Muitas dúvidas sobre o Coronavirus!!!
133. Re: Muitas dúvidas sobre o Coronavirus!!!
RogerDez
(usa Outra)
Enviado em 11/04/2020 - 20:00h
ricardo, cara, como vc levou tudo isso pro lado pessoal?!eu fiquei surpreso de te conhecer tanto em tão rápida discussão..
seu senso de humor é muito bom, cara! achei legal, ri pakas
Eu não sou a "Maria vai com as outras", na vida forjei minhas próprias ideias no fogo do meu arbítrio.
manoo, que cara porreta!
acho que não tem razão para termos mal entendido entre nós.
eu me refiro ao McAfee pq ele é um estatístico por formação...
e ele bate na tecla das proporções..
bom, vamos lá. eu fiz o download de uns grupos do usenet, e fui pesquisar sobre virus, epidemia e letalidade..
fiquei hoje o dia inteiro tentando organizar alguns e-mails dos grupos do usenet de gente séria que discutiu a respeito de virus em geral edo corona virus, cerca de 2003..
tem um tal de 'Ian York' é muito fo*da e explica por que os vírus podem ou não se tornar menos ou mais letais, depende de uma série de fatores.
então eu fui muito simplista em algumas mensagens anteriores aqui do fórum quando falei que a teoria da evolução previa que os vírus tendem a se tornar menos letais ao longo do tempo.. depende de uma série de fatores bem explicada pelo Ian.
aqui vai os textos que eu retirei da usenet no pastebin, pq é beeem longo mas vale a pena para quem gosta de um olhar mais técnico a respeito da teoria da evolução dos virus, do H5N1 (acho que era esse ou um outro), ebola, e tal..
pastebin: https://pastebin.com/JhM3W5kB
o virus da febre negra matou um terço da população da europa em questão de meses.. e veja, ainda estamos aqui!
eu acho que muito dessa discussão aqui pode ser resumida da seguinte forma: precisamos manter as devidas proporções.
temos recursos limitados e devemos usar os recursos para tentar sanar as coisas mais importantes e não ficar gastando com doenças proporcionalmente menos graves.
por exemplo
How about an immensely contagious viral disease ("the most
transmissible disease known to man": Archives of Internal Medicine.
154(16):1815-20, 1994) that kills around one million children per year?
Measles is a controllable disease; why aren't you lobbying to get the
vaccine to the places that need it? And isn't it terrifying that people
in North America think of measles as a mildly amusing childhood nuisance?
These are not emerging diseases, Hans. These are diseases that have
emerged. These three alone kill millions of people every year, and we
don't have to postulate mysterious and hypothetical mutations. Ebola
virus has killed some 500 people in the past ten years; that includes the
worst-case outbreak last year.
What if human cytomegalovirus incorporates a mutant p53 in its genome,
Hans? Shouldn't we be preparing for that possibility? It's at least as
likely as an airborne Ebola - Richard Preston's claim that "Ebola is a
virus trying to break out - out of the jungle, out of the monkey species,
and out of Africa" notwithstanding, Ebola is a virus: it doesn't have
goals or intentions.
But I do think (I won't speak for Ed here, my wrist is still sore from the
last slap he gave it) that we have to assign our non-infinite resources -
money, time, and manpower - rationally. That means assessing where the
most likely risks are, and addressing them.
If the only virus you know anything about is Ebola, then it's going to
look like the biggest threat. But if you look at some of the established
killers like TB (and yes, Hans, I know you said "*This* discussion just
happens to be about Ebola", but you're wrong; this discussion is about
public health risks, of which Ebola is one), measles, and polio, then it's
hard to argue that resources should be withdrawn from them in order to
cover the hypothetical risk of a hypothetical mutation. And if you do
want to cover that hypothetical mutation scenario, than you should also
cover the risk of rabies mutating, polio mutating, TB mutating, measles
mutating ...
Let me say it again: We KNOW that TB kills millions of people per year.
We KNOW that measles kills another couple of million people per year.
Ebola has killed about 400 people in the time these two diseases have
killed some 40,000,000. There's no theory here, Hans, just facts.
I'll tell you what I, personally, would like to see done. I'd like to
see funding of a much better infectious disease surveillance program,
worldwide - probably heavily based on the CDC, since they seem to have
the most experience at it. Basically, an expansion of the programs the
WHO is already working on.
Hans? Shouldn't we be preparing for that possibility? It's at least as
likely as an airborne Ebola - Richard Preston's claim that "Ebola is a
virus trying to break out - out of the jungle, out of the monkey species,
and out of Africa" notwithstanding, Ebola is a virus: it doesn't have
goals or intentions.
But I do think (I won't speak for Ed here, my wrist is still sore from the
last slap he gave it) that we have to assign our non-infinite resources -
money, time, and manpower - rationally. That means assessing where the
most likely risks are, and addressing them.
If the only virus you know anything about is Ebola, then it's going to
look like the biggest threat. But if you look at some of the established
killers like TB (and yes, Hans, I know you said "*This* discussion just
happens to be about Ebola", but you're wrong; this discussion is about
public health risks, of which Ebola is one), measles, and polio, then it's
hard to argue that resources should be withdrawn from them in order to
cover the hypothetical risk of a hypothetical mutation. And if you do
want to cover that hypothetical mutation scenario, than you should also
cover the risk of rabies mutating, polio mutating, TB mutating, measles
mutating ...
Let me say it again: We KNOW that TB kills millions of people per year.
We KNOW that measles kills another couple of million people per year.
Ebola has killed about 400 people in the time these two diseases have
killed some 40,000,000. There's no theory here, Hans, just facts.
I'll tell you what I, personally, would like to see done. I'd like to
see funding of a much better infectious disease surveillance program,
worldwide - probably heavily based on the CDC, since they seem to have
the most experience at it. Basically, an expansion of the programs the
WHO is already working on.
então se precisamos usar as forças armadas, bater nas pessoas pq elas querem andar por aí por causa do corona
em favor de um bem-maior, então devemos usar essa mesma força contra os outros males muito maiores e riscos
a que a sociedade inteira está exposta.