This topic is clearly controversial. Do you expect it to gain or lose functional effectiveness over time?
SARS-CoV-2 has no function. It cannot lose or gain what it doesnât have in the first place. Add in virology to the cart of things you need to learn.
1 Like
The contradiction is that, as in the case of influenza, one cannot coherently propose that genetic entropy is an essential attribute of a virus which results in extinction in a matter of decades, and that virulence is a proxy for genetic integrity, and simultaneously hold that it is responsible for a virulent epidemic after undergoing genetic entropy for thousands of years of existence. This is absolutely Aristotelian A = not A logical nonsense and really is neither controversial nor deserving of serious discussion.
As for what is to come, I expect the ability of Covid-19 to escape immune response to become less effective over time, due to the arms race exposure of the host population.
5 Likes
I agree. This is certainly what happened with the 1918 influenza pandemic.
Worth noting: the 1918 influenza arrived in two waves, much as SARS-COV-2 has had two waves in most locations.
Best,
Chris
2 Likes
It happens that Didier Raoult has posted yesterday his weekly video on the covid19 pandemic. The title of this video is ÂŤ life and death of SARS2 variants Âť. In it, he explores the issue of why outbreaks are systematically followed by epidemic downturns. IOW, why epidemics stop? And his answer is that an outbreak caused by a given variant dies from accumulating mutations! To support this claim, he presents evidences showing a strong correlation between the number of mutations and the decrease in infectivity and severity of several sars2 variants. He also presents other evidence found in the literature, including Sanfordâs paper on H1N1 that I sent him about one year ago! (see the passage between 9-50 and 10-30 in the video below).
So, it seems that Raoult is endorsing the idea of genetic entropy for RNA viruses.
Here is the link toward the video:
ROFL.
2 Likes
What does ROFL mean?
Google it.
Iâm amused to see one of the mechanisms of Crank Magnetism on display here.
2 Likes
I am amused to see you using this CM label to disqualify talented scientists such as Raoult or Sanford when the same label may better apply to rigid materialists. But anyway, unsubstantiated labels are not arguments.
Those two have well established reputations for being some of the crankiest cranks cranking today.
1 Like
As Jean de la Bruyère famously said: Mockery is indigence of spirit
Better milk that âlabelingâ retort for all itâs worth eh, Gilbert? Itâs truly amazing to me how time and again you will toss out this vacuous concern trolling. And the credentials inflation and appeals to authority is never far behind either. Talented scientists? Gimme a flying break.
Prestigious. Talented. Renowned and other such adjectives are always connected to scientists/scholars/authors/academics you agree with, and never to anyone you donât. Except some times when there is value in inflating the influence or reputation of someone you disagree with so it will look more impressive when someone you agree with provides a refutation of some kind.
Reminds me of that other tails I win heads you lose thing you do. If âprestigiousâ or ârenownedâ scientists from some field bother responding to crankery you like, itâs because the crankery must have something going for it. And when they donât respond it must be because they donât have any good responses.
2 Likes
Thereâs some truth to that. At some point youâve seen so much stultifying pseudoscience you just need a break, and all you have the will to do is point and laugh for the time being.
2 Likes
A quote so famous that Google has no record of it. 
But we were discussing Raoult and Sanfordâs less than stellar reputations in recent years.
It would seem that they are as âtalentedâ as The Talented Mr Ripley.
2 Likes
You should be cautious for many scientists first regarded as cranks were eventually vindicated.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
â Carl Sagan
Six scientists in the last four hundred-odd years is hardly âmanyâ.
And I donât see any record of any of these six suing anybody for accusing them of falsifying evidence â unlike our Talented Dr Raoult.
3 Likes
How many of those 6 scientists could be credibly accused of fabricating their data?
Raoult staked his reputation on the idea that hydroxycholoroquine (HcQ) is a highly effective prophylactic and curative for COVID. Raoultâs idea has now been tested by random controlled tests (RCTs) of HcQ. Have the RCTs vindicated Raoult, Gilbert?
Or have they shown him to be just wrong?
Best,
Chris Falter
4 Likes
They also laughed at Galileo, but frankly, Galileo had better material.
4 Likes
It means I dont have a counter argument so pivot to sarcasm. 
1 Like