odds aren't likely to go down quietly. In the throws of desperation, all bets are off (why care about stuff like MAD[1] when you're already facing imminent destruction by nature).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
And specifically about a pandemic, even if 50% of humans died in it the species would continue, but that would very much be something to worry about. Even at much lower percentages it would be worrying. Or the fact that it could continue for generations.
Fact it could continue? Or opinion it could continue? There's a significant difference. The latter is not science.
The comment (as you quoted) was: "Fact it could continue".
Given that nobody knows with certainty that it can't, it is very much "fact" and not "opinion" that it could continue.
Given that nobody knows with certainty that it can't, it is very much "fact" and not "opinion" that it could continue.
[deleted]
Yeah, it's like surviving falling from an airplane. You technically survive, but life will be extremely different.
TIL you can likely survive a landing at terminal velocity just by orienting yourself feet-first and bending your knees.
And probably ending up being unable to walk.
That's what the OP is getting at.
That's what the OP is getting at.
Well, to be fair, you'll be unable to walk either way.
[deleted]
> Should it though?
Fuck no. I'm really tired of these stories.
(this is all directed at the author that put that "it should make us worry" quote in the NYT piece, not at any HN poster, but I really need to vent)
The 1918 pandemic turned into seasonal influenza one we had enough herd immunity, enough people had T-cells that recognized H1N1 and the virus was forced into making sacrificial choices in order to spread.
This virus will not achieve an escape mutation that puts us back to square one with vaccinated or recovered people at the same risk everyone was at in 2019.
If you look at what happened in 2009 the H1 envelope protein of that virus traces its lineage back to the 1918 pandemic, it spent 50 years mutating in pigs before it jumped back to humans (that is a LOT of generations of fucking "variants") and people who were born and exposed to pre-1957 H1N1 when it was endemic to the human race had cross reactive T-cells which protected them. They still got infected, but the disease burden was vastly lower so that pandemic fizzled:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21653752/
The human immune system isn't a binary on/off switch, and while circulating neutralizing antibodies are the gold standard of immunity they are far from the entire story.
If you want to read an article supporting the idea that the coronavirus will transition to milder endemicity without all the irritated swearing read this:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741
And everyone can fuck off in advance about the idea that ADE will happen. If it was going to happen it would have already happened and this isn't Dengue:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/an...
All the fucking headlines about how 99% of the people who are dying now are unvaccinated are screaming out that there's no fucking ADE anywhere to be found. People still talking about ADE need to see a psychiatrist to deal with their addiction to doom and gloom.
This pandemic is ending. I'm 2 months post vaccination and everyone I'm in close contact with is vaccinated, so its pretty much entirely over for me.
Now I need a fucking snickers bar.
Fuck no. I'm really tired of these stories.
(this is all directed at the author that put that "it should make us worry" quote in the NYT piece, not at any HN poster, but I really need to vent)
The 1918 pandemic turned into seasonal influenza one we had enough herd immunity, enough people had T-cells that recognized H1N1 and the virus was forced into making sacrificial choices in order to spread.
This virus will not achieve an escape mutation that puts us back to square one with vaccinated or recovered people at the same risk everyone was at in 2019.
If you look at what happened in 2009 the H1 envelope protein of that virus traces its lineage back to the 1918 pandemic, it spent 50 years mutating in pigs before it jumped back to humans (that is a LOT of generations of fucking "variants") and people who were born and exposed to pre-1957 H1N1 when it was endemic to the human race had cross reactive T-cells which protected them. They still got infected, but the disease burden was vastly lower so that pandemic fizzled:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21653752/
The human immune system isn't a binary on/off switch, and while circulating neutralizing antibodies are the gold standard of immunity they are far from the entire story.
If you want to read an article supporting the idea that the coronavirus will transition to milder endemicity without all the irritated swearing read this:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741
And everyone can fuck off in advance about the idea that ADE will happen. If it was going to happen it would have already happened and this isn't Dengue:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/an...
All the fucking headlines about how 99% of the people who are dying now are unvaccinated are screaming out that there's no fucking ADE anywhere to be found. People still talking about ADE need to see a psychiatrist to deal with their addiction to doom and gloom.
This pandemic is ending. I'm 2 months post vaccination and everyone I'm in close contact with is vaccinated, so its pretty much entirely over for me.
Now I need a fucking snickers bar.
