2287: Pathogen Resistance

|< < Prev Comic #2287 (March 31, 2020) Next > >|

Pathogen Resistance

Title text: We're not not trapped in here with the coronavirus. The coronavirus is trapped in here with us.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

A bacteriophage, a coccus-shaped bacteria, and a larger round one talk about humans.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Note that the title text says "not not" -- meaning we're both trapped in here together John.Adriaan (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Randall fixed that. That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Do bacteriophages "afflict" humanity? To my knowledge, they only infect bacteria and are even considered a possible future alternative to antibiotics by some. What is up with them being represented here? 09:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, bacteriophage is just wrong here, it's a generic virus. This type of virus is depicted on the bacteriophage wikipedia page but viruses that affect humans can have that shape also. 172.68.51.94

There are no known human viruses of that shape (source: I'm a biologist), so this seems like more of a mistake on Randall's side (albeit an odd one for him to make, so perhaps somehow deliberate?). 162.158.91.155 08:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

But... if it affects bacteria and humen have many bacteria (and many/most of them useful) in them, shouldn't it affect the human then as well? indirectly? Source: I have very vague knowledge :D --Lupo (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It may be deliberate in the sense that almost everyone will go "Oh, that's a virus!" when they see this shape, contrary to the other 2 which look more like big molecules or bacteria.162.158.111.7 09:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The bacteriophage point is now very nicely addressed in the explanation. Good job to all who contributed to that part! 162.158.93.105 21:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry, pathogens! All is not lost. There will always be some humans whose brains don’t work very well, who will buy into ideas like “vaccines cause autism”, or “faith healing”, or “natural remedies”, or “Trump is always right”. You’ll still have hosts. Tualha (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That's right 108.162.216.158 13:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really "always". Those might eventually go extinct. Assuming this kind of stupidity is hereditary ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke said decades ago "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." Likewise the hope the COVID-19 pandemic will eliminate people based on their unintelligent behavior is not proven. Based on limited data I am guessing the behavior of people around us affect our survival more then our own behavior.Godzilla (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about stupid people in general, but specifically about antivaxers. THOSE might be completely eradicated by some epidemic. Maybe not this one - definitely not before we find some vaccine for it (although, you know, there ARE some reports about TB vaccine having some effect) - but eventually ... hmmm ... actually, that would be quite effective pattern. Imagine some new patogen related to some we already vaccinate against but much more contagious. All people not vaccinated could be dead before we realize what they have in common and what allows the other to survive it. -- Hkmaly (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bacteriophages only infect bacteria and some kinds of Archaea, not humans, so the explanation is slightly wrong. They are probably the prettiest and easiest to recognise viral shape though, which is why they are so commonly used in cartoons and illustrations.Phil (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I am just as much a hobby-virologist as anybody else suddenly is, but I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't even know which of the 3 shapes you mean. So please edit the explanation yourself if you see, that it is wrong. --Lupo (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The narrator-virus in the middle of the three, that looks somewhat like a rotation of a mosquito, with a D20 on top. Wikipedia diagram 141.101.69.13 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

D20 systems have a lot to answer for. The original D6 Star Wars worked well enough, and now I learn the D20 version spread viruses! 162.158.34.210 11:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"They bought lots of pasta." More like they bought lots of toilet paper! Humans, when we think rationally, can make great things happen. Humans, when we panic, can make incredibly foolish decisions. Nutster (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's both. At least in the supermarkets close to my place (western Germany), pasta, toilet paper, rice, milk, flour, yeast are all common to be out of stock or almost out of stock and usually their shelfes have by now signs that they will only sell a certain amount of them to each customer. --Lupo (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Here in Italy toilet paper was never missing, whereas in some supermarket there was a pasta shortage (except for pennette lisce, obviously, which nobody likes so they stayed on the shelves).

