[ExI] bikers again

spike at rainier66.com spike at rainier66.com
Fri Sep 4 18:39:17 UTC 2020


 

 

From: spike at rainier66.com <spike at rainier66.com> 
>… even motivated amateurs such as me, this signal we are puzzling over until our puzzlers are sore: 

 

>…Why was that Sturgis case rate about half the expected value and the death rate about… ? … a tenth?  Did covid mutate into something that most catchers never noticed?  spike

 

 

 

 

OK I have an idea, but I am double-wary, triple wary of the very real phenomenon of wishful thinking influencing actual thinking.  Catch me please in this if possible.  I want to catch me too.  I consider that helping me catch me.

 

What if…the low-initial viral load exposure theory is right.  The notion (if I understand it) is that if a person has never been exposed to a virus at all, but suddenly is exposed to a lot of it, such as if someone sneezes at the grocery store and the hapless prole walks thru the particulate cloud, that would be a huge initial exposure, lotta virus right where it thrives best (nose and lungs) body’s defenses are overwhelmed before it knows what hit it.  We get that part.  Killed a lotta proles back last spring.

 

>From what I understand, if the initial exposure is very light, the body has more time to recognize there are bad guys about, arm up, create antibodies and so forth, which would explain why some people are exposed but never develop symptoms, or develop only mild ones: their systems have seen those bad guys before and know what to do.

 

OK then, if that theory is right, imagine what is likely happening everywhere: the background viral load is gradually rising.  If people have an immunity because of low initial exposure and successful immune response, then subsequent exposure would allow them to carry some low-level of active virus, while they go right on about their business, spreading low levels of virus everywhere.  This would cause more and more proles to initially contact the virus in very low concentrations, which would alert the system in a way that immune system is likely to win the battle.  This would result in people who later came into high concentration exposures to not get sick, or if so, not seriously.

 

My cousin and her husband both caught, she was never noticeably ill, he was sick but it didn’t amount to much, not as painful as a typical flu according to him.  She is a nurse.  Low initial exposure response?  She is 65, he is 74.

 

If that notion is right, it might explain why the bikers didn’t catch much and died less: enough of them have already had exposure to low levels, and as a consequence, their immune system response was sufficient to stop the virus at this point, from gradually rising background exposure long before they ever left home.

 

If this is true, we could have a similar gathering with similar numbers now, never mind the bikes and the sunshine and the guzzling of disinfectant (favorite brand Budweiser) using normal people, and the will not catch or die either, for none that would be the real mechanism which caused all those bikers to not die.

 

Is this all wishful thinking?

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200904/512aa61d/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list