Lambda COVID Variant 'a Potential Threat to Human Society,' Researchers Say

[Rustyeye77]

https://www.newsweek.com/lambda-covid-variant-potential-threat-society-researchers-1616556

There is concern over the threat posed by the Lambda variant of COVID-19 which may be more resistant to vaccines than the original version of the virus.

Research by a team from the University of Tokyo, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that three mutations in Lambda's spike protein help it resist neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies.

Meanwhile, two mutations in the Lambda variant—T76I and L452Q—make it more infectious than the COVID variant that swept through the world in 2020.

The conclusions of the study posted on BiorXiv on July 28 matched findings—also not yet peer-reviewed—by a team in Chile that found the variant might also evade vaccine antibodies, Infection Control reported.

==================================================================

Not trying to scare.But may be serious.

[secondwind]

1. No words...

[Takket]

2. i seriously have been wondering lately if the our lives have been forever changed

if there will never be an end to the pandemic, and constant mutations will just circle the globe one after the other... with science always a step behind scrambling to get the next vaccine up and running, and the mutations always a step ahead.

[Rustyeye77]

3. Stop wondering

Its true

[oioioi]

11. 1918-1920 Flu infected a third of global popn. COVID has infected about half a percent to date

1918 Flu Pandemic:

It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/1918-pandemic-history.htm

[BumRushDaShow]

41. The big difference between that flu and COVID-19

is that the 1918 flu did not explicitly attack kidneys, the heart, the digestive system, the brain or anywhere there are ACE2 receptors.

That pandemic, due to the lack of medical knowledge and options, was basically the "modern" equivalent of what happened with the plague in Europe during the middle ages (and the plague was caused by a bacterium that is still floating around today - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/south-lake-tahoe-chipmunks-test-positive-plague-180978379/)

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-1918-virus.html

What we have today can do more damage than the 1918 pandemic, which was primarily an extreme respiratory disease that impacted the lungs. The fact that we have antivirals and monoclonal antibodies, let alone vaccines (where vaccines didn't exist back then), and we are able to even sequence the thing and its variants, has kept it from wiping out as many people as the 1918 flu.


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.594495/full



This is why people have had a wide range of symptoms. It depended on where the virus managed to latch on and replicate.

[Tadpole Raisin]

45. Great information - thank you!

[BumRushDaShow]

49. This is what makes it a bit scary

because you don't know where it will land if you inhale it. The obvious first places are the respiratory system (nose/mouth/lungs), and that is what happens with most people who get it and where it generally settles. But if it goes any further, all kinds of other damage can happen as it circulates through the bloodstream if your immune system can't head it off in time.

[Tadpole Raisin]

54. My other concern is that beyond long haul syndrome that

This virus could lay dormant for years in the body and then come back. I don’t know what characteristic it has to have to do this (like chicken pox) or does this require study and a wait and see approach.

[Tadpole Raisin]

57. I saw a pbs special where they said at the worst in 1918

you could wake up a little under the weather and be gone by nightfall.

If that virus had attacked now who knows what the toll would be. This COVID is bad enough but compared to the 1918 pandemic this is a walk in the park.

[liberal_mama]

16. Sadly, I think it's true

It seems like we might be stuck with Covid, at least for a long time. A family friend called last night and was sick with Covid. He is fully vaccinated.

[Diraven]

32. The only pandemic totally eradicated

Was smallpox. Every other one is still around at some level.

[Larissa]

51. This is very true

IMO, the reality going forward is profoundly discouraging and depressing. It's worth noting that scientists have seen this outcome all along. The political mismanagement of Covid-19 from people like Trump and DeSantis has provided strong footholds for the virus, and its variants, to spread and root its tentacles.

[Blue_true]

97. Since our recorded history only covers a few thousand years,

we have no idea of how now common viruses like the Cold Virus became that way. It is possible that each one killed off a lot of humans millions or hundreds of thousands years ago. We have no way of knowing because the virus would likely not be in fossils that have been found.

The point is the virus may stick around forever and kill a lot of people over a long number of years (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, ect) before it no longer presents a lethal threat to human beings.

[EarlG]

4. Not good news for sure, but

this article from January may give a little reassurance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/why-mrna-vaccines-like-covid-vaccines-are-more-flexible-to-variants.html

Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who led the team responsible for Moderna’s vaccine, has referred to mRNA vaccines as a “plug and play” approach: It’s possible to replace one sequence of mRNA in the vaccine for another in a matter of weeks.

This allows drug companies to jump into action creating and testing vaccines that mimic new coronavirus variants that arise.

(snip)

Making the booster is essentially a matter of “copying and pasting” in the South African mutation, he said.

And that process is “not something that is a very onerous,” Fauci said during a White House press briefing Friday. “That’s something we can do that given the platforms we have.”

[Beetwasher.]

5. Yes, MRNA's Are a Game Changer

[cally]

26. I also heard Andy Slavitt on a podcast say that

He estimates US could get a vaccine booster for a new variant in about 100 days. I have not seen that in print nor do I have a reference. I’m waiting to see that in print so I can post a thread about it.

[Tadpole Raisin]

6. That is reassuring - Thanks EarlG!

[MOMFUDSKI]

7. Mother Nature bats last

and she is standing on home plate right now. I am hoping for a swing and a miss.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

35. Humans have fucked up

So much of the only home we know.

We let the right wing,corporations,rich people do it to nature because of greed for profits .

And then there's the give me convenience or give me death crowd too.