--188.114.102.160 03:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Any chance this reveals Randall as a secret Pastafarian? 162.158.34.46 13:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does one of the voices say, "I hate lungs"? --108.162.216.62 13:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it just a reference to Grouchy Smurf ? 108.162.229.210 08:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To emphasize that they really do want to destroy those lungs. All good here. 13:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It actually doesn't make sense. Pathogens LOVE lungs - it's a great place for them to have party in. -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I always imagined it was just a reiteration of a past conversation, to whit something like: "Not another lung? We never get to see anything else. Really, George, I don't know why you keep on booking the same old package deal every time we go abroad. You know, Janice's family always try something different. Instead of just flying in and sitting on the lung all the time they do exciting things like camping out on an interesting door handle then hitching rides on fingers into noses, or even dining out and taking a chance on an unwashed cup to introduce them to an interesting new throat..." 162.158.34.210 11:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This comic is a positive message giving good advice to people on how to beat the current COVID-19 spread. But the numbers clearly show it is not working (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-52066105/coronavirus-us-death-rates-v-china-italy-and-south-Korea, and many other locations on the internet.) Continuing to believe this pandemic can be beat with only lock-downs, hand washing and telling people to not do things they do naturally without thinking, is the public health equivalent of engineering design with friction-less surfaces and mass-less pullies. We need solutions that understand human nature and tell people to do things they actually will do, not keep saying the same things over and over again despite experience screaming at us that people are not doing it. The 6 places that have controlled the outbreak (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Japan) have used different methods of testing, tracing, isolating, restricting travel, etc., but the one thing they have in common is a large portion of the population is wearing masks in public. The 5 places with the largest uncontrolled outbreaks (USA (especially NYC) Italy, Spain, Germany and France) are all using the same lock down strategy and all have public health officials discouraging / preventing people from wearing masks in public. This should not be hard to figure out. And saying the limited supply of masks need to go to certain people, not working to increase the number of masks, is what failure looks like. -- Godzilla (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

You know that it's possible to make a mask from piece of fabric at home? It may not be as good as professional mask but would still provide some sort of protection. Also, the amount of masks will go up if China starts making them ... -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Masks like the 1.2 million defective ones that a Chinese manufacturer sold to the Dutch government for the care workers? Or the simpler ones that Dutch experts say aren't effective because they're bound to be used incorrectly and thus give a false sense of security? 172.69.54.219 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

In a situation like the current one it is wise even for expert epidemiologists, virologists and medical practitioners to be very careful in their assumptions, analyses and conclusions. For anyone with little or no expertise in those fields, that goes doubly so. Note, for instance, that the regions you name as having controlled the outbreak also have very different social customs from those you name as uncontrolled. To an Italian, the everyday way Asians (excuse the generalizations) interact with each other is pretty much equivalent to "social distancing". When you regularly shake hands or hug (and then touch your nose or eyes, which people do constantly and subconsciously), the mask is not protective. In other words, there are many factors beyond simply wearing masks that can explain the current differences in virus spread, if such differences are even real (the current numbers are heavily skewed by test availability and criteria for who gets tested). More generally, we currently simply do not have enough information to confidently answer all the questions about this disease and how we should best combat it. Thus, I would recommend using expressions such as "this should not be hard to figure out" sparingly, especially given the knowledge that many very smart and highly trained people are working on "figuring it out"... 162.158.93.105 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's not so trivial to figure out, but also that we should both start wearing masks and stop with the shaking hands - both is easy enough to try. -- Hkmaly (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"In a situation like the current one it is wise even for expert epidemiologists, virologists and medical practitioners to be very careful in their assumptions, analyses and conclusions. For anyone with little or no expertise in those fields, that goes doubly so. Note, for instance, that the regions you name as having controlled the outbreak also have very different social customs from those you name as uncontrolled. To an Italian, the everyday way Asians (excuse the generalizations) interact with each other is pretty much equivalent to "social distancing"."

These statements are true. It is also true the the 6 places that have controlled the outbreak the best have very different social customs from each other. Likewise with the 5 places where the outbreak is spreading the most; Germans generally do not behave in public like Italians, but both cultures are experiencing similar 2-3 day double rates. "...given the knowledge that many very smart and highly trained people are working on "figuring it out"..." We all know countless examples in history of "very smart and highly trained people" being wrong for very long periods of time (no-such-things-as-germs, the-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe, etc.) And the differences in the spread of this outbreak in different countries is not trivial; it is spreading 10s or 100s of time faster in some places then others. These differences are not being explained adequately by the "very smart and highly trained people". At some point we need to realize what we are being told does not match what we are seeing. When we do we will start solving the problem. Godzilla (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

To summarize your argument: Because even experts *can* be wrong (true!) we should always critically evaluate any information we receive (fully agree!). If in doing so we recognize an apparently obvious and seemingly reasonable pattern, we should assume our conclusions are true (uh-oh) and the experts must be wrong (uuuh) and we should announce our truth on the internet while deriding others' efforts to handle the crisis (ouf). You may be right about the masks, you may not be right. Time and more research will surely tell. Either way, however, I hope you can appreciate why someone might take issue with your approach to the problem. Cheers! 162.158.91.101 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(Hey, people have been putting replies to someone else's unsigned comment under my joke. Lemme just move mine down here. -Jacky720)

Pathogens: infect humans through day-to-day contact Humans: stop day-to-day contact Humans: Checkmate.

