Virus may never go away but could change into mild annoyance

There is a book, "Plagues and Peoples" by William H. McNeill that describes in an easy to understand way this process, how after human populations get in contact with a new pathogen a period of high incidence of heavy problems and deaths is later replaced with a more balanced relationship where humans and the pathogen adapt to each other until a more balanced relationship is established. A common pattern is that lethal diseases become childhood mild problems, with everybody getting immunity with an uncomplicated fever at a young age that still gives enough protection to prevent complications if the person is exposed again as an adult.

It may be even possible that the usual "commo cold" variety of human coronaviruses were as deadly as COVID-19 or the first SARS when first introduced to the human population. Which would mean that in the future COVID could become just another variety of the seasonal colds.

Of course the problem is that a lot of unnecessary deaths happen until this balance is reached, so vaccines represent a huge shortcut that allow for the protection to be also acquired safely by the first generation of humans exposed to the disease.

Translation:

Social distancing forever as the doom and gloom Corona paranoia crowd will never accept any risk from Covid every in their lives.

That is completely different from what the article says, literally in the second paragraph "Or will the virus stick around for a long time, transforming into a mild annoyance, like the common cold?"

This is pretty much inevitable, vaccinate the people that need it if they want it and let's get back on with our lives instead of cowering inside over nothing

2.5 millions deaths are not "nothing", taking proper care of not letting an infection spread uncontrollably is what has kept deaths from being even more important.

This is why experts contradict your baseless opinion and recommend continuing with prevention measures for as long as herd immunity is not reached.

Someone clearly suffering from K.

Please get help.

The reason why there is talk about this "COVID-19" lingering is because the authorities do not want it to go away.

No, the reason is because there is relevant scientific data that indicates this is a realistic probability.

Baseless conspiracy theories are not important, the disease has been described as important and worth taking care of control by the scientific community of the world, the opinion of the governments and politicians have no weight on this.

Bring proof that all the health professionals and scientist of the world are wrong, or accept that the disease and its importance is real. Also read the article, it clearly mentions that the possibility of the disease remaining without endangering in any significative way the public health do exists, which would make every of your complains moot.

@virusrex

What do you think the significance of the combined UK and Californian variants found in the US is? Initial data from the Pfizer vaccine is that it limits infection as well as stopping serious disease. Could it be a setback, or are the new vaccines much easier to modify than previous ones?

Maybe not all, but a vast majority do. It's nothing to do with fear mongering. The science is there if you take the time to read it.

What do you think the significance of the combined UK and Californian variants found in the US is? Initial data from the Pfizer vaccine is that it limits infection as well as stopping serious disease. Could it be a setback, or are the new vaccines much easier to modify than previous ones?

At this point is probably too soon to say for sure, immunity is a very complicated matter and for some diseases having neutralizing titers dropping even a little mean a completely different prognosis, while for other people having even 10 or 20 times less neutralizing antibodies make no difference at all to the severity of the disease.

New vaccines can be re-designed very easily, changes to the mRNA sequence can be done even on a single day with modern technology, and the infrastructure for large scale production do not change at all, what would need time is to test those new versions to again prove they are safe and effective (so again preclinical and clinical trials) so that would mean at least another half year unless approval can be done on a shortened schedule like for new influenza vaccines (not very likely).

Not all health professionals agree on the actually severity of this "pandemic", and most that are worried about it believe that way not because they themselves carefully reviewed the evidence but because they watch the same fear mongering news reports as everybody else.

You would need to prove this, every single health care organization of professionals of the world, like in every country, do coincide in the importance of the disease and that important efforts have to be done to control its impact. Those organizations (universities, research institutes, professional colleges of medical specializations, etc.) main role is to guide their members after reviewing the scientific evidence.

You just saying that they in general are not doing their jobs is not enough to prove it, for that you need evidence. At the same time you would need scientific data proving they are wrong, personal opinions not substanciad by well analyzed data expressed in a valid scientific way are not even close to have the same weight. That would be like a doctor saying "in my experience every cold needs antibiotics".

Burning Bush, 14:17:

You're making generalizations 

Burning Bush, 12:45:

Not all health professionals agree on the actually severity of this "pandemic", and most that are worried about it believe that way not because they themselves carefully reviewed the evidence but because they watch the same fear mongering news reports as everybody else

Hm.

Every single one... really?

Which one doesn't? if you think not all of them do, you can always search for yourself and see if any say that COVID-19 is not worth of attention.

Assumptions and generalizations do not equal facts.

So prove me wrong, anything (professional of course) with a presence on media or internet coincides on considering the pandemic a very serious public health problem and the vaccination efforts as a necessary measure to avoid unnecessary deaths. How many of them can you find that say the opposite? I mean, to say this is invalid you must already have plenty of examples to refute it.

