[Serkevan]

Evolution by natural selection happens because of changes to the environment a species inhabits, not because of short term disease outbreaks. And it isn't survival of the fittest. Individuals that happen to have random mutations that suit the changed environment survive and reproduce, but they're not "fitter" or superior in any way. Just randomly luckier.

In all honesty, it *could* happen, in the case of, say, a hypothetical disease that targeted exclusively patients of blood type AB for example, since that's only a genetic factor. Still, off the top of my head I cannot think of any sickness - be it the plague, the 1918 flu, this one, you name it - that had genetics as a relevant factor.

There is one major exception (malaria), but it comes in the form of two suicidal mutations involving defective blood cells, so if you don't happen to catch malaria congratulations, your body is a giant liability for no benefit whatsoever.

[Dartmoor Dave]

In all honesty, it *could* happen, in the case of, say, a hypothetical disease that targeted exclusively patients of blood type AB for example, since that's only a genetic factor. Still, off the top of my head I cannot think of any sickness - be it the plague, the 1918 flu, this one, you name it - that had genetics as a relevant factor.

There is one major exception (malaria), but it comes in the form of two suicidal mutations involving defective blood cells, so if you don't happen to catch malaria congratulations, your body is a giant liability for no benefit whatsoever.

Yes, it "can" happen through disease, although in the context of this discussion I don't think that's the case.

And of course, human beings in civilised societies take care of individuals unlucky enough to suffer from genetically inherited conditions. They accept that those individuals still have much to contribute and are deserving of the same rights as others. Historically, those who argued that people who they considered genetically inferior should be eradicated are now usually seen as the bad guys.

[Parallax]

It *can*, but there are so many factors that are more important that there's no point in considering it.

Correct; depending, of course, on which side of the argument you favor.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Correct; depending, of course, on which side of the argument you favor.

In the context of coronavirus, there's the science and then there's the political response to the science.

The science is what it is. We don't get to have an opinion about it. Politicians can either follow the science or ignore it, but ignoring the science doesn't make it wrong.

And I'll shut up now, because we're getting too close to the p....... word again.

[surfar]

An aap report has a lab testing a drug called Ivermectin that has killed the virus in 48 hours and severely retarded it in 24.Tests continue for human dosage.

Also,Fujifilm have developed a test that will show results in 2 hours instead of the 4-6 of present tests.Apparently available April 15th,dont know where?

[Parallax]

there's the science and then there's the political response to the science.

Correct.

Two irrefutable points here:
1. The Science: People are going to die.
2. The Political response to the science: Won't change #1

we're getting too close to the p....... word again.

Also correct. (myself included)

[aslyfox]

Correct.

Two irrefutable points here:
1. The Science: People are going to die.
2. The Political response to the science: Won't change #1
. . .

one additional irrefutable fact

some folks will become infected and not die

[Parallax]

one additional irrefutable fact

some folks will become infected and not die

Excellent point.
I was remiss in excluding that.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Two irrefutable points here:
1. The Science: People are going to die.
2. The Political response to the science: Won't change #1

I'm glad that we're all agreeing to try to be non-political here, but hopefully it's okay to make one tiny non-political amendment to your point Number 2.

1. The Science. People are going to die.
2. The political response. Will change the number of people who die in Number 1.

[aslyfox]

Excellent point.
I was remiss in excluding that.

we all can use a little help

especially in these times

[photoptimist]

Correct.

Two irrefutable points here:
1. The Science: People are going to die.
2. The Political response to the science: Won't change #1

The political response will certainly change when they die (later or sooner) and how they die (surrounded by loved ones or alone in an isolation ward with a make-shift garden hose shoved down their throat). The political response (especially the early response) will also affect how much an epidemic costs in added healthcare and subtracted economic activity.

[timb64]

The political response will certainly change when they die (later or sooner) and how they die (surrounded by loved ones or alone in an isolation ward with a make-shift garden hose shoved down their throat). The political response (especially the early response) will also affect how much an epidemic costs in added healthcare and subtracted economic activity.

I’m the last person to defend politicians, but trying to square this circle is possibly part of the reason they haven’t been acting quite as speedily or decisively as the situation seems to call for

I wasn't aware that "being old" was a genetic characteristic. I wasn't aware that "proper access to healthcare" was a genetic characteristic. I wasn't aware that "different viral loads and general fitness of the immune system because of good lifestyle choices" were genetic characteristics.

Why do you suppose people live to be different ages before they kick off? Or why people might have sense enough to choose variations in their environments? As to your latter point, I do know a little about the genetic characteristics of the immune system, since I happen to have the genetic characteristic that causes autoimmune disorders. You can read up on all this stuff on a website run by NIH called "pubmed.com" - journal articles from leading medical publications.

[aslyfox]

I’m the last person to defend politicians, but trying to square this circle is possibly part of the reason they haven’t been acting quite as speedily or decisively as the situation seems to call for

not defending any particular politician

but remember

they are human too

and all humans err

and humans have motives behind what they choose to do

The CDC website has a very good write-up on the 'flu pandemic of 1918-1919 and its effects. That was when the N1 virus first hit the humans, and as the CDC points out, it killed more people than all the casualties of WW1 combined. We're the descendants of people who survived that one. They also point out that there were, in addition to the first initial pandemic, two major waves of re-infection, and minor waves every year since then. We can expect similar results, both short-term and long-range. The 'flu is still killing people, a hundred years after the outbreak, and this one is likely to do that, too. It just won't be a huge peak, as it is now.