[Blue_true]

100. Worst case scenario:

We will go extinct. But Earth will support life after we are gone.

[Irish_Dem]

111. Why do you think the billionaires are colonizing Mars? They have an escape plan.

After they are done trashing this planet, they will move on to another one.
And leave the rest of us behind.

[Blue_true]

98. Bats last with the most fearsome slugger on the team at the plate. nt

[C_U_L8R]

8. It seems Mother Nature is done with us

Can’t say we don’t deserve it. And it’s doubtful we’d change our ways regardless.

[Blue_true]

101. I doubt that we stick around anywhere close to how long

dinosaurs did.

Somewhere out there the spirits of dinosaurs are saying “who are the intelligent ones now, assholes!”.

[BannonsLiver]

9. Here's another story about lambda that's not engineered for clickbait

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/21/lambda-variant-covid-identified-texas-hospital-what-know/8039406002/

[bluewater]

18. "more than 80% of sequenced cases in [Peru] have been identified as the lambda variant."

From the article you cited:

Where was the lambda variant first identified?

The lambda variant was first identified in Peru in December 2020. Since April, more than 80% of sequenced cases in the country have been identified as the lambda variant.

As of June, the WHO said it had identified the lambda variant in 29 countries. Argentina and Chile have also seen rising lambda cases, the WHO said.

However, the variant hasn't spread nearly to the same level on a global scale as the delta variant. Lambda may have become so widespread in parts of South America largely because of a "founder effect," Long said, wherein a few cases of the variant first took hold in a densely populated and geographically restricted area and slowly became the primary driver for the spread locally over time.

So how infectious is the lambda variant? Less than Delta, but the same as the original strain? Your article does not say. The study cited in the OP post claims lambda is more contagious than the original strain.

I guess it's a measure of comfort that lambda is less easily spread than delta, but if it's as bad as the original strain, that seems a small comfort since 620,000 Americans have already died from the original.

[BannonsLiver]

19. I dunno, I'm not a scientist

I stay in my lane, unlike sone folks here.

[bluewater]

24. There is harm in both exaggerating risks AND in down playing risks from emerging variants.

Some folks here seem to want to down play the risks, others might be overly concerned.

But is erring on the side of excessive safety as bad as taking un-necessary risks?

Within reason, I think not.

And I think most folks here on DU, no, make that the vast overwhelming majority here on DU have been very reasonable in the preventive measures they have chosen to take as the delta variant has surged. I expect that the DU community will continue to act in this manner going forward thru the pandemic.

[Scrivener7]

106. Nicely said. Caution seems to really anger some people, which is just bizarre.

And given how this thing has gone, I am quite content to be overcautious.

[FirstLight]

10. That's it, Im going back inside and never coming out!

Working in the resort industry and with the public... has me very nervous.

Vaccinated? yes. Autoimmune disease and taking immuno-suppressants means my vax probably isnt top notch anyway...but now this?

yeah... fuck it man, I just wanna crawl under the bed for the rest of the decade

[Buns_of_Fire]

14. If the entire drug industry winds up being repurposed to fighting

the variant-of-the-week, who'll make the boner pills? Or the horse paste?

And here I was upset about running out of tequila this morning.

[OMGWTF]

38. Good question!

[Maru Kitteh]

12. Irresponsible sensationalist reporting.

No wonder people are just done with it all.

[BannonsLiver]

22. +1000

The waters are chummed daily.

[Rustyeye77]

23. The trouble is...

Thats what the anti-vaxxers are saying now...about the original and even delta.

[bluewater]

61. What part of the article was "sensationalist reporting"? Let's look closer...

There is concern over the threat posed by the Lambda variant of COVID-19 which may be more resistant to vaccines than the original version of the virus.

Research by a team from the University of Tokyo, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that three mutations in Lambda's spike protein help it resist neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies.

Meanwhile, two mutations in the Lambda variant—T76I and L452Q—make it more infectious than the COVID variant that swept through the world in 2020.

The conclusions of the study posted on BiorXiv on July 28 matched findings—also not yet peer-reviewed—by a team in Chile that found the variant might also evade vaccine antibodies, Infection Control reported.

In June, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Lambda variant, which emerged in Peru in August 2020 and has been recorded in cases in Texas and South Carolina, as a "variant of interest."

It said Lambda, also known as the C.37 variant, has been the COVID-19 carrier in about 81 percent of infections in Peru since April. Cases have been found in 29 countries, territories or areas within five WHO regions.

However, the Japanese researchers said that the threat of the variant might be underestimated given that it was only named as a "variant of concern."

"Lambda can be a potential threat to the human society," senior researcher Kei Sato of the University of Tokyo said, according to Reuters.

Dr. Georg-Christian Zinn, who is director of the Bioscientia Hygiene Center, in Ingelheim, Germany, said that the statement by the Japanese team should be taken seriously even if their findings still need to be verified.

"The new Japanese preprint study on the Lambda variant is very, very credible," he told RTL.de, according to a translation of his comments. He referred to the expertise of the researchers, adding, "the data are valid."

Sorry, but that seems like accurate reporting by Newsweek quoting credible experts commenting on a recent reputable study.

Which part of that was "irresponsible sensationalist reporting" exactly?

[Rustyeye77]

62. I got a $1 that says you won't get a response.

We’ll see.

