Scientists Discover How the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evades Our Immune System (scitechdaily.com) 146
Long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot quotes SciTechDaily: A discovery by researchers at the Texas A&M College of Medicine could lead to new therapies to prevent the virus from proliferating in the human body... The underlying mechanism of how SARS-CoV-2 escapes from the immune system has been poorly understood. However, researchers from the Texas A&M University College of Medicine and Hokkaido University have recently discovered a major mechanism that explains how SARS-CoV-2 can escape from the immune system and replicate in the human body. Their findings were recently published in the journal Nature Communications.
"We found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus carries a suppressive gene that acts to inhibit a human gene in the immune system that is essential for destroying infected cells," said Dr. Koichi Kobayashi, adjunct professor at the College of Medicine and lead author of the paper.
Naturally, the cells in a human's immune system are able to control virus infection by destroying infected cells so that the virus cannot be replicated. The gene that is essential in executing this process, called NLRC5, regulates major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I genes, which are genes that create a pathway that is vital in providing antiviral immunity. Kobayashi and his colleagues discovered this in 2012.
"During infection, the amount and activity of NLRC5 gene become augmented in order to boost our ability of eradication of viruses," Kobayashi said. "We discovered that the reason why SARS-CoV-2 can replicate so easily is because the virus carries a suppressive gene, called ORF6, that acts to inhibit the function of NLRC5, thus inhibiting the MHC class I pathway as well."
"We found that the SARS-CoV-2 virus carries a suppressive gene that acts to inhibit a human gene in the immune system that is essential for destroying infected cells," said Dr. Koichi Kobayashi, adjunct professor at the College of Medicine and lead author of the paper.
Naturally, the cells in a human's immune system are able to control virus infection by destroying infected cells so that the virus cannot be replicated. The gene that is essential in executing this process, called NLRC5, regulates major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I genes, which are genes that create a pathway that is vital in providing antiviral immunity. Kobayashi and his colleagues discovered this in 2012.
"During infection, the amount and activity of NLRC5 gene become augmented in order to boost our ability of eradication of viruses," Kobayashi said. "We discovered that the reason why SARS-CoV-2 can replicate so easily is because the virus carries a suppressive gene, called ORF6, that acts to inhibit the function of NLRC5, thus inhibiting the MHC class I pathway as well."
The question is... (Score:1)
How good will that immunity be? If it's not perfect immunity that PREVENTS the virus from jumping hosts, we will just end with even more powered up variants of the virus.
Leaky vaccines for fast mutating viruses like Covid, combined with the fact that it's a worldwide pandemic exposed to every kind of human organism available on the planet, means that this is an attrition battle of who runs out of resources first.
And something tells me that the virus won't be running out of mutations any day soon.
Re: (Score:2)
it isn't evading it 100%. if it did, it would be 100% fatal. If it did, the vaccines would have been useless from the beginning, only delaying the inevitable by fighting loose virus through antibodies and t-cells but not much more than that, and being outnumbered by the virus in the case of Delta's rate of replication within a host cell (this is where Omicron, derived from Alpha, seems less severe: it isn't reproducing as much per infected cell that Delta does, even thought it is able to infect cells more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A much more important question is, is dosing yourself with horse de-wormer a good indicator of your likelihood of being exposed to the virus?
Not really.
It's a very strong indicator of your likelihood of being exposed to the vaccine though unfortunately.
Kobayashi ? (Score:4, Funny)
Kobayashi Maru is a no win scenario.
Quickly someone get into the code and change the parameters so we can finally have a win and get out of this pandemic.
Live long & prosper !
Re: Kobayashi ? (Score:2)
Inserting code is what RNA vaccines do, in a primitive way. I hope to see it done more elegantly with RNAi in the future, but what we have now is not bad.
Re: Kobayashi ? (Score:2)
I am disappointed that only a few people seem to have caught this. I expected a Kobayashi reference in the first post.
Gene development (Score:2)
It's be interesting to trace the history/evolution of this gene. It apparently only exists in SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2.
How does this even get into a virus?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Evolution.
Sure, evolution just means change, so obiously evolution. But was it created by natural mutation and recombination or by engineering?
