Discussion about this post

User's avatar
david's avatar

H2BH -- have read your articles for the last year and appreciate your ongoing attempts to break things down critically. So let me ask a question as I'm curious what your view is....

This is the first time I've read an argument that COVID is a de-attenuating virus. So I'm curious how you reconcile this theory with suggestive evidence that fatality of the virus was higher in the past and then the circumstantial evidence the virus targeted women more virulently than men early on.

By the former I mean more than the early videos of people collapsing in the street, but also projections of the mortality rate as somewhere in the 1-2% range based on cases like the Diamond Princess. On the latter, there is the rumour that one of the earliest researchers to die was a young women, and then the suggestion from the Washington Post (?) that one of the early fatalities was the wife of one of the three WIV researchers who got sick. But now men are affected disproportionately it seems.

Wondering if you have any thoughts. How can a de-attenuating virus be both increasing infectiousness and danger and yet also losing those properties relatively quickly? What am I missing here?

Expand full comment
Teri ORourke's avatar

I will never forget reading your first article in Sars-cov19 and thinking you are onto something. Here we are today and you were right all along. I guess the next question is the big one. Why was gain of function funding continued, the players involved, how was the virus released and why and who is profiting from this. Frightening.

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts