Originally Posted by EODguy

Let's start with a virus becoming more transmissible....

I'll start with---what is the reason you can't make a post without including insults? I'm sorry I'm upsetting you by challenging your conclusions. It's not personal. I am only addressing what I believe are misleading or inaccurate statements.

If the virus kills 1% of its hosts and then becomes "more" transmissible it just means that more hosts get infected NOT that it is deadlier. It's not killing 2% or 20% more of infected hosts, it still has the same % of lethality. Let's say 100 have been infected. 1% is 1. The vaccine then mutates and in the same period of time it infects 200 people. 1% is now 2. While the percent doesn't change the number of deaths does. In effect, the virus is more deadly. That was the point. It was not based on virility but death count.

As for satiated lifeforms that does NOT solely refer to life such as mammals, reptiles, invertebrates, etc. But your post was about a virus becomes satiated. My response was it does not and still applies. We weren't talking about anything other than a virus.

"by becoming more deadly by having the ability to reduce the effectiveness of the virus thereby even infecting fully vaccinated individuals"~BC

I made a mistake here I intended to use the word vaccine rather than virus. Oops.

Uhmm did you even read this? Becoming more deadly by a reduced effectiveness of a virus? WTF? So a less effective virus is more deadly? (Not even remotely true) viruses are genetically predisposed to spread and a deadlier virus kills more hosts limiting their ability to transmit to another host making that strain die out quicker, a virus that doesn't kill or incapacitate its host gets transmitted more often and becomes the dominant strain. Quick acting viruses like Ebola generally didn't spread far since the infected host became too ill to travel and died. That's why looking at the maps of Ebola outbreaks shows tight clusters and not large swaths. Plus to be fair I did say in simplistic terms and yet I still have to explain it to you. I think that the number hospitalized due to the cost, the number in ICU due to the cost and potential longterm issues, and most importantly deaths is a better way to put the impact of the virus into perspective. Again, a more contagious virus infects more people. The 1% is based on current rate of infection. If the 1% drops but the infection rate doubles the deaths could still be the same or more. Yes, if a virus kills more at some point it can burn out. However, since there are billions that haven't been vaccinated, more that have not had the booster and millions depending on natural immunity the death count would be horrendous.

Now about sarcasm and tact...

You have based your replies on a funny meme yet you have taken the meme as gospel and based your entire argument on refuting it.[emoji849]

As for the age issue I only replied to your insinuation that I was probably too young to know the tv show and possibly intimating a lack of experience.