I generally agree with you (minus the rage) and agree re: being vaccinated at this point means it's pretty much over for individuals and their associates who are also vaccinated.
The only quibble I take is that, while it's likely you (and by proxy, the experts you cite) are correct that we won't go back to square one, it is still a (low) possibility. Probably low enough that it isn't worth concerning yourself with, except to be aware that the possibility is there. And probably slightly higher than the normal chance of a random breakout until we get closer to vaccinated herd immunity worldwide. But I'm not suggesting it should necessarily change any significant behavior of those vaccinated, just something to pay a bit more attention to than normal and be ready to take action if needed (i.e. don't throw away all the masks just yet).
And that said, I really appreciate you including sources and I'm sorry I don't have any handy to back up my statement, but it does come from reading and listening to experts. That said, it's my recollection and summary of that so I'd encourage anyone to take it with that grain of salt.
The only quibble I take is that, while it's likely you (and by proxy, the experts you cite) are correct that we won't go back to square one, it is still a (low) possibility. Probably low enough that it isn't worth concerning yourself with, except to be aware that the possibility is there. And probably slightly higher than the normal chance of a random breakout until we get closer to vaccinated herd immunity worldwide. But I'm not suggesting it should necessarily change any significant behavior of those vaccinated, just something to pay a bit more attention to than normal and be ready to take action if needed (i.e. don't throw away all the masks just yet).
And that said, I really appreciate you including sources and I'm sorry I don't have any handy to back up my statement, but it does come from reading and listening to experts. That said, it's my recollection and summary of that so I'd encourage anyone to take it with that grain of salt.
> it is still a (low) possibility.
It really isn't.
An escape mutation which completely evaded T-cells would write a whole new chapter in immunology.
It on par with worrying about a jet engine falling on my head right now.
There's risks that are low enough that they aren't worth worrying about or particularly acknowledging.
It really isn't.
An escape mutation which completely evaded T-cells would write a whole new chapter in immunology.
It on par with worrying about a jet engine falling on my head right now.
There's risks that are low enough that they aren't worth worrying about or particularly acknowledging.
From what I've read, the possibility is higher than some other random virus popping up at this moment in time. That's all I'm saying. That could be on par with the jet engine example, but if so, then all the people saying we need to learn from Covid and adjust our immunology strategies are worrying about low possibility items also.
Anyways, I'll defer to you on this, I'm definitely not an expert, and you were willing to post sources and I'm not gonna try to dredge up the information I'm basing these comments on. Plus I haven't had the time to digest the sources. So add one more chink in my wall of being back to "normalcy" :P
Anyways, I'll defer to you on this, I'm definitely not an expert, and you were willing to post sources and I'm not gonna try to dredge up the information I'm basing these comments on. Plus I haven't had the time to digest the sources. So add one more chink in my wall of being back to "normalcy" :P
> From what I've read, the possibility is higher than some other random virus popping up at this moment in time.
I've read literally nothing credible that suggests that immune escape will ever be complete.
There are people who are "concerned" or "worried" about it or will argue that "we can't say"
But they're basically the same people who were arguing that the vacccines that we were producing that produced strong neutralizing titers might not work.
Or that vaccinated people might transmit the virus just as strongly as unvaccinated superspreaders, even though they have reduced symptoms and lower viral loads and we know that the household attack rate of fully asymptomatic disease is lower by nearly an order of magnitude.
The "well, we haven't proven it can't, so we have to assume the coronavirus could assemble and detonate a nuclear warhead in an American city" people have been solidly fucking wrong for the past 12 months.
They had a brief glimpse of correctness at the start of it all when people thought it would go away relatively quietly like SARS-1 + MERS. But those people were probably all the ones looking at the early ~20% case fatality rate and assuming that 20% of the coworkers were going to die.
And it isn't happening, and the messaging is horrible, and there's a cost to worrying about the literal worst case imaginable. It doesn't make you smart to consider literally all the possibilities, it gets in the way.
I've read literally nothing credible that suggests that immune escape will ever be complete.
There are people who are "concerned" or "worried" about it or will argue that "we can't say"
But they're basically the same people who were arguing that the vacccines that we were producing that produced strong neutralizing titers might not work.
Or that vaccinated people might transmit the virus just as strongly as unvaccinated superspreaders, even though they have reduced symptoms and lower viral loads and we know that the household attack rate of fully asymptomatic disease is lower by nearly an order of magnitude.