Re: (Score:3)
A quick Google leads to this [nih.gov]: "Based on its similarity to other coronavirus proteins..."
Re: (Score:3)
PFAM lists the following [xfam.org] in the protein family:
Beware (Score:2)
"said Dr. Koichi Kobayashi,"
He's Keyser Söze.
Publication Lag (Score:2)
Looking at their R code, it was last updated 7 months ago.
This suggests that the results were known before May, pre-Delta surge.
The clinical implications of understanding the interferon-blocking effects are significant.
I get that a Nature publication is significant and the result is very ground-breaking, but that's a long time to sit on clinically-relevant information given the state of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what's going on in the summary, but the role of ORF6 isn't news. There were a bunch of papers about it in 2007 after SARS1. There have also been a bunch of other papers in 2020 and 2021 about SARS2.
A score of new therapies may be developed. (Score:2)
Antivaxxers will avoid them all because ???
Re: (Score:2)
Antivaxxers will avoid them all because ???
You can't fix stupid....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both the "vaccines," and COVID itself, are demonstrating patterns of long-term damage and associated morbidity and mortality, that have been anticipated since day 1, but are only now beginning to become better understood.
The single most disturbing fact to me is that people in the UK hospitalized for COVID, then released, have an inordinately high chance of dying from all causes within the next year. The cause(s - probably more than one) are not fully understood. It is possible that something about standar
Re: (Score:1)
Because what's currently available doesn't work.
Can a triple vax get covid? Yes
Can a triple vax spread covid? Yes
Do the triple vax die from covid? Yes
Other than at risk people (old, obese) there is no reason to get it except for covidian virtue signaling.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for not getting vaccinated. We will send flowers to your family.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, can't speak for all "anti-vaxxers," but this one will avoid the "vaccine" because it is causing severe heart issues even in younger people, and also known to cause ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement), and also has provoked more VAERS reports in one year than all other vaccines combined for the past 30, and also because it may very well have longer-term issues that we don't know because they simply haven't had time to manifest yet.
Read stuff other than what the government and other vested interests te
The important part being omitted from headline (Score:2)
"Although the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, can lower an individual’s chance of contracting the virus, there is currently no permanent therapy that can entirely prevent a human from contracting SARS-CoV-2.
“We hope that this new discovery will allow us to develop a new drug that can block this gene so our immune system will be able to fight off the coronavirus for good,” de Figueiredo said."
If we can get a therapeutical to target this pathway, i
Hoisted by our own immune systems' petards? (Score:3)
[No, I do not like the smell of brain farts in the morning. Or at any other time. AC brain farts smell especially bad.]
I wish to raise a point of clarification that applies to SARS-CoV-2 and the Spanish Flu (and some other diseases). I am NOT any sort of doctor, so my premise is blurry at best, but:
Are most of the fatalities due to our immune systems running amok? It seems that the most common mechanism of mortality is that the patient's immune system has gone overboard after failing to control the virus. A
Better target proteins? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are most of the fatalities due to our immune systems running amok?
There are a whole bunch of fatalities that aren't included in the main statistics but can be seen only in the increased overall death rate ("excess deaths") so I wouldn't say that's clear, however yes, most of the normal hospital deaths seem to be relate to a cytokine storm [newscientist.com] which is an overreaction from your immune system.
If the patient's immune system "thinks" it's already handled Covid-19 (when the vaccine was administered), then it won't "panic" (even if the actual coronavirus persists for a long time).
I think you are over anthropomorphising here. The immune system doesn't really "think" but more goes through a series of escalations. When patient is vaccinated the immune system much more rapidly identifies and starts fighting the virus which means that the earlier levels of escalation solve the problem and the later ones involving killing off lots of cells never have to happen.
But I still think it would be better if the vaccine targeted a capsid protein rather than the spike protein.
Why not both? there are definitely those that partly agree with you [theconversation.com]. However the fact is that a bunch of different vaccine techniques were tried, including whole dead virus (e.g. in some Chinese and Russian vaccines) and that the spike based ones seem to have worked best.
The "target" of the spike protein may have other uses in the body? (But my thinking may be tilted that way because I suspect the graphic representations of SARS-CoV-2 are misleading. Overemphasizing the spikes rather than the gaps between the spikes?)