That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Coccus bacteria: It's not over, right? They can't sustain this. They must be bored and tired.

Coccus bacteria: Will they give up?

2 Years Later...

Yes, we absolutely gave up. Some parts of the population did so instantly, and are even doing things to assist the disease. It is never going to end now.

--davidgro (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

OK the news is saying the CDC is reconsidering their position on the public wearing masks. Note it is not you wearing a mask that protects you, but everyone else wearing one, including the people with the virus who do not show symptoms. The mask catches many of the droplets infected people exhale, sneeze or cough out. This reduces the amount of virus containing droplets in the air for you to breath in, reduces the virus on surfaces you touch and then bring to your face with your hand, etc.

Here is the one study on home made masks, finding them to be roughly 1/3 as effective as surgical masks: Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks

Here is one of a few studies showing the public wearing masks is effective against the spread of the flu, colds, etc: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Here is one (of many) source for making a mask: Everything you need to know about making your own face mask

Godzilla (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The text on xkcd.com just below the logo has been changed to read "Note: For technical reasons Wednesday's comic will be posted Thursday instead. Apologies for the delay!" Not sure if that's worth mentioning anywhere here, or on tomorrow's explanation once the Thursday comic goes up. Ijpete98 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't rule out some type of April Fool's Day joke! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the question is whether he has something with elaborate Javascript that he's still working on lined up for slightly belated April Fool's, or is the delay itself the joke, in a way that might make more sense once we do see it? Time will tell. -- KarMann (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

He ended up postponing the April Fool's joke Garden for three days because it was too complex. SO sounds like it is this. Was wondering if he would do one after all these corona comics. --Kynde (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't rabies discover the solution to this? It affects the brain and causes changes in behavior that help it spread. Barmar (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I really wish I had ever been as optimistic about it as Randall here. Even more, I wish I had been wrong not to be. --davidgro (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh man did this entire era of xkcd age poorly. 162.158.155.53 13:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that too many people just aren't concerned enough about simply being careful (or instead insist upon their personal 'freedoms', no matter what). Whether by forcing lock-downs to be unlocked-up again prematurely or just not being considerate and easing back into the old "I'll cough and sneeze on anyone I choose to" thoughlessness. Emperically obvious, as having to have followup lockdowns (despite all the pressures to terminate the earlier one(s)) shows that the first ones weren't held in place enough to deal with that one initial reason for the lockdowns in the first place, when they could have made the basis for subsequent 'waves' much less substantial.

Whether or not it was the best solution (no worse than "doing nothing", given the circumstances, and in general terms definitely better) the resulting slide back into complacency and all the perverse counter-lockdown 'justified noncomplience' need not have been the obvious rebound behaviour from the well-intentioned initial public health measures. And one's personal rights should never extend to infringing upon the "life and liberty" rights of those more blameless than oneself. But we are human. And humanity is self-destructive in so many ways that it need not be. 172.69.195.6 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just two more weeks bro cmon just two more weeks to stop the spread it'll work this time I swear 162.158.155.192 16:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A mere two more weeks of lockdown would have meant more than two weeks extra 'unlocked' before needing to revert to lockdown because of rising cases, meaning a net reduction of total lockdown. (c.f. the opposite of having a lockdown every other day, unlock every other other day, because the rate of spread never actually reduces below the lockdown thresholds, making it hardly any benefit at all but still many of the actual disadvantages of lockdown enforcement/compliance which are non-zero but better than total healthcare breakdown).

Implementation is the key, but it also relies upon cooperation. The latter is largely out of any government's hands that isn't already totalitarian, but people who have a non-totalitarian government tend to make much more noise about themselves being suppressed than those who actually are, just because (ironically) they can. 172.68.186.56 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)