Swine flu and Torchwood

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Peter
Duncanson
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:21:27 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

Mutation of the virus occurs inside the cells of an infected person or
animal. The more people who catch the virus the more likely it is that a
mutated version will appear.

- assuming the mild virus infection makes an individual immune to a
more deadly version.



That was my thoughts as well, but presumably that won't be any good if
the virus mutates and I presume that also applies to any vaccine
against the existing strain?

It depends how far the virus mutates. A vaccine may give some immunity
against a slightly mutated version.

Alas, giving many people the vaccine for the current main strain could also
act as a driver to select mutations as having a greater 'survival value'
for the virus. In effect, it tends to weed out 'competition' by versions
close to the strain used for the vaccine and allow variations more scope to
grow.

So these issues can be far from simple, and what may seem a sensible option
can sometimes turn out to be a mistake. The problem is that it can be
impossible to do more than estimate this in advance.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?
Rod.


Chaos theory would say either way

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?
Rod.


Chaos theory would say either way

Steve Terry



|
And I'm trying to avoid if I possibly can becoming part of the 'natural
selection' process!o)

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

|
Let's hope that our politicians have a master plan in place for the
eventuality of millions of key workers in potentially dangerous areas of
work, such as nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works etc.
being abruptly taken out of the equation, IMV any industry representing a
serious hazard to the population or environment should be able to be very
quickly shut down and safely mothballed for 'at least' 6 months.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:21:49 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Alas, giving many people the vaccine for the current main strain could also
act as a driver to select mutations as having a greater 'survival value'
for the virus. In effect, it tends to weed out 'competition' by versions
close to the strain used for the vaccine and allow variations more scope to
grow.

So these issues can be far from simple, and what may seem a sensible option
can sometimes turn out to be a mistake. The problem is that it can be
impossible to do more than estimate this in advance.

There is a similar problem with the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu.
Experts in other countries are looking with raised eyebrows at the UK's
widespread use of the drug to simply shorten the length of illness
rather restricting its use to severe cases where it is necessary to save
life.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:59:03 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:11:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Ivan wrote:
I think the major fear with flu is that it
could very quickly mutate and become a completely different and much
more
deadly ball game within a very short space of time.

It could mutate into something different in several ways, but why would
this
become more widespread than the one that is already out there? Wouldn't
natural selection favour the relatively benign form that didn't kill its
host?

I think that would be better as "the relatively benign form that didn't
kill its host *immediately*".

A lethal form can exist and spread if the host is infectious for long
enough to infect other hosts before it dies.

|
Let's hope that our politicians have a master plan in place for the
eventuality of millions of key workers in potentially dangerous areas of
work, such as nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works etc.
being abruptly taken out of the equation, IMV any industry representing a
serious hazard to the population or environment should be able to be very
quickly shut down and safely mothballed for 'at least' 6 months.

It is not a simple situation owing to the "the fundamental
interconnectedness of all things"[1]

Closing down nuclear power stations, oil refineries, chemical works,
etc. would cut off or seriously reduce the availability of some
essential supplies to the population.

We live in the era of Just-in-Time and Continuous Flow in which buffer
stocks of goods are not maintained.

[1] "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency", by Douglas Adams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:12:13 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

rather restricting its use

Oops. ... rather than restricting its use...