IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New So a while back Peter thought I was being hysterical about this. What do you think?
The 33-page report was posted Thursday on BioRxiv, a website that researchers use to share their work before it is peer reviewed, an effort to speed up collaborations with scientists working on COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. That research has been largely based on the genetic sequence of earlier strains and might not be effective against the new one.

The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus, which allow it to enter human respiratory cells. The report’s authors said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain.
...
The Los Alamos team, assisted by scientists at Duke University and the University of Sheffield in England, identified 14 mutations. Those mutations occurred among the nearly 30,000 base pairs of RNA that other scientists say make up the coronavirus’s genome. The report authors focused on a mutation called D614G, which is responsible for the change in the virus’ spikes.

“The story is worrying, as we see a mutated form of the virus very rapidly emerging, and over the month of March becoming the dominant pandemic form,” study leader Bette Korber, a computational biologist at Los Alamos, wrote on her Facebook page. “When viruses with this mutation enter a population, they rapidly begin to take over the local epidemic, thus they are more transmissible.”
...
Scientists at major organizations working on a vaccine or drugs have told The Times that they are pinning their hopes on initial evidence that the virus is stable and not likely to mutate the way influenza virus does, requiring a new vaccine every year. The Los Alamos report could upend that assumption.

If the pandemic fails to wane seasonally as the weather warms, the study warns, the virus could undergo further mutations even as research organizations prepare the first medical treatments and vaccines. Without getting on top of the risk now, the effectiveness of vaccines could be limited. Some of the compounds in development are supposed to latch onto the spike or interrupt its action. If they were designed based on the original version of the spike, they might not be effective against the new coronavirus strain, the study’s authors warned.
---
Even if the new strain is no more dangerous than the others, it could still complicate efforts to bring the pandemic under control. That would be an issue if the mutation makes the virus so different from earlier strains that people who have immunity to them would not be immune to the new version.

If that is indeed the case, it could make “individuals susceptible to a second infection,” the study authors wrote.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-05/mutant-coronavirus-has-emerged-more-contagious-than-original
I maintain this thing could be the beginning of the end.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
Collapse Edited by mmoffitt May 5, 2020, 11:57:38 AM EDT
So a while back Peter thought I was being hysterical about this. What do you think?
The 33-page report was posted Thursday on BioRxiv, a website that researchers use to share their work before it is peer reviewed, an effort to speed up collaborations with scientists working on COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. That research has been largely based on the genetic sequence of earlier strains and might not be effective against the new one.

The mutation identified in the new report affects the now infamous spikes on the exterior of the coronavirus, which allow it to enter human respiratory cells. The report’s authors said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” so that vaccines and drugs under development around the world will be effective against the mutated strain.
...
The Los Alamos team, assisted by scientists at Duke University and the University of Sheffield in England, identified 14 mutations. Those mutations occurred among the nearly 30,000 base pairs of RNA that other scientists say make up the coronavirus’s genome. The report authors focused on a mutation called D614G, which is responsible for the change in the virus’ spikes.

“The story is worrying, as we see a mutated form of the virus very rapidly emerging, and over the month of March becoming the dominant pandemic form,” study leader Bette Korber, a computational biologist at Los Alamos, wrote on her Facebook page. “When viruses with this mutation enter a population, they rapidly begin to take over the local epidemic, thus they are more transmissible.”
...
Scientists at major organizations working on a vaccine or drugs have told The Times that they are pinning their hopes on initial evidence that the virus is stable and not likely to mutate the way influenza virus does, requiring a new vaccine every year. The Los Alamos report could upend that assumption.

If the pandemic fails to wane seasonally as the weather warms, the study warns, the virus could undergo further mutations even as research organizations prepare the first medical treatments and vaccines. Without getting on top of the risk now, the effectiveness of vaccines could be limited. Some of the compounds in development are supposed to latch onto the spike or interrupt its action. If they were designed based on the original version of the spike, they might not be effective against the new coronavirus strain, the study’s authors warned.
---
Even if the new strain is no more dangerous than the others, it could still complicate efforts to bring the pandemic under control. That would be an issue if the mutation makes the virus so different from earlier strains that people who have immunity to them would not be immune to the new version.

