fast
Contributor
Be forewarned, this thread is not intended to make much sense.
I have a few notions swirling around, and I’m going to contrive a scenario (born of stupendous ridiculousness) to see if I can work out which of these notions I have that (if any) reflect reality.
One notion is that some viruses (even some of those that we might call deadly) are not actually all that harmful directly. It appears that way because the infected develop very unfortunate symptoms. But, a closer look reveals that it’s not the cells of the virus but rather the cells of the person that goes after the virus that is having the severe impact on the persons health, not the cells of the virus.
The other (second) notion is that the before mentioned notion is off-base and it’s solely the cells of the virus that directly causes the negative health issues and that the cells of our own bodies do not in any way contribute to negative effects.
The third notion is a mixture of the two such that sometimes (depending on the virus) it’s like the first notion, sometimes like the second notion, and sometime one is more problematic than the other and conversely (depending on the virus).
Suppose it’s a mixture and vaccines are available for both, but we’re only gonna mandate one group. If the cells of the body causes the greater damage, vaccines aren’t required. On the other hand, if the virus directly causes the illness (and not the cells of body infected), then the vaccine is mandatory.
Ultimately, it’s a stupid compromise between those in favor of vaccines and those that disfavor vaccines. To top it off, the basis is asinine. The government will protect our children from contacting these viruses only if the harm isn’t caused by one’s own bodies. That means you must vaccine against some really bad viruses while also being true that you may choose to vaccinate or not. If the virus cells itself directly causes the damage in the bodies of others, then others will be protected since it’s the virus that is a direct cause; however, if the virus operates such that it itself doesn’t cause any harm but rather it’s the cells originating in the body of the infected that causes harm as a byproduct of trying to fight the virus, then despite severity of the illness, such a vaccination isn’t compulsory.
In analogy, the bad guys enter and hurt you vs the unwelcome bad guys enter to say hi and the good guys fight back and you get hurt in the mix. You get protection from the first (they’re trying to hurt you), but when they’re just trespassing and you hurt everyone in your own wake of fighting them, then no protection for that.
Of course, it’s a poor analogy since viruses can’t think for themselves, whether a harm causing virus or a self-inflicting cell, but the analogy was to see the distinction being made—not to have it hold up under scrutiny.
My question overall is what are viruses more like? Please don’t twist the word “direct.” You know what I mean.
I have a few notions swirling around, and I’m going to contrive a scenario (born of stupendous ridiculousness) to see if I can work out which of these notions I have that (if any) reflect reality.
One notion is that some viruses (even some of those that we might call deadly) are not actually all that harmful directly. It appears that way because the infected develop very unfortunate symptoms. But, a closer look reveals that it’s not the cells of the virus but rather the cells of the person that goes after the virus that is having the severe impact on the persons health, not the cells of the virus.
The other (second) notion is that the before mentioned notion is off-base and it’s solely the cells of the virus that directly causes the negative health issues and that the cells of our own bodies do not in any way contribute to negative effects.
The third notion is a mixture of the two such that sometimes (depending on the virus) it’s like the first notion, sometimes like the second notion, and sometime one is more problematic than the other and conversely (depending on the virus).
Suppose it’s a mixture and vaccines are available for both, but we’re only gonna mandate one group. If the cells of the body causes the greater damage, vaccines aren’t required. On the other hand, if the virus directly causes the illness (and not the cells of body infected), then the vaccine is mandatory.
Ultimately, it’s a stupid compromise between those in favor of vaccines and those that disfavor vaccines. To top it off, the basis is asinine. The government will protect our children from contacting these viruses only if the harm isn’t caused by one’s own bodies. That means you must vaccine against some really bad viruses while also being true that you may choose to vaccinate or not. If the virus cells itself directly causes the damage in the bodies of others, then others will be protected since it’s the virus that is a direct cause; however, if the virus operates such that it itself doesn’t cause any harm but rather it’s the cells originating in the body of the infected that causes harm as a byproduct of trying to fight the virus, then despite severity of the illness, such a vaccination isn’t compulsory.
In analogy, the bad guys enter and hurt you vs the unwelcome bad guys enter to say hi and the good guys fight back and you get hurt in the mix. You get protection from the first (they’re trying to hurt you), but when they’re just trespassing and you hurt everyone in your own wake of fighting them, then no protection for that.
Of course, it’s a poor analogy since viruses can’t think for themselves, whether a harm causing virus or a self-inflicting cell, but the analogy was to see the distinction being made—not to have it hold up under scrutiny.
My question overall is what are viruses more like? Please don’t twist the word “direct.” You know what I mean.
