Understanding the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Relevance to Darwin's Theory

While many find it easy to draw parallels between Darwin's theory of evolution and the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2, a closer examination reveals some significant nuances.

Not Diseases, But Viruses Aren't Subject to Evolution on the Same Scale

Many argue that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the ongoing pandemic, does indeed evolve in a manner reminiscent of Darwin's natural selection processes. However, it is vital to understand that diseases themselves are not subject to evolution. Instead, it is the virus, which can be seen as a replicating machine, that evolves.

The Significance of the Pandemic on a Global Scale

On a global scale, the impact of the pandemic is often seen as highly insignificant when placed against the backdrop of human history. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) predicted that the pandemic would kill 200 million people, a figure now seen as highly unlikely. With less than 10 million deaths globally, this number is statistically insignificant in the face of a human population of over 7 billion people.

The Pandemic in Perspective

The global human population continues to grow even amidst the pandemic, and the majority of people are likely to forget the 1918 flu pandemic within a few decades. This perspective highlights that while the pandemic has significant psychological and social ramifications, its direct impact on mortality rates is minimal compared to the overall population.

The Role of Humans in Pandemic Preparedness

Humans have adapted to control their environments to suit their modern needs. This has led to a significant reduction in natural dangers, including infectious diseases. Moreover, the current global health landscape offers new investment and technologies that could improve our preparedness for future pandemics.

International Collaboration and Independent Medical Decisions

It is crucial to develop better international agreements to manage future pandemics. Additionally, reducing the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in shaping medical treatments is essential. Doctors should have more autonomy in making decisions that benefit their patients without fear of sanctions or penalties.

The Case for Ivermectin in Pandemic Treatment

A notable discussion revolves around the use of Ivermectin in treating SARS-CoV-2. Despite its undeniable safety and extensive use in less developed countries, its use has been constrained due to various factors. The new Merck drug, though more expensive, shares similar efficacy with Ivermectin. Yet, Merck's decision to price the drug at 70 dollars per dose while the WHO could provide Ivermectin for less than 10 cents highlights a significant disparity.

Global vs. Corporate Interests

While the WHO has protected the interests of pharmaceutical giants, many argue that its primary mission should be to provide affordable and effective treatments to the global population. The use of Ivermectin, which has a 40-year history of safe human use and documented efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, should be prioritized over more expensive and less accessible treatments.

Conclusion

While the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is a fascinating aspect of natural selection, it is important to recognize the broader implications of the pandemic on human populations. Improved international cooperation, medical autonomy, and equitable access to medications are key to better preparedness for future pandemics.