If that is indeed the case, it could make “individuals susceptible to a second infection,” the study authors wrote.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-05/mutant-coronavirus-has-emerged-more-contagious-than-original
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Probably the end of Iwethey, but not necessarily the world.
It depends largely on what the reaction to reinfection is. If the 80% that did not require hospitalization for round 1 stay out of the hospital for round 2 ... n, then the thing will eventually fade in the background and become just another variant of the common cold.

If nothing else, it may actually take care of the aging population problem in certain countries.
New Apropos.. Scott?
Your having borne all the overhead costs + ∞ Time-costs.. lo these many years: might 'we' send a few bucks? in this transition-to-next --> ?!?-clusterfuck ..and ongoing?

(There may be few of us pepetuals), but a few of us'ns have more Resources than others; fair IS Fair and like that).



Carrion ..let's not Be that..! ☯
New Appreciated, but...
It's really quite cheap, both in time and money. Drop in the bucket compared to my son's music lessons. :-P
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New ..yer a Prince amongst us horse-thieves ;^>
New In.Deed.
What it means for the still-existent thinking-mindz is: You may not become inured, complacent about such things as:

1) Yahoos sans-gloves touching things in the necessary-Food-sources, the quality of shelf-wipe downs--but assuredly:
not. every. package. thereon. Plexi- face shields? (found one I'd bought long ago--now repurposed).

2) Frequency of leaving one's sinecure: Made it ~ 12 -days this time--wish my 'fridge-freezer ~ 2x its present size, etc.



Carrion. Don't Be it.
(Good side: mayhap the %sane can next gain a [+%] over the Drumpian hordes); every drunken-Kamikaze offed is (one of their) Blessings from On High.
Sometimes boring-but-intractable ..Stats are Your Friend /their Fiend. :-)
New Being less eschatological would be good for you.
New Jeez, Peter..
I mean: here We Are: amidst an apparently rapidly 'adapting' organism' and.. (as the Bard would did say: ..whose worth's unknown although his height be taken: we are 'governed' by a psychotic individual, known to have the approximate brain-power of a chemical-besotted tick: and you'd prefer we leave the post-mortem speculations solely to the same collared-clerics who brought us The Spanish flu Inquisition?

When do we thanatology-amateurs get a chance to duel with the Pros? (whose 'advice' through the Ages seems to have been seen as "settled Bizness' under their rubric)--akin to the aforementioned psychotic-Individual's stump speech wherein he says. "..and Only I can Save you!" (amidst other jibberings: then and ever-since).

E Pluribus Non Compos Mentis
New Did you ever use that word before?
eschatological

New to me.
New Not often, but yes.
New How did you originally discover it?
If possible, obviously. I am seriously wondering because to know that word is to have gone through the process of doing a lot of deep reflection to have discovered that word. So were you having the end of the world thoughts and came across it or was it merely as part of an interesting article type of thing?
New Re: How did you originally discover it?
I learned that word while reading various end-of-times myths and from a science fiction book by Charles Stross named "Singularity Sky".
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New No idea, but...
...it was already in my vocab when I first heard "Destination Eschaton", by The Shamen - and that was on 1995's Boss Drum.
New I knew that one, and as you all know, I never think. You learn words by reading lots of shit.
Yeah, could be I got it like Scott A, from Stross. Not necessarily, though, don't remember fersure. Anyway, doesn't have much -- if anything -- to do with deep Rodin-pose Pondering at all.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New Have you used it appropriately yet? No.
Viruses have yet to be successfully attacked by allopathic medicine. Aside from symptomatic treatment, which does not address the root cause of viral infections, we've relied on plasma generated antibodies arising either naturally or artificially via vaccines to combat viral infections. It is worrisome that a non-trivial number of patients have gone from Covid-19 positive to Covid-19 negative and back to Covid-19 positive. If these "re-infection" tests are picking up different viral strains, then this is only a problem if the virus is mutating too fast for vaccines (or our own B-Cells) to keep up with. But if that's not the case and people are actually being re-infected with the same virus, then this is entirely new. Historically, surviving a viral infection resulted in antibodies to that virus - meaning you couldn't catch the same virus again while these antibodies were present. That may not be the case with Covid-19. It's far from certain, but if it turns out that naturally occurring antibodies are an insufficient defense against re-infection, then that would render out entire strategy of combating viral infections through vaccines utterly useless.

