2023-09-28 18:45:00
Summary
This journal is a response to papap’s journal. Initially, I started by writing a comment. But given the size of the commentary, it ended up seeming more relevant to me to make it an independent journal. And then, given the title of the newspaper, it was the least I might do!
The lame analogy
There is indeed, on the surface, an analogy between computer and biological viruses. It disappears as soon as you scrape off the varnish a little.
The first, fundamental difference is due to their mode of generation. Computer viruses fall under theintelligent design : written by a human for a specific purpose, capable of being transmitted without any mutation, they are immediately optimal for this purpose, which is not reproduction but the achievement of the set goal (which can include reproduction, but is rarely limited to it).
Conversely, biological viruses arise from Darwinian evolution. Devoid of any purpose even reproduction, they have no intentionality. It turns out that that viruses optimal for reproduction tend to predominate, but this is not the result of conscious, much less voluntary, action. Moreover, even this predominance is subject to constraints: I invite you to find out regarding the genetic drift and the notion of adaptive landscape.
Furthermore, biological viruses evolve in an environment that has no computer equivalent: that of multiple animal and plant species. Crossing the species barrier has no computer equivalent (or it is thought out and anticipated by the author of the virus, which makes a big difference).
Finally, where the behavior of a computer virus, once it has crossed the antivirus barrier, is deterministic, that of a biological virus is variable depending on the host and in particular its immunity. The only reason herpes doesn’t kill us is that we have an effective immune system. But a newborn or an AIDS patient can die from herpes.
On the opposition between virulence and transmissibility
But what do we learn by studying them?
Well, the more virulent a virus is, the less it reproduces and vice versa. Indeed, if a virus destroys its host, it can no longer reproduce.
This is often true, but it is far from being an absolute rule. Take the rabies virus as an example: this virus is transmitted through saliva. It might do like the herpesvirus and wait nicely for kisses, but it’s more effective in being transmitted by a bite. This virus will therefore make its host particularly aggressive and/or sociable (or even sociable then aggressive), which encourages it to bite and therefore transmit rabies. Disadvantage of this strategy: the infected animal dies every time from encephalitis. But it transmitted rabies much more effectively than without encephalitis, since it probably would have been cleared by the immune system within a few weeks anyway.
We can also talk regarding HIV: without treatment, it is fatal every time. But it takes enough time to kill to be transmitted in the meantime.
Or you have hepatitis B. In hepatitis B, it’s not the virus that kills you: it’s your own immune system that overreacts and destroys your liver. As we cannot live without a liver, it is quite frequently fatal. Interesting point: if your immune system does not react, you survive and you get chronic hepatitis B (generally, it ends in cancer following having contaminated all your sexual partners. Hepatitis B is ugly and it doesn’t there is no treatment. Vaccinate yourself).
A strategy1 possible, for a virus, consists not of making it contagious for a long time, but of making it very contagious over a short time. To do this, it is necessary to replicate considerably (in good medical language, we speak of high viral load), even if it means breaking a few things along the way. This is the case for measles or the flu. These infections are very contagious and they both kill approximately one person in 1000. Note, however, that the flu generally only hastens a death that would occur shortly, while measles tends to kill children (it can kill it doesn’t matter who, but it is so contagious that if you are not vaccinated, you encounter it early in life). Both willingly kill pregnant women, because when you are pregnant, immunity goes into standby so as not to attack the fetus. It’s also the strategy of a disease that you didn’t even know existed, because it no longer exists: smallpox. But anti-vaxxers don’t like being reminded of smallpox, because it forces them to confront one of the biggest failures of non-vaccination.
This strategy was observed across Covid variants: the Delta variant was both more contagious et more virulent than his predecessors.
Confusion between “interest of the virus” and the reality of the facts
Assuming intentionality to a virus or to natural selection naturally leads to believing that the virus acts in its own interest, and to attributing excessive speed to natural selection. However, that is not what happens. Even assuming that the virus has an interest in not being too virulent (which, as we have seen, is not always true), this only allows conclusions to be drawn once a state of balance between virus and host. However, Sars-CoV-2 is an organism whose emergence we have witnessed. There is no reason to consider it immediately as in equilibrium, and moreover, it turned out to be quite nasty at the start (probably also because only the most obvious illnesses, therefore the most serious, have been tested). Moreover, it is entirely possible that a virus will never reach equilibrium: we have at least a case described of infectious agent which has self-eradicated by eradicating its host species. We do not find them every 4 mornings because viruses do not leave fossil traces (nor do infectious agents in general).
The completely off-topic nature of the question
You talk to us regarding virulence, but you don’t give us any figures. However, it’s not very complicated, they are available on the Public Health France website: Covid is 167,642 deaths in France at the time of writing this journal. Note also that, regarding a disease which would kill one person in 1000, we would expect to have 66,000 deaths in France: we are two and a half times this figure. So, of course, we can challenge the methodology of Santé Publique France: they receive all the death certificates from France, and if it says “Covid-19” in the “Cause of death” field, it is counted. This is also how we count deaths from cancer, road accidents, cardiovascular disease, etc. The question is: at what level of virulence does a disease become socially acceptable? Road accidents cause 3 to 4,000 deaths per year in France. Considerable energy is devoted to it. Covid is 15 times more, and we have a simple way to drastically reduce its severity. What responsible ruler would not grasp this?
The erroneous nature of your postulate… even in IT!
It is common knowledge that ransomware attacks are particularly feared. However, ransomware is the textbook case of the contagious infectious agent and… not at all discreet! The purpose of ransomware is precisely to be seen so that the user knows who to pay the ransom to.
Inconvenience caused, and as a conclusion
Go, go, it won’t work, will it? We can talk regarding pornography, but viruses and Covid cause indigestion.
It’s quite the opposite, it’s annoying.
So no, it doesn’t me don’t piss off. It’s just that when you talk bullshit with a smug air on a subject that you clearly don’t understand, well, you’re received roundly, which is quite legitimate. However, I want to thank you. I really appreciate the ruthless meritocracy of DLFP, but I lack the technical background to contribute usefully to a topic on Wayland or the software security of a home alarm. But you give me an excuse to post on a subject that I master, thank you! In addition, between the two of us, we are setting the record for two newspapers with identical titles, on the same subject, and with the greatest karma differential! Well, sure, I’m on the better side of this karma. But all this would not have been possible without you!
1695927118
#Viruses #viruses