[bluewater]

72. I just expect more tangential complaints about Newsweek

Seriously, this was one reply:

Bullshit click bait from a RW source. Nt

People have cited selected Newsweek articles and editorials while ignoring the overall "reliable" and "left-center" or "center" political slant ratings given by three independent media bias rating sites:

Newsweek
Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am

Newsweek - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Democrat - Credible - Reliable
Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Newsweek media bias rating is Center.

Newsweek's bias has shifted significantly in recent years, and was rated Left prior to 2020. Note that a Center bias does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, or always reasonable. It simply means the source does not predictably publish opinions and content biased toward either side of the political spectrum. The bias of individual articles may vary.

2020 Editorial Reviews
The AllSides team conducted two separate Editorial Reviews of Newsweek's online publication on Nov. 20, 2020 and on Dec. 17, 2020. Both times, the editorial team determined that Newsweek had a Center bias — a significant departure from our previous rating of Left. Newsweek did not predictably publish perspectives or articles favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. Its Opinion section was particularly balanced, featuring left- and right-wing views.

News section: Newsweek's news articles did not include many of the common types of media bias, such as spin, subjectivity, or sensationalism.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

Newsweek Bias and Reliability Overview
Newsweek is a news magazine and website distributed around the world in English and in five other languages. Based in New York City, it also has offices in London and Bangalore, India. Founded in 1933, Newsweek is owned by Johnathan Davis and Dev Pragad. Ad Fontes Media rates Newsweek in the skews left category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score
A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

The following are Newsweek’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 39.09

Bias: -6.22

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/

But attacking Newsweek in the general case is a tangent that avoids discussing the actual OP article.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. Yup. Nt

[Raine]

103. Exactly ... really getting sick of the fear mongering. 🙄 nt

[Irish_Dem]

13. Humans might have the intelligence to fight the virus, but do we have the will to do so?

Right now, a good portion of the population just doesn't care if we live or die.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. We have all these variants BECAUSE DUMBFUCKISTAN WON'T MASK UP GET THE SHOT!

Dumbfuckistan - not a place but a mindset.

[Meowmee]

17. It would not be this bad if

Cdc had not made the huge mistake of letting everyone walk around unmasked prematurely.

[treestar]

74. This variant is not generally in the US

in South America.

[Meowmee]

76. I was referring to delta on this not lambda

It is here though, so if here it will spread in time with the current circumstances. In addition allowing one variant to spread( delta) one makes it more likely for new variants to develop, and creates a much worse situation with any variants that are more dangerous.

[qazplm135]

20. No it isn't

Human society is not endangered. It's more than bad enough to say it's a threat without engaging in hyperbole.

[BannonsLiver]

21. Hyperbole brings the clickety clicks

And we have an insatiable appetite for doom.

[Scrivener7]

107. Now that you mention it, you DO seem to show up in all these threads.

So I guess it DOES cause people to click in.

[BannonsLiver]

112. I feel so blessed to be monitored.

Flattered even!

[Scrivener7]

115. As you must be monitoring those you ALWAYS comment on.

And you know what they say: repeat the exact same thing often enough and people will remember it.

[orwell]

25. From now on...

... I propose we call all the variants MAGA-alpha, MAGA-beta, MAGA-gamma, MAGA-delta etc.

Let's call this what it is, AntiVax MAGA clones endangering us all.

[cab67]

28. I might have a better idea.

We give them human names, like hurricanes and typhoons.

there would be Version Donald, Version Ivanka, Version Jared, Version Rudy, Version Kellyanne, and so on.

[orwell]

82. I like it! n/t

[0rganism]

27. Coronavirus Alpha: "If you think I'm evil..."

[cab67]

29. A few caveats from epidemiologists I know.

The primary concerns with Lambda are twofold -

1 - like Delta, Lambda appears to be more easily transmissible. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether it's transmissible to a greater or lesser extent than Delta.

2 - Lambda appears to be more infectious in people who were infected with earlier versions of COVID-19. If you got COVID early last year, the natural antibodies you built up might not work against Lambda. (Similar concerns are being raised about Delta.)

The concerns with vaccines thus far have been with Chinese-made versions that are more readily available in South America. There have been very few cases of Lambda in the US, and so the impact of the new variant on the vaccines we get here (Moderna, J&J, Pfizer) is essentially unknown - but given that it hasn't really spread rapidly here, there's no immediate reason to worry that these vaccines are ineffective against it.

Yeah, we should worry, but it's not quite time to panic yet.

[bluewater]

30. So lambda is more transmissible than the original strain?

Last edited Fri Aug 6, 2021, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

So your contacts confirmed a main point in the OP article?

Meanwhile, two mutations in the Lambda variant—T76I and L452Q—make it more infectious than the COVID variant that swept through the world in 2020.

I realize this is emerging data, but any additional links to other studies would be greatly appreciated.

[ShazzieB]

42. Thanks for this.

It's easy to panic these days, and good to be reminded to take things a step at a time.

[Scrivener7]

108. It's interesting that it hasn't spread much here. It's been around longer than Delta.

I wonder what that's about.

[TheRickles]

31. The main problem, and challenge, in dealing with these variants is the PCR test.

It can be run at different degrees of sensitivity (augmentation cycles), leading to different amounts of false positives. If the details of the PCR aren't given in reports like this one, it's almost impossible to gauge the significance of the findings. And yet public health measures are being devised, based on these dicey tests. At the higher ranges of PCR sensitivity, fragments of a dead virus can register positive even if NO live virus is present in the patient. Caveat emptor.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. Hoping they can find a way to make vaccines airborne

[TygrBright]

34. Newsweek, huh? Think I'll wait for some other sources to weigh in before I run in circles. n/t

[Rustyeye77]

37. Apparently Newsweek is not reputable for you.

Ok

[ShazzieB]

44. Newsweek is not as reputable as it used to be.

I've seen some eyebrow raising stuff in Newsweek in the last year or so. I no longer automatically trust everything I see in there.

