Post by: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
This cambridge study suggested Covid had been in China atleast since September 2019
Yet there is also evidence that covid was in Brazil in November 2019
France in November 2019
And spain as early as March 2019
So is Spain the most likely source as it is now the earliest sighting?
Post by: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:15:55
Considering it was closed after the leaks happened, could fort Detrick be the original source?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/germs-fort-detrick-biohazard.html
Most shockingly a residential home near fort Detrick suffered a respiratory outbreak
https://abcnews.go.com/US/respiratory-outbreak-investigated-retirement-community-54-residents-fall/story?id=64275865
"He said the outbreak began with the first case on June 30."
This is a few weeks before fort Detrick was closed due to mis management of biological materials.
The retirement home is a 4 hour drive from the facility.
We know they closed fort Detrick in July due to.mis management of materials, we dont know how long that miss management was happening for. Details as to what actually was released and mishandled is also sketchy as under national security the America government has refused to comment or allow a open investigation.
Another question:-
We know Donald Trump claimed to have seen evidence that covid 19 had come from a laboratory. Could it be that the evidence he saw was from fort Detrick?
But rather then accept responsibility he sort to take an opportunity to blame China?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 18:56:50
Wuhan.
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/02/2021 19:56:55
"Where did covid 19 originate?"
Wuhan.
A theory not a fact you should be more scientific.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 20:13:01
A theory not a factA bit like
covid was in Brazil in November 2019
France in November 2019
And spain as early as March 2019
We know Donald Trump claimed to have seen evidence that covid 19 had come from a laboratory. Could it be that the evidence he saw was from fort Detrick?
you should be more scientific.
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/02/2021 20:16:16
A theory not a factA bit likecovid was in Brazil in November 2019France in November 2019And spain as early as March 2019We know Donald Trump claimed to have seen evidence that covid 19 had come from a laboratory. Could it be that the evidence he saw was from fort Detrick?
you should be more scientific.
Hardly they found samples in sewage. I'm not claiming any facts for the origin You are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 20:19:01
they found samples in sewage.How sure are you of that "fact"?
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/02/2021 20:27:47
they found samples in sewage.How sure are you of that "fact"?
Sure enough to post it here for discussion
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 20:57:05
Then I guess I can do the same.they found samples in sewage.How sure are you of that "fact"?
Sure enough to post it here for discussion
"Where did covid 19 originate?"
Wuhan.
Do you have any actual evidence that I'm wrong?
(To do that you would have to prove that it was- for example- possible for the virus to transfer from Spain to china, but not the other way round.).
I also look forward to your explanation of how the virus didn't spread much while it was in Spain, France, Brazil or wherever, but suddenly became massively infections in China.
But, those observations and deductions are merely evidence.
I don't expect you to pay them any attention.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 01:11:23
The retirement home is a 4 hour drive from the facility.I.e. most unlikely to have been affected by anything that may have happened at Fort Detrick. A 4 hour drive is a shopping trip in the USA. In Europe it will involve road signs in 3 or 4 entirely different languages.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/02/2021 04:14:41
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 04:17:23
Then I guess I can do the same.they found samples in sewage.How sure are you of that "fact"?
Sure enough to post it here for discussion"Where did covid 19 originate?"
Wuhan.
Do you have any actual evidence that I'm wrong?
(To do that you would have to prove that it was- for example- possible for the virus to transfer from Spain to china, but not the other way round.).
I also look forward to your explanation of how the virus didn't spread much while it was in Spain, France, Brazil or wherever, but suddenly became massively infections in China.
But, those observations and deductions are merely evidence.
I don't expect you to pay them any attention.
China was the first to identify it. Means it spread undetected, as the cambridge study suggested covid had been in China for around 4 months before they found it.
Post by: evan_au on 07/02/2021 04:19:18
Quote from: Jolly2
spain as early as March 2019...they found samples in sewageThe quality of RNA in sewage is very variable.
- We know that the fatty coat of the SARS-COV2 virus is broken down by soaps and detergents
- Most people flush soap down the sewer when they take a bath or shower
- Most people flush detergents down the sewer when they wash the dishes (and use even more destructive chemicals in the dishwasher)
- Industrial processes can also flush destructive chemicals into sewers
- So RNA is badly degraded when it is collected (within 1 week)
- And, depending on how it is stored, may continue degrading if it is stored for months afterwards.
So we have degraded RNA from stored sewage samples, which is compared to a new viral sequence (SARS-COV2).
- This comparison must exclude the 4 common coronaviruses that are responsible for something like 30% of the "common cold" infections
- And residual infections of MERS and SARS, which have 50% (MERS) or 80% (SARS) genetic similarities to SARS-COV2. These viruses were never eliminated, but since R < 1, the occasional local outbreak will occur, and then die out.
- There are other coronaviruses circulating in bats that may occasionally spill over into humans. But provided they aren't spread by human-to-human contact, these will show up as sporadic positive samples for coronavirus, without going on to create a pandemic, an epidemic, or even a local outbreak.
It is pretty clear that the pandemic form of the coronavirus spread out from Wuhan (although previous coronavirus samples suggest it may have been carried to Wuhan from bats in a warmer province of China, further south).
The very first COVID-19 case detected in Australia was a man who flew from Wuhan to visit his parents in Melbourne.
- Fortunately, he knew of the pandemic in Wuhan (he had just come from there), self-isolated, wore a mask, and was hospitalized, all without spreading it to anyone else.
The very first COVID-19 case detected in Germany was a woman who flew from Wuhan to run a training course in Munich.
- She only developed symptoms on the return flight to China, but several people on the course were infected.
Listen (43 minutes): https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rn-presents/patient-zero/12523222
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 10:24:14
. Means it spread undetected,You may be stunned to realise this, but Chines people notice if all the grannies and granddads are dying.
So it's essentially impossible that it spread undetected through China but somehow magically got there from Spain (or wherever) - where it was also magically showing restraint and not killing anyone.
Your suggestion is absurd.
Why are you still clinging to it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 16:48:54
. Means it spread undetected,You may be stunned to realise this, but Chines people notice if all the grannies and granddads are dying.
So it's essentially impossible that it spread undetected through China but somehow magically got there from Spain (or wherever) - where it was also magically showing restraint and not killing anyone.
Your suggestion is absurd.
Why are you still clinging to it?
The death rate is low for covid, the symptoms Express themselves like flu, something like 80% of people infected have mild symptoms or are A symptomatic. Deaths only occur with the elderly or people with underlying conditions.
With up to a month incubation time, inherently means the virus will spread, as it has, arround the population atleast a month undetected. With 80% presenting flu like symptoms if any at all.
So your position doesn't match the stats.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 16:53:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:19:01
Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 20:16:16
they found
The issue here is that we don't know how long fort Detrick was releasing materials or even what materials escaped. How long would it take for a virus to travel a 4 hour drive? Hard to say, but considering covid spread rather rapidly across borders, of 1000s of miles in weeks, a four hour drive is a rather short distance.
We know the out break happened 2 weeks before fort Detrick was closed for miss managing materials. The out break could have been the sign that lead to fort Detricks closing, but under national security, America isn't revealing what happened
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 16:56:51
Quote from: Jolly2spain as early as March 2019...they found samples in sewageThe quality of RNA in sewage is very variable.
- We know that the fatty coat of the SARS-COV2 virus is broken down by soaps and detergents
- Most people flush soap down the sewer when they take a bath or shower
- Most people flush detergents down the sewer when they wash the dishes (and use even more destructive chemicals in the dishwasher)
- Industrial processes can also flush destructive chemicals into sewers
- So RNA is badly degraded when it is collected (within 1 week)
- And, depending on how it is stored, may continue degrading if it is stored for months afterwards.
So we have degraded RNA from stored sewage samples, which is compared to a new viral sequence (SARS-COV2).
- This comparison must exclude the 4 common coronaviruses that are responsible for something like 30% of the "common cold" infections
- And residual infections of MERS and SARS, which have 50% (MERS) or 80% (SARS) genetic similarities to SARS-COV2. These viruses were never eliminated, but since R < 1, the occasional local outbreak will occur, and then die out.
- There are other coronaviruses circulating in bats that may occasionally spill over into humans. But provided they aren't spread by human-to-human contact, these will show up as sporadic positive samples for coronavirus, without going on to create a pandemic, an epidemic, or even a local outbreak.
It is pretty clear that the pandemic form of the coronavirus spread out from Wuhan (although previous coronavirus samples suggest it may have been carried to Wuhan from bats in a warmer province of China, further south).
The very first COVID-19 case detected in Australia was a man who flew from Wuhan to visit his parents in Melbourne.
- Fortunately, he knew of the pandemic in Wuhan (he had just come from there), self-isolated, wore a mask, and was hospitalized, all without spreading it to anyone else.
The very first COVID-19 case detected in Germany was a woman who flew from Wuhan to run a training course in Munich.
- She only developed symptoms on the return flight to China, but several people on the course were infected.
Listen (43 minutes): https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rn-presents/patient-zero/12523222
This is all speculation, if the virus is embeded in the excrement then the pooh package could very well offer a protective barrier to soaps and detergents, virus particles on the outside of a pooh may well be destroyed but those embedded inside could have been protected
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 17:25:40
This is all speculation,A bit like
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
covid was in Brazil in November 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
France in November 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
And spain as early as March 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:15:55
We know Donald Trump claimed to have seen evidence that covid 19 had come from a laboratory. Could it be that the evidence he saw was from fort Detrick?
virus particles on the outside of a pooh may well be destroyed but those embedded inside could have been protectedAmong the things they would have been protected from is getting into a sample vial.
So they would never have made it to a lab to be detected.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 17:28:11
This is all speculation,A bit like
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
covid was in Brazil in November 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
France in November 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:12:36
And spain as early as March 2019
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/02/2021 18:15:55
We know Donald Trump claimed to have seen evidence that covid 19 had come from a laboratory. Could it be that the evidence he saw was from fort Detrick?virus particles on the outside of a pooh may well be destroyed but those embedded inside could have been protectedAmong the things they would have been protected from is getting into a sample vial.
So they would never have made it to a lab to be detected.
Speculative also. Whole point of scientific investigation you speculate, calculate implications of the speculation and then test against experiment and evidence.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/02/2021 17:43:51
https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582
I ponder what the hold up is. Shouldn't take a year to do a peer review. The hold up is in-of-itself suspicious.
Still returning to Trump he clearly claimed repeatedly that he had seen evidence covid had come from a laboratory and repeatedly sort to blame China.
Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election had a group investigate her greatest weakness when it came to challenging Trump in the election. The report concluded that her tries to Russia and her assistance in allowing Russia to gain a position in the company 'uranium 1' and so a substantial part of Americas uranium production would be seen as her greatest weakness if known by the general population.
So Mrs Clinton took her greatest weakness and started accusing Trump of being a Russian asset as a means of deflecting attention from herself and her own ties to country of Russia.
The reason I tell this story is because of Trumps continual allegation that China released the virus; To speak with such certianly implies a desire much like Clinton to deflect attention.
Trumps cliams he saw evidence covid came from a laboratory, I feel looking at this, if he did actually see evidence the evidence was from fort Detrick and so as a means of deflection he blamed China, but also as a means to wage a cold war.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 18:11:24
Post by: set fair on 07/02/2021 21:38:03
COVID-19 was manufactured by the Democratic National Committee, funded by a cabal of Chinese Zionists and lizards from Venus. Who needs evidence when the truth is so obvious?
Alan you are right, in fact the lizards are shapeshifting and putting out misleading information on youtube. You can spot them as they have trouble keeping their lizard heads from emerging as can be seen on this video, you only need to watch a minute of it to be able to recognise the shapeshifting head. ps under where it says this video is unavailable, click on watch this vieo on youtube
scary
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 22:51:24
Still returning to Trump he clearly claimed repeatedly that he had seen evidence covid had come from a laboratory and repeatedly sort to blame China.Yes.
And he also claimed that is inauguration party was bigger than Obama's, that he was going to build a wall, that Mexico was going to pay for it that the virus would disappear in spring and....
Face it
TRUMP TELLS A LOT OF LIES; THE CLAIM ABOUT CHINA DELIBERATELY RELEASING COVID IS ONE OF THEM.
The report concluded that her tries to Russia and her assistance in allowing Russia to gain a position in the company 'uranium 1' and so a substantial part of Americas uranium productionRussia has plenty of uranium, and doesn't need to concern itself with America's supply.
Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election had a group investigate her greatest weakness when it came to challenging Trump in the election.
"The Uranium One controversy involves various theories promoted by conservative media, politicians, and commentators that characterized the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom as a $145 million bribery scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever found."
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2021 23:20:48
Still returning to Trump he clearly claimed repeatedly that he had seen evidence covid had come from a laboratory and repeatedly sort to blame China.
He also claimed never to have been abducted by aliens who sucked his brain out and replaced it with haggis. But then he banned the importation of haggis, obviously fearing the competition of an intellectual equal, so how can we believe him?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/02/2021 02:29:28
The hold up is in-of-itself suspicious.
How do you figure?
Trumps cliams he saw evidence covid came from a laboratory
If Trump is the one who said that, then that statement is all but meaningless.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 16:02:57
Still returning to Trump he clearly claimed repeatedly that he had seen evidence covid had come from a laboratory and repeatedly sort to blame China.
He also claimed never to have been abducted by aliens who sucked his brain out and replaced it with haggis. But then he banned the importation of haggis, obviously fearing the competition of an intellectual equal, so how can we believe him?
Alan, Trump lies, sure like most politicians. That doesn't mean everything he says is a lie. It does mean you should be more considerate of the reality that he has on occasion lied.
I'm suggesting he was lying, not that he didnt see evidence but that the evidence he saw came from China.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 16:07:13
They have ruled out the wuhan laboratory as the sourse. Any idea how we could get them to investigate Fort Detrick?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 16:09:43
That doesn't mean everything he says is a lie.
No, but it obviously means that anything he says needs to be back-checked for accuracy. If you can't check it, then you should be suspicious of its truth value.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 16:31:08
That doesn't mean everything he says is a lie.
No, but it obviously means that anything he says needs to be back-checked for accuracy. If you can't check it, then you should be suspicious of its truth value.
Sure but Trump is not the only American official to have made this claim, there have been repeated articles from different people making the same claim.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 16:36:13
The report concluded that her tries to Russia and her assistance in allowing Russia to gain a position in the company 'uranium 1' and so a substantial part of Americas uranium productionRussia has plenty of uranium, and doesn't need to concern itself with America's supply.
It was a geopolitical endeavour by Russia to capture uranium production, some senators expressed concerns this could lead to Russia controlling upto 50% of Americas uranium production.
6 minutes long
Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election had a group investigate her greatest weakness when it came to challenging Trump in the election.
"The Uranium One controversy involves various theories promoted by conservative media, politicians, and commentators that characterized the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom as a $145 million bribery scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever found."
That's not the issue, the issue is the internal report the Clinton campaign held before the election, the report suggested Clinton's ties to Russia would damage her election chances. so she invented a Russia smere to attack Trump with. She also paid for the steal dossier as part of the same agenda.
Starts at 3:40
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 18:53:21
so she invented a Russia smere to attack Trump with.Hillary Clinton did not invent Trump's ties to Russia.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-business-financial-ties-2018-11?r=US&IR=T
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumps-businesses-are-full-of-dirty-russian-money-the-scandal-is-thats-legal/2019/03/29/11b812da-5171-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html
https://www.ft.com/trumptoronto
The man's a liar and a crook who works with other crooks.
Anyway, back to the point.
Is there any real evidence that Covid originated anywhere other than Wuhan?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 20:48:13
so she invented a Russia smere to attack Trump with.Hillary Clinton did not invent Trump's ties to Russia.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-russia-business-financial-ties-2018-11?r=US&IR=T
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumps-businesses-are-full-of-dirty-russian-money-the-scandal-is-thats-legal/2019/03/29/11b812da-5171-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html
https://www.ft.com/trumptoronto
The man's a liar and a crook who works with other crooks.
So is Clinton a liar and a worse one. Not only did she try to smere Trump as a Russian asset- asset which is not the same thing as claiming conmections to the country.
She also rigged the DNC primary election in 2016 and so stole it from Bernie Sanders. Seth Rich a disgruntled Bernie supporter then sent Wikileaks the emails that proved she stole it. The NSA the CIA and the FBI all knew seth Rich had sent the emails. Seth Rich was later found murdered by who still isnt clear.
Not only did they all know Seth rich had sent the emails to Wikileaks in 2016 they all supported Hillary Clinton's lie about Trump and Russia and pretend Russia had hacked the DNC.
After this Hilary paid for the now debunked for the steal dossier from Mark Steal.
It's lies on lies, which lead to years of Trump being falsely accused of being a Russain asset. but naturally as trump during the presidential election campaign had called for bridges to be built between America and Russia and a reduction in military spending. Russia gate served to prevent Trump building bridges or reducing arms to combat the supposed threat from Russia.
Anyway, back to the point.
Is there any real evidence that Covid originated anywhere other than Wuhan?
That's why you have investigations, there is circumstancal evidence it may have come from fort Detrick
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 20:52:31
there is circumstancal evidence it may have come from fort DetrickReally?
What?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 20:59:42
Sure but Trump is not the only American official to have made this claim, there have been repeated articles from different people making the same claim.
What was their evidence?
Post by: charles1948 on 09/02/2021 21:04:00
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:16:07
The hold up is in-of-itself suspicious.
How do you figure?
It's suspicious because a peer review should not take so long. The delay could imply certian interests do not want the truth to come out and are stalling the process.
If covid 19 was in Spain in March 2019, that completely changes the current narrative. And there are interests that like the current narrative
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:17:11
Sure but Trump is not the only American official to have made this claim, there have been repeated articles from different people making the same claim.
What was their evidence?
Ask them.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:20:46
I think the Chinese were experimenting with a new biological weapon, and, by accident, it got prematurely released.
I think it's more likley out of an American laboratory and probably arrived in Wuhan with the Wuhan Military games that took place in Oct 2019
Everyone who took part in the games should be tested for antibodies.
Military labs produce these bio weapons you would expect an accidental release to hit military personel first.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 21:23:05
Ask them.
I don't even know who "they" are.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:27:01
You just Google officials claim covid lab created.Ask them.
I don't even know who "they" are.
The sun:-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11511043/wuhan-lab-blamed-for-coronavirus-lied-about-safety-precautions-it-took-during-controversial-bat-tests/
"US and British intelligence officials suspect bungling scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally spread the killer disease during risky coronavirus tests on bats."
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 21:31:32
"US and British intelligence officials suspect bungling scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally spread the killer disease during risky coronavirus tests on bats."
...and that somehow leads you to believe COVID started at Fort Detrick?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 21:39:16
The delay could imply certian interests do not want the truth to come out and are stalling the process.That would be consistent with the authors not wanting to look foolish.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 21:41:27
Also The Sun.You just Google officials claim covid lab created.Ask them.
I don't even know who "they" are.
The sun:-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11511043/wuhan-lab-blamed-for-coronavirus-lied-about-safety-precautions-it-took-during-controversial-bat-tests/
"US and British intelligence officials suspect bungling scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally spread the killer disease during risky coronavirus tests on bats."
https://www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/e28098freddie-starr-ate-my-hamster-crowned-the-suns-most-iconic-cover-14939
It's not evidence, it's a comic.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:41:46
"US and British intelligence officials suspect bungling scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally spread the killer disease during risky coronavirus tests on bats."
...and that somehow leads you to believe COVID started at Fort Detrick?
No you obviously have not read the rest of the thread.
What leads me to suspect fort Detrick is that it was closed by the CDC in July 2019, for mishandling atleast 6 different biological weapons materials, there were also leaks into water supplies.
This closuse was 2 weeks after a nursing home in Virginia had an outbreak of a respiratory infection.
I suspect the investigation into the nursing home outbreak, lead to the closure of fort Detrick. The closure of fort Detrick happened 2 weeks after the outbreak occurred.
The nursing home is a 4 mile drive, maybe someone from fort Detrick had a family member there.
But as we dont know how long this miss managed had been going on and how long agents had been escaping.
A potential release of covid could have made it's way to the elderly home naturally over a course of weeks, 80% show mild to no symptoms with covid, there is up to a month incubation.
If it was covid at the old peoples home they would have probably caught it 2 weeks prior to the out break.
But under national security American isnt releasing what they know.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 21:44:15
there is circumstancal evidence it may have come from fort DetrickReally?
What?
So, you think the fact that it was closed means they were managing to create a stupid choice for a bioweapon, and then get it to China where it spread .
OK, how do you imagine they smuggled a lethal virus into a biohazard lab in a hostile country?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:45:55
there is circumstancal evidence it may have come from fort DetrickReally?
What?
So, you think the fact that it was closed means they were managing to create a stupid choice for a bioweapon, and then get it to China where it spread .
OK, how do you imagine they smuggled a lethal virus into a biohazard lab in a hostile country?