I'm not sure your thought is clear here. The spike protein has no use in the human body; it's an invasive protein. The protein is evolved to connect to the AEC2 receptors in cells which seem to do lots of things [frontiersin.org]. The reason that the spike protein is a good target for vaccines is that if it changed very much it would likely stop working or work much less efficiently. That makes it easier for the immune system to recognise, so the spike protein becomes a good target for the vaccine. On the other hand, the capsid protein is evolved to protect the virus DNA, apparently mostly in the conditions in a bat cave according to the tests of SARS-COV-2 lifetime. If the capsid changed lots that might actually be good for the virus.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, not a DNA virus.
The capsid proteins of Sars-CoV-2 do not protect the contained DNA because there is none -- it is RNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my bullshit / typo. RNA you are 100% right. Thanks for the correction.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I should go here, but I'll go ahead and clarify. Hopefully clarifying my misconceptions rather than fueling more stupid rumors.
The spike protein targets a protein on the healthy cell membranes. I think the vaccines interfere with that binding by stimulating the production of antibodies that mess with the spike proteins. But are we certain that there are never any circumstances when some normal protein wants to target that same protein for a binding that is part of some normal metabolic process?
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely implausible. The targeted protein is so unique the vaccines against one virus variant are unable to produce immunity against another, with minimally different spike protein. It's about impossible anything we produce naturally would match.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope you're right, but I'm always worried about hubris...
Re: (Score:2)
No. They work by essentially reprogramming human cells to express the spike protein, causing the immune system to develop a response to that protein.
The smaller problem is that at least for a time, it attacks those human cells with equal effectiveness as it attacks the actual virus. That is why most people get at least a little sick in response to the "vaccine," even if they fully recover afterward.
The bigger problem is that in some people, and for reasons we don't fully know, the immune system continues
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds hyperbolic.
Re: (Score:2)
[No, I do not like the smell of brain farts in the morning. Or at any other time. AC brain farts smell especially bad.]
But if you can still smell them, you don't have Covid.
Gaps between spike proteins? (Score:2)
Oh, in answer to your question about gaps between spikes, I thought the picture at the top of this article [europa.eu] which is an actual electron microscope picture of SARS-COV-2 virus particles, maybe useful. I think most of the pictures that you see are actual molecular models and so maybe show too much space if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks and I also recommend you look at Rei's excellent and substantive reply.
Re:Hoisted by our own immune systems' petards? (Score:5, Informative)
Lots to unpack here.
1) Re: the article in questionn: suppressing MHC is a common trick to hide from T cells. But the body has a response for this trick: NK cells, which kill cells that have insufficient MHC presentation. Our immune system wasn't evolved yesterday ;)
That said, SARS-CoV-2 seems particularly well optimized against T-cells. T-cell immunity does not seem to be the primary driver in control (there have been experiments with rhesus macaques where full T cell suppression had only minor impacts on disease progression, and mutation of T-cell epitopes on the virus seems fairly random while mutations of B-cell epitopes seems highly evolutionarily constrained). Cd8+ T cells are also associated with some types of pathology in severe cases. It seems circulating antibodies do the heavy lifting of preventing infection (except in some abortive infections), and B cells do the heavy lifting of clearing infections. Of course, B cells still need Cd4+ T cells.
Note that this is not universal with all diseases. SARS-CoV-2 is an extremely fast, efficient replicator. Not all pathogens are. With diseases that take longer to spread in the body, B-cells are given a chance to ramp up antibody production, and the pathogen that the body has experience with can be cleared before a proper infection sets in. But SARS-CoV-2 can reach high viral loads in the body very rapidly, and is good at hiding from the immune system in the mean time. So you have to have sufficient circulating antibodies to prevent infection, not just memory B cells.
2) Re: running amok: it's not just about the overall quantity of cytokines in question, but which ones; some are pro-inflammatory, others anti-inflammatory, and they form a regulatory balance. Severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 is correlated with not just high cytokine levels, but also imbalances between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines.
