[ad_1]
Out of the damn spring, spent the summer with all the lights and shadows between the rediscovered freedom and the general lightness and irresponsibility, now under the pressure of figures that tend to rise, although with the partial justification of the increase in tampons, Some look at the autumn-winter that we will have. After an initial diagnosis, in which the scientist True fabian proposed the image of the effect of SARS CoV-2 (technical name of the virus) as the “perfect storm” of “covid-19” (the disease caused by SARS CoV-2), now that we are faced with an upward curve of positive , we are on deck at sea, oppressed by a future that seems increasingly precarious. Truc, theoretical physicist, university professor and researcher in Paris, where he studies how a cell can develop cancer, distances himself from catastrophists and clearly analyzes the navigation map between arduous reboots, outbreaks, quarantines, perspectives.
Where are we going, Captain Fabio Truc? Are we facing a second wave?
It is very difficult to evaluate. Without a doubt, we are facing a spectacular increase in positive cases. We have not yet understood whether these positives become symptomatic and even more demanding patients due to the severity of the symptoms. Many take the second wave of “covid-19” for granted.
The ever-rising positive curves
The daily updates that come from our neighbors, France and Spain especially, are worrying and collaterally produce fear, scaremongering and recurrent psychosis. It seems to fall into a perverse spiral …
For a long time we have faced two epidemics: on the one hand, the material of the virus that has been traveling the world for months with infectious curves and sadly known lethal outcomes; on the other hand there is also a very insidious epidemic that is the immaterial of fear. My analysis from a purely scientific point of view of this resurgence of the virus is based on some important aspects. We are witnessing an increase in tampons and, in parallel, a strong increase in positivity: in Italy we are around 1500 per day, France, Spain and the United Kingdom have a more uphill curve and we are in the order of several thousand). Given these disruptive data, we consider the number of deaths, assuming they are deaths “from” covid and not “with” covid (that is, in the presence of other pathologies). We are certainly not in the impressive numbers for March and April. We don’t know how many the symptoms are compared to the positives because it is a problematic assessment; there is an increase in hospitalized patients, but those who end up in intensive care are not many …
Faced with these growing numbers, what can be argued?
We observe an increase in positive cases and, in parallel, a stable number of deaths: 15-20 per day in Italy. These data lead researchers to formulate some reasonable hypotheses: we are observing an increase in positive cases in correspondence with a greater number of swabs performed; at this time, on average, younger subjects get sick than at the beginning of the pandemic: therefore, physically stronger and more resistant subjects; the most susceptible individuals have already been fatally struck by the virus, which is therefore much less deadly to date; we know how to better treat those who become seriously ill than we did in the early cases last spring.
What is your personal idea?
None of these, in particular. Instead, I think this virus has mutated, because viruses can only do that. If we pay attention to what for now is the official line of science, in the “covid-19” there was the jump of species, an overflow from the bat to man, an extremely dangerous vehicle (another school of thought affirms that instead It is from a synthetic virus, born in the laboratory, in Wuhan). This virus, like any other virus, always does the same thing: it changes …
Two possible scenarios for the evolution of the virus
If we wanted to risk predicting how this endless emergency will end, what would you want to say?
I see two possibilities:
1) the virus slowly adapts to our body, our immune system and therefore stabilizes. This means that it falls to the rank of “any virus”, that is, one like many others, fundamentally harmless, which gives some symptoms but is not lethal and on average no longer causes harm or fear. We will see this in 6-8 months;
2) second scenario, more interesting but it seems unlikely to me: there is an acceleration in the frequency of mutations of the virus. When this happens, it means that the virus introduces such mutations into its genome, very frequent and rapid, so it generally self-destructs. It is a bit like the person who suffers from gambling fever, who buys many lottery tickets: few win, almost all lose: therefore one runs the risk of bankruptcy. Whenever a mutation occurs in the virus, and it is accidental, it is as if it has acquired “opportunities” in the survival market. It is clear that if a virus introduces too many mutations – and the unfavorable and deleterious ones are almost always greater than the useful ones – it is eliminated in a short time. And this would be the most desirable terminal, because it would disappear quickly. It is the game of evolution: every living structure explores the “landscape” of its possibilities from the point of view of survival and reproduction. To do this, introduce random variations: the more you introduce them, the more possibilities you acquire and the more identity you lose.
What did we not know and today we have understood?
What turned the tide in dealing with the ongoing pandemic were autopsies. Much has been understood when risking autopsies. The virus came from China: it looked like interstitial pneumonia, it was faced with oxygen, and there were many deaths. When the autopsies were performed, it was seen that it was basically a problem of microthrombi, therefore pulmonary thromboembolism, and here there was a reversal in the therapeutic approach. It was understood that anticoagulants had to be used and from then on it was also understood what was the best way to cure the disease that was thought to be something else. It was useless to pump oxygen at high pressure to the pulmonary alveoli, when all the vessels were obstructed with microthrombi and gas exchange was no longer possible. Therefore, it was useless to continue administering oxygen that would never enter the circulation. This is one of the classic cases in which the deductive method should not be used but inductive interference. The deductive is a great working method for the scientist and serves to prove principles, theorems that have already been enunciated in some way: here the deductive method has been applied to a wrong idea, precisely the interstitial pneumonia instilled by the Chinese. . When we start from the observational data, assuming the relative risks with the autopsies, we take the right path to face and treat this disease. Fortunately, deaths have decreased a lot today, certainly because in the meantime we have learned to heal.
(ends the second and last part here the first)
[ad_2]