At the wuhan games with Asymptomatic soldiers who competed
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 21:47:16
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:50:07
And somehow, the pandemic started in China instead of in Maryland. Right.
No if this is true the outbreak started in the old peoples home. The American authorities new it was active but kept it quiet.
With 80% being Asymptomatic, and the misdiagnose of it simply being a bad case of the flu...
Wuhan games was in October, the outbreak in the old peoples home started in the end of June beginning of July. That's 3 months before the games. They only had to keep it quiet for 3 months.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 21:51:49
if this is true
That's the big "if", isn't it? What's the evidence that COVID cases started in the US before they started in China?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 21:56:42
if this is true
That's the big "if", isn't it? What's the evidence that COVID cases started in the US before they started in China?
Good luck, under national security, America isn't releasing the information. About what was mishandled or what escaped.
All good and well basing a postion on evidence when people seek to hide evidence. America should be fourth comming to rule out the possibility.
If it's TRUE it's on Trump.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:01:11
Good luck, under national security, America isn't releasing the information. About what was mishandled or what escaped.
All good and well basing a postion on evidence when people seek to hide evidence. America should be fourth comming to rule out the possibility.
Let's see, there are two scenarios that can explain the publicly-available evidence:
Scenario 1: Those cases weren't COVID, but some other illness.
Scenario 2: The cases were COVID, but the government covered it up.
Scenario 1 makes fewer assumptions, and as such, is favored by Occam's razor.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:08:48
Good luck, under national security, America isn't releasing the information. About what was mishandled or what escaped.
All good and well basing a postion on evidence when people seek to hide evidence. America should be fourth comming to rule out the possibility.
Let's see, there are two scenarios that can explain the publicly-available evidence:
Scenario 1: Those cases weren't COVID, but some other illness.
Scenario 2: The cases were COVID, but the government covered it up.
Scenario 1 makes fewer assumptions, and as such, is favored by Occam's razor.
Well there is also this
https://nypost.com/2020/12/01/covid-19-was-likely-in-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-study/
"The scientists based their conclusion off routine blood samples collected by the American Red Cross from residents in nine states between Dec. 13, 2019, and Jan. 17.
Those blood samples were tested at the CDC — and evidence of coronavirus antibodies was found in 106 out of the 7,389 blood donations analyzed, the study says."
When they caught covid isnt clear, the analysis is based on the assumption covid started in wuhan
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:11:30
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:20:51
And that's evidence that it came from Fort Detrick, how?
They took blood samples from 9 states in December 2019 through to January, 106 people had antibodies. We dont know when they caught it. But given that the time needed for the body to produce antibodies, at a minimum they would have caught covid in November, exactly the same time the pandemic started in China. There was no "pandemic until Chinese doctors identified the virus, before its identification it would have been labelled flu.
There is another point millions of Americans have no health care they cant go to a doctor. Unlike China where everyone is treated. Hence many people that caught a new viral infection in America would never be noticed
So its evidence that covid could have been in America first.
As for fort Detrick being the sourse, there is evidence to suggest it's possible.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:23:33
But given that the time needed for the body to produce antibodies, at a minimum they would have caught covid in November, exactly the same time the pandemic started in China.
Which doesn't rule out that it started in China. It certainly isn't evidence that it came from some kind of Fort Detrick mishap.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:25:44
But given that the time needed for the body to produce antibodies, at a minimum they would have caught covid in November, exactly the same time the pandemic started in China.
Which doesn't rule out that it started in China. It certainly isn't evidence that it came from some kind of Fort Detrick mishap.
The wuhan lab had no mishap, fort Detrick did.
But no it doesnt entirely rule out China, yet, it would mean the virus started at the same time in both counties, which is unlikely.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:27:50
The wuhan lab had no mishap, fort Detrick did.
So? That's not evidence that COVID had anything to do with Fort Detrick.
which is unlikely.
So are you arguing that it started at the same time in both countries or not? If not, then what is your evidence that it started in the US before China?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:35:03
The wuhan lab had no mishap, fort Detrick did.
So? That's not evidence that COVID had anything to do with Fort Detrick.
Also not evidence it didn't. But a bioweapom escaping from a laboratory that had a mishap is more likely then it escaping from one that didn't.
which is unlikely.
So are you arguing that it started at the same time in both countries or not? If not, then what is your evidence that it started in the US before China?
The evidence suggests it started at the same time. As that is unlikely, and as some scientists have suggested covid came from a laboratory. Fort Detrick is a far more likely contender.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:37:42
Also not evidence it didn't.
Just like there isn't evidence that COVID didn't begin at Area 51?
The evidence suggests it started at the same time. As that is unlikely, and as some scientists have suggested covid came from a laboratory. Fort Detrick is a far more likely contender.
How does "it started at the same time" somehow point to "it came from a lab"?
Post by: charles1948 on 09/02/2021 22:39:42
Why do they do it? Have they been brainwashed by left-wing propaganda?
I mean, it seems obvious that Covid-19 is of Chinese origin. Either from a Chinese lab, or one of their disgusting "wet markets" which sell bats and pangolins to eat.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 22:41:38
The evidence suggests it started at the same time.Same time as a while after Fort D was shut down.
That's just dim.
But a bioweapom escaping from a laboratory that had a mishap is more likely then it escaping from one that didn't.|Yes, so if it had surfaced in America you would have a point.
But it didn't. "ground zero" was about as far away as possible, geographically and politically.
Also, you seem not to have noticed; covid is a piss-poor weapon.
It hardly kills anyone who would be a soldier; it kills an unlucky 5% of their grandparents.
It isn't a plausible weapon, but it's a very plausible zoonotic infection with a bat virus.
Since it isn't a bioweapon, it isn't a bioweapon that escaped from anywhere, is it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:42:46
Also not evidence it didn't.
Just like there isn't evidence that COVID didn't begin at Area 51?
Sure, just area 51 isn't a bio weapons lab that was looking into bat Corona viruses, like fort Detrick was.
The evidence suggests it started at the same time. As that is unlikely, and as some scientists have suggested covid came from a laboratory. Fort Detrick is a far more likely contender.
How does "it started at the same time" somehow point to "it came from a lab"?
Seems a rather bizarre occurrence that a pandemic from a virus would suddenly appear in two place 1000s of miles apart at the same time. Certainly speaks against a natural zoological occurrence, and speaks to an intentional release.
But that's not what I suggest rather a relases from fort Detrick earlier in the year and a cover up by American officials.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 22:44:02
The evidence suggests it started at the same time.Same time as a while after Fort D was shut down.
That's just dim.But a bioweapom escaping from a laboratory that had a mishap is more likely then it escaping from one that didn't.|Yes, so if it had surfaced in America you would have a point.
But it didn't. "ground zero" was about as far away as possible, geographically and politically.
Also, you seem not to have noticed; covid is a piss-poor weapon.
It hardly kills anyone who would be a soldier; it kills an unlucky 5% of their grandparents.
It isn't a plausible weapon, but it's a very plausible zoonotic infection with a bat virus.
Since it isn't a bioweapon, it isn't a bioweapon that escaped from anywhere, is it?
Depends what you want the weapon to achieve. Bio weapons that kill, don't spread far.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 22:46:34
Sure, just area 51 isn't a bio weapons lab that was looking into bat Corona viruses, like fort Detrick was.
How do you know?
Seems a rather bizarre occurrence that a pandemic from a virus would suddenly appear in two place 1000s of miles apart at the same time. Certainly speaks against a natural zoological occurrence, and speaks to an intentional release.
Hardly. All you need is both American tourists and native Chinese present at ground zero at the same time. Nothing artificial required.
But that's not what I suggest rather a relases from fort Detrick earlier in the year and a cover up by American officials.
For which you have not been able to supply evidence.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 23:00:04
Sure, just area 51 isn't a bio weapons lab that was looking into bat Corona viruses, like fort Detrick was.
How do you know?
Well area 51 is the well known military base that deals with experimental air craft. While it's a clarified area, I've never seem any suggestion they engage in biological warfare. They do hide aliens according to some people.
Seems a rather bizarre occurrence that a pandemic from a virus would suddenly appear in two place 1000s of miles apart at the same time. Certainly speaks against a natural zoological occurrence, and speaks to an intentional release.
Hardly. All you need is both American tourists and native Chinese present at ground zero at the same time. Nothing artificial required.
Which can go in either direction.
But that's not what I suggest rather a relases from fort Detrick earlier in the year and a cover up by American officials.
For which you have not been able to supply evidence.
Well we know fort Detrick was a bio weapons laboratory.
We know they were researching bat Corona viruses.
We know that they had a leak of the materials they were testing.
We know that as a result of the leaks the CDC closed them.
We know 2 weeks before they closed fort Detrick a relatively close old peoples home suffered an out break of a respiratory virus.
And we know that red cross workers 106 of them had caught covid 19 atleast in November and possibly earlier.
We know the virus was not formally identified until China did so at the end of 2019.
And we know many Americans have no health care so any new virus present in the population would go unnoticed easier then it would in a country like China.
We also know under national security the American administration isn't releasing the details of what escaped from fort Detrick.
But clearly suspecting fort Detrick to be the sourse of covid a bat Corona virus outbreak, is a stretch.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 23:02:02
We also know under national security the American administration isn't releasing the details of what escaped from first Detrick.
Which means there's no evidence that COVID-19 was released from there.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 23:04:18
We also know under national security the American administration isn't releasing the details of what escaped from first Detrick.
Which means there's no evidence that COVID-19 was released from there.
Poor scientists, the security establishment is always going to dance round you.
The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL!
Post by: Kryptid on 09/02/2021 23:10:18
The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL!
I never it wasn't. It's just not particularly conclusive evidence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 23:11:16
Depends what you want the weapon to achieve.In what military scenario would covid be useful?
The evidence is CIRCUMSTANTIAL!You spelled "imaginary" wrongly.
Post by: charles1948 on 09/02/2021 23:18:31
What's it doing anyway on a scientific website. Why should the origin of CV-19 matter.
Shouldn't we be discussing only how to deal with it. Not where it came from. Even if it was the Chinese.
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/02/2021 23:20:54
Is there any point continuing this debate?
What's it doing anyway on a scientific website. Why should the origin of CV-19 matter.
Shouldn't we be discussing only how to deal with it. Not where it came from. Even if it was the Chinese.
Here we go.. scared are you?
It is very important if it's from a laboratory and can be proven, those that developed it might have answers for treatments and cures, it is often the case, they make biological warfare tools to then build defenses against them. If this came from a laboratory they may well have those defenses.
Hence it is important to discuss this, and to investigate to find out. Sure if it's from a laboratory those responsible will seek to deny it. But should it be proven they will be forced to provide their research and that may contain a cure or a better treatment.
Hence it is extremely important to have this debate and have an investigation. .
Post by: charles1948 on 09/02/2021 23:49:40
1. A trade war with China; or
2. A nuclear war with China.
And neither of these is acceptable.
So China will be found blameless by any investigation.
Post by: set fair on 10/02/2021 02:42:43
Also, you seem not to have noticed; covid is a piss-poor weapon.
It hardly kills anyone who would be a soldier; it kills an unlucky 5% of their grandparents.
It isn't a plausible weapon, but it's a very plausible zoonotic infection with a bat virus.
Not a bad weapon if you wany to cause economic damage though, well if you think it is unstable
(eg you think the instability of ORF 8 means the virus will be gone by easter last year) and your side will escape much damage. It could have escaped a US lab and then have been released in Wuhan to deflect the blame. It could have escaped the Wuhan lab. It could be due to natural zoonotic spillover. The facts are compatible with several possible origins.
The main fact in favour of it being man-made is virologist claiming that it couldn't be man-made. Newly discoverd coronaviruses are routinely tested on human cell culture to evaluate their potential to infect people. Gain of function could improve binding by survival of the fittest in cell culture, then add on some helper proteins so that it can evade the immune system and reproduce more quickly. I doubt it's even difficult. So why are virologists in denial?
Just saying.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 10/02/2021 03:50:26
No "investigation" will show that China is to blame. Because that would lead to either:Plus the fact China has had 10 months to sterilise the entire country. But it is wierd that the wuhan virus lab has a history of containment failure.
1. A trade war with China; or
2. A nuclear war with China.
And neither of these is acceptable.
So China will be found blameless by any investigation.
Post by: evan_au on 10/02/2021 08:09:21
Quote from: Jolly2
The retirement home is a 4 hour drive from the facility.
Quote from: Jolly2
The nursing home is a 4 mile drive, maybe someone from fort Detrick had a family member thereSo, which is it?
- Do all employees at biolabs drive at 1 mile per hour?
- More likely, residents of nursing homes push their walking frame at 1 mile per hour when visiting their grandchildren at bioweapons facilities...
How do you know that there wasn't a flu outbreak in the nursing home?
- The flu has been known to travel much faster than 1 mile per hour.
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 22:22:09
No "investigation" will show that China is to blame. Because that would lead to either:
1. A trade war with China; or
Trump just spent the last four years engaged in a trade war with China.
2. A nuclear war with China.
And neither of these is acceptable.
So China will be found blameless by any investigation.
The WHO already has. I still feel fort Detrick is a more likely culprit.
I understand if it was released accidentally the scientists involved would have concerns about comming forward. Yet they could be offered immunity from prosecution for doing so. if they did come forward and provide the defensive techniques they developed it would save lives and end the pandemic, a trade immunity from prosecution for the tools to end the virus.
Ofcourse if this did escape a lab it's not the scientists covering it up but the security services.
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 22:24:43
Quote from: Jolly2The retirement home is a 4 hour drive from the facility.Quote from: Jolly2The nursing home is a 4 mile drive, maybe someone from fort Detrick had a family member thereSo, which is it?
- Do all employees at biolabs drive at 1 mile per hour?
- More likely, residents of nursing homes push their walking frame at 1 mile per hour when visiting their grandchildren at bioweapons facilities...
How do you know that there wasn't a flu outbreak in the nursing home?
It wasn't listed as flu. It was listed as a rare unknown respiratory infection.
We don't know how long the laboratory was releasing materials. I speculate that the outbreak lead to the closure of the lab 2 weeks later.
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 22:32:01
Also, you seem not to have noticed; covid is a piss-poor weapon.
It hardly kills anyone who would be a soldier; it kills an unlucky 5% of their grandparents.
It isn't a plausible weapon, but it's a very plausible zoonotic infection with a bat virus.
Not a bad weapon if you wany to cause economic damage though, well if you think it is unstable
(eg you think the instability of ORF 8 means the virus will be gone by easter last year) and your side will escape much damage.
Some people are arguing this. That's it's been intentionally released to destroy the economy. I'm not prepared to go so far, but if it was, then the Build back better agenda of Davos, would inherently be a complicit party.
It could have escaped a US lab and then have been released in Wuhan to deflect the blame. It could have escaped the Wuhan lab. It could be due to natural zoonotic spillover. The facts are compatible with several possible origins.
The main fact in favour of it being man-made is virologist claiming that it couldn't be man-made.
Some virolgists are claiming it was man made, as the quote I often reference from the Norwegian "we have never seen a Corona virus with these properties anywhere in nature but we have in Laboratories there for the most logical explanation is that it has come from a lab."
Newly discoverd coronaviruses are routinely tested on human cell culture to evaluate their potential to infect people. Gain of function could improve binding by survival of the fittest in cell culture, then add on some helper proteins so that it can evade the immune system and reproduce more quickly. I doubt it's even difficult. So why are virologists in denial?
Just saying.
a fair question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 22:32:52
Not a bad weapon if you wany to cause economic damage though,Largely to yourself.
That's the big problem with bioweapons.
Shouldn't we be discussing only how to deal with it. Not where it came from.The two are not mutually exclusive.
But it is wierd that the wuhan virus lab has a history of containment failure.Not really. "they all do"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12615-faulty-pipe-blamed-for-uk-foot-and-mouth-outbreak/
It turns out that pathogens are better at escape than we are at containment.
I still feel fort Detrick is a more likely culprit.You feel that even though it's a closed lab at the wrong end of the planet, when there's no valid reason to suppose that a lab was involved anyway.
Do you see why I think your view is irrational?
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/02/2021 23:47:59
Not a bad weapon if you wany to cause economic damage though,Largely to yourself.
That's the big problem with bioweapons.
But helpful if you had an agenda to completely change the way the economy functions. I wonder if anyone has been suggesting we use this "opportunity" to totally change the way society works.
Shouldn't we be discussing only how to deal with it. Not where it came from.The two are not mutually exclusive.But it is wierd that the wuhan virus lab has a history of containment failure.Not really. "they all do"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12615-faulty-pipe-blamed-for-uk-foot-and-mouth-outbreak/
It turns out that pathogens are better at escape than we are at containment.
Which is why this research should be stopped, there should be an international agreement that biological warfare be banned, just as they did with cluster bombs and land mines.
I still feel fort Detrick is a more likely culprit.You feel that even though it's a closed lab at the wrong end of the planet,
Its only on the wrong end if Wuhan is the source of the outbreak, try and keep up.
when there's no valid reason to suppose that a lab was involved anyway.
Do you see why I think your view is irrational?
You're stuck on the theory wuhan is the sourse. WHO have already ruled out the wuhan lab, fort Detrick should have a WHO investigation. All I ask for, an investigation, due to the circumstantial evidence that a bio weapons laboratory that was studying bat Corona viruses had a leak.
Post by: evan_au on 11/02/2021 07:22:39
Quote from: Jolly2
there should be an international agreement that biological warfare be bannedThe Biological Weapons Convention came into force in 1975.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention
Quote
a bio weapons laboratory that was studying bat Corona viruses had a leakHow about bats that were suffering from bat viruses had a leak?
- It wouldn't be the first time, see SARS, MERS and Hendra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henipavirus
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 08:37:56
Its only on the wrong end if Wuhan is the source of the outbreak, try and keep up.No.
It's the wrong end of the planet because Wuhan is where the virus actually showed up. The virus had to get there, and it hasn't got legs.
Which is why this research should be stopped, there should be an international agreement that biological warfare be banned,There is, and has been for decades:
try and keep up.
All I ask for, an investigation, due to the circumstantial evidence that a bio weapons laboratory that was studying bat Corona viruses had a leak.And then the virus went to China, to a city with bats infected with similar viruses.
You're stuck on the theory wuhan is the sourse.It's not a "theory", it's an observation.
This is a massively infectious virus. It can't "lie low" anywhere.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 15:43:38
Quote from: Jolly2there should be an international agreement that biological warfare be bannedThe Biological Weapons Convention came into force in 1975.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.
They are all therefore acting either criminally or are using loop-Holes that have to be closed.
Quotea bio weapons laboratory that was studying bat Corona viruses had a leakHow about bats that were suffering from bat viruses had a leak?
- It wouldn't be the first time, see SARS, MERS and Hendra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henipavirus
No one suggested it wasnt a possibility, but when some are claiming they have seen evidence it did come from a laboratory and some virologists also claim it appears man made, that is also a possibility.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 17:52:22
Covid is known to be a very infectious disease with a high mortality- particularly among the elderly.
If it was "released" anywhere it would start an outbreak- we know this because outbreaks happened as a consequence of people carrying the disease to places where it was not previously present.
So, if it was "somewhere else" before it was in Wuhan, how come that place didn't have an outbreak and an epidemic before Wuhan?
Until you can explain why the virus didn't infect people, your ideas have no credibility whatsoever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 17:52:59
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.Do you have proof of that?
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 23:08:07
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.Do you have proof of that?
On my last check 15 countries had biological weapons labs,
Obviously Wuhan in China, Fort Detrick in America, Porton Down in Britian.
"It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea."
https://www.wionews.com/science/what-are-biological-weapons-here-is-a-list-of-countries-that-possess-them-330033
I believe France also.
I'll see if I can find the old article I read regarding exactly which countries are still engaged it was 15 tho
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/02/2021 23:15:47
Jolly; you really need to explain something if you want your idea to be taken seriously.
Covid is known to be a very infectious disease with a high mortality- particularly among the elderly.
If it was "released" anywhere it would start an outbreak- we know this because outbreaks happened as a consequence of people carrying the disease to places where it was not previously present.
So, if it was "somewhere else" before it was in Wuhan, how come that place didn't have an outbreak and an epidemic before Wuhan?
Until you can explain why the virus didn't infect people, your ideas have no credibility whatsoever.
Again you are ignoring that 80% of people infected show mild to no symptoms. Deaths only Occur with the elderly save a very low percentage who are younger but have underlying conditions.
As stated before Covid was in China atleast 2 months before they isolated it.
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for atleast a month.
For it to have originated in America, it would only have had to spread unnoticed for 3 months, with a one month incubation that's 2 months with 80% showing mild to no symptoms and only the venerable dying, as America has millions without health care, many infected with serious symptoms would not even see a doctor, and those that did may well have been misdiagnosed as Flu, Covid didnt exist until China identified it in the December, and as we know red cross workers had caught covid at some time before December when they had routine blood tests.
Did they catch it 3 months earlier? We dont know. could they have?certianly if it came from fort Detrick.