Its manipulation of the immune response starts from the instant it enters a cell. Its primary takeover protein is NSP1 (NSP = Non-Structural Protein), which destroys non-viral mRNA, latches onto ribosomes and doesn't let non-viral mRNA in, and latches onto nuclear pore complexes and doesn't let mRNA out of the nucleus. So the cell not only cannot continue its normal functions, but cannot produce interferons to alert the immune system. The nucleus can be furiously transcribing mRNA to "sound the alarm", but it's like it's screaming but has a pillow over it's mouth.
3) S-protein was not targeted on a whim. There are only four targets on the virus: S, N, E and M. E and M are small, recessed, and poorly immunogenic. N (nucleocapsid) is indeed abundant and quite immunogenic, though internal (it's an encapsulated virus). N was investigated as a protein target, but rejected when it was discovered that inducing an antibody response against N tended to result in worse disease outcomes (ADE). IgG anti-N antibodies from natural infection at least also have a shorter sera lifespan than anti-S.
The simple fact is that S is what you're left with by default: the giant swaying protein trimers that jut out densely across the entire surface of the virion, which are forced to leave portions of themselves unshielded by glycans in order to be able to function.
4) Yes, ACE2 (the target) absolutely has other uses in the body. It's a blood pressure regulating protein, and quite likely a reason why SARS-CoV-2 is associated with vascular events and sequelae (it infects endothelial tissue throughout the body) - the process of viral entry involves TMPRSS2 severing ACE2 to a free-floating sACE2 form.
But the fact that you're asking this, I believe, relates to a misconception: that you think that S-protein produced by vaccines is (A) unmodified wild type, and (B) secreted. When it's neither. With regards to (A), it's double-proline substituted. Proline is a stiff amino acid, and acts like a split. The produced protein can bind, but it cannot enter its postfusion configuration. And with regards to (B)
Re: (Score:2)
*** acts like a spliNt.
Excelent description above (Score:2)
Thanks for that..
Do we know where the MHC suppression came from? Does SARS-1 have that gene? Or the infamous RaTG13?
(I presume would be relatively easy to add the gene to a virus.)
Incidentally, I thought that the B-Cells role was to create the antibodies. Through an ingenious method of modifying their DNA so that they can ramp up if triggered later.
And then the T-Cells reacted to things with antibodies stuck to them. But there must be more to it than that (a lot more I suspect).
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that excellent and substantive response. You are obviously much deeper into the topic than I am, though much of what you say meshes well with what I have been able to understand. And I'm pretty sure I'll never catch up with you, too, so even stronger thanks for sharing your expertise so generously. (However I still worry about the hubris thing...)
My main reaction is somewhat orthogonal. I think you have persuaded me that the vaccines you considered in your reply are using the best approach bas
Re: (Score:2)
If that evidence shows this approach of targeting the spike protein is also the same approach that was used by the people who recovered most quickly and most completely, then I would feel reassured. However, if natural recovery favors other mechanisms, then I would be biased towards vaccine approaches that mesh with those "more natural" recovery mechanisms.
There's some evidence that many infections, especially with low numbers of virus particles (virions) coming into the body are dealt with before even antibody responses really come into play. People who get this lucky recover more quickly and completely because the virus never gets into the rest of their body to cause things like lung damage. I guess partly related to this there are several nasal vaccines and nasal anti-viral sprays under development. Definitely there's a hope they'll be better but they j
Re: (Score:2)
Insofar as I dislike needles, I have been interested in the nasal vaccines, but I'm skeptical there because of dosage control concerns. (Based on another branch of the discussion I feel like I should note that I got my jabs when they became available here. And I'm not yet eligible for the booster. The locals are kind of behind on these things...)
Re: (Score:2)
One more aspect related to thinking about your reply.
It may be another misconception, but I think most of the current vaccines are using a kind of carpet bombing approach. Not efficient. I think the objective is to coat all of the spikes with antibodies, so you need a LOT of antibodies.
What about a one-two punch antibody that could destroy a capsid with just a few antibodies? I'm imagining a designer antibody that uses ACE2 as bait to catch a spike, and then whacks the spike with the other protein (whose na
Re: (Score:2)
Your immune system is really a bunch of systems. Some are more aggressive than others, and that allows a graded response. Barring some sort of immune dysfunction, if you're in the territory where your body is bringing out the big guns, you're pretty well screwed. The infection is so widespread, or has reached such a critical area, that you're probably going to die if your immune system goes nuclear, but you're definitely going to die if it doesn't.