[marie999]

67. Don't run in circles but wear a mask.

[treestar]

75. also not peer reviewed yet

that is mentioned in the article. Maybe they expect it, but they don't have that yet.

[bluewater]

80. on the same note, the vaccines are not approved yet

But we all expect it, but they don't have it yet.



But seriously, the study in the article was conducted by respected experts at a reputable research center, so I don't see the point in splitting hairs at this point by anyone to discredit it.

[multigraincracker]

36. The one thing we never tried that would have worked was

to shut everything down for a month.

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Bullshit click bait from a RW source. Nt

[bluewater]

40. Newsweek is a RW Source? Really?

Newsweek
Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am

Newsweek - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Democrat - Credible - Reliable
Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Newsweek media bias rating is Center.

Newsweek's bias has shifted significantly in recent years, and was rated Left prior to 2020. Note that a Center bias does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, or always reasonable. It simply means the source does not predictably publish opinions and content biased toward either side of the political spectrum. The bias of individual articles may vary.

2020 Editorial Reviews
The AllSides team conducted two separate Editorial Reviews of Newsweek's online publication on Nov. 20, 2020 and on Dec. 17, 2020. Both times, the editorial team determined that Newsweek had a Center bias — a significant departure from our previous rating of Left. Newsweek did not predictably publish perspectives or articles favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. Its Opinion section was particularly balanced, featuring left- and right-wing views.

News section: Newsweek's news articles did not include many of the common types of media bias, such as spin, subjectivity, or sensationalism.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

[Rustyeye77]

46. Shuuush...Let it go.

You’re not going to win.

When you don’t like the message, blame the messenger.

[bluewater]

48. Point taken.

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. Educate yourself on the recent history of Newsweek.

Google Newsweek and John Eastman to start.

[bluewater]

71. The two media bias ratings I posted weren't enough? Fine, here is a third...

Newsweek Bias and Reliability Overview
Newsweek is a news magazine and website distributed around the world in English and in five other languages. Based in New York City, it also has offices in London and Bangalore, India. Founded in 1933, Newsweek is owned by Johnathan Davis and Dev Pragad. Ad Fontes Media rates Newsweek in the skews left category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score
A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

The following are Newsweek’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 39.09

Bias: -6.22

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/

So, yet another media bias rating site rates Newsweek as reliable and just slightly left of center.

Go figure.

But more to the point, what exactly do you feel is the supposed RW slant in the OP article on the lambda variant?

The article accurately reports on the comments of credible experts on the results from a recent reputable study.

[Rustyeye77]

73. Maybe I should delete this thread.

The point is lost with all the accusations that Newsweek is RW .

[bluewater]

77. It's a form of the Ad hominem Fallacy.

Attacking the presenter if you can't refute the facts.

But hey, I have seen people do the same thing about the New York Times and the Washington Post, so don't delete your thread too soon. lol

The same responder has also taken issue with the original study as posted on biorxiv.org, saying it's not factual. So I wouldn't delete the thread.

Fiendish Thingy (7,317 posts)

65. They aren't "facts" at this point, just a collection of data, correlates and speculation

As the article excerpted in the OP mentioned more than once, none of this data has been peer reviewed, and thus no evidence based conclusions can be drawn at this time.

This article was written to generate fear-based clicks.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

[Fiendish Thingy]

86. See the links I posted for a thorough discussion of NW's downfall.

The ratings must average articles before the magazine was sold with articles after the sale, that is the only explanation.

Google Newsweek and John Eastman for an example of their biased, irresponsible reporting.

[bluewater]

90. Inadvertently cherry picked articles, apparently.

"The ratings must average articles before the magazine was sold with articles after the sale, that is the only explanation."

Um, no. A FAR MORE LIKELY explanation is that you have focused in on those right slanted articles, probably unintentionally, and have ignored others that slant center or slant left, balancing those out.

Again, here are the results from three respected media bias rating sites:

People have cited selected Newsweek articles and editorials while ignoring the overall "reliable" and "left-center" or "center" political slant ratings given by three independent media bias rating sites:

Newsweek
Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am

Newsweek - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Democrat - Credible - Reliable
Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Newsweek media bias rating is Center.

Newsweek's bias has shifted significantly in recent years, and was rated Left prior to 2020. Note that a Center bias does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, or always reasonable. It simply means the source does not predictably publish opinions and content biased toward either side of the political spectrum. The bias of individual articles may vary.

2020 Editorial Reviews
The AllSides team conducted two separate Editorial Reviews of Newsweek's online publication on Nov. 20, 2020 and on Dec. 17, 2020. Both times, the editorial team determined that Newsweek had a Center bias — a significant departure from our previous rating of Left. Newsweek did not predictably publish perspectives or articles favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. Its Opinion section was particularly balanced, featuring left- and right-wing views.

