Topic: Coronavirus outbreak

@Silly_G "(and I expect it to be a lot more common with Ramadan coming up in about a week's time)."

Ramadan will probably proceed as Easter/Resurrection Sunday did. A lot of family dinners/gatherings, via Skype, and the like. Now is the time for communication cos (companies) to truly put forth their best performances, full of generosity. When Covid-19 is finally in check by multiple appropriate measures, primarily vaccines, people will remember which cos were benevolent in some ways, such as extending bill due dates, crediting accounts, etc.

That's largely semantics though isn't it. For all intents and purposes, we did "kill" the smallpox virus, for example.

It’s okay, I understood the joke.

@HobbitGamer

Was there a joke? Or maybe a Game of Thrones reference?

@Octane In what universe exactly are viruses not considered to be alive? Seeing as viruses mainly consist of bacteria and/or organic strains, they are most definitely alive, so that's an absolute fallacy right there.

@ThanosReXXX What do you mean with ''Seeing as viruses mainly consist of bacteria and/or organic strains''?

Bacteria and viruses aren't the same. Bacteria are single celled organisms (very much alive). Viruses are more like rogue genetic material. They are much smaller. They aren't contained in a cell, they don't have organelles, no metabolism, they can't even transcribe/translate their own genetic material.

They just float about until they come into contact with a living cell, inject their material into the cell via a chemical reaction, and the living cell will start transcribing the viral RNA/DNA; producing more viruses.

@ThanosReXXX

It's scientifically disputed, because there is no universally agreed upon definition of what counts as "life".

This is from the wikipedia article on viruses:

Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms.[64] They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life",[8] since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[65] and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell[66]—although bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation.[67][68] Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[1]

@Octane By pure biological/scientific definition, any organic and/or genetic material that can self-replicate, regardless of how they achieve that feat, is alive in some shape or form. The distinction doesn't have to incorporate being sentient and/or self-aware. Algae are also considered to be "alive" and they definitely aren't sentient or self-aware.

EDIT:
At the very least, some scientist seem to agree upon viruses being an essential part of evolution, which again, seems to point to their organic, and thus, alive nature.

Here's some interesting, objective reading material, considering both sides of the discussion: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-...

@Dezzy See above. The jury might still be undecided, but it seems that purely by definition, the odds for viruses actually being life organisms, are in the majority.

@ThanosReXXX

There is no "purely by definition" though, because there is no standard definition that is used for "life". Plenty of scientific concepts do have standard definitions, but plenty of others don't. "Life" is in the latter category.

@ThanosReXXX I've never said anything about sentience or self-awareness. You don't have to explain to me what algae are

There is no strict definition. I've had various talks with virologists over the years and the general consensus is definitely that it's something in-between organic and inorganic, or neither. As a developmental biologist, my views are perhaps a bit more strict, but I don't consider them to be alive. I'm open to chance that view if someone can show that they have evolved from obligate single-celled parasites or something alike. But as of now, I don't believe there's any good evidence for that; and thus, as rogue genetic material, there's little for them to be considered 'alive' in the strictest sense. I can agree that it's a grey area, but I have to draw the line somewhere.

Because if viruses are alive, then what about viroids?

What is life but our narrow definition of it?

its all about hoarding hand sanitizer babay!

@ogo79 Go back to the senior citizens’ club you fossil!

Well I can't remember who was originally suggesting this, maybe NEStalgia? But US intelligence is apparently seriously investigating the idea that it did start in the lab in Wuhan, based on new information.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/politics/us-intelligence-v...

I don't know what importance that really has when it comes to actual policy, because these kinds of things obviously can equally arise in normal outdoor circumstances, but it's at least interesting I guess.

That's kinda like the articles that say "developer expressed interest in making a (insert game series) game".

It doesn't really mean much other than the fact they are exploring that option.

@Eel

It's not really like that. They apparently have a source who claims that one of the very first people infected was someone who worked in the lab. If it were true, that would at least be circumstantial evidence.

I assume the intelligence agencies don't just investigate something that any random internet user claims is a fact. I assume they only investigate "sources" if they have some reason to think they might be reliable.

FISA says hi. 😜

But just for giggles, let’s say there is irrefutable evidence it came out of a lab. Let’s say Xi himself cops to it. Then what? Nothing. Sure, there’s a bunch of teeth gnashing and pearl clutching, but nothing else. It doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t make any party more or less reliable. How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me 372 times...

I'm sure they had a source for "weapons of mass destruction" in 2003 too. shrugs

I dunno, this is one of those things where I don't think we need to make up questionable nonsense to hate China's government. Even in terms of this very situation!

I've got a feeling my July beach house rental in North Carolina will be canceled. ☹ I won't be shocked if it is.

@kkslider5552000 I think I was watching Fareed Zakaria, but there evidently were concerned Chinese scientists that issued a warning a few years ago, or longer, saying that the bats at the chinese wet markets for food consumption were a "timebomb". It was something like that.

@ReaperExTenebris It's worth remembering that it wasn't 'made' in a lab. And most scientists agree on that. I don't believe we even have the ability to 'manufacture' viruses that way. And there are natural strains like it, jumping from animal to human wouldn't be unbelievable, it happened so many times before (so even IF it was made, it was only a matter of time until it happened naturally). They COULD be exploring the option that the first transmission happened in a lab. So people studying the viruses, and one of them contracted it. But I really think this is how @Eel put it, they are exploring the option, just like how they are probably 'exploring' a billion other options.