We know quite well how vaccines work. There's no big mystery
Re: (Score:2)
> We know quite well how vaccines work. There's no big mystery, and no need for "maybe it does this..." explanations.
Well, yes, at the simplistic level of "stops you getting sick". But the details are different. And the SARS-COV-2 vaccines work in a radically different way from others, they do not contain any antigens, but RNA that causes our body to create antigens that trigger the immune response. And that response is complex.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to quote the parts of your response that are wrong, but really the whole thing is.
The immune system is complex. We understand a great deal of how it works, and how vaccines work specifically. *Much more detail than you suggest.*
The mRNA vaccines are different in that they cause host cells to produce the antigen, but the immune response is qualitatively just like it would be if you produced that antigen in a vat and then injected it. And we have decades of experience with viral vector and mRNA va
Re: (Score:2)
That handle seems to be jiggling a bell. Your subsequent rudeness increases the volume, even though it wasn't directed at me, but I'm still not sure. If I did ask you to ignore my comments, then what do I have to do to solidify that request? Perhaps I should say that I think you have a thick and pompous skull and there is no reason for us to pretend to engage in dialog?
Or focus on the hubris in your reply to me? No, child, we do NOT know "quite well how vaccines work". We only know a little more than we use
Re: (Score:3)
But I still think it would be better if the vaccine targeted a capsid protein rather than the spike protein. The "target" of the spike protein may have other uses in the body?
The spike protein binds with receptors for a molecule called ACE2. [wikipedia.org] ACE2 is involved in regulating blood pressure, and possibly a bunch of other things.
That means part of the spike protein resembles ACE2. However, it's only part of the spike protein. The vaccines targeting the spike protein do not produce antibodies that attack ACE2 because your immune system has a few proofreading checks to avoid creating antibodies that would harm you. (Usually.)
The reason these vaccines are targeting the spike protein
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking in terms of targeting some part of the capsid protein that is also too crucial to mutate. As I noted in another reply, I'm concerned about our hubris around ACE2, even before you mentioned "a bunch of other things". But at least as regards the blood pressure thing, I can anecdotally report that, if anything (but probably nothing), my blood pressure has possibly been better since I got vaccinated with Comirnaty.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking in terms of targeting some part of the capsid protein that is also too crucial to mutate.
There isn't one. There's nearly infinite ways to form a hollow ball.
Also, the capsid protein isn't exposed. It's wrapped in sugars because that helps it avoid detection. The ends of the spike protein are exposed, because they have to be in order to interact with the ACE2 receptors.
I'm concerned about our hubris around ACE2
I'm concerned you haven't noticed 2 billion people getting these shots, and not having a problem around ACE2.
Just because it binds to the receptor does not make it a perfect homolog.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm concerned that the public discourse has been so thoroughly polluted that it is not possible to discuss these things rationally, but I also cannot blame you. It would take you a substantial amount of research effort to confirm that I am not a clever troll. But that's probably the main reason I want a MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public) extension to Slashdot karma, so you would be able to look at my MEPR icon and know immediately that I'm lacking many (hopefully most or even all) of the dimensional
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm concerned that the public discourse has been so thoroughly polluted that it is not possible to discuss these things rationally
"Rationally" would not be coming up with a list of fears and then ignoring the 2 billion instances when those fears did not come to pass.
And I STILL worry about hubris.
That's because your study of the subject has not included important details about how proteins work, how viruses work, how viruses are packaged, how they enter cells, or how the immune system works to counter that.
For example, what's the mechanism by which the vaccine causes a problem? If the answer is "I don't know", then there's more study to be done. If there is a spe
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:2)
At a species level. We have evolved to the point of caring for the individual, which is why we've developed vaccines for many things, some better than others. The pertussis vaccine isn't very effective, but it's effective enough to prevent countless infant deaths every year because they are the population segment most susceptible to the worst outcomes of pertussis, so we get vaccinated for it every 10 years anyways, and enforce the vaccine in schools, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Evades our immune system? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're feeding a troll, and "That trick never works." But he might be senile ior insane ior racist xor paid to fake it.