News section: Newsweek's news articles did not include many of the common types of media bias, such as spin, subjectivity, or sensationalism.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

Newsweek Bias and Reliability Overview
Newsweek is a news magazine and website distributed around the world in English and in five other languages. Based in New York City, it also has offices in London and Bangalore, India. Founded in 1933, Newsweek is owned by Johnathan Davis and Dev Pragad. Ad Fontes Media rates Newsweek in the skews left category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score
A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

The following are Newsweek’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 39.09

Bias: -6.22

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/

[Fiendish Thingy]

94. From the article I linked to:

New Republic:

Writing in The Columbia Journalism Review last year, Daniel Tovrov depicted Newsweek, once one of America’s most distinguished magazines, as a shell of its former self. All that was left was clickbait, op-eds from the likes of Nigel Farage and Newt Gingrich, and a general sense of drift. “Nobody I spoke to for this article had a sense of why Newsweek exists,” Tovrov wrote. “While the name Newsweek still carries a certain authority—remnants of its status as a legacy outlet—and the magazine can still bag an impressive interview now and then, it serves an opaque purpose in the media landscape.”

Last week, Newsweek suggested one possible purpose: The legitimization of narratives straight out of the right-wing fever swamps. An op-ed written by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, coyly suggested that Kamala Harris, who was born in California, may not be eligible to serve as vice president because her parents were immigrants. It was, as many pointed out, a racist attack with no constitutional merit, on par with the birther conspiracy theory that claimed Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Within a few hours, Eastman’s op-ed was being brandished by President Trump, who told reporters he had “heard” Harris may not be eligible to serve.

[bluewater]

99. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Last edited Sat Aug 7, 2021, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Its called confirmation bias.

confirmation bias
[ kon-fer-mey-shuhn bahy-uhs ]SHOW IPA


noun Psychology.
bias that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it supports one’s preexisting ideas and convictions.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

Confirmation bias is a broad construct covering a number of explanations. Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects: 1) attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence); 2) belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false); 3) the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series); and 4) illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

When you have a link to a respected site that reviews many media sources and rank their media bias that states that Newsweek is a right wing source, please post it.

That should be easy to do, right? I have asked for this several times, and to be honest, if there was one, I think it would have been posted by now.

I have posted 3 such sites that state that Newsweek is 1. reliable and 2. slightly left of center as a news source.

[Fiendish Thingy]

102. And I posted three sources that call your assertion into question.

See Celerity’s post #63 for more evidence of Newsweek’s bias.

Your source, allsides, (which evaluates online content only, and ignores print and broadcast content) also lists the following as “Center”:

Wall Street Journal
Real Clear Politics
The Hill

I rest my case.

[bluewater]

110. And I pointed out the problem with Confirmation Bias.

You keep demonstrating this in your posts.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

Again, if Newsweek is a right wing news source as you insist, just post a link from one of the respected sites that ranks multiple news sources for media bias. Post a link from any such ranking site, one that uses a defined methodology to rate and compare news sources, that labels Newsweek right wing.

I have asked for this repeatedly. What is taking so long? Perhaps, it's because no reputable media bias rating site labels Newsweek as being right wing?

Seems so.

Hey, isn't the original OP post still available for anyone to read for themselves?

Why yes it is!

[Celerity]

63. Newsweek has become a right wing rag with a RW agenda and pushing RW tropes and CT

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100215038543

I have been seeing its content posted here at times, including OP's, and its articles quite often inject RW tropes and ideologies on a one-sided basis, which are given cover by its name and due to so many being familiar with it as a major magazine at one point in the past.


Newsweek and the Rise of the Zombie Magazine

How a decaying legacy magazine is being used to launder right-wing ideas and conspiracy theories.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

Writing in The Columbia Journalism Review last year, Daniel Tovrov depicted Newsweek, once one of America’s most distinguished magazines, as a shell of its former self. All that was left was clickbait, op-eds from the likes of Nigel Farage and Newt Gingrich, and a general sense of drift. “Nobody I spoke to for this article had a sense of why Newsweek exists,” Tovrov wrote. “While the name Newsweek still carries a certain authority—remnants of its status as a legacy outlet—and the magazine can still bag an impressive interview now and then, it serves an opaque purpose in the media landscape.”

Last week, Newsweek suggested one possible purpose: The legitimization of narratives straight out of the right-wing fever swamps. An op-ed written by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, coyly suggested that Kamala Harris, who was born in California, may not be eligible to serve as vice president because her parents were immigrants. It was, as many pointed out, a racist attack with no constitutional merit, on par with the birther conspiracy theory that claimed Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Within a few hours, Eastman’s op-ed was being brandished by President Trump, who told reporters he had “heard” Harris may not be eligible to serve.

Three days after the op-ed was published, Newsweek apologized, sort of. In an editor’s note signed by global Editor-in-Chief Nancy Cooper and opinion editor Josh Hammer, the magazine acknowledged, “We entirely failed to anticipate the ways in which the essay would be interpreted, distorted, and weaponized.... This op-ed is being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia. We apologize.” Still, the magazine refused to recognize what was obvious—that the op-ed was intended to spark questions about the eligibility of a Black woman running for high office. Newsweek’s editors merely feigned horror that the op-ed was taken in the only possible way it could have been taken.