Further more the R0 for covid is between 1.4 and 2.5.
Hence if patient 0 was in America it would.take a rather long time to spread amoung the population.
So person infecting another 1 or 2 people then incubation period of a minimum of 2 weeks, that's a doubling of numbers every fortnight, after 3 months you'd go from 1 person infected to 64 people in 3 months.
And we know arround 106 red cross workers had antibodies for covid in December 2019
So if patient 0 was in America in June then by September you would only have 64 people infected.
Your suggestion they'd notice mass pandemic of deaths is total nonsense.
64 in September
128 mid October
256 at the end of October
512 mid November
1024 at the end of November
2048 mid December
4096 at the end of December
We know 106 red cross workers from 9 different states has antibodies in December.
To get 106 people infected takes with the RO of covid atleast 3 months.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 00:54:21
Jolly; you really need to explain something if you want your idea to be taken seriously.
Covid is known to be a very infectious disease with a high mortality- particularly among the elderly.
If it was "released" anywhere it would start an outbreak- we know this because outbreaks happened as a consequence of people carrying the disease to places where it was not previously present.
So, if it was "somewhere else" before it was in Wuhan, how come that place didn't have an outbreak and an epidemic before Wuhan?
Until you can explain why the virus didn't infect people, your ideas have no credibility whatsoever.
Again you are ignoring that 80% of people infected show mild to no symptoms. Deaths only Occur with the elderly save a very low percentage who are younger but have underlying conditions.
As stated before Covid was in China atleast 2 months before they isolated it.
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for atleast a month.
For it to have originated in America, it would only have had to spread unnoticed for 3 months, with a one month incubation that's 2 months with 80% showing mild to no symptoms and only the venerable dying, as America has millions without health care, many infected with serious symptoms would not even see a doctor, and those that did may well have been misdiagnosed as Flu, Covid didnt exist until China identified it in the December, and as we know red cross workers had caught covid at some time before December when they had routine blood tests.
Did they catch it 3 months earlier? We dont know. could they have?certianly if it came from fort Detrick.
Further more the R0 for covid is between 1.4 and 2.5.
Hence if patient 0 was in America it would.take a rather long time to spread amoung the population.
So person infecting another 1 or 2 people then incubation period of a minimum of 2 weeks, that's a doubling of numbers every fortnight, after 3 months you'd go from 1 person infected to 64 people in 3 months.
And we know arround 106 red cross workers had antibodies for covid in December 2019
So if patient 0 was in America in June then by September you would only have 64 people infected.
Your suggestion they'd notice mass pandemic of deaths is total nonsense.
64 in September
128 mid October
256 at the end of October
512 mid November
1024 at the end of November
2048 mid December
4096 at the end of December
We know 106 red cross workers from 9 different states has antibodies in December.
To get 106 people infected takes with the RO of covid atleast 3 months.
Let's put this together with the samples of covid found in Spain in March.
And lets assume the old people home that had a respiratory out break, that the virus travelled naturally to the location from fort Detrick, so let's assume no one working at fort Detrick had family members at the old peoples home.
So with a transmission R0 of between 1.4 and 2.5 you expect a doubling every 2 weeks, and in the surround area from patent 0.
Takes 3 months to get to 64 people infected from the initial patient 0.
The outbreak in the old peoples home happened at the end of june.
Pushing back 3 months gives April. Pushing back 4 gives March and 5 months would be February.
So if someone did have covid in Spain in March 2019 and fort Detrick was the source for patient 0 at a minimum you would have to have February as the start.
So following that speculative line, patient 0 in February.
February, March and April at the end of which you would have 64 people infected given the RO and one of them having travelled to Spain in March.
64 people in April
128 mid may
256 at the end of may
512 mid june
1024 at the end of June(when the infection in the old peoples home happened)
2048 mid July
4096 at the end of July
8192 mid August.(but not only in America, where ever the infected people travelled its 8192 across the world)
16,384 end of August-world wide total
32,768 mid September
65,000 end of September
131,072 mid October
262.144 end of October world wide when China noticed people with respiratory infections
524,288 mid November
1,048,576 hits one million world wide total infections at the end of November.
2,097,152 mid December.
4,194,304 new year 2020 world wide infected total.
So with covid RO it would take
Arround 11 months to get to from patient 0 to get to 4 million infected world wide.
We see big numbers in China at this time, also in Iran and itialy predominantly, so that 4 million infected needs to be devided up with that in mind.
All a question of who travelled where.
Means if that happened, Fort Detrick would have been realising material for arround 5 months unnoticed.
Looking at the death rate quote
"This table is for entire populations, and does not reflect the differences in mortality rates relative to different age groups. For example, in the United States the case fatality rate is 0.003%, 0.02%; 0.5% and 5.4% for the age groups 0–19, 20–49, 50–69, and 70 or over, respectively."
The table gives an average of about 2%.
So what is 0.003% of 4 million?
At 0.5% its 20,000 at 0.25% its 10,000 At 0.125% its 5000 at 0.0625% it's 2,500, at 0.03123% its 1,250. And 0.03% Still way over 0.003%
So with 4 million infected world wide at 0.03% death rate you get 1,250 deaths, world wide low end figure and around 40,000 high end world wide.
Let's devide it between the two.
So a breakdown of the 4 million infected world wide would be around
20,000- Deaths
3.2 million Asymptomatic or with mild symptoms
780,000 with more severe symptoms.
In the begining of January end of December with patient 0 being in February.
Anyone know the world wide death toll for covid 19 in January 2020?
Post by: set fair on 12/02/2021 02:25:59
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 02:29:43
Try Googling R0 doubling time. I found this one https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doubling-time-Average-doubling-time-dots-and-95-CI-vertical-lines-as-a-function-of_fig5_258956572
Thanks for the link
This article https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/25/global-death-toll-coronavirus-passes-20000-12457745/
Global deaths hit 20,000 in March. That's 2 months later, pushing in my numbers, patient 0 to April 2019.
Of course the numbers go up with the elderly, hence the virus could spread and miss them for a time, and deaths may well have been misdiagnosed at the beginning of the pandemic.
Hence that 20,000 in March is known to have died of, with the people they didnt record dying and not being listed as covid, the 20,000 number would have been sooner. Ummm 2 months sooner?
Split the difference so one month sooner, that's 20,000 deaths in February with some misdiagnosis. And patient 0 in March. Exactly when they found samples in Spanish sewage.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 02:49:11
Try Googling R0 doubling time. I found this one https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doubling-time-Average-doubling-time-dots-and-95-CI-vertical-lines-as-a-function-of_fig5_258956572
Thanks for the link
This article https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/25/global-death-toll-coronavirus-passes-20000-12457745/
Global deaths hit 20,000 in March. That's 2 months later, pushing in my numbers, patient 0 to April 2019.
Of course the numbers go up with the elderly, hence the virus could spread and miss them for a time, and deaths may well have been misdiagnosed at the beginning of the pandemic.
Hence that 20,000 in March is known to have died of, with the people they didnt record dying and not being listed as covid, the 20,000 number would have been sooner. Ummm 2 months sooner?
Split the difference so one month sooner, that's 20,000 deaths in February with some misdiagnosis. And patient 0 in March. Exactly when they found samples in Spanish sewage.
So if fort Detrick is the source of the pandemic it would mean an accidental leak in March, with someone travelling directly to Spain.
Or it's an intentional release in Spain in March.
Umm the new spainsh flu, very clever.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 14:25:10
Try Googling R0 doubling time. I found this one https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Doubling-time-Average-doubling-time-dots-and-95-CI-vertical-lines-as-a-function-of_fig5_258956572
This is a nice site from oxford university.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus
Still with regards to the R0 we know its between 1.4 and 2.5.
There is in incubation period of up to a month, but it's all relative to how much viral load a person receives when they first come into contact with Covid, the lower the load the longer the incubation period.
Averaging out to a doubling every two weeks should give a result that takes in both the low and high ends.
By my calculations its patient 0 to 16 million infections in 365 days, takes a year. 11 months is 4 million, the fortnightly doubling brings an explosion in the last month of the year, of an added 12 million infections.
Post by: set fair on 12/02/2021 15:37:44
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 16:50:52
At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.
You're missing the incubation period, which can take upto a month, where people have covid in their body but it is only in a small viral amount, as the infection spreads in their body and becomes greater they start to become infectious/contagious.
The incubation period is between 1 day and a month. So I set at 2 weeks.
From when a person comes into contact with the virus and when they start to transmit the virus themselves isnt instantaneous, and is very dependent of the viral load they recieve.
So setting a 2 week incubation gives a 2 week doubling.
Certianly some will become contagious sooner and others later, the choice of 2 weeks balances out the numbers at an average.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2021 16:57:42
At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.The actual period for Corona virus transmission is 4 days from contact, with the standardised non controlled reproduction rate of 3 in wuhan in 2 months starting from one you would havenewly infected number of 4.75 million, and a total case count of around 9 million, another 4 days and that rises to around the 25 million mark.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 17:26:57
At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.The actual period for Corona virus transmission is 4 days from contact, with the standardised non controlled reproduction rate of 3 in wuhan in 2 months starting from one you would havenewly infected number of 4.75 million, and a total case count of around 9 million, another 4 days and that rises to around the 25 million mark.
Ok where is the data?
People can only transit once infected in the throat or mouth, someone with an infection on the eyes, will take time for the virus to present in the throat area. Same with someone who catches the virus by touching something and then rubbing their eyes.
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
As.we see here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7986663/Incubation-period-new-coronavirus-long-24-DAYS-expert-claims.html
A 24 day incubation period.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 17:39:12
At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.The actual period for Corona virus transmission is 4 days from contact, with the standardised non controlled reproduction rate of 3 in wuhan in 2 months starting from one you would havenewly infected number of 4.75 million, and a total case count of around 9 million, another 4 days and that rises to around the 25 million mark.
Ok where is the data?
People can only transit once infected in the throat or mouth, someone with an infection on the eyes, will take time for the virus to present in the throat area. Same with someone who catches the virus by touching something and then rubbing their eyes.
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
As.we see here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7986663/Incubation-period-new-coronavirus-long-24-DAYS-expert-claims.html
A 24 day incubation period.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incubation-period/
27 days as listed above.
"However, a case with an incubation period of 27 days has been reported by Hubei Province local government on Feb. 22"
So that's 27 days from first contact to becoming contagious.
No wonder 1 month lock downs achieved nothing.
To cover a month incubation period and
Dr. Abdulbaaqee explained. "Those with moderate to severe symptoms may be infectious 20 days following symptom onset."
You need a minimum of 7 weeks for lockdown to be successful.
Still lock downs wont completely stop transmission, and anyone contracting half way though can potentially become contagious after the lock down has finished.
With everyone wearing masks, viral loads people receive are lessened but with a lower viral load the incubation period is increased.
Hence with an R0 of two setting a 2 week doubling rate is fine.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 18:33:58
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.
"It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea."So you think 7 is he same as 15.
https://www.wionews.com/science/what-are-biological-weapons-here-is-a-list-of-countries-that-possess-them-330033
I believe France also.
Why do you post this nonsense?
Again you are ignoring that 80% of people infected show mild to no symptoms. Deaths only Occur with the elderly save a very low percentage who are younger but have underlying conditions.I'm not ignoring that.
I'm just pointing out that , if there was a plague developing in Spain, they would have spotted it- even if it mainly affected the elderly: just like they noticed in China.
And you keep trying to ignore this.
But it's even stupider than that. Once the outbreak in China was well underway and the Chinese had stopped lying to the West about it, they had a disaster.
But, if the virus started somewhere else then it would have had a "head start" on the Chinese outbreak.
But that simply didn't happen.
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for at least a month.That's just not true, either historically, or mathematically.
It did not take a month for cases in the UK to turn into outbreaks.
With an R value of about 3 and a typical time from infection to contagion of a few days you get an explosive growth within a month.
Call it 4 days and, even if you ignore delayed cases, in a month you get 3^7.5 cases.
If 3700 people all suddenly get sick, the healthcare system will notice.
The things that makes the difference is not "it might take up to a month to show up" because, in that month they will infect any people in whom it will show up faster and those people in turn will infect others.
So, by focussing on "up to a month" you are missing the "yes, but almost always faster".
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for atleast a month.So, based on your misunderstanding of "Slowest" vs "fastest" you think it can hide for a month, But then you say well if it can hide for a month then it can hide for 3 months.
For it to have originated in America, it would only have had to spread unnoticed for 3 months,
That's absurd.
The only way a virus can hide is not to infect people and, if it did that, it would die out
In 3 months you would run out of people to infect. The numbers (3^22) say about 31 billion cases.
In reality its everyone who isn't on an isolated island.
Exactly when they found samples in Spanish sewage.If the virus was in sewage in March then it must have been in people in March.
So why didn't it cause an outbreak?
It's just silly to say "it was in the sewers" because the testing isn't good enough to confirm that
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"Not really.
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
4 days is a fair average.
Your insistence that only the "a month" is relevant is absurd.
You don't estimate the spread an epidemic based on the slowest bugs.
Just because Jack might take a month to get it, that doesn't stop John and Jill spreading it within the week (typically in about 4 days)
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 19:26:38
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents."It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea."So you think 7 is he same as 15.
https://www.wionews.com/science/what-are-biological-weapons-here-is-a-list-of-countries-that-possess-them-330033
I believe France also.
Why do you post this nonsense?
No I think 7 is more then 0 as the law requires.
Why do you ignore what is actually said and keep on trolling.
Again you are ignoring that 80% of people infected show mild to no symptoms. Deaths only Occur with the elderly save a very low percentage who are younger but have underlying conditions.I'm not ignoring that.
I'm just pointing out that , if there was a plague developing in Spain, they would have spotted it- even if it mainly affected the elderly: just like they noticed in China.
And you keep trying to ignore this.
But it's even stupider than that. Once the outbreak in China was well underway and the Chinese had stopped lying to the West about it, they had a disaster.
But, if the virus started somewhere else then it would have had a "head start" on the Chinese outbreak.
But that simply didn't happen.
They would spotted at 6 months when the amount of infected people reached over a 1000 maybe.
But as the virus didnt exist as far as doctors were concerned. As miss diagnosis of flu and 80% of infected being asymptomatic.
They are not for months going to see anything.
You need about 4 million people infected to get 20,000 deaths .
The time needed to infect 4 million is 11 months.
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for at least a month.That's just not true, either historically, or mathematically.
It did not take a month for cases in the UK to turn into outbreaks.
You don't know when covid first came to the country. You only know when they started looking
With an R value of about 3 and a typical time from infection to contagion of a few days you get an explosive growth within a month.
Call it 4 days and, even if you ignore delayed cases, in a month you get 3^7.5 cases.
If 3700 people all suddenly get sick, the healthcare system will notice.
The things that makes the difference is not "it might take up to a month to show up" because, in that month they will infect any people in whom it will show up faster and those people in turn will infect others.
So, by focussing on "up to a month" you are missing the "yes, but almost always faster".
Read what Is actually written for once, I.was talking about a 2 week incubation not a month.
With upto a month for incubation, the virus can spread unnoticed very easily for atleast a month.So, based on your misunderstanding of "Slowest" vs "fastest" you think it can hide for a month,
For it to have originated in America, it would only have had to spread unnoticed for 3 months,
No again you are not reading properly patent 0 in month one infects at an R0 of 2, 8 people.
In America most of them wouldn't even get to see a doctor.
But then you say well if it can hide for a month then it can hide for 3 months.
That's absurd.
After 3.months it's only 64 people infected with a R0 of 2.
Mass deaths chemist clearly, 80% being asymptomatic, 12 people actually sick with more severe symptoms.
The only way a virus can hide is not to infect people and, if it did that, it would die out
In 3 months you would run out of people to infect. The numbers (3^22) say about 31 billion cases.
In reality its everyone who isn't on an isolated island.Exactly when they found samples in Spanish sewage.If the virus was in sewage in March then it must have been in people in March.
So why didn't it cause an outbreak?
It has where you been.
It's just silly to say "it was in the sewers" because the testing isn't good enough to confirm that
Sorry you'll have to wait for the peer review like the rest of us.
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"Not really.
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
4 days is a fair average.
Your insistence that only the "a month" is relevant is absurd.
You don't estimate the spread an epidemic based on the slowest bugs.
Just because Jack might take a month to get it, that doesn't stop John and Jill spreading it within the week (typically in about 4 days)
I wasnt basing on the slowest or the fastest I was basing in between the two, a middle speed pay attraction.
Post by: set fair on 12/02/2021 20:07:39
Post by: evan_au on 12/02/2021 20:26:47
Quote from: Jolly2
as we know red cross workers had caught covid at some time before December when they had routine blood tests.I missed the link to this story. What country was it in?
It is known that people who live near bat caves often have antibodies to bat viruses, especially if they visit the caves.
- But most bat viruses are not very transmissible in humans, so occasional deaths are not noticed, and the survivors have antibodies.
- That is the message of the WHO belated visit to China this month - the investigation team should have been on the ground in early January 2020, doing tests and interviews to trace the source of the outbreak. A year later, it's much harder to find out what happened.
Quote from: wionews, link from Jolly2
It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea.More countries will have biodefence programs.
That means looking for potential diseases that might affect agriculture, wildlife and/or humans.
- Investigating how they cause disease
- In case of risk, it may involve developing detection and treatment methods (eg vaccines), or recommending culling if the disease cannot be treated.
- In some cases, it has included "Gain of Function" studies, where they see what mutations it would take to make the disease more transmissible
The difference between defence and offence is that defence research deals with small quantities of the pathogen, and does not look at mass production and deployment techniques.
- But because pathogens are self-multiplying, even a small amount of an infectious pathogen is a dangerous thing!
Quote from: Jolly2
see a doctor...may well have been misdiagnosed as FluWe have quite good diagnosis of flu.
- And there is an international cooperation run through WHO keeping watch for new flu strains; this surveillance feeds into the annual flu vaccination program.
- So when people start turning up with a flu-like disease which isn't flu, alarm bells should start ringing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 20:31:45
Why do you ignore what is actually said and keep on trolling.What was actually said was
Yet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.You said it.
And 7 is still not 15.
They would spotted at 6 months when the amount of infected people reached over a 1000 maybe.
No again you are not reading properly patent 0 in month one infects at an R0 of 2,Is that a sensible value for R?
This would have been back when nobody realised that there was anything wrong. Nobody being careful, no compulsory masks no lockdown.
So, just like the early days of the Wuhan outbreak.
So the sensible value for R is the value of R for the first stages of the epidemic in Wuhan.
Let's have a look at that data.
It's here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79063-x
[ Invalid Attachment ]
It varies significantly but, in the early stages it's about 7.
So, please redo your calculation with R=7
You don't know when covid first came to the country.Yes we do.
We know what plane he arrived on.
"On 23 January - the day patient A landed in the UK with the student's father - "
From
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55622386
And we know roughly how it spread from there- quite quickly, even though people were on the lookout for it and being cautious. Nobody would have been being cautious about it before anyone knew about it for example, in Spain, months earlier.
Read what Is actually written for once, I.was talking about a 2 week incubation not a month.That's the time we get people to quarantine for. It's the upper limit to how long it takes to transmit.
The average time is about 4 days.
So please redo your calculation of how fast an outbreak grows in the early stages based on a 4 day mean time to infection and an R value of 7.
Then tell us all how they missed it for 3 months.
It has where you been.Where is the evidence of a mass outbreak in Spain triggered by those cases that must have been there in March 2019 in order for it to be found in the sewer?
(No, I don't mean the outbreak that everyone saw in 2020, I mean the one which you are implying in 2019, but which nobody noticed.)
Sorry you'll have to wait for the peer review like the rest of us.Actually, I don't.
I am a peer.
I can do my own review based on my professional knowledge.
And I know that it's much more likely that there's a glitch in the analysis - which is quite a common occurrence, than that a virus sat waiting in Spain and then suddenly went to China and became massively infectious.
Actually, I don't really need to be a peer to do that, do I?
A lab error is more likely than something impossible, isn't it?
I wasnt basing on the slowest or the fastest I was basing in between the two, a middle speed pay attraction.No, you were not.
The modal speed is about 4 days, not two weeks.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:27:08
Why do you ignore what is actually said and keep on trolling.What was actually said wasYet atleast 15 counties all have bio weapons laboratories and are still developing biological warfare agents.You said it.
And 7 is still not 15.They would spotted at 6 months when the amount of infected people reached over a 1000 maybe.No again you are not reading properly patent 0 in month one infects at an R0 of 2,Is that a sensible value for R?
This would have been back when nobody realised that there was anything wrong. Nobody being careful, no compulsory masks no lockdown.
So, just like the early days of the Wuhan outbreak.
So the sensible value for R is the value of R for the first stages of the epidemic in Wuhan.
Let's have a look at that data.
It's here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79063-xWuhan R .jpg (25.58 kB . 506x336 - viewed 2019 times)
It varies significantly but, in the early stages it's about 7.