The "well, we haven't proven it can't, so we have to assume the coronavirus could assemble and detonate a nuclear warhead in an American city" people have been solidly fucking wrong for the past 12 months.
They had a brief glimpse of correctness at the start of it all when people thought it would go away relatively quietly like SARS-1 + MERS. But those people were probably all the ones looking at the early ~20% case fatality rate and assuming that 20% of the coworkers were going to die.
And it isn't happening, and the messaging is horrible, and there's a cost to worrying about the literal worst case imaginable. It doesn't make you smart to consider literally all the possibilities, it gets in the way.
Your logic seems fairly sound as far as the future trajectory of covid-19, if history is a guide. What I've been wondering and I'd put to you is, do you think the T-cell response to the mRNA vaccines / infection will also confer immunity or decrease the severity of MERS? Or other more distantly related wild coronaviruses?
MERS is not a Sarbecovirus, it's a Merbecovirus, so not the same subgenus. They are not similar enough for much to happen, if anything at all.
Could you explain? Are the spike proteins around MERS too different... and what about the coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Could we expect any cross immunity to those.
Someone get this guy a snickers bar.
I think whats going on here are people are fatigued with covid related news and in the news in general. News publications are terrified and putting out these scaremongering stories to get people hooked again.
Just like the 1917/1918 swine flu didn't last for "generations"(meaning the potency of the virus was extremely deadly) this covid virus will do the same. It will def. be around but not in the same potency as when it entered the world stage late 2019.
Just like the 1917/1918 swine flu didn't last for "generations"(meaning the potency of the virus was extremely deadly) this covid virus will do the same. It will def. be around but not in the same potency as when it entered the world stage late 2019.
The last thing we should do is to be laid back about this or next viruses. If we don’t use the momentum to reduce vaccine rollout times among other things - we failed.
> If we don’t use the momentum to reduce vaccine rollout times among other things - we failed.
I don't think we can use the luck we had with this vaccine to justify risky releases in the future.
I don't think we can use the luck we had with this vaccine to justify risky releases in the future.
The 5-10 year drug development cycle isn’t something that should stay that way forever. It’s incredibly slow and we should change that.
> It’s incredibly slow and we should change that.
It's slow because drugs aren't remotely understood, in the grand scheme of things, and not all side effects are immediate. If you stay up and watch late night TV, you'll see at least a couple "Were you affected by <recalled drug>? Our lawyers are here to help" ads. My mom, for example, has permanent heart damage from a recalled drug.
We can shorten development cycles when biology is understood. Currently, it's not. Your doctor will happily tell you "They don't know exactly why this works, but they believe..." if you ask them about any drug.
Risk vs reward aside, vaccines may have a much smaller problem space, but they're still not completely understood, evident by clots from the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines [1], the link with heart inflammation [2], and the deaths from both.
1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccine-related-blood-...
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57781637
It's slow because drugs aren't remotely understood, in the grand scheme of things, and not all side effects are immediate. If you stay up and watch late night TV, you'll see at least a couple "Were you affected by <recalled drug>? Our lawyers are here to help" ads. My mom, for example, has permanent heart damage from a recalled drug.
We can shorten development cycles when biology is understood. Currently, it's not. Your doctor will happily tell you "They don't know exactly why this works, but they believe..." if you ask them about any drug.
Risk vs reward aside, vaccines may have a much smaller problem space, but they're still not completely understood, evident by clots from the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines [1], the link with heart inflammation [2], and the deaths from both.
1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccine-related-blood-...
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57781637
If it's anything like the normal vaccine development cycle, most of that time is consumed by things like writing grant proposals, waiting for grants, convincing a drug company and/or their convincing themselves it's worth taking the risk to try our your drug candidate, etc. COVID-19 vaccine development in the US and U.K. shows what you can do when people are willing to take huge gambles on a candidate ever working out, including starting mass production before Phase III trials produce strong evidence.
The US Operation Warp Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed made a huge bet on Sanofi/GSK's vaccine, which in its first trial did not produce sufficient immunity in elderly, the second set of trials that started earlier this year are very promising so far. Ditto AZ/Oxford which has not applied for an Emergency Use Authorization. Novavax's vaccine also looks very good, but they are getting severely delayed in making an application because supplies for cell culture manufacturing are first going to the Serum Institute of India and AZ for Oxford's vaccine and Janssen, and there are some supplies common with the mRNA vaccines. Trained workers are also in short supply.
