OT: CEO responses to Covid-19

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

They extrapolate back to estimate when the person was actually infected. So data in the last 7 days or so will always be incomplete. They even indicate that on the graph.

This is good data if you understand the week of incomplete data.

--

Rick C.

-+-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:39:37 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

Their graph covers only ~1k cases in toto. This might be the
explanation:
"** Does not include ... U.S.-identified cases where the date of
illness onset has not yet been reported."


Only Washington, California, and New York report community
transmission, which is impressive.

Either that is not accurate or incomplete. There are infections in VA that are not attributable to travel or exposure to an infected individual. I also read a report of community transmission in Milwaukee. I'm pretty sure community transmission is happening in most states, likely even WV who still seems to report no infections.

The daily new cases graph on this page suggests we're still
experiencing exponential growth--
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

We haven't done much to change that. But keep in mind that this data will be roughly a week old because of the delay in infection and the onset of symptoms. What is impacted is the infection rate, not the onset of symptoms.

The CDC data referenced to the day of infection gives some hope at the moment that containment efforts in the US may be starting to have an impact.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal#epi-curve

--

Rick C.

-++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:37:51 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

They have modelled the US reporting system on wagon trains to move the
data so that realtime information is impossible to obtain.

You realize complaining about the U.S. central government here
is like complaining about not getting Europe-wide stats real-time
from Brussels or the WHO?

> UK and Italy can manage daily up to date statistics every day.

Each of those two stars of an entire continent, represent roughly the
population (if not size) of a U.S. state.

Growth so
far has been alarmingly exponential with exponent around 1.35 to 1.4.

I calculate an exponent of 1.35 for the U.S.' past ten days from
the data here:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[David Brown]

On 17/03/2020 15:43, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the
highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's
why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job,
at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on
viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is
damaging DNA or RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If
the UVC is short enough wavelength to be ionising, it will
break bonds directly. At longer wavelengths the photons do not
have enough energy to knock off electrons immediately, but they
can provide the energy needed to induce other chemical
reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks
long wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would
surprise me greatly if that were the case in practice. And
even then, a higher intensity source would ensure plenty of
photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know
something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising
energy depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often
defined as 10 eV, the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is
defined as 33 eV, which is needed for ionising water molecules.
That is well beyond UVC, and in the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily
found online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you
talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as
non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???

Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

 

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 15:43, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the
highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's
why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job,
at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on
viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is
damaging DNA or RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If
the UVC is short enough wavelength to be ionising, it will
break bonds directly. At longer wavelengths the photons do not
have enough energy to knock off electrons immediately, but they
can provide the energy needed to induce other chemical
reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks
long wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would
surprise me greatly if that were the case in practice. And
even then, a higher intensity source would ensure plenty of
photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know
something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising
energy depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often
defined as 10 eV, the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is
defined as 33 eV, which is needed for ionising water molecules.
That is well beyond UVC, and in the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily
found online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you
talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as
non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???


Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

WRT to the question of genetic damage, this reference reports that
short-wave UV is ~95%-ish attenuated by dead skin; longer-wave UV is
not.

"The longer the wavelength of light, the deeper the penetration of
the light into the skin."
https://library.med.utah.edu/kw/derm/pages/meet_2.htm

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 15:43, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the
highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's
why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job,
at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on
viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is
damaging DNA or RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If
the UVC is short enough wavelength to be ionising, it will
break bonds directly. At longer wavelengths the photons do not
have enough energy to knock off electrons immediately, but they
can provide the energy needed to induce other chemical
reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks
long wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would
surprise me greatly if that were the case in practice. And
even then, a higher intensity source would ensure plenty of
photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know
something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising
energy depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often
defined as 10 eV, the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is
defined as 33 eV, which is needed for ionising water molecules.
That is well beyond UVC, and in the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily
found online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you
talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as
non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???


Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

Thanks. That explains what I read on some web site. They were using 280nm as the frequency and if _I understand correctly below the energy lever needed for ionization ( of oxygen ) but high enough to damage the RNA of viruses.

Dan

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

I agree with everything you said. That is my point.

--

Rick C.

-++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 8:30:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:


Hopefully here in the US, they will treat ALL infirmed by it.

the issue is whether there is the capacity to do that if it spread too fast

My guess is that capacity is not going to be a problem. There is a lot of excess capacity right now and the percentage of cases that require hospitalization is small. There may be problems with matching patients and beds

Dan

Can anyone here explain the CDC's chart on new cases .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html?CDC_AA_refVal

70 new cases on 3/08 and no new cases on 3/14.

