Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Read the links. I expect better than unlettered and irrational replies from you.

We were having a conversation, and I was responding to what you said. I'm not particularly interested in sifting through that stuff, because I'm sure it's all consistent with the commonsense observation that genetics plays some role, but so do environment and luck. You prefer to ignore environment and luck and attribute it all to genetics. If you want a simple explanation for everything, that's one that won't get laughed at in polite company, unlike saying it's God's will.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: You changed your post after I responded to it, so whatever.

I thought it too dismissive. Then I read your next post and decided it was t adequately dismissive enough. I hope I did better with the final.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I thought it too dismissive. Then I read your next post and decided it was t adequately dismissive enough. I hope I did better with the final.

What, exactly, are you now saying is the role that genetics plays in one's suscepitiblity to Covid-19?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We were having a conversation, and I was responding to what you said. I'm not particularly interested in sifting through that stuff, because I'm sure it's all consistent with the commonsense observation that genetics plays some role, but so do environment and luck. You prefer to ignore environment and luck and attribute it all to genetics. If you want a simple explanation for everything, that's one that won't get laughed at in polite company, unlike saying it's God's will.

Did I say environment played no role? No. I said where physical health could be discounted, one must look to genetics. The hypo I used was an old man cruising thru while a young healthy man does badly.

You are trying to reframe the argument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What, exactly, are you now saying is the role that genetics plays in one's suscepitiblity to Covid-19?

Genetic susceptibility plays a significant role in outcome. And young healthy people who are doing badly likely share a common or similar genetic feature which renders them susceptible to bad outcome.

The environment argument is a dodge. If you are young and because of your environment you are sick, you are not young and healthy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Did I say environment played no role? No. I said where physical health could be discounted, one must look to genetics. The hypo I used was an old man cruising thru while a young healthy man does badly.

You are trying to reframe the argument.

If physical health can be discounted, why "must one look to genetics"? Why not also look to environment, one's non-genetic attributes and luck?

Why do healthy people sometimes die of the flu/malaria/cancer/heart disease? Must one look to genetics in all of those cases too, or do you think that those other factors might play a role too?

I'm not trying to reframe anything, but maybe the problem is that you aren't thinking very hard about what you're trying to say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Genetic susceptibility plays a significant role in outcome.

Not sure what you mean by "genetic susceptibility," a term that seems meant to confuse. If you are a man, does that itself make you "genetically susceptible" to testicular cancer? If you had XX instead XY chromosomes, you wouldn't get the disease.

And young healthy people who are doing badly likely share a common or similar genetic feature which renders them susceptible to bad outcome.

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. You've said nothing that supports this hypothesis, and you've professed an inability to think of any other possible cause. If there's something in all those links that you shared that explains this better than you have so far, please share it (but I'm not going to read the results of your Google search if you can't be bothered to do it yourself and point to the key bits).

The environment argument is a dodge. If you are young and because of your environment you are sick, you are not young and healthy.

I have been unclear. I mean "environment" as a short-hand for all the things that affect how the disease finds you that aren't genetics. A healthy person who works in a crowded space with poor air circulation may get exposed to a lot of virus relatively to an equally healthy person who works outside -- both may get sick, but the disease may have a completely different course, for reasons that are environmental.

And also, luck. Some people get really sick and then the recover. Others don't. It's a mystery.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure what you mean by "genetic susceptibility," a term that seems meant to confuse. If you are a man, does that itself make you "genetically susceptible" to testicular cancer? If you had XX instead XY chromosomes, you wouldn't get the disease.



This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. You've said nothing that supports this hypothesis, and you've professed an inability to think of any other possible cause. If there's something in all those links that you shared that explains this better than you have so far, please share it (but I'm not going to read the results of your Google search if you can't be bothered to do it yourself and point to the key bits).



I have been unclear. I mean "environment" as a short-hand for all the things that affect how the disease finds you that aren't genetics. A healthy person who works in a crowded space with poor air circulation may get exposed to a lot of virus relatively to an equally healthy person who works outside -- both may get sick, but the disease may have a completely different course, for reasons that are environmental.

And also, luck. Some people get really sick and then the recover. Others don't. It's a mystery.

I think we agree more than we disagree as usual. But I’ve had a few and would rather answer what I think are the really important points you’ve raised when I’m in better condition to do so.

I’ll reply when the sun is up. In the interim, all be well.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

The next month is going to make it very clear that precautions matter and density does not. Red American is going into a very painful time, made worse by their leaders abandoning them.

ehh, Ty's R-0 page shows those states not looking so bad, who the fuck knows.

[Icky Thump]

If it is so hard to maintain a healthy environment at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then how can businesses across the country establish a safe space for their workers?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

If it is so hard to maintain a healthy environment at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then how can businesses across the country establish a safe space for their workers?