So, please redo your calculation with R=7You don't know when covid first came to the country.Yes we do.
We know what plane he arrived on.
"On 23 January - the day patient A landed in the UK with the student's father - "
From
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55622386
And we know roughly how it spread from there- quite quickly, even though people were on the lookout for it and being cautious. Nobody would have been being cautious about it before anyone knew about it for example, in Spain, months earlier.Read what Is actually written for once, I.was talking about a 2 week incubation not a month.That's the time we get people to quarantine for. It's the upper limit to how long it takes to transmit.
The average time is about 4 days.
So please redo your calculation of how fast an outbreak grows in the early stages based on a 4 day mean time to infection and an R value of 7.
Then tell us all how they missed it for 3 months.It has where you been.Where is the evidence of a mass outbreak in Spain triggered by those cases that must have been there in March 2019 in order for it to be found in the sewer?
(No, I don't mean the outbreak that everyone saw in 2020, I mean the one which you are implying in 2019, but which nobody noticed.)Sorry you'll have to wait for the peer review like the rest of us.Actually, I don't.
I am a peer.
I can do my own review based on my professional knowledge.
And I know that it's much more likely that there's a glitch in the analysis - which is quite a common occurrence, than that a virus sat waiting in Spain and then suddenly went to China and became massively infectious.
Actually, I don't really need to be a peer to do that, do I?
A lab error is more likely than something impossible, isn't it?I wasnt basing on the slowest or the fastest I was basing in between the two, a middle speed pay attraction.No, you were not.
The modal speed is about 4 days, not two weeks.
If you are just going to troll there is no point in discussing
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 21:37:50
Quote from: Jolly2as we know red cross workers had caught covid at some time before December when they had routine blood tests.I missed the link to this story. What country was it in?
In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/01/covid-19-was-likely-in-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-study/
From Patient 0 to 106, takes a while. That they caught the virus sometime before December, means America and China had outbreaks at the same time.
It is known that people who live near bat caves often have antibodies to bat viruses, especially if they visit the caves.
- But most bat viruses are not very transmissible in humans, so occasional deaths are not noticed, and the survivors have antibodies.
- That is the message of the WHO belated visit to China this month - the investigation team should have been on the ground in early January 2020, doing tests and interviews to trace the source of the outbreak. A year later, it's much harder to find out what happened.
Agree
Quote from: wionews, link from Jolly2It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea.More countries will have biodefence programs.
It's a contradiction in terms they first produce a bio.weapon to then build defenses. And aggressive and defensive program are identical. Hence should all be banned.
That means looking for potential diseases that might affect agriculture, wildlife and/or humans.
- Investigating how they cause disease
- In case of risk, it may involve developing detection and treatment methods (eg vaccines), or recommending culling if the disease cannot be treated.
- In some cases, it has included "Gain of Function" studies, where they see what mutations it would take to make the disease more transmissible
Gain of function research should be banned under the restrictions of biological warfare. They are either acting criminally or using loop holes.
The difference between defence and offence is that defence research deals with small quantities of the pathogen, and does not look at mass production and deployment techniques.
Mass production is the only difference, the programs are the same.
So should be banned.
- But because pathogens are self-multiplying, even a small amount of an infectious pathogen is a dangerous thing!
Agree, a scientist in England committed suicide after a case of small pox was found in the hospital his research lab was in, it had escaped from his laboratory.
Quote from: Jolly2see a doctor...may well have been misdiagnosed as FluWe have quite good diagnosis of flu.
Evan I am speaking about before Covid was Identified in China.
- And there is an international cooperation run through WHO keeping watch for new flu strains; this surveillance feeds into the annual flu vaccination program.
- So when people start turning up with a flu-like disease which isn't flu, alarm bells should start ringing.
If they have samples taken, in the first few months after patient 0, not so many cases would be present, it would shere luck if a person going with flu like symptoms got sampled.
I have never been asked for a sample when going to the doctor about flu.
I calculate with an R0 of 2 with a 2 week incubation period. Takes 6 months for you to have just over 2000 infections. With 80% asymptomatic, it's hardly anyone presenting symptoms, after 6 months its 400 people with severe symptoms, maybe 3 deaths.
And that's not 400 all at the same time, that's 400 spaced out over the 6 months with the 3 deaths also spaced out over the 6 months.
With the R0 number we have good figures and with incubation also.
But for the mortality rate, it's based on known infections and deaths. We dont have complete data on actual infections only data on people tested therefore the mortality rate is definitely lower, but by how much isnt clear.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 21:55:04
Evan I am speaking about before Covid was Identified in China.We have had quite good diagnoses of flu since SARS
If you are just going to troll there is no point in discussingPointing out the actual R value for the correct scenario- citing a paper in nature to do it is not trolling.
Pretending the R=2 and that nobody gets covid in under a fortnight is either stupid or dishonest.
That really is trolling.
it would shere luck if a person going with flu like symptoms got sampled.This is a disease that hospitalises quite a lot of people.
It's a contradiction in terms they first produce a bio.weapon to then build defenses. And aggressive and defensive program are identical. Hence should all be banned.Not every country is signed up to the treaty (which, incidentally the UK wrote) Nor have all those who signed up, ratified it. It is therefore perfectly legal for some countries to develop bioweapons if they see fit.
It's stupid, but that's a different question.
Now, given that some countries are working on these things, do you think that we should abandon our defences against them?
Do you want to put the people of the UK at risk of attack by some foreign power?
I calculate with an R0 of 2 with a 2 week incubation period. Takes 6 months for you to have a few 1000 infections. With 80% asymptomatic, it's hardly anyone presenting symptoms.Why brag about using the wrong numbers to get meaningless answers?
Gain of function research should be bannedIt is impossible to distinguish between, for example "gain of function" research and research to look at what potential variations of the covid virus might do in terms of virulence and immunity.
Do you really want to ban research into how we might treat then next variant?
The people who wrote the legislation had thought this through properly.
Have you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 21:58:01
In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states."The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,”
Which would surprise nobody since coronaviruses aren't rare.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 22:01:57
In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states."The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,”
Which would surprise nobody since coronaviruses aren't rare.
"OR" learn to read and stop trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 22:05:41
I didn't just read it, I quoted it.In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states."The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,”
Which would surprise nobody since coronaviruses aren't rare.
"OR" learn to read and stop trolling.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 22:29:05
I didn't just read it, I quoted it.In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states."The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,”
Which would surprise nobody since coronaviruses aren't rare.
"OR" learn to read and stop trolling.
Yeah really, wow, quoting doesn't require reading. Stop wasting my time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 22:42:19
And I even bolded it.I didn't just read it, I quoted it.In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states."The presence of these serum antibodies indicate that isolated SARS-CoV-2 infections may have occurred in the western portion of the United States earlier than previously recognized or that a small portion of the population may have pre-existing antibodies that bind SARS-CoV-2,”
Which would surprise nobody since coronaviruses aren't rare.
"OR" learn to read and stop trolling.
Yeah really, wow, quoting doesn't require reading. Stop wasting my time.
What claim are you trying to make about me reading it; I obviously did read it, so you are talking trash.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 22:43:38
current datais wrong because currently people are trying their damnedest not to catch it.
That's why the correct data is the stuff from the early days of Wuhan.
And that's about 7
So, with R = 7 then by day 4 you have 7 people, by day 8 you have about 50.
About 2 million in a month.
Rather a lot in 3 months
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 22:45:00
current datais wrong because currently people are trying their damnedest not to catch it.
That's why the correct data is the stuff from the early days of Wuhan.
And that's about 7
You either prove evidence or go away and stop trolling.
What does the evidence show for the Covid 19 R.0 and its incubation period?
And spare me and everyone else data on the new variants.
So chemist the R0 for covid is between what and what number?
And the incubation period is between what and what time in days?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 22:50:38
You either prove evidenceI Quoted it already.
You lied about me trolling.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 23:11:14
You either prove evidenceI Quoted it already.
You lied about me trolling.
You have to give a number not post a load of information from some spurious site.
Either give a number or stop wasting my time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 23:43:26
You have to give a number not post a load of information from some spurious site.The journal, Nature, is not "some spurious site".
Learn to read.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 23:45:42
Quote from: Jolly2as we know red cross workers had caught covid at some time before December when they had routine blood tests.I missed the link to this story. What country was it in?
It is known that people who live near bat caves often have antibodies to bat viruses, especially if they visit the caves.
- But most bat viruses are not very transmissible in humans, so occasional deaths are not noticed, and the survivors have antibodies.
- That is the message of the WHO belated visit to China this month - the investigation team should have been on the ground in early January 2020, doing tests and interviews to trace the source of the outbreak. A year later, it's much harder to find out what happened.Quote from: wionews, link from Jolly2It is believed that at least six countries could have an ongoing bioweapons program. These include: Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Russia and North Korea.More countries will have biodefence programs.
That means looking for potential diseases that might affect agriculture, wildlife and/or humans.
- Investigating how they cause disease
- In case of risk, it may involve developing detection and treatment methods (eg vaccines), or recommending culling if the disease cannot be treated.
- In some cases, it has included "Gain of Function" studies, where they see what mutations it would take to make the disease more transmissible
The difference between defence and offence is that defence research deals with small quantities of the pathogen, and does not look at mass production and deployment techniques.
- But because pathogens are self-multiplying, even a small amount of an infectious pathogen is a dangerous thing!Quote from: Jolly2see a doctor...may well have been misdiagnosed as FluWe have quite good diagnosis of flu.
- And there is an international cooperation run through WHO keeping watch for new flu strains; this surveillance feeds into the annual flu vaccination program.
- So when people start turning up with a flu-like disease which isn't flu, alarm bells should start ringing.
Evan please do some calculations yourself.
Patient 0.
Choose an R0 current data suggests it somewhere between 1.4 and 2.5 I choose 2, it's a middle ground.
Incubation periods are anywhere between 1 and 27 days.
I choose 14 again as a middle ground, to try and balance the shorter and longer incubation periods.
Death rate doesn't really matter for the calculation.
Its R0 and incubation time that will discern, the rate/amount of transmission over time.
I calculate 4 million active infections after 11 months.
See what you get.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/02/2021 23:48:39
Incubation periods are anywhere between 1 and 27 days.
I choose 14 again as a middle ground, to try and balance the shorter and longer incubation periods.
The average seems to be 5 days: https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period#1
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/02/2021 23:56:32
Incubation periods are anywhere between 1 and 27 days.
I choose 14 again as a middle ground, to try and balance the shorter and longer incubation periods.
The average seems to be 5 days: https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period#1
To.qoute the article
"Most people with symptoms had them by day 12."
Incubation is from time of contact to onset of symptoms that suggests 12.
Then there is this
"Researchers estimate that people who get infected with the coronavirus can spread it to others 2 to 3 days before symptoms start"
That takes it to 10 day incubation period for some not all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 23:57:12
Choose an R0 current dataCurrent data is wrong.
The big factor in R is how people behave.
So you need to look at the value of R measured when people didn't know there was a plague.
Why can't you understand that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 23:57:59
"Most people with symptoms had them by day 12."And everyone else on the planet now knows what "asymptomatic transmission" means.
Why don't you?
Also, "by day 12", rather than "on day 12".
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:00:35
Incubation periods are anywhere between 1 and 27 days.
I choose 14 again as a middle ground, to try and balance the shorter and longer incubation periods.
The average seems to be 5 days: https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-incubation-period#1
To.qoute the article
"Most people with symptoms had them by day 12."
Incubation is from time of contact to onset of symptoms that suggests 12.
Then there is this
"Researchers estimate that people who get infected with the coronavirus can spread it to others 2 to 3 days before symptoms start"
That takes it to 10 day incubation period for some not all.
Kryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:01:50
Kryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Actually:
Quote
On average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 00:01:57
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:05:29
Kryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Actually:QuoteOn average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact.
Therefore the article is contradicting itself.
The average was 5 yet.
Most people showed symptoms by day 12.
Evidence showed they were contagious 2 to 3 days before.
Cant be both.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:07:11
Therefore the article is contradicting itself.
No, it isn't.
Most people showed symptoms by day 12.
Yes, and?
Cant be both.
Why not?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 00:07:26
And it is known that they are infectious a day or two before there are symptomsKryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Actually:QuoteOn average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact.
Which mean that we are talking about R is about 7 and the time scale from one generation to the next is about 4 days.
That's 7.5 "generations" in a month (30 days/ 4 days ) and with R = 7 you get 7^7.5 cases in a month
2,178,889.9
And in Jolly's fairy tale world where nobody notices for 3 months you get (with an absurdly simple model)
10,344,414,165,316,372,973 cases.
which is massively more than the population of the planet.
But somehow he thinks people might not notice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 00:08:42
We are waiting, I think, for Jolly to understand thisTherefore the article is contradicting itself.
No, it isn't.Most people showed symptoms by day 12.
Yes, and?Cant be both.
Why not?
And everyone else on the planet now knows what "asymptomatic transmission" means.
Why don't you?
Also, "by day 12", rather than "on day 12".
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:11:08
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:12:06
Supporting evidence? I've never seen any suggesting an R0 of 7
Which mean that we are talking about R is about 7 and the time scale from one generation to the next is about 4 days.
That's 7.5 "generations" in a month (30 days/ 4 days ) and with R = 7
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:12:59
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:14:53
Here's another source with some more exact details on the numbers (it backs up the approximated 5 day average): https://www.news-medical.net/health/Coronavirus-Incubation-Period.aspx
Awesome thanks for the link.
I would therefore base a doubling per week rather then fortnight.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:16:13
Um, I never said that.
Its alright I cleaned it up.
What's your position on the R0 kyrptid?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 00:20:52
Well, learn to read.Supporting evidence? I've never seen any suggesting an R0 of 7
Which mean that we are talking about R is about 7 and the time scale from one generation to the next is about 4 days.
That's 7.5 "generations" in a month (30 days/ 4 days ) and with R = 7
I posted it earlier today.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:23:10
What's your position on the R0 kyrptid?
I haven't looked into it, so I really can't provide an informed comment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 00:26:50
How about this ?What's your position on the R0 kyrptid?
I haven't looked into it, so I really can't provide an informed comment.
If you are trying to model how fast "the first outbreak" would spread, does it make sense to use a current value of R - which is based on people who know there's a virus doing the rounds, or would it be better to use the value of R from the early days of the Wuhan outbreak?
Which would you say was a more appropriate value?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2021 00:28:38
How about this ?
If you are trying to model how fast "the first outbreak" would spread, does it make sense to use a current value of R - which is based on people who know there's a virus doing the rounds, or would it be better to use the value of R from the early days of the Wuhan outbreak?
Which would you say was a more appropriate value?
The early days, of course.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:31:45
How about this ?
If you are trying to model how fast "the first outbreak" would spread, does it make sense to use a current value of R - which is based on people who know there's a virus doing the rounds, or would it be better to use the value of R from the early days of the Wuhan outbreak?
Which would you say was a more appropriate value?
The early days, of course.
Well the WHO lists
"The WHO puts the R0 of COVID-19 at 2 to 2.5."
The early information from China suggested an R0 of 3. Actually 3.28
http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/covid-19-reproduction-number-08132.html
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 00:51:40
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 3 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 with the first data set.
And for the first 2 months basically way under 2000 except for the last week
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 01:15:06
Ok getting somewhere.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 3 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 with the first data set.
And for the first 2 months basically way under 2000 except for the last week
So with 80% asymptomatic.
In week 10 you would see about 4000 people with more severe symptoms, deaths at 10 per 1000 gives 40 deaths.
But it's all relative to who has the virus.
So under those numbers, China starts seeing deaths in December.
That pushes back patient 0 to mid September.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_2019
Well that's funny.
"During the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan (18-27 October, 2019), a large number of athletes from different International delegations had fallen ill with serious symptoms of which some of those athletes have attributed to COVID-19,"
With a week incubation, athletes would have got sick at the end of the games if they caught it there.
And those athletes would then all carry covid 19 back to their own nations. Supper spreader event.
As they are all military that passes it through all world government establishments first.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 01:30:56
Ok getting somewhere.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 3 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 with the first data set.
And for the first 2 months basically way under 2000 except for the last week
So with 80% asymptomatic.
In week 10 you would see about 4000 people with more severe symptoms, deaths at 10 per 1000 gives 40 deaths.
But it's all relative to who has the virus.
So under those numbers, China starts seeing deaths in December.
That pushes back patient 0 to mid September.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_2019
Well that's funny.
"During the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan (18-27 October, 2019), a large number of athletes from different International delegations had fallen ill with serious symptoms of which some of those athletes have attributed to COVID-19,"
With a week incubation, athletes would have got sick at the end of the games if they caught it there.
And those athletes would then all carry covid 19 back to their own nations. Supper spreader event.
As they are all military that passes it through all world government establishments first.
So then we either have patient 0 in China in September, leading to an outbreak at the wuhan games.
Or a soldiers from America bringing it to the wuhan games from fort Detrick from a leak in July. Using the above numbers, fort Detrick is closed mid july, two and half months later is the Beginning of October with expected infections of arround 20,000 moving to 60,000, with arround 12,000 people showing symptoms.
It's interesting we saw so many politicans all over the world catching the virus early on, that certianly implies links to spread through the military.
Post by: evan_au on 13/02/2021 05:43:52
Quote from: Jolly2
In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states.Thanks for the link. It looks like the original paper submission is here (free PDF, possibly prior to peer review): "Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020"
https://nypost.com/2020/12/01/covid-19-was-likely-in-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-study/
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472
Some thoughts after reading it (as a non-expert):
- These are not Red Cross workers, they were donors to the Red Cross blood transfusion program. The researchers went back to archived samples to search for antibodies. The samples had been archived for future disease surveillance (which is what this was).
- They detected antibodies in 1.4% of the 7,389 samples tested
- These samples don't show that these people had SARS-COV2; it shows that they had antibodies to a coronavirus similar to SARS-COV2. They note that some common coronaviruses trigger a reaction in COVID-19 antibody tests.
The blood samples are tested anonymously; it may be worthwhile "de-anonymizing" the data to conduct further research, as it may reveal more sources.
- CDC experts could interview these blood donors, to determine if they had ever suffered from SARS or MERS, or been in areas where it was common (you could expect that everyone has been exposed to the "common cold" coronaviruses).
- They should also check if these people had been in contact with bats
Quote from: Jolly2
from 9 different states...These states are widely separated, so it is unlikely that we are talking about 106 patients who caught it from each other, and all just decided to go to the blood bank.
From Patient 0 to 106, takes a while.
If 106/7,389 (1.4% infected) is a random sample of the population, then California, with a population of 40 million would have had around half a million cases of SARS-COV2 infection by January 2020. We know that the fatality rate was about 3% in the early days, so we are talking about 50,000 hospital admissions and 17,000 deaths from a mystery respiratory virus.
- That would not have been missed!
- In fact, the infection rate in the population would have been higher than 1.4%, as anyone with symptoms would have deferred their blood donation.
Reading the paper, they also tested samples going back as far as 10 years, as a control. 3 out of 519 also tested positive for antibodies reacting to SARS-COV2, or 0.6%.
- So clearly, there are a lot of people with coronavirus antibodies in their bloodstream, in the absence of a pandemic
- This represents almost half of the 1.4% found in December 19 and January 20.
Quote from: The Paper
none of the sera can be considered “true positives."So they warn that a single snapshot in time cannot confirm an ongoing infection.
- But they do point to one donor in Connecticut on January 10, 2020 as very likely to have been exposed to SARS-COV2.
In reality, rather than 106 Red Cross workers with SARS-COV2 infection, we are talking about around 1 to 60 members of the general public who may have been exposed to SARS-COV2 (or some similar virus).
Quote from: Jolly's Computer model of exponential pandemic growth
Past infections . current infectionsThere is an additional line of evidence here, which is the number of variants seen in the early days of the pandemic.
- This genetic clock points to a "patient zero" perhaps around September-October.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 12:58:11
The early information from China suggested an R0 of 3. Actually 3.28But that value of 3.28 is based on the whole of the outbreak, rather than just the early days which is (we all agree) the number that we should use.
So use the right number.
Or you will just make it increasingly clear that your intention here is to deceive.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 13:00:01
some of those athletes have attributed to COVID-19They are athletes guessing at what caused their symptoms.
How did they rule out the idea that they just caught a cold?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 13/02/2021 15:03:04
Someone's changed their tune, damn let down by the daily fail.At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.The actual period for Corona virus transmission is 4 days from contact, with the standardised non controlled reproduction rate of 3 in wuhan in 2 months starting from one you would havenewly infected number of 4.75 million, and a total case count of around 9 million, another 4 days and that rises to around the 25 million mark.
Ok where is the data?
People can only transit once infected in the throat or mouth, someone with an infection on the eyes, will take time for the virus to present in the throat area. Same with someone who catches the virus by touching something and then rubbing their eyes.
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
As.we see here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7986663/Incubation-period-new-coronavirus-long-24-DAYS-expert-claims.html
A 24 day incubation period.