The publication of Eastman’s op-ed says a great deal about the state of Newsweek’s opinion section, which has become a clearinghouse for right-wing nonsense. But it also points to a larger crisis in journalism itself: The rise of the zombie publication, whose former legitimacy is used to launder extreme and conspiratorial ideas. Even by the volatile standards of journalism in the twenty-first century, Newsweek’s recent problems are extraordinary. There are the usual issues: a sharp decline in print subscribers, Google and Facebook, the difficulty of running a mass-market general interest news magazine in an age of hyperpartisanship. But Newsweek has also been raided by the Manhattan district attorney’s office (a former owner and chief executive pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering charges in February) and has been accused of deep ties to a shadowy Christian cult, amid many other scandals.

snip



it's at the point of being as bad as Fux Snooz in many of its articles




Russia: A Problem, Not a Threat

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-problem-not-threat-opinion-1584852


Georgia's Voting Law Doesn't Go Far Enough (Charlie Kirk, Founder and President, Turning Point USA )

https://www.newsweek.com/georgias-voting-law-doesnt-go-far-enough-opinion-1581740


Most Voters Don't Want More Judges on the High Court

https://www.newsweek.com/most-voters-dont-want-more-judges-high-court-opinion-1585484


Why Derek Chauvin's Guilty Verdict May Be Overturned

https://www.newsweek.com/why-derek-chauvins-guilty-verdict-may-overturned-supreme-court-opinion-1585401


Countless Lives Have Been Cut Short by Marijuana

https://www.newsweek.com/countless-lives-have-been-cut-short-marijuana-opinion-1584819


Tucker Carlson Says Derek Chauvin Verdict Taught BLM That 'Violence Works'

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-says-derek-chauvin-verdict-taught-blm-that-violence-works-1585582


Biden UN Ambassador's Attack on America Won't Win the U.S. Any Friends

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-un-ambassadors-attack-america-wont-win-us-any-friends-opinion-1584773


Joe Manchin's $11 Minimum Wage More Popular Than Biden's $15—Among Democrats and Republicans

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchins-11-minimum-wage-more-popular-bidens-15among-democrats-republicans-1573489


Biden's 'Right Verdict' Comments Ripped After Maxine Waters Controversy

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-right-verdict-comments-about-chauvin-trial-ripped-after-maxine-waters-controversy-1585161


Daunte Wright Protester Bashes Joe Biden for Failing Black Community

https://www.newsweek.com/daunte-wright-protester-bashes-joe-biden-failing-black-community-you-said-you-got-our-back-1584539


On Anti-Asian Hate, Frustration Builds on Biden's Slow Response

https://www.newsweek.com/anti-asian-hate-frustration-builds-bidens-slow-response-1584361






https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213840112

[Fiendish Thingy]

64. They were purchased a couple of years ago

They have published some truly batshit editorials since then.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/memorializing-newsweek/552647/

[bluewater]

70. Is there a media bias rating site you respect that calls Newsweek RW?

I understand that they have shifted from left-center to, quote unquote, "center" in recent years.

That's why I posted the excerpt stating just that.

So, sure, they are posting editorials and articles that seem to span a broader, more unfocused political spectrum now. I guess tht's what makes them a "center" news source.

If you know of a media bias rating site that you respect that details how RW Newsweek currently is, please provide a link and i will gladly edit my reply to you and include it.

But, more to the point, what exactly in THIS article about the lambda variant is RW bullshit?

It seems like accurate reporting citing credible experts commenting on a recent reputable study.

[Fiendish Thingy]

85. The NW article is fear mongering for clicks using inconclusive research

Anything using non-peer reviewed data as evidence should be discounted. There may be reason for concern, but it has not been established scientifically yet.

Please see my links in a previous post regarding NW’s rightward/tabloid swing. The only logic I can see that would give them a centrist rating is if they were averaging articles before the sale of the magazine along with post sale articles.

[bluewater]

87. Calling the study "inconclusive research" shows your lack of understanding of pre-prints.

Your interpretation of the factual status of pre-print studies is seriously flawed:

A preprint is a full draft of a research paper that is shared publicly before it has been peer reviewed. Preprints achieve many of the goals of journal publishing, but within a much shorter time frame.

The study in question was conducted by respected experts at a reputable research center and has been viewed by experts in the field that even vouched for it in the very article you are criticizing Newsweek for publishing!

Dr. Georg-Christian Zinn, who is director of the Bioscientia Hygiene Center, in Ingelheim, Germany, said that the statement by the Japanese team should be taken seriously even if their findings still need to be verified.

"The new Japanese preprint study on the Lambda variant is very, very credible," he told RTL.de, according to a translation of his comments. He referred to the expertise of the researchers, adding, "the data are valid."

Pre-peered reviewed studies are not all tarred with the same brush, and can be evaluated before the formal peer-review process is finalized. This is often the case for studies conducted in fast moving fields of research, as in this case in the pandemic.

And as for you insisting that Newsweek is a right wing news source:

The only logic I can see that would give them a centrist rating is if they were averaging articles before the sale of the magazine along with post sale articles.

Well, since THREE media bias rating sites state that Newsweek is both reliable and slightly left of center, it is FAR MORE LIKELY that you are cherry-picking right slanted articles, albeit probably unintentionally, and not taking into account many others that balance those out.

Again, here are those THREE sites for readers to see for themselves:

Newsweek
Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am

Newsweek - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Democrat - Credible - Reliable
Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Newsweek media bias rating is Center.

Newsweek's bias has shifted significantly in recent years, and was rated Left prior to 2020. Note that a Center bias does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, or always reasonable. It simply means the source does not predictably publish opinions and content biased toward either side of the political spectrum. The bias of individual articles may vary.

2020 Editorial Reviews
The AllSides team conducted two separate Editorial Reviews of Newsweek's online publication on Nov. 20, 2020 and on Dec. 17, 2020. Both times, the editorial team determined that Newsweek had a Center bias — a significant departure from our previous rating of Left. Newsweek did not predictably publish perspectives or articles favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. Its Opinion section was particularly balanced, featuring left- and right-wing views.