Re: (Score:2)
For definitions of fairly good evidence that include "reasonable and feasible enough that it would merit being the most likely explanation in absence of other information, but when considered in light of *all* the available evidence that we have accumulated so far, not very likely".
Generally speaking, "fairly good evidence" does not mean "not impossible, and therefore what I choose to
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics on both sides. AFAIK the current scientific/intelligence consensus is the laboratory origin story is deemed as approximately equally as plausible as natural origin. So, ~50%, and "not impossible" is just as, if not more disingenuous and faith-based as "fairly good evidence".
OTOH laboratory origin still doesn't automatically imply fully artificial virus. It could be a rare strain of a natural virus studied at the laboratory, it could be a unique new strain mutated randomly/unintentionally from a na
Re: (Score:2)
Equally plausible does not translate to equally probable.
It was my understanding that the laboratory origin hypothesis for covid19, while plausible, is not considered likely by experts. The most likely accepted explanation is that at some point prior to November 2019, the virus made the jump from bats to humans, probably via contact with feces from an infected animal (perhaps entirely incidentally), and that the person did not sufficiently sanitize their hands before touching their face afterwards, wh
Re: (Score:2)
"it's unlikely that a person who works at such a facility would not be engaging in proper sensitization" - I think you're taking their work ethics with western measure.
Check out how it looks like in architecture / civil engineering. Tofu-dreg buildings [youtube.com]. Check how oil from sewage [youtube.com] is used in fast-food. And this approach to work ethics is seen everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, what about this [twitter.com]? Fake news?
Never mind you're completely missing the point, imagining this would need to be facilitated by the lab management, not an underpaid technician dodging the security to make some cash on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Evades our immune system? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as severe as a lot of other contagious diseases but it's not as trivial as the flu. It is killing people and it should be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That kinda points to a genetic component as well.
I've been wondering this. A close family member caught it and that person has a long list of comorbidities (Age, weight, diabetes, etc.) and while they recovered a little later than other people I know, they were never in danger of needing a hospital bed and didn't get severely sick. I feel like a big piece of the puzzle is missing.
Re: (Score:1)
There are quite a few studies that show that people with low vitamin-d levels have a worse reaction to the virus. There are a few studies now that show that supplementing vitamin-d to elderly people have reduced severity of covid-19.
It has been known for years that low vitamin-d levels increase risks for a bunch of illnesses such as influenza, and now also covid-19.
10-50%, depending on country, of people in the western world have low levels of vitamin-d.
Not saying that vitamin-d is a cure or anything... I'm
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well; you see, the virus was engineered to specifically kill certain people. Once inside the host body, the virus uses 5G to communicate with a server in China and compares the DNA of the host with a "target list". If the DNA matches, the target is killed. All infections where people eventually recovered are due to a bug where if the DNA of the host almost matches an entry in the target list, the virus partially activates. I said it was a bug, though it could be intentional, so that targets do not escape by
Re: (Score:2)
Well; you see, the virus was engineered to specifically kill certain people. Once inside the host body, the virus uses 5G to communicate with a server in China and compares the DNA of the host with a "target list". If the DNA matches, the target is killed. All infections where people eventually recovered are due to a bug where if the DNA of the host almost matches an entry in the target list, the virus partially activates. I said it was a bug, though it could be intentional, so that targets do not escape by slightly changing their DNA.
Now I wonder if I was the first to come up with this or are there people who seriously believe this...
Jokes on China then, I have no 5G reception where I live (and 4G is pretty bad as well)
Re: Evades our immune system? (Score:4, Funny)
Jokes on China then, I have no 5G reception where I live (and 4G is pretty bad as well)
Why do you think the US military thinks that Huawei, ZTE and Lenovo are part of the Chinese military? When China invades the US they will come with cellphone towers and install 100% coverage over the nation. Then you won't have an escape. The only way to escape will be to build your own spaceship and escape with Elon Miusk and Bill Gates to Mars where you will be used as their slave.
