Viruses and the Lifestyle Changes We Make

All human life comes from a common source. We are aware that some groups can deal with viruses common to some rare in others and that a 5,000-10,000 year separation can cause catastrophes when two groups meet again, both probably having at some time exposure in the past.

Viruses maybe contain 30,000 RNA bases, practically maybe only giving a few trillion combinations and say 30 million present on earth of which 4000 are known, with about 220 that can infect humans and each can give rise to maybe 400 main variants each if they expand into large populations.

The real danger is if a virus can transfer to another species, which is a rare occurrence, but it does happen. But things rarely happen by chance, the likelihood being more that they always could do, but that this transfer possibly happened far in the past, maybe the other way.

With the North changing in temperature and permafrost melting will new viruses arrive that we can’t handle and has this happened in the past?

Covid may have been of this form. Existing in a population in the past that associated with another creature that could act as a reservoir for the virus, that reservoir being separated due to a change in environment or movement, then contact again being made again at a later date. The reservoir in the time gap becoming relatively immune or less compromised by the virus, only when they meet again the other group having left relatively little of the protection due to lack of exposure to it.

This is common in a lot of evolution where populations lose the ability to deal with a particular virus or substance by lack of common exposure. When they do meet it again or by changes in environment and need to do it, it can severely damage those exposed to it again. Many food contents probably are of this form, giving rise to intolerances, then allergies and resulting in anaphylactic responses.

So, if new viruses did arrive, would they be so different they could not transfer, or would they make a population group disappear, such as homo sapiens, sapiens and is this what happened with Neanderthals and Denisovans?

Are ultra sterile environments also sponsoring this sort of effect? Continued lack of exposure raising a total inability to deal with even small infractions.

It does seem to give a possibility that our enhanced sterile, low pollution and intake controlled society is pushing it in a direction of limited environmental scope and an increased chance of extinction because of it if things change. Redesigning ourselves for a more limited environment and exacting specification for survival.

Why species fail or go extinct is full of opinion and assumptions, many of which turn out to be untrue. The dodo is an interesting bird. First man killed them off directly for food, then man brought rats that raided nests, but the likeliest was none of this, but specialisation to a particular environment. The Panda is a very specialised creature and this is true of most species that face extinction. For those, we have special programmes that will probably fail completely when things change, and possibly the allocation of resources having an adverse effect on the population that is trying to prevent it. There have been populations that have been wiped out, or almost by conspicuous depredations, some consumer cultures just destroying and damaging for their personal entertainment, because they can.

We do seem to be living longer, the average longevity in the far past being somewhere around 30 years, reaching about 35 in 1700, 40 in 1900, 60 in 1950, 70 in 1970, 73 in 2000, 77 before covid and about 74 now. So, effectively little in the past 20 years, we need to look past temporary perfect conditions that will likely change.

One recent article recently was interesting in that it said that the UK requires many more nurses and doctors to be able to provide a decent service in the NHS. This is what is thought and is a definition of the problem. But is it true, or just an unchallenged assumption or consensus? If you take longevity and medical services over the past 60 years, the effects and results, then compare numbers of nurses and doctors and the population they cover it tells a different picture. The numbers were very much smaller in the past, but dealt with things a lot more effectively for what was available.

Services were short, but the NHS ran better of what little there was, for a better effect. Teeth treatments weren’t as perfect then as now, but they were there for more and catered overall for a much larger group at a lower cost.

In 1949 there were about 15,000 hospital doctors, 75,000 nurses and 20,000 GP’s.

By 1970 this rose to 30,000 hospital doctors, 150,000 nurses and 23,000 GP’s.

Currently it is about 140,000 hospital doctors, 350,000 nurses and 42,000 GP’s.

In 1949 the UK population was 50,033,000

By 1970 UK population was 55,600,000, or 10% higher than 1949.

Currently it is 68,000,000, 22% higher than 1970.

This doesn’t suggest a shortage, but the system failing in structure, management and organisation. If this was just true of the NHS then it may be a sign that it is a system that no longer works, but this is true of even countries with good private or insurance based systems, that the figures reflect the same, the NHS in fact being the most efficient one out of the lot in terms of resources provided to it. But now, even this is failing, private healthcare, the insurance and lobbying groups pushing a short term reduced resource system that will overall cost many times more after the NHS has been removed and there’s nothing else to go to.

Big firms commonly do similar, bid at under cost, replace and remove competition, then charge full price, if they can. If it gets out of hand they go bust, everybody losing. Carillion and the banking scandal was of this form, the community paying for their excesses.

But people seem to use extremes as evidence against averages and medians, there being such that some in the far past lived to 75, and the oldest person said to be form 1875 who so lived in an ‘adverse to longevity’ environment for 122 years.

The question arises: are we by changing our environment to a much safer or preferred one actually imperilling our chances and heading for an evolutionary dead end? Redesigning ourselves to match the Dodo.