It's an interesting problem. That's all.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Reinfection probably isn't reinfection.
There was a very recent study that showed that it was likely just test faults and long periods of time before expression.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New I'm dubious of that, too.
The continuing asymptomatic, contagious infections post symptomatic expression makes this dicey in a way other common viral infections aren't.

My overall sense on this is that we just don't know enough yet to make any decisions about "re-opening" of economies, schools, gatherings, etc. Initial studies suggest this is a different kind of virus than those with which we are familiar and behaves in ways others don't. It could be spectacularly worse than a lot of people are prone to believe. The fact that vaccine development is being done under the assumption that mutations are unlikely may be problematic.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Re: I'm dubious of that, too.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New (Dunno how you zeroed-in to such an al-punte Find.. c'est Magnifique!)
It seems almost 'paranoid-resistant' too, when you peep the subtended YES/NO qualifications and their (redundant?)-constraints upon ANY-idea that: "You Skipped something" within your provenance, You Fuel !!".

Just now CA's Gov is delivering his daily summation, expounding also--in plain but not Patronizing framing--to remind that "COVID activity continues here", thus Why ..any precipitate-OPENING-WIDE actions ..won't happen on his shift. (I know of no other Gov,. who has spoken so clearly, completely and Daily): with his precision and, oft even eloquence ..all of this sans an iota of Pol-Speak (except an occasional aside: about some diversionary-meme floating about: and His 'take').

Maybe FDR, in his [rare ..thus always listened-to] 'Fireside Chats', from that keen mind: bested the lot of such communications (?) though we have no peer alive as can match The Bard, I wot.

Lucky CA, Lucky moi.

So NOW: back-to: trying to project anything useful from: the speaking-in-tongues range of largely-BS-bloviations, rampant across the dis-US-of-ignorant armies clashing by night
(to coin a phrase..)
New The DNC needs to draft him at their convention.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Hmmm ✓✓
New That's encouraging. Thanks. Added a link.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt May 7, 2020, 05:27:16 PM EDT
     So a while back Peter thought I was being hysterical about this. What do you think? - (mmoffitt) - (21)
         Probably the end of Iwethey, but not necessarily the world. - (scoenye) - (3)
             Apropos.. Scott? - (Ashton) - (2)
                 Appreciated, but... - (malraux) - (1)
                     ..yer a Prince amongst us horse-thieves ;^> -NT - (Ashton)
         In.Deed. - (Ashton)
         Being less eschatological would be good for you. -NT - (pwhysall) - (15)
             Jeez, Peter.. - (Ashton)
             Did you ever use that word before? - (crazy) - (13)
                 Not often, but yes. -NT - (pwhysall) - (12)
                     How did you originally discover it? - (crazy) - (3)
                         Re: How did you originally discover it? - (malraux)
                         No idea, but... - (pwhysall)
                         I knew that one, and as you all know, I never think. You learn words by reading lots of shit. - (CRConrad)
                     Have you used it appropriately yet? No. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                         Reinfection probably isn't reinfection. - (malraux) - (6)
                             I'm dubious of that, too. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                 Re: I'm dubious of that, too. - (malraux) - (4)
                                     (Dunno how you zeroed-in to such an al-punte Find.. c'est Magnifique!) - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         The DNC needs to draft him at their convention. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             Hmmm ✓✓ -NT - (Ashton)
                                     That's encouraging. Thanks. Added a link. - (mmoffitt)

But it makes such great fish bait!
76 ms