Ok getting somewhere.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 3 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 with the first data set.
And for the first 2 months basically way under 2000 except for the last week
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 19:30:48
Quote from: Jolly2In America 106 red cross workers from 9 different states.Thanks for the link. It looks like the original paper submission is here (free PDF, possibly prior to peer review): "Serologic testing of U.S. blood donations to identify SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies: December 2019-January 2020"
https://nypost.com/2020/12/01/covid-19-was-likely-in-us-weeks-earlier-than-thought-study/
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785/6012472
Some thoughts after reading it (as a non-expert):
- These are not Red Cross workers, they were donors to the Red Cross blood transfusion program. The researchers went back to archived samples to search for antibodies. The samples had been archived for future disease surveillance (which is what this was).
- They detected antibodies in 1.4% of the 7,389 samples tested
- These samples don't show that these people had SARS-COV2; it shows that they had antibodies to a coronavirus similar to SARS-COV2. They note that some common coronaviruses trigger a reaction in COVID-19 antibody tests.
The blood samples are tested anonymously; it may be worthwhile "de-anonymizing" the data to conduct further research, as it may reveal more sources.
- CDC experts could interview these blood donors, to determine if they had ever suffered from SARS or MERS, or been in areas where it was common (you could expect that everyone has been exposed to the "common cold" coronaviruses).
- They should also check if these people had been in contact with batsQuote from: Jolly2from 9 different states...These states are widely separated, so it is unlikely that we are talking about 106 patients who caught it from each other, and all just decided to go to the blood bank.
From Patient 0 to 106, takes a while.
If 106/7,389 (1.4% infected) is a random sample of the population, then California, with a population of 40 million would have had around half a million cases of SARS-COV2 infection by January 2020. We know that the fatality rate was about 3% in the early days, so we are talking about 50,000 hospital admissions and 17,000 deaths from a mystery respiratory virus.
- That would not have been missed!
- In fact, the infection rate in the population would have been higher than 1.4%, as anyone with symptoms would have deferred their blood donation.
Reading the paper, they also tested samples going back as far as 10 years, as a control. 3 out of 519 also tested positive for antibodies reacting to SARS-COV2, or 0.6%.
- So clearly, there are a lot of people with coronavirus antibodies in their bloodstream, in the absence of a pandemic
- This represents almost half of the 1.4% found in December 19 and January 20.Quote from: The Papernone of the sera can be considered “true positives."So they warn that a single snapshot in time cannot confirm an ongoing infection.
- But they do point to one donor in Connecticut on January 10, 2020 as very likely to have been exposed to SARS-COV2.
In reality, rather than 106 Red Cross workers with SARS-COV2 infection, we are talking about around 1 to 60 members of the general public who may have been exposed to SARS-COV2 (or some similar virus).Quote from: Jolly's Computer model of exponential pandemic growthPast infections . current infectionsThere is an additional line of evidence here, which is the number of variants seen in the early days of the pandemic.
- This genetic clock points to a "patient zero" perhaps around September-October.
Yeah my data suggests mid September.
Says to me we need a better antibody test. The report doesn't entirely rule of covid 19 for the others. But 1 infected person is more certian instead of the 106.
Maybe an antibody test isn't the best marker. Are there any tests that could identify a past covid 19 infection better?
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 19:35:27
Someone's changed their tune, damn let down by the daily fail.At an R0 of 1.5 the doubling rate is 4 days. If the number of new cases in mid september were 1 per day then by early december there would be a million new cases per day. You need a different reason for the cases not to show. You also need to explain why Maryland wasn't an early center of disease.The actual period for Corona virus transmission is 4 days from contact, with the standardised non controlled reproduction rate of 3 in wuhan in 2 months starting from one you would havenewly infected number of 4.75 million, and a total case count of around 9 million, another 4 days and that rises to around the 25 million mark.
Ok where is the data?
People can only transit once infected in the throat or mouth, someone with an infection on the eyes, will take time for the virus to present in the throat area. Same with someone who catches the virus by touching something and then rubbing their eyes.
"Currently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Trusted Source, the incubation period for the novel coronavirus is somewhere between 2 to 14 days after exposure"
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period#incubation-period
Other studies have shown upto a month. So your claim of 4 days is misleading.
As.we see here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7986663/Incubation-period-new-coronavirus-long-24-DAYS-expert-claims.html
A 24 day incubation period.Ok getting somewhere.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 3 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 with the first data set.
And for the first 2 months basically way under 2000 except for the last week
Not at all it's one data set with an R0 os 2 and a 2 week incubation, compared to an R0 of 3 with the incubation of a week.
I.was actually thinking about combining them. As a means to compensate for long and shorter incubation periods, and the variance between 1.4 and 3 R0. Its not a perfect world. Models will never entirely predict the actual transmission that occurred. We can only use different techniques to build different models and look at the implications and match to data.
It's hard because we only have recorded cases, not all cases, we only have recorded deaths not all deaths.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 20:05:32
Not at all it's one data set with an R0 os 2 and a 2 week incubation, compared to an R0 of 3 with the incubation of a week.And what does it look like if you use the real values, rather than silly ones?
Or do you not want to do that because it makes it clear that your idea is absurd?
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 20:07:26
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
And
Fortnightly incubation with an R0 of 1.7, I'll round up.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 3 3 , 5
Week 4 5 , 15
Week 6 15 , 26
Week 7 26 , 78
Week 9 78 , 133
Week 10 133 , 399
Week 12 399 , 678
Week 13 678 , 2,035
Week 15 2,035 , 3,460
Week 16 3,460 , 10,378
Week 18 10,378 , 17,643
Week 19 17,643 , 52,928
Week 21 52,928 , 89,977
Week 22 89,977 , 269,932
Week 24 269,932 , 458,884
Week 25 458,884 , 1,376,651
Week 27 1,376,651 , 2,340,307
Week 28 2,340,307 , 7,020,919
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 6 and half months from patient 0.
Compared to over 4 million infections in 11 months with the first data set.
And 4 million infections after 3 and half with the second.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 20:35:21
Not at all it's one data set with an R0 os 2 and a 2 week incubation, compared to an R0 of 3 with the incubation of a week.And what does it look like if you use the real values, rather than silly ones?
Or do you not want to do that because it makes it clear that your idea is absurd?
Yeah clearly the CDC and WHO all have silly numbers go take it up with them and stop trolling me. Better still do your own maths
Post by: Petrochemicals on 13/02/2021 22:11:53
Someone's changed their tune, damn let down by the daily fail.
Not at all it's one data set with an R0 os 2 and a 2 week incubation, compared to an R0 of 3 with the incubation of a week.That was what meant. We are not starting in September anymore are we? If we did by your revised reckoning we would be finished by Christmas by around 0.5T infected
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/02/2021 22:37:12
Someone's changed their tune, damn let down by the daily fail.Not at all it's one data set with an R0 os 2 and a 2 week incubation, compared to an R0 of 3 with the incubation of a week.That was what meant. We are not starting in September anymore are we? If we did by your revised reckoning we would be finished by Christmas by around 0.5T infected
Based on 4 million infections.
Data set one puts patients 0 around March.
Based on the secound puts patient 0 in mid September.
Based on the combined data set.
Puts patient 0 mid July.
That's looking at the 20,000 deaths from covid we see around Feb-March 2020.
The combined data set matches with an out break from Fort Detrick which closed mid July.
The second matches with an outbreak at the wuhan games, and a possible zoological origin. In September.
The first matches with samples found in Spain.
Ofcourse different strains probably have slightly different R0 and incubation periods. There were at least 5 Strians of Covid at the begining of the pandemic recorded.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 22:56:05
Better still do your own mathsI did,
And it is known that they are infectious a day or two before there are symptomsKryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Actually:QuoteOn average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact.
Which mean that we are talking about R is about 7 and the time scale from one generation to the next is about 4 days.
That's 7.5 "generations" in a month (30 days/ 4 days ) and with R = 7 you get 7^7.5 cases in a month
2,178,889.9
And in Jolly's fairy tale world where nobody notices for 3 months you get (with an absurdly simple model)
10,344,414,165,316,372,973 cases.
which is massively more than the population of the planet.
But somehow he thinks people might not notice.
Yeah clearly the CDC and WHO all have silly numbers go take it up with themAs far as I am aware, the CDC and WHO have not published the relevant data for R
If you believe that they have, please show me where it is.
However the Nature paper I quoted gives the value for R in the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak.
Since we all agree that's the number we need, why are you not using it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 13:34:41
Better still do your own mathsI did,And it is known that they are infectious a day or two before there are symptomsKryptid the article suggests 10 day incubation not 5.
Actually:QuoteOn average, symptoms showed up in the newly infected person about 5 days after contact.
Which mean that we are talking about R is about 7 and the time scale from one generation to the next is about 4 days.
That's 7.5 "generations" in a month (30 days/ 4 days ) and with R = 7 you get 7^7.5 cases in a month
2,178,889.9
And in Jolly's fairy tale world where nobody notices for 3 months you get (with an absurdly simple model)
10,344,414,165,316,372,973 cases.
which is massively more than the population of the planet.
But somehow he thinks people might not notice.Yeah clearly the CDC and WHO all have silly numbers go take it up with themAs far as I am aware, the CDC and WHO have not published the relevant data for R
If you believe that they have, please show me where it is.
However the Nature paper I quoted gives the value for R in the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak.
Since we all agree that's the number we need, why are you not using it?
Your welcome to your dooms day scenario. Both the WHO and CDC have taken official positions on the R0 and it isnt 7.
As already cited, China, Germany and Sweden all conducted studies and concluded an R0 of 3.28 at the begining of the pandemic.
http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/covid-19-reproduction-number-08132.html
Besides with an R0 of 7 with a 5 day incubation, you would go from patient 0 to over 4 million infections in arround a month an a half.
As we dont see the 20,000 deaths worldwide from covid 19 until March 2019, patient 0 clearly wasn't in January 2019.
In no way do the numbers you suggest match reality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 13:56:27
Do you think that Germany and Sweden are part of Wuhan?
If not, why would you include them in an average of estimates of R0 when what you are trying to find is R0 for Wuhan and the surrounding area?
(Don't forget that the original outbreak is the ONLY place that tells you how the virus spreads in a population that were not expecting it)
The paper you cite refers to a bunch of studies.
Only one covers the Hubei province It gives R0 = 6.5.
And, it's silly to refer to it as a "Doomsday scenario" since it already happened.
So... once again.
As far as I am aware, the CDC and WHO have not published the relevant data for R
If you believe that they have, please show me where it is.
Please don't waste further time on studies conducted anywhere but Wuhan and the surrounding area- because they can not be relevant to the question of spread through a population which was unaware of the risk.
And that's the only value of R0 that matters if we are looking at how it would have spread if it had turned up "early" in Spain or wherever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 13:59:02
In no way do the numbers you suggest match reality.They are the numbers calculated by observing reality; Of course they match it.
The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2021 14:39:09
Quote
Viral load kinetics could also explain some of the differences between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1. In the respiratory tract, peak SARS-CoV-2 load is observed at the time of symptom onset or in the first week of illness, with subsequent decline thereafter, which indicates the highest infectiousness potential just before or within the first five days of symptom onset (fig 2).7 In contrast, in SARS-CoV-1 the highest viral loads were detected in the upper respiratory tract in the second week of illness, which explains its minimal contagiousness in the first week after symptom onset, enabling early case detection in the community.https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862
Symptoms emergence 4- 6 days after exposure
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 16:15:24
From the bmjAnd with a couple of days of asymptomatic transmission, it means that people can be spreading it within 3 days.QuoteViral load kinetics could also explain some of the differences between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1. In the respiratory tract, peak SARS-CoV-2 load is observed at the time of symptom onset or in the first week of illness, with subsequent decline thereafter, which indicates the highest infectiousness potential just before or within the first five days of symptom onset (fig 2).7 In contrast, in SARS-CoV-1 the highest viral loads were detected in the upper respiratory tract in the second week of illness, which explains its minimal contagiousness in the first week after symptom onset, enabling early case detection in the community.https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862
Symptoms emergence 4- 6 days after exposure
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 16:27:42
From the bmjAnd with a couple of days of asymptomatic transmission, it means that people can be spreading it within 3 days.QuoteViral load kinetics could also explain some of the differences between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1. In the respiratory tract, peak SARS-CoV-2 load is observed at the time of symptom onset or in the first week of illness, with subsequent decline thereafter, which indicates the highest infectiousness potential just before or within the first five days of symptom onset (fig 2).7 In contrast, in SARS-CoV-1 the highest viral loads were detected in the upper respiratory tract in the second week of illness, which explains its minimal contagiousness in the first week after symptom onset, enabling early case detection in the community.https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3862
Symptoms emergence 4- 6 days after exposure
Ok make it even worse then. Under those number patient 0 would have to have been in February.
We know the death rates.
To hit 20,000 at a minimum the numbers needed would put paintent 0 in February. So you are just proving the numbers you cite even more wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 16:36:48
So you are just proving the numbers you cite even more wrong.
The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 16:44:39
In no way do the numbers you suggest match reality.They are the numbers calculated by observing reality; Of course they match it.
The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
And you are failing to notice the lockdown measures in Wuhan came into effect way after the outbreak started.
December 31st wuhan 2019 quote "The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a briefing on its website about early signs of a pneumonia outbreak in the city."
On 2 January 2020 41 admitted hospital patients in Wuhan, China, were confirmed to have contracted (laboratory-confirmed) the 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus);
January 7 2020 In a closed meeting of the Central Politburo of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping "made requests for the prevention and control work of the coronavirus outbreak" and issued instructions to similar ends. This meeting occurred 13 days before Xi's first public comments on the outbreak on 20 January
January 10 2020 The gene sequencing data of the isolated 2019-nCoV, a virus from the same family as the SARS coronavirus
A second death occurred in a 69-year-old man in China on 15 January
25th January 2020 "General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Xi Jinping called the "accelerating spread" of the coronavirus a "grave situation" in a Party Politburo meeting,[187] and that it was "mutating" as Beijing escalates measures to contain the illness"
They actually starts to escalate measures to control it. They start that's already atleast 2 months the virus is known to be free
Under the numbers you cite, you would have expected 20,000 deaths at the end of December. With patient 0 being at the end of November. But we know there were cases in October the Chinese government suppressed knowledge of.
So you are just proving the numbers you cite even more wrong.The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
People dont notice until January a virus present from atleast October. Again you are talking nonsense.
Go troll somewhere else and stop wasting everyone time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 16:54:35
And you are failing to notice the lockdown measures in Wuhan came into effect way after the outbreak started.People did not wait until there was official confirmation of a pandemic before they started to act differently.
However it is the sum of those changes that brought the R0 value down from about 6.5 to about 3.3.
And you are ignoring the actual data which show that , at the outset, the R0 value was about 6.5.
Why are you doing that?
Under the numbers you cite, you would have expected 20,000 deaths at the end of December.And again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:59:02
The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 17:04:37
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
After one month from patient 0
You have between 30 to 80 people infected. With patient 0 in mid September.
The Wuhan games are at this time
Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.
There were just under 10,000 athletes taking part in the games.
That's not including people that watched them, or officials involved in referring the games.
I cant find actual numbers for total people present but we could easily assume a few thousand more, watching and refereeing.
There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.
With an R0 3 and a week incubation period. Those infected at the games would then each travel to their home countries afterwards.
There is this story about French soldiers returning sick from wuhan.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.html
The second data set certianly matches with the wuhan games as the source.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 17:06:14
And you are failing to notice the lockdown measures in Wuhan came into effect way after the outbreak started.People did not wait until there was official confirmation of a pandemic before they started to act differently.
However it is the sum of those changes that brought the R0 value down from about 6.5 to about 3.3.
And you are ignoring the actual data which show that , at the outset, the R0 value was about 6.5.
Why are you doing that?Under the numbers you cite, you would have expected 20,000 deaths at the end of December.And again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:59:02
The problem with your analysis is that you refuse to consider that R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
No if that were true an R0 7 would have lead to 20,000 deaths in a matter of a few weeks. Which didnt happen.
Grow up and troll somewhere else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 17:07:34
There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.Is there real any evidence that any of them got covid, or is this just irrelevant padding?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 17:09:17
No if that were true an R0 7 would have lead to 20,000 deaths in a matter of a few weeks. Which didnt happen.Do you actually understand what I mean when I say this?
R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
Because I keep saying it, and you keep ignoring it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 17:18:22
No if that were true an R0 7 would have lead to 20,000 deaths in a matter of a few weeks. Which didnt happen.Do you actually understand what I mean when I say this?R0 changes because people change their behaviour.
Because I keep saying it, and you keep ignoring it.
China mandates mask wearing Jan 21st -22nd 2020. At least 2 months after the outbreak started.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7916613/Wuhan-government-orders-residents-wear-face-masks-public.html
Furthermore the Chinese government didnt tell the Chinese people there was an active virus until Jan 20th.
"This meeting occurred 13 days before Xi's first public comments on the outbreak on 20 January"
Grow up and stop trolling
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 17:32:00
China mandates mask wearing Jan 21st -22nd 2020. At least 2 months after the outbreak started.
after I already pointed out that
People did not wait until there was official confirmation of a pandemic before they started to act differently.
Essentially, you seem to be saying that the Chinese people and, in particular their healthcare professionals, were too stupid to notice the outbreak until the Chinese government told them about it. So they didn't do anything to reduce teh spread.
Well who do you think told the government?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 17:43:41
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51364382
The fact that the Chinese government tried to lie about it and delayed reporting honestly is beside the point.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 18:41:37
The fact is that the people knew something was wrong, because the doctors were telling them about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51364382
The fact that the Chinese government tried to lie about it and delayed reporting honestly is beside the point.
That's the best you got. Sad
We know the government was lying, and we know some people infected were taking about it.
Doesnt change the reality that a virus with an R0 of 7 with an incubation of 3 days would lead to millions infected in a matter of weeks. And 1000s of related deaths.
The low numbers of people talking before the government confirmed an outbreak on the 20th of January, wouldn't have prevented an explosion in cases or 1000s of expected deaths, with an R0 of 7 between October and December.
Your data is wrong. And no doubt produced as a scare tactic.
It's clear the R0 is between 1.4 and 3.28. As Germany, WHO, CDC, China and Sweden, all have studies to prove.
Stop wasting peoples time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 18:46:04
Doesnt change the reality that a virus with an R0 of 7 with an incubation of 3 days would lead to millions infected in a matter of weeks.UNLESS PEOPLE CHANGED THEIR BEHAVIOUR AND REDUCED THE VALUE OF R0.
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 18:46:54
Your data is wrong.It's not my data.
It's the data that some scientists in China calculated from the early days of the outbreak.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 18:49:25
It's clear the R0 is between 1.4 and 3.28. As Germany, WHO, CDC, China and Sweden, all have studies to prove.
Stop wasting peoples time
I'm not the one wasting peoples time. You are doing that even though you were asked not to. You are repeating the same mistake.
Please don't waste further time on studies conducted anywhere but Wuhan and the surrounding area- because they can not be relevant to the question of spread through a population which was unaware of the risk.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 20:28:01
It's clear the R0 is between 1.4 and 3.28. As Germany, WHO, CDC, China and Sweden, all have studies to prove.
Stop wasting peoples time
I'm not the one wasting peoples time. You are doing that even though you were asked not to. You are repeating the same mistake.Please don't waste further time on studies conducted anywhere but Wuhan and the surrounding area- because they can not be relevant to the question of spread through a population which was unaware of the risk.
Which until Jan 20th 2020 was the majority of the population. Grow up
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 20:30:39
64 people in April
128 mid may
256 at the end of may
512 mid june
1024 at the end of June(when the infection in the old peoples home happened)
2048 mid July
4096 at the end of July
8192 mid August.(but not only in America, where ever the infected people travelled its 8192 across the world)
16,384 end of August-world wide total
32,768 mid September
65,000 end of September
131,072 mid October
262.144 end of October world wide when China noticed people with respiratory infections
524,288 mid November
1,048,576 hits one million world wide total infections at the end of November.
2,097,152 mid December.
4,194,304 new year 2020 world wide infected total.
Patient 0 is in March 2019.
.......
With the secound data set.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
After one month from patient 0
You have between 30 to 80 people infected. With patient 0 in mid September.
The Wuhan games are at this time
Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.
There were just under 10,000 athletes taking part in the games.
That's not including people that watched them, or officials involved in referring the games.
I cant find actual numbers for total people present but we could easily assume a few thousand more, watching and refereeing.
There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.
With an R0 3 and a week incubation period. Those infected at the games would then each travel to their home countries afterwards.
There is this story about French soldiers returning sick from wuhan.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.html
The second data set certianly matches with the wuhan games as the source.
.........