Operation Warp Speed is a fantastic success in using the style of the Manhattan Project including paying Pfizer in advance for 100 million doses of BioNTech's vaccine, but so far only 2 of its 5 huge billion dollar plus upfront bets have paid off. Outside of an emergency that would be considered an unacceptable waste of money.
The US Operation Warp Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed made a huge bet on Sanofi/GSK's vaccine, which in its first trial did not produce sufficient immunity in elderly, the second set of trials that started earlier this year are very promising so far. Ditto AZ/Oxford which has not applied for an Emergency Use Authorization. Novavax's vaccine also looks very good, but they are getting severely delayed in making an application because supplies for cell culture manufacturing are first going to the Serum Institute of India and AZ for Oxford's vaccine and Janssen, and there are some supplies common with the mRNA vaccines. Trained workers are also in short supply.
Operation Warp Speed is a fantastic success in using the style of the Manhattan Project including paying Pfizer in advance for 100 million doses of BioNTech's vaccine, but so far only 2 of its 5 huge billion dollar plus upfront bets have paid off. Outside of an emergency that would be considered an unacceptable waste of money.
Yeah, I didn't quite understand why it should make us worry. We do have a lot more tools at our disposal than people had 20,000 years ago - vaccines, antivirals (in a few years), knowing to social distance, etc.
Other things we have today that mitigate spread:
1. sanitation
2. hand washing
3. understanding of how the disease spreads (not swamp gas)
4. knowing that throwing virgins into volcanoes does not work
5. clean water
1. sanitation
2. hand washing
3. understanding of how the disease spreads (not swamp gas)
4. knowing that throwing virgins into volcanoes does not work
5. clean water
Population density, commercial air travel.
Social distancing is something that people even now are loathe to engage in, fortunately more and more people 'get it' but there are still plenty that do not. Arguably that's Darwin at work, but still.
Social distancing is something that people even now are loathe to engage in, fortunately more and more people 'get it' but there are still plenty that do not. Arguably that's Darwin at work, but still.
Population is the big one. 7 billion people today means we have many times more opportunities for viruses to come up, combine, and mutate than we once did. I'm not sure which is the bigger phenomenon.
People lived in small groups most of the time. Harder to spread.
> Should it though? Seems like we've survived
Someone survived - but for the mutations to have a selection benefit strong enough to dominate that gene pool there would have to be more people who didn’t survive than did.
Someone survived - but for the mutations to have a selection benefit strong enough to dominate that gene pool there would have to be more people who didn’t survive than did.
> but for the mutations to have a selection benefit strong enough to dominate that gene pool there would have to be more people who didn’t survive than did.
To be pedantic: the gene pool is mostly influenced by anything that prevents reproduction, i.e. if you have your kids, and then die that doesn't affect the gene pool to a first approximation (there are selection pressures of becoming an orphan, but they are likely usually very weak. If being an orphan makes it more likely one will have kids or more likely to have more kids than one would have otherwise, then the selection pressure will select for death, which is inverted from what is naively thought! Edit: And if you are older and have never had kids and die, there is very little chance for selection pressure.).
To be pedantic: the gene pool is mostly influenced by anything that prevents reproduction, i.e. if you have your kids, and then die that doesn't affect the gene pool to a first approximation (there are selection pressures of becoming an orphan, but they are likely usually very weak. If being an orphan makes it more likely one will have kids or more likely to have more kids than one would have otherwise, then the selection pressure will select for death, which is inverted from what is naively thought! Edit: And if you are older and have never had kids and die, there is very little chance for selection pressure.).
Not necessarily. Even a virus with a low infection fatality rate could have caused significant evolutionary changes if it was endemic across many generations.
To your point: "...who led the study and is now seeking notoriety and additional funding..."
While I hate to sound like a cynic, this is the human side of science time and again. The fact that too many "journalists" don't recognize the context only makes matters worse.
To that I'll editorialize and add, key word "might." Such unsubstantiated hyperbol only makes the source even more suspect.
While I hate to sound like a cynic, this is the human side of science time and again. The fact that too many "journalists" don't recognize the context only makes matters worse.
