Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZipTheZipper t1_j9u6bi5 wrote

Reply to comment by Ch3mee in Does the common flu vaccine offer any buffer against H5N1 (Bird Flu)? by Esc_ape_artist

> Now, the current populations education level regarding vaccination is less awesome.

Covid's case fatality rate has leveled off to roughly 1%. SARS was estimated at 10%, and MERS was 34%. This strain of H5N1 is above 50% right now. If it becomes easily transmissible between humans, either the antivaxxers change their minds fairly quickly or the only people left will be ones who believed in vaccination.

28

ChickpeaPredator t1_j9u9wbq wrote

>If it becomes easily transmissible between humans, either the antivaxxers change their minds fairly quickly or the only people left will be ones who believed in vaccination.

Evolution in action, people: move with the times or remove yourself from the gene pool. It's incredibly sad, and I wish it weren't like this, but if you can't be persuaded with logic to do something for your own safety and the safety of others well... there's a point at which we can't do any more for you, and we have to let nature take its course.

Edit: in case it wasn't obvious, my comment above is in support of vaccination.

6

Beat_the_Deadites t1_j9uflqo wrote

Evolution also in action - different strategies for responding to evolutionary pressure.

Group A: moves cautiously and with extensive forethought. Acts slowly but with higher success rate and longevity. Reproduces below replacement level.

Group B: Shotgun approach, devil-may-care attitude. Pops out kids like a mushroom releasing spores. Overwhelms evolutionary pressure by sheer volume. Some offspring migrate over to Group A, keeping the two groups in some sort of balance, if not harmony.

6

ChickpeaPredator t1_j9v0qcy wrote

The group B approach is exclusively used by organisms with low offspring investment. As the amount of investment goes down, the quantity of offspring increases.

We aren't like that - it takes a humongous amount of resources to raise a functional human. So we either slip backwards from our humanity and become simpler organisms with less offspring investment required, or we have to expand infinitely to gather enough resources. The latter is impossible, there's always going to be some limit to expansion, so we would be left with the former; backsliding.

You're right in that option B is a viable evolutionary strategy, but it's not a world in which I want to live. I'd rather be a person amongst peers than a king amongst idiots.

6

Ch3mee t1_j9uki9u wrote

I mean, in the simplest scenario, Group B wins. Simply because group A is self selecting themselves out by reproducing below replacement level. I mean, the whole name of the game is ability to reproduce successfully. If Group B is popping out kids like a mushroom releasing spores, then they're brute forcing the reproduction game.

Of course, nothing is that simple. If the devil-may-care attitude ends up with the group not getting a vaccine during a very deadly pandemic, they could be eliminated almost entirely.

5

Beat_the_Deadites t1_j9un7qy wrote

Sure, my example is way over-simplified, and group B will always have a higher mortality rate, which could be disastrous for them in a pandemic with a high death rate. But the survivors of that pandemic are going to think themselves extra special and try to repopulate the globe again.

Using the tools provided by Group A, of course.

3