And with the third data set
Combine
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
And
Fortnightly incubation with an R0 of 1.7, I'll round up.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 3 3 , 5
Week 4 5 , 15
Week 6 15 , 26
Week 7 26 , 78
Week 9 78 , 133
Week 10 133 , 399
Week 12 399 , 678
Week 13 678 , 2,035
Week 15 2,035 , 3,460
Week 16 3,460 , 10,378
Week 18 10,378 , 17,643
Week 19 17,643 , 52,928
Week 21 52,928 , 89,977
Week 22 89,977 , 269,932
Week 24 269,932 , 458,884
Week 25 458,884 , 1,376,651
Week 27 1,376,651 , 2,340,307
Week 28 2,340,307 , 7,020,919
Ok so that's over 4 million infections in 6 and half months from patient 0.
patient 0 is in mid July. When fort Detrick was closed due to leaks
.......
On and the chemist idea.
R0 7 3 day incubation with
4 million cases in under a month.
And patent 0 being at the end of January 2020 after China declared an outbreak of covid.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:39:30
Which until Jan 20th 2020 was the majority of the population.And that's why we have to use data from before Jan 2020 to calculate R0
And that is why we have to use the data from the early days in Wuhan.
So why don't you do that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:41:00
There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.Is there real any evidence that any of them got covid, or is this just irrelevant padding?
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 20:42:39
Which until Jan 20th 2020 was the majority of the population.And that's why we have to use data from before Jan 2020 to calculate R0
And that is why we have to use the data from the early days in Wuhan.
So why don't you do that?
I am. You are not.
Just looking at the mortality rate, shows your suggestion of an R0 7 rediculas. You would see 1000s of deaths after the first month.
Between Oct and Jan China recorded 2
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
You would see 1000s of deaths after the first month.Why do you tell that lie?
Is it because you don't know the answer to this?
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:45:58
your suggestion of an R0 7 rediculasIt still isn't mine
Your data is wrong.It's not my data.
It's the data that some scientists in China calculated from the early days of the outbreak.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 20:59:08
You're defending it.your suggestion of an R0 7 rediculasIt still isn't mine
[/quote]Your data is wrong.It's not my data.
It's the data that some scientists in China calculated from the early days of the outbreak.
January 11: China recorded its first coronavirus death. Chinese researchers also published the virus' genetic sequence.
By March world wide they had recorded 20,000.
Go away and stop trolling.
Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in October would have lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths by January.
As I said grow up.
Post by: evan_au on 14/02/2021 21:01:21
From memory....
- They asked the Chinese to review cases of respiratory illness in Wuhan in the few months leading up to December 2019, to see if there were undiagnosed cases. He commented that the Chinese have quite good influenza surveillance.
- The Chinese reviewed around 75,000 cases, of which around 10% were investigated more closely (including looking at antibodies, if blood samples were still available). They didn't find evidence of a large SARS-COV2 outbreak in Wuhan prior to December 2019.
- They looked closely at the first 100 or so cases, and tried to get contact-tracing information on them. Not easy a year later!
Listen, starting at 5:35, duration: 10 minutes: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/coronacast/two-days-of-lockdown-in-does-melbourne-need-more-time/13154196
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 21:21:17
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in October would have lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths by January.Why do you ignore reality?
The initial value of R0 in the early stages of the outbreak WHEN NOBODY KNEW THERE WAS A PROBLEM was about 7.
Obviously, as people realised, they changed their behaviour and R0 fell.
So it didn't stay at 7 for long.
So your claim that I say it would lead to x deaths after y months is a lie- because I wouldn't say that because I realise that R0 varies. And that's why I keep asking you if you understand that R0 depends on what people are doing.
Well, do you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 21:23:51
Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in OctoberIt probably didn't start in October, so that's meaningless anyway.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/02/2021 22:13:21
Why daren't you answer this?Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in October would have lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths by January.Why do you ignore reality?
The initial value of R0 in the early stages of the outbreak WHEN NOBODY KNEW THERE WAS A PROBLEM
Between September and January
was about 7.
Obviously, as people realised, they changed their behaviour and R0 fell.
The public became aware in January. That behaviour change will change nothing for the months previous
So it didn't stay at 7 for long.
So your claim that I say it would lead to x deaths after y months is a lie- because I wouldn't say that because I realise that R0 varies. And that's why I keep asking you if you understand that R0 depends on what people are doing.
Well, do you?
With a 3 day incubation you have a double doubling every week. The utter nonsense you propose.
Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in OctoberIt probably didn't start in October, so that's meaningless anyway.
More likely September. Wrong again.
Quote from: Jolly's Computer model of exponential pandemic growthPast infections . current infectionsThere is an additional line of evidence here, which is the number of variants seen in the early days of the pandemic.
- This genetic clock points to a "patient zero" perhaps around September-October.
And September is even worse for the numbers you suggest. Will the chemist ever accept he is wrong, tune in tommorrow to find out.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 22:40:03
Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 23:01:03
More likely September.The evidence says December.
January 11: China recorded its first coronavirus death.So, you are saying that it took from September to January to kill anyone.
And you think my numbers look odd.
With a 3 day incubation you have a double doubling every week. The utter nonsense you propose.OK, So here's the Royal Society's take on the doubling time.
"To give a simple example, the doubling times of cases in the UK in the rapid growth phase of the epidemic in March 2020 before 'lock down', was of the order of 3 to 4 days. "
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-covid-19-R-estimates.pdf
So doubling twice in a week is about the right ballpark.
And, in March, we knew there was a pandemic, and we knew it was here. We were modifying our behaviour so as to not catch it (except BoJo - who was going round hospitals on the 3rd of March, shaking hands with people and being called an idiot for doing so) Without that, the transmission would have been faster.
So, if you go back to the original idea that, for example, Spain had the virus in March and didn't know about it they would have had a doubling time of less than 3 days. - call it 2 to make the arithmetic easy.
If we make the insane assumption that the sewer sample came from the first person to get the virus
2 in 2 days
4 in 4 days
8 in 6 days
16 in 8 days
32 in 10 days
64 in 12 days
128 in 14 days
So the growth rate is something like 100 fold in a couple of weeks , ten thousand fold in a month
So, if the virus was there in March and nobody knew about it there would be ten thousand cases by April, a hundred million cases by June.
And you are saying that nobody noticed.
By tomorrow, anyone reading this will know that you are wrong.
Covid started in Wuhan, late in 2019.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 03:46:49
More likely September.The evidence says December.
No it doesn't 🤣
January 11: China recorded its first coronavirus death.So, you are saying that it took from September to January to kill anyone.
And you think my numbers look odd.With a 3 day incubation you have a double doubling every week. The utter nonsense you propose.OK, So here's the Royal Society's take on the doubling time.
"To give a simple example, the doubling times of cases in the UK in the rapid growth phase of the epidemic in March 2020 before 'lock down', was of the order of 3 to 4 days. "
Wow did they really say around the order of 3. Wow. Amazing its 3.28
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-covid-19-R-estimates.pdf🤣
So doubling twice in a week is about the right ballpark.
And, in March, we knew there was a pandemic, and we knew it was here. We were modifying our behaviour so as to not catch it (except BoJo - who was going round hospitals on the 3rd of March, shaking hands with people and being called an idiot for doing so) Without that, the transmission would have been faster.
So, if you go back to the original idea that, for example, Spain had the virus in March and didn't know about it they would have had a doubling time of less than 3 days. - call it 2 to make the arithmetic easy.
If we make the insane assumption that the sewer sample came from the first person to get the virus
2 in 2 days
4 in 4 days
8 in 6 days
16 in 8 days
32 in 10 days
64 in 12 days
128 in 14 days
So the growth rate is something like 100 fold in a couple of weeks , ten thousand fold in a month
So, if the virus was there in March and nobody knew about it there would be ten thousand cases by April, a hundred million cases by June.
Going back to April. Ok🤣
Try starting in March 2020
When we see 20,000 deaths happen world wide.
you are saying that nobody noticed.
By tomorrow, anyone reading this will know that you are wrong.
Covid started in Wuhan, late in 2019.
No I think they see that as usual you just enjoying trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 08:49:32
Wow did they really say around the order of 3. Wow. Amazing its 3.28It says a lot that you haven't worked out that a doubling time of 3 days is not the same as an R0 value of 3 .
One is a number and the other is a duration.
No it doesn't 🤣You need to offer some sort of "reasoning" for that assertion, of you just sound like a 3 year old.
Try starting in March 2020That would be fine.
But you are the one saying that the virus was present in Spain in March 2019.
Do you now accept that you had no idea what you were talking about?
No I think they see that as usual you just enjoying trolling.
OK let's ask them.
If there's any actual scientists still reading this, please let us know, and also let us know if you think Jolly is right.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2021 11:33:17
let us know if you think Jolly is right.It would be an anomaly. Science often proceeds by the investigation of interesting anomalies, but this one wouldn't count as interesting.
Coronaviruses have been around for millennia, and COVID19 or something like it may well be among those found sporadically in human society at various times and places.
The UK press was reporting the significant outbreak of a highly infectious human respiratory virus identified by ophthalmologist Dr Li Wienlang in Wuhan as probably zoonotic, from cases he encountered from October to December 2019. Whether this was a novel and particularly human-adaptable variant, or merely happened to infect a super-critical group before they were adequately isolated, is of little importance: the characteristics of COVID19 (long asymptomatic latency, moderately innocuous to the most physically and socially mobile cohort, severe to fatal response in about 20% of cases) make it highly successful and economically significant, and its spread was enhanced by specific human activities.
Backtracking the incidence of COVID19 over the last year generally converges on Wuhan. Post-hoc identification of possible earlier incidences is neither interesting nor important since nonhuman vectors like bats and cats abound throughout the world. Verbeist (1672) and Cugnot (1770) made automobiles, but until Ford (1908) it never became a significant mode of transport. The problem now is to deal with what various corrupt and incompetent governments have turned from a local curiosity into a global pandemic.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 13:20:40
let us know if you think Jolly is right.It would be an anomaly. Science often proceeds by the investigation of interesting anomalies, but this one wouldn't count as interesting.
Coronaviruses have been around for millennia, and COVID19 or something like it may well be among those found sporadically in human society at various times and places.
The UK press was reporting the significant outbreak of a highly infectious human respiratory virus identified by ophthalmologist Dr Li Wienlang in Wuhan as probably zoonotic, from cases he encountered from October to December 2019.
The whole point of looking at the R0 incubation and death rates is to find the moment patient 0 emerged. The 3 different numbers give 3 different dates.
Whether this was a novel and particularly human-adaptable variant, or merely happened to infect a super-critical group before they were adequately isolated, is of little importance: the characteristics of COVID19 (long asymptomatic latency, moderately innocuous to the most physically and socially mobile cohort, severe to fatal response in about 20% of cases) make it highly successful and economically significant, and its spread was enhanced by specific human activities.
Backtracking the incidence of COVID19 over the last year generally converges on Wuhan. Post-hoc identification of possible earlier incidences is neither interesting nor important
Dont agree, finding Patient 0 is extremely important. And you wont find them if you only looking 3 months later than when they were first sick. Checking the parameters gives times to look at.
I get mid September, mid July or mid March as possible times for patient 0. With July I think being the most likely.
since nonhuman vectors like bats and cats abound throughout the world. Verbeist (1672) and Cugnot (1770) made automobiles, but until Ford (1908) it never became a significant mode of transport. The problem now is to deal with what various corrupt and incompetent governments have turned from a local curiosity into a global pandemic.
Covid 19 is exactly the type of virus that will, 2 week quarantine for travellers when the incubation period take last upto 27 days is only going to fail.
Governments acted as best they could, with the data they had, some a lot better then other tho, clearly.
But when the data at the start from China was sketchy, and when this virus explodes in cases after a number of months being active, hardly surprising we are where we are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 13:36:06
I get mid September, mid July or mid March as possible times for patient 0.No epidemiologist or virologist does.
after a number of months being activeYou still have not explained how this is even possible.
The virus doesn't have a calendar. It can't wait for a few months before letting rip..
Outside of people it dies.
So, it's either being part of an outbreak, or it's becoming extinct.
It will survive for a few days on a dry surface. It might manage a week or two in cool moist near sterile conditions.
There's no way it can stay inactive for a few months.
So your ideas are all fundamentally at odds with the way the virus behaves.
It's either exploding or dying.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2021 13:41:57
Dont agree, finding Patient 0 is extremely important.On the contrary. He is probably dead and his legacy is universal.
Quote
Governments acted as best they could, with the data they had, some a lot better then other tho, clearly.Rubbish. By the end of February 2020 anyone with a reading age of 10 had all the information they needed to do the right thing. "By their deeds shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:16).
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 13:55:04
On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arround. They may identify as a bat ofcourse.Dont agree, finding Patient 0 is extremely important.On the contrary. He is probably dead and his legacy is universal.
The importance doesn't relates to if they are alive or not, it relates to discovering where this virus came from and helping prevent future pandemics.
QuoteGovernments acted as best they could, with the data they had, some a lot better then other tho, clearly.Rubbish. By the end of February 2020 anyone with a reading age of 10 had all the information they needed to do the right thing. "By their deeds shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:16).
I said some governments not all. Britian which you are referencing, like most of Europe didn't. Trump imposed a travel ban at the begining of March 2019, with most of Europe complaining about it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/3/12/anger-confusion-in-europe-as-trump-issues-coronavirus-travel-ban
On news Britian wasnt taking the pandemic seriously Trump added Britain 2 days later.
I'm not suggesting Americas response was that much better, but Trump did surprisingly act in a better way than the Majority of the EU and Britain. Was denounced for it then promptly copied by them all.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 14:13:13
Wow did they really say around the order of 3. Wow. Amazing its 3.28It says a lot that you haven't worked out that a doubling time of 3 days is not the same as an R0 value of 3 .
One is a number and the other is a duration.
Says more you decided to take data from Britian, and a later variant.
The incubation time is different for everyone. So choosing the fastest, to build a data set is inherently going to mess with the data.
As is the case with the R0 potentially an infected person could infect hundreds. But it's all relative to how often they go out, where they go, who they meet, when they do so, if they like coughing at people or cover their mouth when they do so.
Setting an average overall, of between 1.4 and 3.28 is fine. Besides it's the number the CDC WHO and many governments use.
No it doesn't 🤣You need to offer some sort of "reasoning" for that assertion, of you just sound like a 3 year old.
Alan and Evan also cited October. Not just me citing that time frame.
Try starting in March 2020That would be fine.
But you are the one saying that the virus was present in Spain in March 2019.
No I am saying with an R0 of 2 with a fortnightly doubling puts patient 0 in March, Spain just has sewage samples.
Do you now accept that you had no idea what you were talking about?No I think they see that as usual you just enjoying trolling.
OK let's ask them.
If there's any actual scientists still reading this, please let us know, and also let us know if you think Jolly is right.
What question are you even asking?
If its 'can we tracking the virus backwards from March/February 2020 when we first see 20,000 deaths worldwide, using the R0 and incubation period, to estimate the time of patient 0?'
Then ok, but I don't think that's the question you are asking them besides as evan already said.
Quote from: Jolly's Computer model of exponential pandemic growthPast infections . current infectionsThere is an additional line of evidence here, which is the number of variants seen in the early days of the pandemic.
- This genetic clock points to a "patient zero" perhaps around September-October.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 17:18:46
Says more you decided to take data from Britian, and a later variant.Yes, what is says is that, even when we look at the data on your terms, you are still wrong.
What question are you even asking?I'm obviously asking two questions.
If there's any actual scientists still reading this, please let us know, and also let us know if you think Jolly is right.Let us know if you are a scientist reading this (for what it's worth, I should probably have included engineers and medics)
And let us know if you think Jolly is right.
Alan understood it.
Why don't you?
No I am saying with an R0 of 2 with a fortnightly doubling puts patient 0 in MarchAnd with an R0 of 1.00001 and an incubation time of "long enough" you can pretend that patient O was contemporary with the building of the Great pyramid.
But it has nothing to do with reality, so why would you use stupid numbers?
We know that the doubling time is of the order of days, rather than weeks.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2021 18:19:45
On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arroundWrong. 96% if you are lucky. The figure came from Wuhan.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 18:27:54
On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arroundWrong. 96% if you are lucky. The figure came from Wuhan.
A 4% death rate now. You're a lunatic. Under no metrics is that correct.
The death rate for the young in America is 0.0003%
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 18:29:39
Says more you decided to take data from Britian, and a later variant.Yes, what is says is that, even when we look at the data on your terms, you are still wrong.What question are you even asking?I'm obviously asking two questions.If there's any actual scientists still reading this, please let us know, and also let us know if you think Jolly is right.Let us know if you are a scientist reading this (for what it's worth, I should probably have included engineers and medics)
And let us know if you think Jolly is right.
Alan understood it.
Why don't you?No I am saying with an R0 of 2 with a fortnightly doubling puts patient 0 in MarchAnd with an R0 of 1.00001 and an incubation time of "long enough" you can pretend that patient O was contemporary with the building of the Great pyramid.
But it has nothing to do with reality, so why would you use stupid numbers?
We know that the doubling time is of the order of days, rather than weeks.
Trolling as usual. If you have an issue with the number go argue with the CDC or the WHO.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 18:31:16
The death rate for the young in America is 0.0003%0.0003% is a lot higher than the chance of patient zero being a young American.
Well, realiy, it's 0.0003% higher.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 18:32:45
If you have an issue with the numberI have an issue with the stupid idea that there is one number.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 18:36:56
The death rate for the young in America is 0.0003%0.0003% is a lot higher than the chance of patient zero being a young American.
Well, realiy, it's 0.0003% higher.
"case fatality rate is 0.003%, 0.02%; 0.5% and 5.4% for the age groups 0–19, 20–49, 50–69, and 70 or over, respectively."
Hence your suggestion of 4% is utter nonsense.
Its 0.5% for the under 70s.
So unless the world becomes populated by only people 70 and older your suggestion of 4% mortality rate utterly rediculas.
As I suggested before go waste someone else's time: Troll boy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 18:41:54
Hence your suggestion of 4% is utter nonsense.I never suggested that.
Please try to keep up.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 18:53:25
Hence your suggestion of 4% is utter nonsense.I never suggested that.
Please try to keep up.
On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arroundWrong. 96% if you are lucky. The figure came from Wuhan.
Oh yeah it was 4% if you're lucky.
So you are leaning more to 5% mortality rate. Good call.
So the figures from wuhan give an R0 of 7, a 3 day incubation and a mortality rate of 4% if your lucky.
You know under those numbers patient 0. Was with 20,000 deaths in March 2020, clearly in February. And entire month after China declared an outbreak.
Actually somewhere around March 1st with a 3 day doubling. Good numbers chemist let's ask the WHO to go investigate wuhan on March first 2020.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 19:06:28
I never commented on the mortality rate being 4%.
I commented on the stupidity of using a mortality rate for young Americans when you were talking about patient zero who was not a young American.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 19:15:28
Stop misusing the quote function.
I never commented on the mortality rate being 4%.
I commented on the stupidity of using a mortality rate for young Americans when you were talking about patient zero who was not a young American.
Oh yeah it was Alan.
On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arroundWrong. 96% if you are lucky. The figure came from Wuhan.
Sorry with all your trolling I missed quoted it. I'll correct it now.
Ok so basically one lunefollowing another. Great.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 19:18:37
Stop misusing the quote function.
I never commented on the mortality rate being 4%.
I commented on the stupidity of using a mortality rate for young Americans when you were talking about patient zero who was not a young American.
Oh confessing to know who patient 0 was now are you?
Fess up
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 19:36:55
Sorry with all your trolling
If you stopped lying about me being a troll, you might have more time to get things right. Or at least get things right the second time- you know- after I point out that you have screwed up.
Speaking of your screwing up, you seem to have missed this
If you have an issue with the numberI have an issue with the stupid idea that there is one number.
Oh confessing to know who patient 0 was now are you?I'm "confessing" to knowing that he was in, or near, Wuhan and thus almost certainly not American.
Most people would call that "stating the obvious" rathe than a confession.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/02/2021 20:24:21
Sorry with all your trolling
If you stopped lying about me being a troll, you might have more time to get things right. Or at least get things right the second time- you know- after I point out that you have screwed up.
Speaking of your screwing up, you seem to have missed this.
The insane idea of a mortality of 4% I attributed to you as an idea as equally insane as an R0 7. I simply in my rush missed it was Alan no you claiming it. Still you certianly seemed to support it even if you didn't directly claim it.
Alan can explain how a person suffering from a illness with his supposed mortality of 4% is most likley dead now.
And I'll stop accusing you of troll the day you stop.
If you have an issue with the numberI have an issue with the stupid idea that there is one number.
As I suggested take it up with the CDC or WHO
[/quote]Oh confessing to know who patient 0 was now are you?I'm "confessing" to knowing that he was in, or near, Wuhan and thus almost certainly not American.
Most people would call that "stating the obvious" rathe than a confession.
Oh my couldn't an American have been in wuhan then? You claim it certainly wasnt implies you know who it was.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 20:30:24
As I suggested take it up with the CDC or WHOBut they know that it's not just one number.
You don't, and that's why I'm raising it with you.