To that I'll editorialize and add, key word "might." Such unsubstantiated hyperbol only makes the source even more suspect.
>Should it though?
Yes of course it will. The mainstream narrative is that the virus came from a wet market. Wet markets are still open and there is no discussion about what to do about it. The most basic lessons and precautions are forbidden topics.
Yes of course it will. The mainstream narrative is that the virus came from a wet market. Wet markets are still open and there is no discussion about what to do about it. The most basic lessons and precautions are forbidden topics.
If 99.99% of people die, the species lives on, but everyone reading this is gone and so is civilisation.
Another coronavirus epidemic probably hit 132 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
And another 10000 years ago. They found some human and bat remains in a cave.
Next, they brought them to Wuhan for analysis. /s
And they were best friends by then?
So - how did this virus spread through the population? 20 kyrs ago people didn't live in cities but in small bands of a few dozen people. It's easy to see how an epidemic might spread through a village but how would it move between isolated groups?
Groups interacted with each other. A large reason that humans are found more or less everywhere on the planet was pressure from interacting with other humans.
They absolutely did but how frequently? The first villages in China are attested 7500 BCE, that's 10 kyr later, if the dating is correct.
> They absolutely did but how frequently? The first villages in China are attested 7500 BCE, that's 10 kyr later, if the dating is correct.
There were obviously viruses before urbanization (especially given there are viruses that spread in wild animal populations), they probably just spread more slowly. At the minimum, there was probably regular deliberate contact/mixing between adjacent groups to avoid too much inbreeding, and that would imply other social contacts (e.g. an adult who married into another group returning home to catch up with his/her parents and old friends).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission%E2%80%93fusion_society...
There were obviously viruses before urbanization (especially given there are viruses that spread in wild animal populations), they probably just spread more slowly. At the minimum, there was probably regular deliberate contact/mixing between adjacent groups to avoid too much inbreeding, and that would imply other social contacts (e.g. an adult who married into another group returning home to catch up with his/her parents and old friends).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission%E2%80%93fusion_society...
Nitpicking here, but there probably wasn’t anything we would define as “marriage”. That Wikipedia article says “copulate” instead.
Now I want to go down the wiki rabbit hole about the history of human marriage.
Also, I’d imagine there were at least far fewer viruses before urbanization. My understanding is early civilization was really good for diseases.
Also, I’d imagine there were at least far fewer viruses before urbanization. My understanding is early civilization was really good for diseases.
Early civilization would have been brutal in terms of diseases compared to today.
There are plenty of diseases where humans are a part of the reproduction cycle - malaria is a good example. You don’t need groups of humans together.
Then add in human-animal transmission and you have endemic malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, disease causing bacteria. If you look at remote, isolated tribes today they have a very heavy burden of non-fatal (but quality of life decreasing) diseases.
There are plenty of diseases where humans are a part of the reproduction cycle - malaria is a good example. You don’t need groups of humans together.
Then add in human-animal transmission and you have endemic malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, disease causing bacteria. If you look at remote, isolated tribes today they have a very heavy burden of non-fatal (but quality of life decreasing) diseases.
> Nitpicking here, but there probably wasn’t anything we would define as “marriage”. That Wikipedia article says “copulate” instead.
That specific passage was talking about chimpanzees.
That specific passage was talking about chimpanzees.
As far as I am aware, large meetings of different tribes did occur during the paleolithic at regular intervals, although not very frequently. In any case, such meetings don't have to be frequent for such a virus to spread once they do occur. The virus could have originated in a single tribe, killing some of the people and immunising others and then remained endemic in that tribe for years before they came into contact with others.
There are certainly older settlements (not just remains) in the americas, australiasia, India and of course Africa. Undoubtably older ones in China too, just no traces yet found.
Genetic and linguistic studies demonstrate significant mixing of communities.
Genetic and linguistic studies demonstrate significant mixing of communities.
Human civilization was probably much more developed back then than 'experts' believe. Look at a satellite map, most of that light blue you see was land during that time. The East China sea was mostly land. You think people, like the majority of people, weren't living there?
Just look at the gobekli tepe story.
Just look at the gobekli tepe story.
Maybe the virus was not a pandemic 20k years ago. Small tribes that carried genes that are resistant to the coronaviruses spread later on as they established larger communities/cities.
They were less "isolated" than you imagine. They traded with each other, intermarried, fought wars. You can see that in populations having a similar life style nowadays (there's very few of them now).