Re: (Score:1)
A faraday cage may be perspicacious?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Evades our immune system? (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, about 800,000 Americans have died from it. Care to catch it for us and report back on how you fare? And don't forget the long Covid problems, we'll want reports on that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Some had comorbidities, some not. Young. Old. Male. Female. But the only thing they all had in common was covid. [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of all the braindead bullshit lies we see spewed about covid, this has got to be one of the stupidest.
Re: The same way it evades being isolated or seen. (Score:2)
https://www.microscopeworld.co... [microscopeworld.com]
Re:The same way it evades being isolated or seen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Tom Cowan
Quite the authoritative source.
https://drtomcowan.com/collect... [drtomcowan.com]
He's definitely found a lot of ways to monetize his pretend science. This is my favorite at first glance:
https://drtomcowan.com/product... [drtomcowan.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://drtomcowan.com/product... [drtomcowan.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Anal enema"? Product name checks out...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not arguing or debating.
I'm not sure you know what those words mean. If you do, you have a funny way of going about not doing those things, seeing as you were commenting on an article by calling its premise BS.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. They should all be fired for their incompetence and stupidity. It is possible that SARS-CoV-2 is a failed bioweapon. Captain Trips it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Get some actual numbers and stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
This good enough for your?
https://fullfact.org/online/in... [fullfact.org]
"This suggests that the survival rate from a Covid-19 infection is 99.8%, without vaccination."
I suggest your come out from behind your sofa, grow a pair, stop believing the hysterical propaganda (on both sides) and do some fucking research.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Literally exactly opposite that bit, as an analysis of it
In other words, 0.2% is the UK overall survival because the UK is has 95% or more of adults vaccinated. The normal survival rate is much
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. The covidiots do not have working working brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1/5 of males report erectile dysfunction after being infected.
A shocking 1/6 of hospitalized patients were found to have become type I diabetic within 6 months of hospital discharge.
10-15% of patients report lasting chronic neurological problems.
1/3 of patients given a CT scan were found to have severe lung scarring 6 months after being infected.
In the UK, fully 50% of hospitalized covid victims were found to die within a year.
It's rather difficult to overstate how m
Re: (Score:2)
https://wexnermedical.osu.edu [osu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
99.98% survival rate is pretty good odds to start out with. That is enough for people to really not give a shit. The Omicron(aka: Moronic) variant is pretty much a mild flu. Most people(not living in fear) are perfectly fine with a 99.98% survival rate, but now its like 99.999X% or better with omicron?
Your numbers (0.02% death rate) are off by some orders of magnitude. The death rate from SARS-COV-2 for the unvaccinated is 0.2%. For Omicron nobody knows yet, because the dying didn't start yet but it's likely to be more like 0.02% than 0.000Y%. The populations that have been affected so far have been young and ones that didn't have very high death rates with previous variants either.
A virus naturally evolves to being less intrusive as it iterates through generations. Those that don't kill the host have a better chance of surviving and spreading to others.
This is a misunderstanding. As long as the host has passed along the virus, it makes no difference if the host lives or
Dude, did you misplace a decimal and mean 2% (Score:2)
My Midwestern US state where mask use and vaccination rates are reasonably good reports about 10,000 total deaths in relation to 1,000,000 confirmed cases -- about 1%. Note that a vaccinated person could catch the virus and have a positive test yet have less chance of dying from it. The US as a whole reports about 800,000 deaths out of about 50 million confirmed cases, or about 1.6%. The world reports about 5 million cases from 270 million confirmed cases -- closer to 2%.
The lower death rate in relati
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I was cutting and pasting. 0.2% is probably either the achievable rate that germany had by taking everyone in early or a mostly vaccinated rate. The real numbers are about an order of magnitude worse.
2% death rate is the top end of countries with a full medical system. It can in fact go to around 10% if you have an elderly, susceptible population and can't provide anyone with proper medical care. That's why Northern Italy was a massive disaster at the beginning before people knew how to
Re: (Score:2)
The stupidity - made even worse by the fact that this lie was repeated by a United States Senator - and statistical invalidity of putting "people who were never inf
Re: (Score:2)
There aint no peppa pig virus! (Score:2)
It is a Panda virus that turns you black and white and makes you eat bamboo.