Dan

The chart has been updated and now has 87 new cases on 3/08. Somehow I had the impression that they used 3 days earlier than the first symptoms for the date of infection.

Dan

 

[David Brown]

On 17/03/2020 19:03, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 17/03/2020 15:43, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the
highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's
why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job,
at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on
viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is
damaging DNA or RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If
the UVC is short enough wavelength to be ionising, it will
break bonds directly. At longer wavelengths the photons do not
have enough energy to knock off electrons immediately, but they
can provide the energy needed to induce other chemical
reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks
long wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would
surprise me greatly if that were the case in practice. And
even then, a higher intensity source would ensure plenty of
photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know
something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising
energy depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often
defined as 10 eV, the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is
defined as 33 eV, which is needed for ionising water molecules.
That is well beyond UVC, and in the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily
found online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you
talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as
non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???


Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

WRT to the question of genetic damage, this reference reports that
short-wave UV is ~95%-ish attenuated by dead skin; longer-wave UV is
not.

That does not sound unreasonable. Still, you would be seriously risking
your skin's health to put it under UVC, especially if you do so shortly
after washing your hands (when the protective dead skin layer is thinnest).

"The longer the wavelength of light, the deeper the penetration of
the light into the skin."
https://library.med.utah.edu/kw/derm/pages/meet_2.htm

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[David Brown]

On 17/03/2020 18:53, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

I agree with everything you said. That is my point.

OK. Then I seem to have misunderstood you - sorry for the noise.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 4:57:23 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 17/03/2020 19:03, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 17/03/2020 15:43, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 3:19:47 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/03/2020 16:28, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 5:30:03 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the
highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's
why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job,
at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on
viruses.


UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is
damaging DNA or RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If
the UVC is short enough wavelength to be ionising, it will
break bonds directly. At longer wavelengths the photons do not
have enough energy to knock off electrons immediately, but they
can provide the energy needed to induce other chemical
reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks
long wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would
surprise me greatly if that were the case in practice. And
even then, a higher intensity source would ensure plenty of
photons got through.

I find it amusing that you are talking like you actually know
something about it.

BTW, what wavelength is "(non-ionising) UVC"???


UVC covers the range 100 to 280 nm (12.4 to 4.43 eV). Ionising
energy depends on what you are trying to ionise, but is often
defined as 10 eV, the energy for ionising oxygen. Sometimes it is
defined as 33 eV, which is needed for ionising water molecules.
That is well beyond UVC, and in the extreme ultraviolet band.

These are not numbers that I keep in my head, but they are easily
found online.

So when you used the term "non-ionizing UVC", what limits were you
talking about? Why would you refer to any UVC wavelengths as
non-ionizing in the context of this conversation???


Look back at what I wrote. UVC may damage viruses directly by
ionisation if it is short enough wavelength, or it may incite other
chemical changes that damage DNA or RNA (giving enough energy to cause
changes without ionisation). Really, the details don't matter much here
- UVC will damage viruses in the same way it damages bacteria, and the
same way it damages skin and other human cells.

(I don't think it is worth going down this branch any further. It risks
getting a negative tone that really isn't helpful, and I can't see
details of UVC wavelengths being important to the thread.)

WRT to the question of genetic damage, this reference reports that
short-wave UV is ~95%-ish attenuated by dead skin; longer-wave UV is
not.

That does not sound unreasonable. Still, you would be seriously risking
your skin's health to put it under UVC, especially if you do so shortly
after washing your hands (when the protective dead skin layer is thinnest).


"The longer the wavelength of light, the deeper the penetration of
the light into the skin."
https://library.med.utah.edu/kw/derm/pages/meet_2.htm

Cheers,
James Arthur

I have a TIG welder and so am well aware of needing to protect your skin. Shirts worn while welding get bleached by the UV.

Dan

 

[gregz]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:

Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

Damage to lungs will make you weaker.

Greg

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We just went to Safeway for our usually quiet Saturday morning
shopping. It was jammed. Nowhere to park, no carts. Shelves stripped
in no logical pattern. Huge checkout lines full of overloaded carts.
Who needs six boxes of Pancko and two gallons of vodka?

And stores are closing early at 6pm and opening late. It seems to me
that shortening the hours only forces people to crowd more while they
are open, making it more dangerous.

