0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:45:57Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:52:20scientists at the turn of the 1900s could have been taking people sick with flu and housing them with healthy people, then when the healthy people became sick with flu, take the most serve case, and repeated the process, until someone died.No, they couldn't.No funding.They also had no idea what the causative agent was, so they had no way to know that you could modify it.
Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.
scientists at the turn of the 1900s could have been taking people sick with flu and housing them with healthy people, then when the healthy people became sick with flu, take the most serve case, and repeated the process, until someone died.
That could have happened
Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:52:20That could have happenedWinston Churchill could have dressed up like a baby everyday in private too. That could have happened.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 21:26:16Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:45:57Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:52:20scientists at the turn of the 1900s could have been taking people sick with flu and housing them with healthy people, then when the healthy people became sick with flu, take the most serve case, and repeated the process, until someone died.No, they couldn't.No funding.They also had no idea what the causative agent was, so they had no way to know that you could modify it.Irrelevant to the point.
I dont know, there is a long history of biological warfare with humans, were scientists at the turn of the century experimenting with flu? I don't know, but its possible.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 00:50:19Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 21:26:16Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:45:57Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:52:20scientists at the turn of the 1900s could have been taking people sick with flu and housing them with healthy people, then when the healthy people became sick with flu, take the most serve case, and repeated the process, until someone died.No, they couldn't.No funding.They also had no idea what the causative agent was, so they had no way to know that you could modify it.Irrelevant to the point.I recognise that your making stupid false assertions (and the rebuttals of those assertions) are irrelevant.Please stop making them.I take it that your comment means that you realise that a false claim like thisQuote from: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 23:35:35I dont know, there is a long history of biological warfare with humans, were scientists at the turn of the century experimenting with flu? I don't know, but its possible.is irrelevant.That's good.But if you can try thinking about that before you post stuff, rather than only realising it after someone points it out, it would help a lot.
The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523
Not irrelevant it related to the question of weather Flu could be a gain of function Virus,
I stated before I know Britian has in the past released Flu into the general population.
from
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 06/03/2021 18:29:52The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523This is based on an R0 produced with the lockdown measures in place. To find patient 0 you really need the R0 of the Virus without the lockdown measures to get an accurate prediction based on its spread while people are not aware their is a virus actively spreading. Still with 80% with low or mild symptoms having a low R0 and 20% with more severe symptoms a higher one, seems the best answer. Juat a question of deciding what those numbers should be, As 80% of the people infected by the highly infectious group will have a lower R0 and 20% of the lower infectious group would have a higher R0 we should be able to get a good idea of when patient 0 was based on the mortality rate of 0.5% looking back from the 20,000 deaths we see world wide from the beginning of March 2019.The 80% with mild or no symptoms are not at risk from dying, it's only the 20% of more severe cases where moraitly will happen.A good question might be to find out what mortality rate of the higher risk 20% is.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/03/2021 19:43:33fromJust more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 21:21:01Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/03/2021 19:43:33fromJust more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.Posting stuff and then not replying to points raised about it is trolling.
You dont raise points,
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019. covid was not identified for another 2 and half months after the games were over and testing for it came even later.
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 06/03/2021 18:29:52The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523This is based on an R0 produced with the lockdown measures in place. To find patient 0 you really need the R0 of the Virus without the lockdown measures to get an accurate prediction based on its spread while people are not aware their is a virus actively spreading. .
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019. covid was not identified for another 2 and half months after the games were over and testing for it came even later.Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading the athletes may well have been tested for something back in October 2019 but it certainly wasnt covid 19.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 22:02:45You dont raise points,The fact that we have discussed and dismissed the idea that people were doing gain of function research on flu in 1919 because nobody even knew what the flu was,
but that you keep pretending it is a meaningful possibility is a valid point.Your refusal to accept this is preaching.The fact that you put forward assertions without evidence and then seek to use them as the basis for another assertion is a valid point.The fact that you keep doing this is trolling.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 00:25:47I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019. covid was not identified for another 2 and half months after the games were over and testing for it came even later.Really?You mean it isn't obvious to you?They can do the testing later- all they need to do is look for antibodies.
It's also common practice for athletes to get blood samples taken for drugs testing.
That usually involves taking (at least) two samples so that the athlete's representatives can get independent testing done (if the "official" test comes back positive).If there's no call to test the 2nd sample it will be disposed of but, if there turns out to be another purpose to which it could be put- like testing for coronavirus- then that's what they will do.It seems that, rather than look at the very obvious answer, you post the question as if it somehow suggests that there's a problem.The only problem really is your perpetual lack of understanding and rational thought.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 00:25:47Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading That's a lie.
You think she is outright liar? fair enough.
Right during the spainsh flu pandemic, widely reported at the time in Spanish media, no one knew what flu was.
The only troll here is you, I simply pointed out you don't have to have identified a virus to experiment with it.
When in January? After the antibodies tests were developed and the athletes may have caught it from somewhere else?
For civilian athletes, it's not clear the military games have those standards at all, steroids may well be a part of military training programs and not banned at all.
Keep on trolling
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16You think she is outright liar? fair enough.No.You are.And here's the further evidence.This is an obvious straw man rather than an honest comment.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16Right during the spainsh flu pandemic, widely reported at the time in Spanish media, no one knew what flu was. because you know that the context is that nobody knew it was a virus.It's a lie to pretend that I meant the twisted version you portrayed.You lied.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16The only troll here is you, I simply pointed out you don't have to have identified a virus to experiment with it.Yes and no.You could do experiments, but they wouldn't be to do with changing the function,
because you couldn't know what that function was. |They also had no meaningful way of changing the function anyway.So, once again, your assertion is deliberately misleading.You lied.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16When in January? After the antibodies tests were developed and the athletes may have caught it from somewhere else?Well, yes, they may have caught it elsewhere.But the result of the tests is that THEY DIDN'T CATCH IT ANYWHERE.So we know they didn't catch it during the games.So, once again, your assertion is an obvious attempt to sell yet another lie.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16For civilian athletes, it's not clear the military games have those standards at all, steroids may well be a part of military training programs and not banned at all.The military do a lot of drugs testing on their staff regardless of whether they are athletes, so the same applies.You trying to pretend that it doesn't is dumb or dishonest. Which are you claiming?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16Keep on trollingDo you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?
You dont know that,
All assumptions,
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019.
As always you propose simplistic answers to more complicated issues.
Which you dont, hence you keep on trolling.
Do you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?