And I'll stop accusing you of troll the day you stop.So, you are first of all, waiting for me to start.
That's absurd.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2021 23:06:27
United Kingdom cases
Updated 15 Feb at 22:58 local
Confirmed 4,047,843 Deaths 117,396
2.9% fatality
but that is an underestimate, even by government calculation, because there have been 700,000 new cases in the last 28 days who haven't had time to die according to the official program. If we use the figure of 3,316,019 confirmed cases by 15 January, we get 3.54% fatality, not much different from the early Wuhan findings.
Post by: puppypower on 16/02/2021 12:04:14
"The Uranium One controversy involves various theories promoted by conservative media, politicians, and commentators that characterized the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom as a $145 million bribery scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. No evidence of wrongdoing was ever found."
The problem with your assessment are many crimes in Washington, are not called crimes, since those who make the laws, can legally make a law that say it is not a crime of them. For example, not too long ago, members of Congress allowed themselves to get away with insider stock trading. This was illegal for you and me, but was legal for themselves, until this dual standard was pointed out, and then they had to act and close the loophole. They still have many such self serving loopholes, which was why Trump was such a threat to the swamp.
The main confusion I had was with the large cash donation; $100M plus, Putin gave to the Clinton Foundation. This donation times out wth Putin closing the Uranium deal with Obama and Hillary. This may have been a coincidence. If this was legitimate, then the generous donation appears to show Putin demonstrating himself to be a great humanitarian. Not everyone gives such a large donation to the AIDs fight in Africa. The Clintons are so into charity.
Putin was not properly recognized for his charitable donation as one might have expected. How come he did not get Time magazines man of the year? Rather, Obama and Clinton tried to bury this and then turned on the great humanitarian Putin and blamed him for all types of intrigue. They back stabbed the great humanitarian, Putin, and then blamed him for trying to take over the world with Trump. Obama and Clinton turned out to be scum bags after they got what they wanted. They decided to keep the money quiet, until it was discovered.
This analysis did not make too much sense, even though it was consistent with Hillary and Obama trying to hide the donation for some reason. It made more sense that Obama, Clinton and Putin were all in on this and decided to run a distraction scam. Putin had already invested heavily, in both time and money, is his new Democrat friends, who he had pushed a reset button with. They were all afraid to be discovered in the 2016 election season and decided the best defense was a deceptive blame someone else offense. Trump was blamed even though only the Clintons took more then $100million from Putin.
But again, it was not illegal for top level officials in Washington to take foreign bribes, since they make the laws and this loophole was made for themselves. They bury these personal loopholes in their 3000 page bills among the pork barrel and campaign donation loopholes. This is also why the Biden family has not done anything "wrong" in spite of the entire Biden Clan on foreign payrolls. Trump threatened to end this "legal" practice, which rubbed most of the Democrats and some Republicans the wrong way.
If you look at all the players who spied on the Trump campaign, it appears this was also legal for certain insiders, since nobody is being punished even though Nixon was threatened with jail for something less sinister. Nixon did not know how to make this legal for himself, as was discovered by the modern Democrats. In the pas leaders had to just do it and cover it up, using the crimes of the others as a checks and balance.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2021 12:56:10
large cash donation; $100M plus, Putin gave to the Clinton Foundation.This did not happen.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/nov/15/facebook-posts/no-russia-did-not-donate-145-million-clinton-found/
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2021 12:56:46
Trump was such a threat to the swamp.Trump is the swamp.
He has been channelling taxpayers' money into his own pockets.
https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million
And it's off topic anyway.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/02/2021 13:22:04
Depends on how lucky you are. Not everyone has access to unlimited free healthcare.
United Kingdom cases
Updated 15 Feb at 22:58 local
Confirmed 4,047,843 Deaths 117,396
2.9% fatality
but that is an underestimate, even by government calculation, because there have been 700,000 new cases in the last 28 days who haven't had time to die according to the official program. If we use the figure of 3,316,019 confirmed cases by 15 January, we get 3.54% fatality, not much different from the early Wuhan findings.
Sure, 20 in hospital in Wuhan one died, yeah, 5% mortality rate.
You're being rediculas, and using confirmed cases. And you know that.
So you moved this thread to new theories alan, in the hope people won't notice your silly suggestion?
This isnt a new theory topic. Your Behaviour is rather rediculas. My suggestion of using the R0 to calculate the time of patient 0 isnt a new theory, and bares no relation to the overall topic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2021 13:45:50
rediculasIs that some sort of joke, or do you really not know how to spell?
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/02/2021 20:15:07
rediculasIs that some sort of joke, or do you really not know how to spell?
Yep really adding to the discussion. I thought you wanted me to stop calling you a troll.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2021 20:33:45
Yep really adding to the discussion.Just like calling people ridiculous.
You forgot to answer the question, BTW.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 22:12:56
Yep really adding to the discussion.Just like calling people ridiculous.
You forgot to answer the question, BTW.
I think I called the suggestion of a 4% motility rate rediculas, not him as a person, of course he would be behaving ridiculously.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 22:16:17
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00375-7
Quote:"Now, whether we were shown everything? You can never know. The group wasn’t designed to go and do a forensic examination of lab practice.”
The WHO group of investigators wasnt designed to do a complete study of the laboratory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 22:59:19
So we can forget about the WHO investigation ruling out the wuhan laboratory as the source.Of course we can. We knew that when the Chinese government announced that the disease existed.
They could have washed the whole place down with bleach, destroyed paper records, faked new ones.
It wouldn't even have been difficult.
So we knew that WHO would never be able to do a forensic examination of lab practice".
But they were able to check case histories and such,.
And the data they got- flawed as it may be , supports the obvious.
"Where did covid 19 originate?"
Wuhan.
Just as we said at the start.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/02/2021 23:29:57
So we can forget about the WHO investigation ruling out the wuhan laboratory as the source.Of course we can. We knew that when the Chinese government announced that the disease existed.
They could have washed the whole place down with bleach, destroyed paper records, faked new ones.
It wouldn't even have been difficult.
So we knew that WHO would never be able to do a forensic examination of lab practice".
But they were able to check case histories and such,.
And the data they got- flawed as it may be , supports the obvious.
"Where did covid 19 originate?"
Wuhan.
Just as we said at the start.
Maybe China did, not the issue, the WHO team wasnt qualified to do the analysis necessary, so just a time waste.
Bret Weinstein on laboratory created Covid possibility starts at 11:20
Post by: Petrochemicals on 18/02/2021 00:05:15
I have to agree, 66 percent of cases are asymptomaticYep really adding to the discussion.Just like calling people ridiculous.
You forgot to answer the question, BTW.
I think I called the suggestion of a 4% motility rate rediculas, not him as a person, of course he would be behaving ridiculously.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/02/2021 03:45:56
I have to agree, 66 percent of cases are asymptomaticYep really adding to the discussion.Just like calling people ridiculous.
You forgot to answer the question, BTW.
I think I called the suggestion of a 4% motility rate rediculas, not him as a person, of course he would be behaving ridiculously.
I'm sticking with 80% asymptomatic or mild symptoms .
Still we need to find the 'intermediary'. People at an old peoples home?
According to Bret Weinstein it's too transmissive to have occured it the way we see(that it just explodes in wuhan), so there has to be an intermediary that helped it become super transmissive in humans. That could be a laboratory or it could be a population somewhere else. But there is no evidence of the virus evolving in wuhan.
So either evolved somewhere else to become super transmissive in humans then moved to wuhan or it escaped from a laboratory doing gain of function research that was designed to make covid more transmissive in humans. But it's too evolved towards infecting humans to just jump of a ferret badger steak.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 08:35:58
WHO team wasnt qualified to do the analysis necessary,They are doing the analyses.
Bret Weinstein on laboratory created Covid possibility starts at 11:20And he's still wrong.
So what?
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/02/2021 11:09:05
WHO team wasnt qualified to do the analysis necessary,They are doing the analyses.Bret Weinstein on laboratory created Covid possibility starts at 11:20And he's still wrong.
So what?
I'll take his expertise over your opinion thanks.
Post by: puppypower on 18/02/2021 12:10:39
The Corona virus helped Biden and the Democrats much more than it helped Trump and the Republicans. Does the CIA run a bio-lab populated by swamp bureaucrats? It was funny how the virus shows up, coincidentally, just before the 2020 election season. It then became the central pretense to alter the election laws in states accused of voter fraud. It is weird how coincidences can time out perfectly, to need?
Trump did not benefit by the virus, as much as those who are now in power. Trump was pushing all if well and healthy narrative. it was the Democrats pushing the fear angle the most. This either tells us the Left developed the virus or they had an accomplice who would also benefit. The Left had no problem exploiting hardship and even death for its own political benefit. These people are in power now, because of their virus cheerleading.
Another way to look at motive and means is to look at the impact of the virus, and who it affected the most. The virus impacts the elderly and those with various medical issues; cardio and respiratory. the most. The estimate is 10% of the population uses 90% of the medical resources. Corona seems to target that 10% and will in the long term, lower overall medical costs, as the virus creates attrition in the 10%.
In China, caring for the elderly is a problem, due to their policy on birth control, which only allows one child per family. This means there are not enough children to care for the growing elderly population. This care used to occur within the family, but the stated ordered family size is now too small and the state has to intercede. The corona virus appears to be a specialty virus, needed for it national child and elderly policy. China had the means and motivation. They are also not afraid to do such things since they have a type of monarchy.
Also, China ended up with a supply monopoly, with respect to most of the supplies needed to combat the virus at the level of world citizenry. How were they so prepared? This little virus, single handedly, altered the trade balance between China, the USA and the World, which had been shifted by Trump. Now China will have a more compliant US president; from the Pre-Trump era, who will help them reverse the Trump hardships on China, while allowing trade deficits to run high and in their benefit, like under Obama. The Democrats, in turn, got their power back. This is the unholy alliance that gave us the virus.
Again, it makes no sense to develop a virus that will only do harm and have no benefit; war virus. So we need to see who are the winners and losers, from the virus, and look closer at the winners. The narrative of this being an accidental release came from who? This narrative is the opposite of the logic that a future winner was helping to make this possible. The former narrative appears to be a distraction away from the future winners. However the winners and losers and now clear cut, but this was not the case when the scam was new and the narrative was better hidden from sight, due to no clear cut winners, yet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 12:51:50
One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated, is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?No
Because it evolved in a bat.
The logical fallacy you are engaging in is called
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
And, because this is a science site, it just gets you laughed at
The scientists here will take the evidence over your failure to grasp thisWHO team wasnt qualified to do the analysis necessary,They are doing the analyses.Bret Weinstein on laboratory created Covid possibility starts at 11:20And he's still wrong.
So what?
I'll take his expertise over your opinion thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/02/2021 15:31:03
One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated, is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?No
Because it evolved in a bat.
False. The virus Covid 19 evolved from may very well be a virus seen in the horseshoe Bat. But Covid19 did not evolve inside a Bat. Which is why they spent ages looking at pengalins and why now the WHO doctors are looking at ferret badgers.
The virus Covid19 did not come from Bats, the pengalin argument is now gone, they are looking at badger ferrets. Noone is looking for a bat, because we know covid didnt come from a bat to humans.
Covid evolved in an intermediary, could have been people, could have been a laboratory, could have been a ferret badger, but it wasnt a bat.
Oh no chemists Is talking nonsense again
The scientists here will take the evidence over your failure to grasp thisWHO team wasnt qualified to do the analysis necessary,They are doing the analyses.Bret Weinstein on laboratory created Covid possibility starts at 11:20And he's still wrong.
So what?
I'll take his expertise over your opinion thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Not an argument from authority.
'THERE ARE NO AUTHORITIES IN SCIENCE, AT BEST THERE ARE EXPERTS" Karl Sagan
Fortunately Bret Weinstein has the expertise needed to asses the reality of the covid Origin, which you, and also as your silly posts prove, DONT.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/02/2021 17:11:10
Fortunately Bret Weinstein has the expertise needed to asses the reality of the covid Origin
And what about the other virologists who also have that expertise that don't agree with his conclusion?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 17:54:50
THERE ARE NO AUTHORITIES IN SCIENCE,Then you can not cite someone as an authority figure.
The only real way to validate a claim in science is to use evidence.
And you have not.
Which means - as usual you are the silly one.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2021 18:33:28
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1361761217107345408
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 03:12:38
Fortunately Bret Weinstein has the expertise needed to asses the reality of the covid Origin
And what about the other virologists who also have that expertise that don't agree with his conclusion?
What about them? He has made no conclusion, his only statement so far is we need to find the intermediary. That's it.
That each possible intermediary has a different set of events involved with each, that you would have to look for to qualify or disqualify them.
If a group of people were the intermediary, then you would expect to find that group in which Covid19 evolved in, if it was a ferret badgers you would expect to be able to do the same.
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one, which means you simply didn't watch the video I shared, I can share it again...
Starts to discuss covid origin at 11.20
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2021 07:18:13
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
So who was it that asserted that the virus was lab-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 08:43:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:51:50I guess I should apologise for trying to simplify the situation to a point where you can understand it.
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 12:10:39
One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated, is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?
No
Because it evolved in a bat.
False. The virus Covid 19 evolved from may very well be a virus seen in the horseshoe Bat. But Covid19 did not evolve inside a Bat. Which is why they spent ages looking at pengalins and why now the WHO doctors are looking at ferret badgers.
Do you understand that bats, pangolins, ferrets and badgers "had the needed resources " to develop covid19?
Do you understand that bats, pangolins, ferrets and badgers do not work in laboratories?
Do you understand that, Covid did not evolve in a laboratory?
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 14:26:01
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
So who was it that asserted that the virus was lab-made?
No one it's one hypothesis, against others as the intermediary. Watch the video
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 14:36:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:51:50I guess I should apologise for trying to simplify the situation to a point where you can understand it.
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 12:10:39
One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated, is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?
No
Because it evolved in a bat.
False. The virus Covid 19 evolved from may very well be a virus seen in the horseshoe Bat. But Covid19 did not evolve inside a Bat. Which is why they spent ages looking at pengalins and why now the WHO doctors are looking at ferret badgers.
Cant even appolgose without trolling. Unbelievable.
Do you understand that bats, pangolins, ferrets and badgers "had the needed resources " to develop covid19?
Do you understand that bats, pangolins, ferrets and badgers do not work in laboratories?
With their tiny lab jackets.
Do you understand that, Covid did not evolve in a laboratory?
Wrong again, we don't know.
Laboratories can mimic nature, as Bret Weinstein suggested you can place an infected animal next to others and then take any that become infected and repeat the process as a means to increase the functionality of the virus in terms of transmisivity And that could be done as a part of gain of function research. "As you keep asking a transmission question as opposed to how long can the virus survive on a surface question or a different one".
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 14:42:20
Jolly.It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
So who was it that asserted that the virus was lab-made?
I suggest rather a relases from fort Detrick earlier in the year and a cover up by American officials.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 14:45:51
Cant even appolgose without trolling. Unbelievable.I'm not the troll here.
Wrong again, we don't know.Well, we know that it wasn't created as a bioweapon.
Why would someone have made it in a lab?
The thing about working in a lab; they don't let you play with stuff just for fun.
You need a reason (and a budget) to do things.
So, how would anyone in a lab create create Covid for no reason?
Simple answer is they couldn't.
So, in fact we do know that it wasn't created in a lab.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 15:56:39
Cant even appolgose without trolling. Unbelievable.I'm not the troll here.Wrong again, we don't know.Well, we know that it wasn't created as a bioweapon.
You dont know that and to make the statement is a highly unscientific thing to do. So again perfect example of you trolling and adding complete disinformation into the discussion.
Why would someone have made it in a lab?
You'll have ask them, why they did so. Only they know why they would have done so.
The thing about working in a lab; they don't let you play with stuff just for fun.
You need a reason (and a budget) to do things.
So, how would anyone in a lab create create Covid for no reason?
Gain of function research with regards to bat Corona viruses is well documented. Why they do so, go ask them. you can ask "why did you create create added functionality to a bat Corona virus'?"
Simple answer is they couldn't.
Honestly stop trolling, Bret Weinstein in the video not only talks about the possibility he activity discusses a mechanism by which to do so.
So, in fact we do know that it wasn't created in a lab.
Stop being anti-scientific in your replies.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 15:58:49
Jolly.It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
So who was it that asserted that the virus was lab-made?I suggest rather a relases from fort Detrick earlier in the year and a cover up by American officials.
A hypothesis. And currently a valid one, until ruled out.
The population around fort Detrick could be the intermediary, in which covid 19 evolved before going to wuhan, At the wuhan games in Oct 2019.
We know fort Detrick was working on gain of function research with bat Corona viruses, we know they had a leak of materials. We know an old peoples home relatively near by had a respiratory infection out break 2 weeks before, fort Detrick was closed down.
The 3 months between July 2019 and October 2019 is certainly enough for covid 19 to evolve from which ever Corona virus might have escaped.
A hypothesis that would leave certian markers that can be looked for.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2021 16:45:26
No one
Really? It sure sounds like you are asserting that it was lab made with this particular quote:
You'll have ask them, why they did so. Only they know why they would have done so.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 20:08:38
No one
Really? It sure sounds like you are asserting that it was lab made with this particular quote:You'll have ask them, why they did so. Only they know why they would have done so.
Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/02/2021 20:11:27
Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Which do you think is more likely, it being lab-created or fully natural?
Post by: puppypower on 19/02/2021 22:34:11
Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Which do you think is more likely, it being lab-created or fully natural?
The class of virus called Corona virus, was first discovered in the 1920's in chickens. It caused respiratory distress in baby chickens, which caused economics to bring the virus to the forefront because of need. In the 1930's, the corona virus it was found in mice and impacted their brain. The corona virus has different affects, but they are all part of the corona class of virus. This virus was a potential development gold mine, since theoretically the same virus base could target the lungs or brain which is interesting.
The first human corona virus case was discovered in the 1960's. It came from a unique virus associated wth the common cold. There are friendly corona virus also. Covid-19 is not exactly unprecedented, but is more than likely a mutation, either naturally or artificially imposed, starting from a less harmful previous generation corona virus foundation. Labs had 100 and 50 years to experiment with the animal and then human virus foundation, for fun, profit, and world domination.
The mistake many make, due to the propaganda, is to assume that the covid-19 virus is new to the world, therefore it is a mystery to how it could just appear from nowhere. The bat solution appears to solve that mystery. In reality, this virus class has been studied for nearly 100 years and is well characterized in many respects. Both natural mutations and lab tweaks are very likely over the past 100 years. The corona virus is among the largest sized virus classes, which is always a plus for creating lab study standards.
Virus multiply easier when there is no competition, such as in the lab, when a researcher is trying to isolate the virus and/or hope to witness mutations. Mutations inside a bat will face more viral and immune system competition from the bat itself, compared to a sterile beaker. Therefore, the bat scenario will need more that one bat to make all the mutation jumps from the common cold to it present state. Did they find thousands of infected bats near the China market, or did that one bat act like a sterile petrie dish? This ca help solve the mystery.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 23:17:48
Honestly stop trolling, Bret Weinstein in the video not only talks about the possibility he activity discusses a mechanism by which to do so.Please explain this mechanism by which people in labs can do work without a budget.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 23:23:53
You dont know that and to make the statement is a highly unscientific thing to do.We do know it; for the same reason that we know that a football was not created as a tea strainer.
It simply wouldn't work.
There is no military value for a virus that rips round the world and kills 5% of grannies and granddads.
So Covid can't be a bio weapon.
That's a perfectly scientific analysis.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 19/02/2021 23:43:17
Lab created. Look at the evidence.Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Which do you think is more likely, it being lab-created or fully natural?
Wuhan has a viroligy lab investigating such things
Chinese authorities engage in a cover up
Wuhan lab has let viruses escape before
The spread of corona virus within China for the 2 months prior to state recognition does not match the spread in 2 months in Europe, a similarly dense population.
Genetic manipulation of this and other viruses has been proven easily achievable by the numerous vaccines created in such a small time.
Versus? Someone going on about a bat.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 00:14:07
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;It shows.
BoredChemist
maybe you should stop being repetitively antagonistic and look at the reasoning I posted.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 00:32:12
Wuhan has a viroligy lab investigating such thingsPlease provide a list of cities of 11 million people which don't have a virology lab working on local zoonoses.
Chinese authorities engage in a cover upSo did the UK . Boris went round saying it wasn't a problem and he had been shaking hands with people in hospital.
Across the pond, Trump did the same sort of thing.
Wuhan lab has let viruses escape beforeAll labs seem to do this; even in the UK
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12615-faulty-pipe-blamed-for-uk-foot-and-mouth-outbreak/
The spread of corona virus within China for the 2 months prior to state recognition does not match the spread in 2 months in Europe, a similarly dense population.The spread of a virus before the authorities know about it is not tracked- they don't have time machines.
So there is no actual possibility of there being evidence to support that claim, is there?
a similarly dense population.In the interests of some semblance of accuracy; Wuhan (11 million) has roughly the same population as London (9 million), but it is much bigger
8,494 km² vs 1,572 km²
So the population densities are not the same.