 

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 15:51:05 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We just went to Safeway for our usually quiet Saturday morning
shopping. It was jammed. Nowhere to park, no carts. Shelves stripped
in no logical pattern. Huge checkout lines full of overloaded carts.
Who needs six boxes of Pancko and two gallons of vodka?

And stores are closing early at 6pm and opening late. It seems to me
that shortening the hours only forces people to crowd more while they
are open, making it more dangerous.

The nice little store in the village opened today at 7AM for an hour
just for seniors. They checked IDs. Mo went down and she said it was
vicious, mean old ladies grabbing stuff out of her hand.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-03-14, mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:

Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

That's a lie. Try polio, or a fast-food diet for example.


--
Jasen.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2020-03-15, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-03-15 19:06, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

Sounds great in theory, but how does the population know which genes to diversify to maintain the species?
[...]

Weird question, the mark of a profound misunderstanding. There is
no purpose in diversity. Some variants might work, many might not.
If a species is confronted with some pathogen and has no variants
that can survive it, it goes extinct.

Yes, exactly. At any time a species can go extinct and they do. The only way genetic diversity can be selected for is when there are regular challenges to the survival of a species. As soon as a pathogen or other extinction level threat is involved, the result is a lower genetic diversity which is counter to further challenges.

Genetic diversity isn't "maintained". It happens as a result of mutations which are always happening. Most mutations result in a lower survival rate and cease to exist. Some have minimal negative impact and continue to exist. The diversity exists because of mutations. The end result is that often the diversity allows the species to survive pathogens. The diversity didn't exist in order to survive pathogens. It just exists from natural causes but allows a population to survive some otherwise extinction causing events.

It is maintained. Mutation is inherent in meiosis (the cell division process
that forms the gametes)


--
Jasen.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:02:41 PM UTC+11, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2020-03-15, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-03-15 19:06, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

Sounds great in theory, but how does the population know which genes to diversify to maintain the species?
[...]

Weird question, the mark of a profound misunderstanding. There is
no purpose in diversity. Some variants might work, many might not.
If a species is confronted with some pathogen and has no variants
that can survive it, it goes extinct.

Yes, exactly. At any time a species can go extinct and they do. The only way genetic diversity can be selected for is when there are regular challenges to the survival of a species. As soon as a pathogen or other extinction level threat is involved, the result is a lower genetic diversity which is counter to further challenges.

Genetic diversity isn't "maintained". It happens as a result of mutations which are always happening. Most mutations result in a lower survival rate and cease to exist. Some have minimal negative impact and continue to exist. The diversity exists because of mutations. The end result is that often the diversity allows the species to survive pathogens. The diversity didn't exist in order to survive pathogens. It just exists from natural causes but allows a population to survive some otherwise extinction causing events.

It is maintained. Mutation is inherent in meiosis (the cell division process
that forms the gametes)

It's not exactly inherent. What we've got gives us enough genetic stability to survive in a stable environment and enough diversity to survive when the environment is less stable.

The "jumping gene" feature in primates - Alu transposable elements - seems to be an evolved feature which allows more of a certain kind of cut and paste mutation.

http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-january-and-february-2012/how-jumping-genes-drove-primate-evolution.html

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:19:12 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2020-03-14, mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote:
Something to consider:

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."


That's a lie. Try polio, or a fast-food diet for example.

I had a broken rib once, with no apparent benefits.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:45:22 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2020-03-15, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2020-03-15 19:06, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

Sounds great in theory, but how does the population know which genes to diversify to maintain the species?
[...]

Weird question, the mark of a profound misunderstanding. There is
no purpose in diversity. Some variants might work, many might not.
If a species is confronted with some pathogen and has no variants
that can survive it, it goes extinct.

Yes, exactly. At any time a species can go extinct and they do. The only way genetic diversity can be selected for is when there are regular challenges to the survival of a species. As soon as a pathogen or other extinction level threat is involved, the result is a lower genetic diversity which is counter to further challenges.

Genetic diversity isn't "maintained". It happens as a result of mutations which are always happening. Most mutations result in a lower survival rate and cease to exist. Some have minimal negative impact and continue to exist. The diversity exists because of mutations. The end result is that often the diversity allows the species to survive pathogens. The diversity didn't exist in order to survive pathogens. It just exists from natural causes but allows a population to survive some otherwise extinction causing events.

It is maintained. Mutation is inherent in meiosis (the cell division process
that forms the gametes)

There are repair mechanisms, which could have evolved to be a lot
better than they are. Some level of mutation is optimum.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"