The same way the infectious face cancer spreads among the Tasmanian devils.
tinus_hn(5)
I’m not an expert but scientists have found that coronaviruses are aerosolized. So i think the process of aerosolization probably played a part.
Source for reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
Source for reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
I don't think aerosolization matters when you're not in the same building and you're any reasonable distance away (certainly when you're miles away from the closest infected, you're safe, right?)
For COVID to have an impact on the gene pool, it would have to be killing people within reproductive age.
As of February 2021, only 11,000 people in the USA under 45 died of COVID - and most would have been very sick with existing health conditions and unable to reproduce anyway.
There are 193,000,000 people in the USA in this age range, so the death risk from COVID is 0.006%
COVID is of no threat to young and healthy people so there will be no impact visible genetically.
As of February 2021, only 11,000 people in the USA under 45 died of COVID - and most would have been very sick with existing health conditions and unable to reproduce anyway.
There are 193,000,000 people in the USA in this age range, so the death risk from COVID is 0.006%
COVID is of no threat to young and healthy people so there will be no impact visible genetically.
Hmmm, wonder why this fact based comment is being down-voted.
Raw data is here, is current as of May 10th: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/AH-Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Coun...
I haven't looked at it since February, the numbers then were around what ArkanExplorer is saying.
I haven't looked at it since February, the numbers then were around what ArkanExplorer is saying.
> What is going on right now might be going on for generations and generations.
Because, why? The vaccines hand sanitizer, soap, masks and social distancing didn't work 20K years ago, so why would they now?
Can someone please write something this topic without the fear mongering?
> But whatever happened in East Asia seemed to have been limited to that region.
Because the WHO recognized the problem sooner, and countries shut down international air travel sooner than we did this time around.
Because, why? The vaccines hand sanitizer, soap, masks and social distancing didn't work 20K years ago, so why would they now?
Can someone please write something this topic without the fear mongering?
> But whatever happened in East Asia seemed to have been limited to that region.
Because the WHO recognized the problem sooner, and countries shut down international air travel sooner than we did this time around.
[deleted]
"Studies on each of these coronaviruses indicate that they jumped into our species from bats or other mammals."
Has this been proven for covid 19? I thought it was still a theory at best.
Has this been proven for covid 19? I thought it was still a theory at best.
It remains a "theory" in all cases, except ones where we've managed to actually observe the jump.
But yes: consensus among experts remains that this is a natural virus, precisely because (as per e.g. the linked article!) such pandemics are literally as old as life. We knew a big human pandemic was going to show up sooner or later, because it happens to some species or another every year or two.
It's true we can't rule out the lab theory as much as we'd like to. There was a good WSJ article a few weeks back claiming that western intelligence sources knew about a disease cluster among staff at the lab which would be consistent with the start of the pandemic. That at least is something to hang the more conspiratorial hats on.
But really, no one serious was "surprised" by covid in any meaningful way. It was going to happen.
But yes: consensus among experts remains that this is a natural virus, precisely because (as per e.g. the linked article!) such pandemics are literally as old as life. We knew a big human pandemic was going to show up sooner or later, because it happens to some species or another every year or two.
It's true we can't rule out the lab theory as much as we'd like to. There was a good WSJ article a few weeks back claiming that western intelligence sources knew about a disease cluster among staff at the lab which would be consistent with the start of the pandemic. That at least is something to hang the more conspiratorial hats on.
But really, no one serious was "surprised" by covid in any meaningful way. It was going to happen.
"It's true we can't rule out the lab theory as much as we'd like to."
Why is it desirable to rule it out? It's not only plausible, but the evidence seems to be accumulating, not diminishing. Thorough investigations seem very much warranted[1]. Let's not ignore the possibility because we wish such things can't/don't happen.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
Why is it desirable to rule it out? It's not only plausible, but the evidence seems to be accumulating, not diminishing. Thorough investigations seem very much warranted[1]. Let's not ignore the possibility because we wish such things can't/don't happen.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/science/coronavirus-seque...
> the evidence seems to be accumulating, not diminishing
It really isn't. We have one good report, and a lot of conspiratorial dot connecting and string tying that is not good evidence and never was. It's enough to keep you guys going, but you're never going to win this at this rate. Consensus sits on the mechanism that produced a thousand other diseases.