News section: Newsweek's news articles did not include many of the common types of media bias, such as spin, subjectivity, or sensationalism.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

Newsweek Bias and Reliability Overview
Newsweek is a news magazine and website distributed around the world in English and in five other languages. Based in New York City, it also has offices in London and Bangalore, India. Founded in 1933, Newsweek is owned by Johnathan Davis and Dev Pragad. Ad Fontes Media rates Newsweek in the skews left category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score
A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

The following are Newsweek’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 39.09

Bias: -6.22

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/

Well, that's the third time I have pointed this out, and I see no point in having to restate it ever again.

If you find a respected media bias site that labels Newsweek as Right Wing, post it. Until then, your opinion seems seriously flawed.

[obamanut2012]

88. Neweek is now owned by, basically, a RW cult

Like the other poster said, research, including John Eastman.

[bluewater]

91. Or check all the media bias rating sites that say its reliable and slightly left center?

People have cited selected Newsweek articles and editorials while ignoring the overall "reliable" and "left-center" or "center" political slant ratings given by three independent media bias rating sites:

Newsweek
Last updated on August 6th, 2021 at 11:16 am

Newsweek - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Democrat - Credible - Reliable
Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Newsweek media bias rating is Center.

Newsweek's bias has shifted significantly in recent years, and was rated Left prior to 2020. Note that a Center bias does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, or always reasonable. It simply means the source does not predictably publish opinions and content biased toward either side of the political spectrum. The bias of individual articles may vary.

2020 Editorial Reviews
The AllSides team conducted two separate Editorial Reviews of Newsweek's online publication on Nov. 20, 2020 and on Dec. 17, 2020. Both times, the editorial team determined that Newsweek had a Center bias — a significant departure from our previous rating of Left. Newsweek did not predictably publish perspectives or articles favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal. Its Opinion section was particularly balanced, featuring left- and right-wing views.

News section: Newsweek's news articles did not include many of the common types of media bias, such as spin, subjectivity, or sensationalism.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

Newsweek Bias and Reliability Overview
Newsweek is a news magazine and website distributed around the world in English and in five other languages. Based in New York City, it also has offices in London and Bangalore, India. Founded in 1933, Newsweek is owned by Johnathan Davis and Dev Pragad. Ad Fontes Media rates Newsweek in the skews left category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score
A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

The following are Newsweek’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 39.09

Bias: -6.22

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/newsweek-bias-and-reliability/

[Demsrule86]

105. News week is now rightwing

`Last week, Newsweek suggested one possible purpose: The legitimization of narratives straight out of the right-wing fever swamps. An op-ed written by John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, coyly suggested that Kamala Harris, who was born in California, may not be eligible to serve as vice president because her parents were immigrants. It was, as many pointed out, a racist attack with no constitutional merit, on par with the birther conspiracy theory that claimed Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Within a few hours, Eastman’s op-ed was being brandished by President Trump, who told reporters he had “heard” Harris may not be eligible to serve.`

https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

[Roland99]

52. You don't like facts? - Biorxiv has the study in question. Read it for yourself

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.454085v1.full

[Rustyeye77]

55. Roland99...I've been thru this with the poster.

You’re not going to get a response.

Hit and Run

[Roland99]

56. I can't help myself

[Rustyeye77]

58. I'm with you.

I know it’s frustrating.

[cab67]

60. I've learned to hold articles on biorxiv at arms' length

That's where people post manuscrips before they've gotten through peer review.

I'm not saying the articles are necessarily wrong - only that they haven't been through the full assessment stage of scientific publication.

[Fiendish Thingy]

65. They aren't "facts" at this point, just a collection of data, correlates and speculation

As the article excerpted in the OP mentioned more than once, none of this data has been peer reviewed, and thus no evidence based conclusions can be drawn at this time.

This article was written to generate fear-based clicks.

[GulfCoast66]

95. Right. And as someone who did lab research back in the 80's it does not often hold up

And that not a problem but how science works.

This may well turn out to be true. I’m not discounting it. But would not put much money on it.

Remember all the hair on fire posts the Delta would not be stopped by the vaccine? Well, it is. We knew early on it was more contagious.

I’ll pay attention to Lambda. But even if it gets around the vaccine I can’t change a damn thing.

And worrying about it is nonproductive.

[obamanut2012]

89. biorxiv is for non peer reviewed papers

[BootinUp]

43. Little COVID bugs love this country. Free dumb!

[Jon King]

47. Vaccines will be adjusted, no use worrying about stuff like this.

Life is way too short to sweat this stuff. Vaccines will be tweaked as needed.

[Bmoboy]

50. As if we KNOW

Remember this is the "novel" corona virus.

It's new and it takes time for scientists to figure stuff out.

[Rustyeye77]

53. This is the same movie.

We’re always playing catch up.

[Elessar Zappa]

59. Hyperbolic click-bait.

Human society will be just fine.

[marie999]

68. You consider over 600,000 deaths as fine?

[meadowlander]

78. 600,000 deaths isn't the "collapse of human society".

[bluewater]

79. You misquoted that. it was "a potential threat to human society"

How many millions of people must die before it would be considered a threat, not of total collapse, but just a nasty "oh lord, so many people have died and the economy is hurt" type of threat to human society?

Asking for a friend.