You ever been to the White House? I got in a few years ago with a relative who had access. All kinds of people are roaming around that place. The press room is filled with all kinds of random camera people and reporters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Not sure what you mean by "genetic susceptibility," a term that seems meant to confuse. If you are a man, does that itself make you "genetically susceptible" to testicular cancer? If you had XX instead XY chromosomes, you wouldn't get the disease.

"Based on our study, we think variation in HLA genes is part of the explanation for the huge differences in infection severity in many COVID-19 patients. These differences in the HLA genes are probably not the only genetic factor that affects severity of COVID-19, but they may be a significant piece of the puzzle. It is important to further study how HLA types can clinically affect COVID-19 severity and to test these predictions using real cases. Understanding how variation in HLA types may affect the clinical course of COVID-19 could help identify individuals at higher risk from the disease."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yo...ter-2020-05-05

People who have a rare gene mutation, CCR5, are immune to HIV. The virus simply cannot enter their cells. Covid is a uniquely contagious disease and yet we know there are tons of people who have been exposed and are walking around with no symptoms. This means either the virus could not infect them because of some genetic advantage, or the virus infected them but did not do much to them because of some other genetic advantage.

Women also carry two Xs, and therefore have double the gene TLR7, which detects viruses and aids in mobilizing defense to them.

There are also tons of stories about how variations in ACE1 and ACE2 genes are important. If you have fewer ACE2 genes, you have fewer receptors to which Covid can attach. The amount of ACE1 and ACE2 genes varies from population to population.

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. You've said nothing that supports this hypothesis, and you've professed an inability to think of any other possible cause. If there's something in all those links that you shared that explains this better than you have so far, please share it (but I'm not going to read the results of your Google search if you can't be bothered to do it yourself and point to the key bits).

I think I've just fixed that. But don't take my word for it. There are endless articles about the work being done by geneticists around the world to figure out the differences in genes that impact susceptibility to both acquisition of the virus and severity of symptoms.

I have been unclear. I mean "environment" as a short-hand for all the things that affect how the disease finds you that aren't genetics. A healthy person who works in a crowded space with poor air circulation may get exposed to a lot of virus relatively to an equally healthy person who works outside -- both may get sick, but the disease may have a completely different course, for reasons that are environmental.

Totally agree. It appears that you can have every genetic advantage possible, but if you are repeatedly hit with the virus, it will overwhelm your defenses.

But if you control for those variables, you will find there is a genetic difference. I think the most fascinating data will come from comparison of people in roughly identical situations who have wildly different outcomes. We have a lot of data sets for this. There are tons of instances in which, within families, the disease spares a handful of people and kills one. I just heard of one yesterday involving a friend of my father. Family got sick at vacation house. Athlete, in his 70s, no co-morbidities. Wife did fine, son and daughter did fine, grandkids fine, and he's dead. It could be bad luck, it could unknown co-morbidities, but it could also be the fact that he's the only person in the house who didn't have a lucky genetic background that his wife enjoyed and passed along to the kids.

And also, luck. Some people get really sick and then the recover. Others don't. It's a mystery.

Agreed. But as with HIV, we will find a genetic component that confers advantage, or unique disadvantage.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, that's just wrong. It is common for a disease to affect different people differently, but that doesn't mean that the reason is genetic. "Something else is at work," yes, but it doesn't mean that it is something in someone's genetic background.

I think there's some evidence of dose response, which explains why so many young healthy healthcare workers have been hit so hard with this thing.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think there's some evidence of dose response, which explains why so many young healthy healthcare workers have been hit so hard with this thing.

This is from a professor. Not sure of the validity of her data and analysis but it certainly syncs with some worksites I know of where superspreader lawyer patient zero infected a whole floor

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the...RUaAoR3bUMwMEo

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure what you mean by "genetic susceptibility," a term that seems meant to confuse. If you are a man, does that itself make you "genetically susceptible" to testicular cancer? If you had XX instead XY chromosomes, you wouldn't get the disease.



This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. You've said nothing that supports this hypothesis, and you've professed an inability to think of any other possible cause. If there's something in all those links that you shared that explains this better than you have so far, please share it (but I'm not going to read the results of your Google search if you can't be bothered to do it yourself and point to the key bits).



I have been unclear. I mean "environment" as a short-hand for all the things that affect how the disease finds you that aren't genetics. A healthy person who works in a crowded space with poor air circulation may get exposed to a lot of virus relatively to an equally healthy person who works outside -- both may get sick, but the disease may have a completely different course, for reasons that are environmental.

And also, luck. Some people get really sick and then the recover. Others don't. It's a mystery.

I remember you had no clue what an HSA was, so I doubt you are actively working in health care, but do you have a medical degree you just aren't using?