And FWIW: of course it's desirable to reach a consensus. And it's decidedly undesirable for a handful of nuts deciding to have Their Own Truth in yet another area. Because the more you distrust experts in favor of your own thought leaders, the more likely this is to happen in the future.
To wit: Lab Leak Trutherism is of the same cloth as Big Lie election fraudurism, and climate denial, and 5G vaccine chipperism, and Storm Is Coming revisionism, and flat eartherism. It's one thing to investigate alternatives, it's quite another to keep flogging an unlikely theory because it fits your priors.
It really isn't. We have one good report, and a lot of conspiratorial dot connecting and string tying that is not good evidence and never was. It's enough to keep you guys going, but you're never going to win this at this rate. Consensus sits on the mechanism that produced a thousand other diseases.
And FWIW: of course it's desirable to reach a consensus. And it's decidedly undesirable for a handful of nuts deciding to have Their Own Truth in yet another area. Because the more you distrust experts in favor of your own thought leaders, the more likely this is to happen in the future.
To wit: Lab Leak Trutherism is of the same cloth as Big Lie election fraudurism, and climate denial, and 5G vaccine chipperism, and Storm Is Coming revisionism, and flat eartherism. It's one thing to investigate alternatives, it's quite another to keep flogging an unlikely theory because it fits your priors.
You were making a good rebuttal until "To wit: Lab Leak Trutherism is of the same cloth as Big Lie election fraudurism, and climate denial, ...".
I think we have nothing left to discuss.
I think we have nothing left to discuss.
And I genuinely can't tell if it's because you're offended that I likened your opinions about a lab leak to other conspiratorial nonsense, or because you believe that other nonsense and don't want to be forced to defend it.
Doesn't it strike you as perhaps notable that to people in the more mainstream scientific community, your opinions look like those of a flat earther?
Doesn't it strike you as perhaps notable that to people in the more mainstream scientific community, your opinions look like those of a flat earther?
You can show pretty clearly that the earth is round to anyone who's somewhat reasonable and is willing to understand an explanation of the math, but proving that an ancestor of the virus was never in a lab at any time between being in animals 30 years ago and now is pretty hard.
You would think, but no. In fact flat earthers have explanations for all that stuff. Showing them a globe doesn't work, because the people they trust tell them that that disproof is wrong.
In point of fact, a Lab Leaker might be more somewhat more scientifically literate, but the logical fallacy at work is exactly the same: believing in the truth of a subject simply because it lacks disproof is just plain wrong. And it leads to wrong conclusions.
Anyone looking at the evidence on covid rationally would say that, yes, a lab leak is a possibility. But that a natural virus remains the more likely scenario. Again: there's a pandemic every few years in some species. To date none have been started by scientists.
In point of fact, a Lab Leaker might be more somewhat more scientifically literate, but the logical fallacy at work is exactly the same: believing in the truth of a subject simply because it lacks disproof is just plain wrong. And it leads to wrong conclusions.
Anyone looking at the evidence on covid rationally would say that, yes, a lab leak is a possibility. But that a natural virus remains the more likely scenario. Again: there's a pandemic every few years in some species. To date none have been started by scientists.
The genome for SARS-CoV-2 shows strong evidence of passing through both bats and pangolins. But how it made the jump to humans is still unclear.
Interesting. Ice age ended 10k years back.
Aren't coronaviruses pretty common...?
Yes. They've also caused three major epidemics in the past two decades - there's no reason they shouldn't have emerged historically from time to time.
So, a likely scenario is: a new virus appeared, it swept through the population, caused serious disease, a bunch of people died, the survivors had better resistance to it, it settled as a mostly innocuous thing (such as the common cold) or disappeared completely, and the next generations remembered it as "the plague of emperor Fancy Pants" or something.
Yes, people seem to miss this. There are several mild endemic coronavirus diseases in humans, usually called "common cold" along with many others.
Yes. But then again they didn’t start out as endemic virus but as a pandemic one. They probably wrecked a lot of havoc before becoming just a cold. Mayas and Aztecs can tell.
tasogare(1)
cant read. paywalled
https://archive.is/L0yoj Not paywalled
1. Load the page fully
2. Press reload button
3. Press Esc a few times before overlay shows up
4. ...
5. Profit
2. Press reload button
3. Press Esc a few times before overlay shows up
4. ...