[meadowlander]

92. "A potential threat" to society in the context of a pandemic means an existential threat.

3 million people die every single year in the US and it doesn't lead to hand-wringing over the "threat to human society". We accept that as a baseline level of risk.

150,000 people die globally every single day, and yet we still have human society.

30 million people each died in Stalinist Russian and Maoist China and those governments endured for decades after.

So yeah, I'm sorry 4 million people have died globally of Covid, but I'm not getting in shape for Thunderdome either.

What is your definition of a "threat to human society"? Having to get takeout from McDonalds instead of dining in? Running out of things to watch on Netflix? Having to buy single ply toilet paper instead of double because it's sold out? Not being able to go to a stadium to watch sportsball? Teleconferencing instead of flying out to meet someone?

Even if Delta was ten times more deadly than it currently is, we wouldn't be in the neighbourhood of qualifying for a "threat to human society". And I don't think alarmist rhetoric is helpful in the situation.

Even with a complete cretin like Trump in charge, public institutions in America held firm. We should give civilization a little bit more credit than that.

[bluewater]

96. Nice strawman there. No, existential threats are not the only threats to human society.

The complete collapse of all its institutions is not the only threat to human society.

By your way of thinking, only an all out nuclear war or the collapse of the biosphere could be a large enough disaster, an existential cataclysm, to be a potential threat to "civilization".

That is your position, isn't it? That only something that could cause its complete collapse should be considered a potential threat to human society?

I can't be sure because you didn't answer my question; how many people need to die, or how much economic damage must take place before you would consider it to be a threat to human society?

World War II wasn't a threat to human society? Because it wasn't an existential threat? And only existential threats count?

A global economic collapse, with its potential to cause regional wars and mass starvation would not be a potential threat to human society? Because civilization would rebound, eventually?

50 million people dying, like in the 1918 pandemic, would not be a threat to society because it wouldn't cause complete collapse? Right? Would a 100 million deaths be a threat? 200 million?

Is there _anything_ besides it's complete collapse that you would consider a potential threat to human society?

Anything?

Serious question. Please give some examples if there are.

Thanks.

[meadowlander]

104. You're the one asserting that there are examples. You provide them.

"Threat" means damage or destruction. 7 billion people and ten thousand years of history make up "human society". What do you think is a likely outcome of even the most virulent possible variant of Covid that would cause significant enough damage or destruction to the whole of human society that we need to be contemplating that it will be noticeably damaged or destroyed over the long term?

Is people dying bad? Yes. Is it inconvenient not to be able to leave the house? Yes. Is it bad for the economy? Yes.

But it is not a "threat to human society". I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous and unhelpful hyperbole.

You can split hairs all you like but the article is obviously not talking about temporary or minor changes to the way we go about our day as a "threat to human society". It is talking about fundamental changes to the way that all of human civil institutions function.

Global warming is a threat to human society. Covid-19 is tragic event that will last a few years, kill a number of people, cause some shifts in how people act (working from home, no more handshakes, etc.) and then it will be over. It is not going to bring down nations or collapse the global economy. If it was going to do that, it would have already.

[bluewater]

109. Once again, you ignore the threat of global economic collapse

And insist things like that are minor:

You can split hairs all you like but the article is obviously not talking about temporary or minor changes to the way we go about our day as a "threat to human society". It is talking about fundamental changes to the way that all of human civil institutions function.

Covid-19 is tragic event that will last a few years, kill a number of people, cause some shifts in how people act (working from home, no more handshakes, etc.) and then it will be over. It is not going to bring down nations or collapse the global economy. If it was going to do that, it would have already.

This is ignoring the EXTRAORDINARY steps that countries around the world had to take this past year to avoid a global depression.
And honestly, the pandemic this past year was not anywhere near as bad as it could become as variants spread in the unvaccinated world. Global economic collapse remains a frightening potential threat to human society.

That all seems painfully obvious.

[GoCubsGo]

83. "...not yet been peer-reviewed..."

Get back to me when it is.

[Rustyeye77]

84. I will GocubsGo

I won’t forget .

[GulfCoast66]

93. I agree with Gocubsgo. Not saying it's not true.

But I am a science major. There was this same concern with Delta. Some early studies, non-peer reviewed said the vaccines were only 30% effective. We now know that is not true.

Wanting to see better science before my hair catches on fire is not the same thing as ignoring the possibility it is vaccine resistant. Even if it is what can I do about it? So worrying about it is nonproductive. I’ve got enough worries I can do something about.

This mutation did not start in the US. We will know within a month with actual real world data, not lab work what the story is in reality.

[LisaL]

113. How do we know it's not true?

I've seen a whole bunch of numbers for efficacy, with Israel saying Pfizer might be only 39% effective against delta.
Actually, it seems the numbers keep getting worse.

[GulfCoast66]

116. The vaccine is still effective if it keeps the vaccinated out of the hospital.

And it is doing that

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

114. Israel says Pfizer Covid vaccine is just 39% effective as delta spreads

Maybe because I got COVID while being fully vaccinated, I am prone to think it breaks through easily.
Once bitten, twice shy.
Of course, that is just for having COVID. I had slight symptoms, but still a cough a month later
And Something amiss within my head for 3 weeks+

Way more effective for preventing severe disease and death. That is possibly what some people miss when they think of vaccine resistance.

HEALTH AND SCIENCE
Israel says Pfizer Covid vaccine is just 39% effective as delta spreads, but still prevents severe illness
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html