There is nothing wrong with generalizing something that is actually general, humans require a head to survive, viruses are microscopic, scientific and health care associations of professionals understand the scientific evidence that proves the pandemic dangers and the necessity of measures against them.

Not all health professionals agree on the actually severity of this "pandemic", and most that are worried about it believe that way not because they themselves carefully reviewed the evidence but because they watch the same fear mongering news reports as everybody else.

Indeed, there are many highly respected experts (e.g. Didier Raoult) that have a more rational, calm, and data-based view of this pandemic.

You would need to prove this, every single health care organization of professionals of the world, like in every country, do coincide in the importance of the disease and that important efforts have to be done to control its impact.

I see what you did there, replacing health care professionals to health care organization of professionals, as if the views of these organizations reflect those of every single member. We shouldn't put too much faith in organizations. Just look at organizations continuing to peddle the food pyramid.

Those organizations (universities, research institutes, professional colleges of medical specializations, etc.) main role is to guide their members after reviewing the scientific evidence.

No, their main goal is get funding...

Indeed, there are many highly respected experts (e.g. Didier Raoult) that have a more rational, calm, and data-based view of this pandemic.

The example you put is the opposite of highly respected, a person that made unethical trials and falsified protocols and data to "prove" his pet theory is not someone to be respected, that is why he is facing the consequences of his actions.

I see what you did there, replacing health care professionals to health care organization of professionals

Replacing from where? that is the only logical option to use, there is always people that are mediocre, badly prepared, lie to obtain benefits, (unethical, fraudulent or senile researchers as the ones you admire) etc. etc. So if you search well enough you will find at least one that defends even the most outrageous lies (microbes are false, there is no evolution, the hearth does not pump blood, anything). The only valid thing to do is to use as a reference professional associations, where the standards are much higher and they need to have scientific data to defend a position. It is irrelevant if you don't want to trust organizations, a nameless person on the internet is much less worth of even attention, much less trust.

No, their main goal is get funding...

Prove it, demonstrate that funding triumphs scientific knowledge as a general rule, else you will have to accept this is not the case.

Indeed, there are many highly respected experts (e.g. Didier Raoult) that have a more rational, calm, and data-based view of this pandemic.

The example you put is the opposite of highly respected, a person that made unethical trials and falsified protocols and data to "prove" his pet theory is not someone to be respected, that is why he is facing the consequences of his actions.

You keep repeating these baseless accusations.

His main concern is treating his patients. If some patients reacted poorly to the treatment, he would take them out of the study and treat them differently. That was mentioned in his paper. Others might have kept them in the study and let them die.

He also refuses to do randomized HCQ studies with placebos, because that would mean unnecessarily letting patients die just to get his data. Such studies are not need for something like HCQ which has already been demonstrated to be safe after billions of treatments over several decades world-wide.

He is attacked by people funded by bigpharma because they do not like what he says.

And concerning the above article, Raoult discusses again in his most recent video how Gilead's Remdesivir (a mutagen) contributes to the appearance of variants. I know you do not believe that mutagens cause mutations!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txJWKxvgKc

So if they continue to administer Remdesivir to patients, we can expect many more variants to show up and covid will continue to be a major nuisance for a long time.

You keep repeating these baseless accusations.

They are not baseless, I have already provided to you several times articles where his unethical deeds have been compiled, you should try and read the articles. Trying to ignore the very clear basis for accusations do not make them baseless, it only makes you be in denial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html

https://forbetterscience.com/2020/04/22/chloroquine-witchdoctor-didier-raoult-barking-mad-and-dangerous/

https://www.les-crises.fr/the-tremendous-ethical-and-methodological-flaws-in-the-raoult-clinical-trial-analysis-by-olivier-berruyer/

His main interest was in pushing an ineffective drug by any means possible, even if that meant lying, fabricating ethical approvals, falsifying results, manipulating the selection criteria and trying to hide the evidence between other things.

He DID randomized studies with HCQ, just not properly, systematically directing people at high risk to the "no-treatment" group so they would become worse statistics, that is a terribly unethical thing that he has not been able to refute. HCQ had no evidence of efficacy against COVID, which was the main objective of the trials.

He is attacked by the ethical and responsible professionals that discovered his malpractice and manipulations. He has been completely unable to even prove that any drug is related to the appearance of variants, while other people have already proved it is closely correlated with immunodeficiency.

Your personal conclusions are still baseless and incorrect, without any data to corroborate them, even if they were not defended by such unethical people in so much trouble they would not be worth of attention.