5. Profit
4. It doesn't work because much of the article is missing. It's not just an overlay, it's behind a paywall.
5. Google what "paywalled" means
6. ...
7. Profit
5. Google what "paywalled" means
6. ...
7. Profit
Works just fine, I can read it all and post a screenshot as proof, you gotta use it properly. But it might depend on location and IP.
Did you register just to leave this remark? How odd.
Did you register just to leave this remark? How odd.
Did it originate in China?
Is it a best practice nowadays to use word "coronavirus" for all the viruses with the particular molecular structure pattern instead of word "flu"?
It's best practice to use "coronavirus" for coronaviruses, and "flu" for influenza.
While they can cause similar symptoms, they are very different diseases, caused by viruses that have no particular genetic link.
While they can cause similar symptoms, they are very different diseases, caused by viruses that have no particular genetic link.
It's absolutely not appropriate to call these "flu". That is a contraction of "influenza", which is an entirely different family of viruses.
And yes, the family is named "coronavirus". The one we're dealing with now is a strain properly calls SARS-Cov-2, which causes a disease officially termed COVID-19.
And yes, the family is named "coronavirus". The one we're dealing with now is a strain properly calls SARS-Cov-2, which causes a disease officially termed COVID-19.
Well, it's not influenza...
Flu viruses are usually described more specifically too: H1N5 and the like
Where do people get this? Covid is nothing to do with influenza. Some of the viruses which cause the ‘common cold’ are coronaviruses, but flu is unrelated.
Look at the infection/death rate in Southeast Asia. It strongly suggests past community transmissions of past coronaviruses.
I'd love to never hear about another coronavirus again.
We went too far prescribing a certain agenda in the last year, and it's time to reflect on that.
In my opinion studies and articles like this are doing more to fuel the fear porn than they are at teaching anything substantial.
We went too far prescribing a certain agenda in the last year, and it's time to reflect on that.
In my opinion studies and articles like this are doing more to fuel the fear porn than they are at teaching anything substantial.
> I'd love to never hear about another coronavirus again.
We should definitely hear about coronavirus again and again until everyone learns that millions of people might die unless we completely master immunology. Public awareness, safety measures, and vaccine development should get as much attention as possible until we have a pipeline that allows to develop and distribute vaccines in a matter of months. We never know what next pandemic might strike.
We should definitely hear about coronavirus again and again until everyone learns that millions of people might die unless we completely master immunology. Public awareness, safety measures, and vaccine development should get as much attention as possible until we have a pipeline that allows to develop and distribute vaccines in a matter of months. We never know what next pandemic might strike.
> until everyone learns
See, that's the problem. You can't force anything, but you present it as a "must be done at all costs" proposition. That's very disingenuous.
Regardless, I think you missed my point. Some of us are just sick and tired of every crusade that dominates the news cycle with severe lack of pragmatism. There are plenty of more important issues than coronavirus and it sounds like you're suffering from a lack of perspective.
See, that's the problem. You can't force anything, but you present it as a "must be done at all costs" proposition. That's very disingenuous.
Regardless, I think you missed my point. Some of us are just sick and tired of every crusade that dominates the news cycle with severe lack of pragmatism. There are plenty of more important issues than coronavirus and it sounds like you're suffering from a lack of perspective.
> You can't force anything
Sounds like you don’t have the right perspective.
Sounds like you don’t have the right perspective.
Sounds like you enjoy legislating us into police states, to be honest.
Nothing wrong with strong government institutions.
There is much wrong when the institutions cease to function for their citizens.
I can't believe this has to be explained to you: Corporations and governments are working against the people every step of the way.
I can't believe this has to be explained to you: Corporations and governments are working against the people every step of the way.
I never mentioned corporations, don’t know why you conflate the two. As for the governments, I’ve lived in the EU for the majority of my independent, adult life. What you’re saying is foreign to me. And I don’t think it’s a universally accepted truth.
Well, good luck with that. There have been three coronavirus epidemics in the last 20 years. And probably hundreds at least more throughout human history. And the current one won’t be entirely gone anytime soon.
Epidemics don't need marketing departments, something that is very obviously part of the equation with "the current one."
… Wait, are you claiming that people weren’t terrified of SARS-1? That’s not how I remember it at all. We were lucky, that time, that’s all. If SARS-1 had had slightly different properties, much the same thing would have played out 17 years ago.