Genetic manipulation of this and other viruses has been proven easily achievable by the numerous vaccines created in such a small time.I don't think any of the widely used the vaccines is a live infective virus.
But that's beside the point.
Showing that something is not impossible is not the same as showing that it happened.
It does not make sense to say "Petrochemicals owns a hammer therefore petrochemicals beat someone to death.".
It does not make sense to say "GM of viruses is possible therefore Covid is a GM virus".
So, apart from being wrong on every count...
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 17:34:10
Lab created. Look at the evidence.Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Which do you think is more likely, it being lab-created or fully natural?
Wuhan has a viroligy lab investigating such things
If the virus escaped from the wuhan lab, the same lab investigating is a huge conflict of interest.
Chinese authorities engage in a cover up
Wuhan lab has let viruses escape before
It appears most labs at one time or another have had accidental releases of material. We should be stopping gain of function research.
The spread of corona virus within China for the 2 months prior to state recognition does not match the spread in 2 months in Europe, a similarly dense population.
You are missing a step, under the laboratory release hypothesis, what escaped from the laboratory wasnt covid19, it would have been a bat Corona virus or a virus adapted by gain of function research to infect critters, a virus that on escape from the laboratory started infecting humans and then evolved into covid19.
There is ofcourse the possibility and surrounding hypothesis that a laboratory developed covid 19 in its entirety and that escaped or was intentionally released. But generally lab release hypothesis' start with the idea some other virus escaped a laboratory and then evolved outside, into covid.
Genetic manipulation of this and other viruses has been proven easily achievable by the numerous vaccines created in such a small time.
Versus? Someone going on about a bat.
Which is pointless because a bat isn't the intermediary
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 17:38:13
Yes and part of a hypothesis, if it was lab created only those responsible can answer the question as to why they did so.
Which do you think is more likely, it being lab-created or fully natural?
Well rather then stating an opinion you have to go with the evidence and as Bret Weinstein stated in the video you clearly still have not watched, the evidence for a lab release has increased. Whereas the evidence for a natural zoological origin has been diminishing, pangalins are now ruled out and the WHO team is looking at ferret Badgers even tho the ferret badger steaks they tested all came up negative for covid.
That the only American on the who team is deeply connected to gain of function research into bat Corona viruses, has nothing at all to do with why the WHO team are doing everything they can to ignore the Laboratory release hypothesis.
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 18:11:40
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
I know that feeling, maybe we should start a thread about chemicals to give him the opportunity to maybe be right for once. Might calm him down :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 18:11:58
If the virus escaped from the wuhan lab, the same lab investigating is a huge conflict of interest.Did you deliberately miss the point?
We should be stopping gain of function research.So, you want to stop the research on the effect that things like the South African or Kent variants will have on the virus.
Do you understand why others will disagree?
, it would have been a bat Corona virus or a virus adapted by gain of function research to infect critters, a virus that on escape from the laboratory started infecting humans and then evolved into covid19.You made that up all by yourself, didn't you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 18:12:28
I know that feeling, maybe we should start a thread about chemicals to give him the opportunity to maybe be right for once. Might calm him downIt would be easier and better all round if you just stopped posting tosh.
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 18:31:41
Honestly stop trolling, Bret Weinstein in the video not only talks about the possibility he activity discusses a mechanism by which to do so.Please explain this mechanism by which people in labs can do work without a budget.
Stop trolling
https://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/top-us-health-advisor-dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-for-risky-coronavirus-research-report/amp_articleshow/75449844.cms
"An organization backed by top US health advisor Dr Anthony Fauci had funded Chinese scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology for research on coronavirus, claimed a report published by the globally respected US weekly magazine Newsweek."
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 18:40:56
Stop trollingI am trying to stop trolling.
But you keep on doing it.
First of all that's a claim in a newspaper- so there's no reason to assume it is true.
Secondly it is irrelevant.
Yes, they may well have ben doing research on coronaviruses in bats.
Very sensible of them.
But they were not doing research on making it into a bioweapon.
Because they are not stupid, and it would be a rubbish weapon.
So, all the stuff about it being a bioweapon is known to be false.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 22:01:17
Stop trollingI am trying to stop trolling.
Congratulations, they say the first step is admitting you have a problem. Good for you.
Yes, they may well have ben doing research on coronaviruses in bats.
Very sensible of them.
Not very sensible if it has lead to the current covid outbreak.
But they were not doing research on making it into a bioweapon.
Because they are not stupid, and it would be a rubbish weapon.
As far as I am concerned they should not be increasing the functionality of a Bat Corona virus at all.
So, all the stuff about it being a bioweapon is known to be false.
No it isn't, all depends what you want the weapon to achieve. Since the covid19 outbreak people like Bill Gates have MASSIVELY increased their wealth. Bill Gates is also using the economic downturn to buy up farm land on the cheep. Amoung others the oligarchy is making a financial killing thanks to the pandemic.
Not to suggest that's could possibly be the reason for such a bio weapon, just a note on what has been happening.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 22:21:34
Congratulations, they say the first step is admitting you have a problem.I have a problem; his name is Jolly.
Not very sensible if it has lead to the current covid outbreak.There's no reason to suppose that it did.
As far as I am concerned they should not be increasing the functionality of a Bat Corona virus at all.Nobody said they should.
I asked if you thought they should stop doing research on what mutations would do to the hazard to humans from the virus.
Do you think they should stop doing research?
Do you realise that such research would let us get ahead of the game in making a vaccine for the next variant?
What you are suggesting is akin to banning knives without remembering that surgeons need scalpels.
It's OK, I didn't expect you to work that out for yourself.
No it isn't, all depends what you want the weapon to achieveThe problem is that it wasn't the "Bill Gates Lab".
Also, if I was Mr Gates (born 1955), I wouldn't want a virus that kills the over 50s.
And I recognise that Bill's probably not the only one making money out of this scenario. But most of those who are, are over 50.
It's really not a sensible bioweapon.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/02/2021 00:00:44
Congratulations, they say the first step is admitting you have a problem.I have a problem; his name is Jolly.Not very sensible if it has lead to the current covid outbreak.There's no reason to suppose that it did.As far as I am concerned they should not be increasing the functionality of a Bat Corona virus at all.Nobody said they should.
I think you did right here.
Gain of function research should be bannedIt is impossible to distinguish between, for example "gain of function" research and research to look at what potential variations of the covid virus might do in terms of virulence and immunity.
Do you really want to ban research into how we might treat then next variant?
Adding functionality to a bat Corona virus isn't looking for a treatment its making the virus do more things.
I asked if you thought they should stop doing research on what mutations would do to the hazard to humans from the virus.
Great we made a virus that's more transitive. Let's hope it never escapes but if it did atleast we.know how bad it might be.
Do you think they should stop doing research?
Do you realise that such research would let us get ahead of the game in making a vaccine for the next variant?
What you are suggesting is akin to banning knives without remembering that surgeons need scalpels.
It's OK, I didn't expect you to work that out for yourself.
All nonsense
No it isn't, all depends what you want the weapon to achieveThe problem is that it wasn't the "Bill Gates Lab".
Also, if I was Mr Gates (born 1955), I wouldn't want a virus that kills the over 50s.
And I recognise that Bill's probably not the only one making money out of this scenario. But most of those who are, are over 50.
It's really not a sensible bioweapon.
Have to ask the people who developed it, if that is ever proven.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/02/2021 00:32:19
you have to go with the evidence
Okay, so where's the evidence?
the evidence for a lab release has increased.
How do you figure? The video you posted doesn't give us such evidence. If you disagree, then tell me the relevant timestamp, because I must have missed it.
Whereas the evidence for a natural zoological origin has been diminishing
Has it? Again, your video doesn't support that.
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
He has stated that he is 90% certain of the lab leak theory, so it sure sounds like he's come to a conclusion to me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2021 10:54:24
I think you did right here.You don't understand the issues.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2021 10:55:28
Have to ask the people who developed it, if that is ever proven.No.
Not any more so than I have to ask the guy who invented a football if he intended it to be used as a tea strainer.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:01:31
I think you did right here.You don't understand the issues.
No I clearly just understand you're a troll
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:01:51
Have to ask the people who developed it, if that is ever proven.No.
Not any more so than I have to ask the guy who invented a football if he intended it to be used as a tea strainer.
Who trolls again and again
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18
Can we cut it out with the trolling claims already?
Kyripid I'm not the only one on this thread that notices that the chemist acts like a troll, he adds nothing to the discussion and repeatedly posted comments that are intended to add disinformation or to attack the person he is replying to, take his recent apology for lying, to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"
I guess I should apologise for trying to simplify the situation to a point where you can understand it.
He is inherently trolling, and while he does I will call him out on it. Others choose just to ignore him. Clear the chemist is more interested in provocation then discussion.
you have to go with the evidence
Okay, so where's the evidence?the evidence for a lab release has increased.
How do you figure? The video you posted doesn't give us such evidence. If you disagree, then tell me the relevant timestamp, because I must have missed it.
They discuss supporting evidence for a lab release in a few places,
40.50
At the start of the discussion Bret cites it's clear adaptability to infect humans as evidence that points to a lab release. 19.15 on
Whereas the evidence for a natural zoological origin has been diminishing
Has it? Again, your video doesn't support that.
They have no intermediary any more they are left looking at feret badgers while there is no evidence it came from feret badgers. Hence all past suggestions for a zoological origin are now dead ends, there were more hypothesis before now there are less, hence diminishing.
We have no evidence for any intermediary currently, and scientists that have investigated pangalins as one possible intermediary now excpet it couldn't be.
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
He has stated that he is 90% certain of the lab leak theory, so it sure sounds like he's come to a conclusion to me.
Where is that time stamp? You either believe that mistakenly or are being dishonest. I never once recall him ever suggesting 90% certainly of a laboratory release.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2021 17:29:24
Who trolls again and againYou.
Perpetually.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 18:22:07
Who trolls again and againYou.
Perpetually.
Adds nothing to the discussion, again throws out an attack on people who are. How in anyway this not a troll thing to do?
By their actions shall you know them. You are the definition of a troll, your behaviour demonstrates it. I'm just calling it out. You by contrasts are not.
More provocation and not discussion.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 19:20:40
With the secound data set.
Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.
Past infections . current infections
Patient 0
Week 1. 1 , 3
Week 2 3 , 9
Week 3 9 , 27
Week 4 27 , 81
Week 5 81 , 243
Week 6 243 , 729
Week 7 729 , 2,187
Week 8 2,187 , 6,561
Week 9 6,561 , 19,683
Week 10 19,683 , 59,049
Week 11 59,049 , 177,147
Week 12 177,147 , 531,441
Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323
Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969
After one month from patient 0
You have between 30 to 80 people infected. With patient 0 in mid September.
The Wuhan games are at this time
Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.
There were just under 10,000 athletes taking part in the games.
That's not including people that watched them, or officials involved in referring the games.
I cant find actual numbers for total people present but we could easily assume a few thousand more, watching and refereeing.
There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.
With an R0 3 and a week incubation period. Those infected at the games would then each travel to their home countries afterwards.
There is this story about French soldiers returning sick from wuhan.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.html
The second data set certianly matches with the wuhan games as the source.
We see 20,000 deaths world wide at the begining of March 2019. To hit that figure you need atleast 2 to 3 million infected.
Under the ratios with a weekly doubling and R03 we get the end of mid November, As the source for patient 0.
Yet we know 3 R0 is on the high end the R0 is between 1.4 and 3.
The difference between the two translates to the pandemic taking more time to get to 2 to 3 million infected.
At and Ro of 1.4 and a weekly doubling
Week 1. 1 , 2
Week 2 2 , 4
Week 3 4 , 8
Week 4 8 , 12
Week 5 12 , 17
Week 6 17 , 24
Week 7 24 , 34
Week 8 34 , 47
Week 9 47 , 65
Week 10 65 , 91
Week 11 91 , 127
Week 12 127 , 178
Week 13 178 , 248
Week 14 248 , 348
Week 15 348 , 485
Week 16 485 , 681
Takes 4 months to get 681
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2021 19:28:00
Adds nothing to the discussion, again throws out an attack on people who are. How in anyway this not a troll thing to do?
Do you realise you just described this post of yours?
Who trolls again and again
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2021 19:33:18
, take his recent apology for lying, to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"I didn't lie.
I did simplify things.
If you want to describe yourself as stupid, I'm not going to stop you.
Now, back to the point:
Do you think that you need to ask the designer of a football, if he intended it to be used as a tea strainer, or can you tell from the fact that it simply wouldn't work that he did not have that intention?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2021 20:36:52
Kyripid I'm not the only one on this thread that notices that the chemist acts like a troll
I haven't noticed any such thing. If the in-fighting doesn't stop, am I going to need to lock the thread?
he adds nothing to the discussion
He adds rationality to the discussion.
Quote
and repeatedly posted comments that are intended to add disinformation
Where?
to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"
Just because people need answers simplified for them doesn't mean they are stupid. Many of them simply don't have the scientific expertise needed to fully understand the issues as is.
They discuss supporting evidence for a lab release in a few places,
40.50
I still don't hear it. Please tell me what you think the specific supporting arguments are.
At the start of the discussion Bret cites it's clear adaptability to infect humans as evidence that points to a lab release. 19.15 on
How is that evidence for a lab release? There are tons of viruses that are adapted to infect humans that were not made in a lab.
They have no intermediary any more they are left looking at feret badgers while there is no evidence it came from feret badgers. Hence all past suggestions for a zoological origin are now dead ends, there were more hypothesis before now there are less, hence diminishing.
That's like interpreting a shooting murder investigation eliminating human suspects as "diminishing evidence that the murderer was human". Do you have any idea just how many animals there are? Do you really think we've come anywhere remotely close to testing them all?
Where is that time stamp?
There is no time stamp because he didn't state it in that video (nor did I ever claim that he stated it in the video). Where he stated it was in an interview with Bill Maher: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-maher-pushes-bonkers-steve-bannon-wuhan-lab-covid-conspiracy
You either believe that mistakenly or are being dishonest.
Really? In the interview with Bill Maher, he said, "Oh, it’s far more likely than that,” replied Weinstein, adding that “it looked to be about 90 percent” probability that it originated in a lab. How is that me being either mistaken or dishonest?
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47
Kyripid I'm not the only one on this thread that notices that the chemist acts like a troll
I haven't noticed any such thing. If the in-fighting doesn't stop, am I going to need to lock the thread?
Because you are clearly not paying attention.
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll has
he adds nothing to the discussion
He adds rationality to the discussion.Quoteand repeatedly posted comments that are intended to add disinformation
Where?
Oh my you actually read any of his posts? He has been suggesting an R0 of 7, defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%, claimed that covid evolved in bats, which is a total lie then apologises for lying by effectively saying he was dumping down his reply for us stupid people.
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say and as petrochemicals stated antagoniese people. To not see his trolling is willful blindness.
to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"
Just because people need answers simplified for them doesn't mean they are stupid. Many of them simply don't have the scientific expertise needed to fully understand the issues as is.
Nice it's the chemist calling people stupid not me.
They discuss supporting evidence for a lab release in a few places,
40.50
I still don't hear it. Please tell me what you think the specific supporting arguments are.At the start of the discussion Bret cites it's clear adaptability to infect humans as evidence that points to a lab release. 19.15 on
How is that evidence for a lab release? There are tons of viruses that are adapted to infect humans that were not made in a lab.
Ask Bret if actually watched the video. You know as much as me.
They actually state a few example in the 9 minute video at the bottom of this reply.
Covid is adapted to indoor transmission not transmission outside, you would not expect that in a natural virus, it is adapted to infect many different types of human cells.
The cleavage site that isnt found in Any other Corona virus. Its adaptation to be transmissive inhumans more then in Bats, or other animals.
They have no intermediary any more they are left looking at feret badgers while there is no evidence it came from feret badgers. Hence all past suggestions for a zoological origin are now dead ends, there were more hypothesis before now there are less, hence diminishing.
That's like interpreting a shooting murder investigation eliminating human suspects as "diminishing evidence that the murderer was human".
Yes diminishing suspects absolutely. If all human suspects are eliminated then it must have been the dog that knows how to fire a gun.
Do you have any idea just how many animals there are? Do you really think we've come anywhere remotely close to testing them all?
Not an arguement only some animals can have been the intermediary, not all.
Haven't seen it thanks for the link.Where is that time stamp?
There is no time stamp because he didn't state it in that video (nor did I ever claim that he stated it in the video). Where he stated it was in an interview with Bill Maher: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-maher-pushes-bonkers-steve-bannon-wuhan-lab-covid-conspiracy
You either believe that mistakenly or are being dishonest.
Really? In the interview with Bill Maher, he said, "Oh, it’s far more likely than that,” replied Weinstein, adding that “it looked to be about 90 percent” probability that it originated in a lab. How is that me being either mistaken or dishonest?
You should have referenced the actual interview as your evidence in the first place, by not doing so I was left believing you were talking about the video we were discussing originally.
Here is the actual discussion 9 mins
He says "I believe back in June I said the chances of covid comming from a lab looked to me to be about 90%"
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2021 01:16:01
Because you are clearly not paying attention.
I haven't read all of this thread, but it doesn't sound like Bored Chemist to intentionally post false information. He can be blunt and brazen at times, but he mostly seems to avoid direct insults.
Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll has
If you really think he is a troll, then you can do your part to stop it by not responding to him.
Oh my you actually read any of his posted
I admittedly haven't read all of this thread.
he has been suggesting an R0 of 7
I haven't researched it, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's no doubt a variable number, though. EDIT: Having done some research, I found a reported R0 value of 5.7: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0
Quote
The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%
The death rate has varied over time and from one place to another. The statistics show a case fatality rate range of less than 1% to above 14%: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid The case fatality rate worldwide does seem to be below 4% at the present moment, though.
That covid evolved in bats which is a total lie
How do you know?
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say and as petrochemicals stated harresses people.
When has he harassed people?
Nice it's the chemist calling people stupid not me.
If he's called anyone stupid in this thread, please show me the quote.
Ask Bret if actually watched the video. You know as much as me.
I did watch the video. I'm not going to ask Bret when you are the one here supporting his views. If you are promoting his arguments, it's up to you to defend them.
Yes diminishing suspects absolutely.
And is it at all sensible to seriously consider that an alien or ghost or some other non-human entity shot someone simply because the police have eliminated several possible human suspects?
Not an arguement only some animals can have been the intermediary, not all.
And all of those individuals have been checked?
You should have referenced the link as your evidence in the first place, by not doing so I was left believing you were talking about the video we were discussing originally.
I'll accept that as my fault. I should have posted the link.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2021 09:13:56
Oh my you actually read any of his posts? He has been suggesting an R0 of 7It wasn't me that suggested it.
It was a research group in China, using the early data in Wuhan.
And everyone on the thread agreed that the right value of R0 to use was the one based on the early data in Wuhan.
defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%,From worldometer,
UK deaths 120,757
UK recovered 2,548,621
So total resolved cases 2,669,378
100* 120757/2,669,378 =4.5
That's 4.5%
So, yes.
I'm defending the right answer.
claimed that covid evolved in bats,For the most part, it did, didn't it?
It's hypothesised, but not proven, that there was at least one intermediate species.
But the point I was making with that simplification was that it happened in the wild animal population, not in a lab.
by effectively saying he was dumping downIf I had said I was dumbing down, I would have got the spelling right.
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people sayHow could I do that?
Are you claiming that your message is so unclear that I can always show that it means the opposite of what you thought it did?
Isn't it more likely that I can show that you are wrong, simply because you are wrong?
To not see his trolling is willful blindness.Pointing out that you are wrong is not trolling.
You continuing to post nonsense is trolling.
Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll hasYou are not succeeding, so why don't you stop?
He says "I believe back in June I said the chances of covid comming from a lab looked to me to be about 90%"
Well rather then stating an opinion you have to go with the evidence and as Bret Weinstein stated in the video you clearly still have not watched,Why do you think we should listen to Bret's opinion?
He hasn't supported it with evidence.
That number- 90%- is one he just made up.
A made up number is not science, though it will fool some people into thinking it is.
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 17:54:46
Because you are clearly not paying attention.
I haven't read all of this thread,
Lucky you.
but it doesn't sound like Bored Chemist to intentionally post false information. He can be blunt and brazen at times, but he mostly seems to avoid direct insults.Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll has
If you really think he is a troll, then you can do your part to stop it by not responding to him.Oh my you actually read any of his posted
I admittedly haven't read all of this thread.he has been suggesting an R0 of 7
I haven't researched it, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's no doubt a variable number, though. EDIT: Having done some research, I found a reported R0 value of 5.7: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0QuoteThe R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
Well the WHO and CDC both Cite 1.4 to 2.5.
defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%
The death rate has varied over time and from one place to another. The statistics show a case fatality rate range of less than 1% to above 14%: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid The case fatality rate worldwide does seem to be below 4% at the present moment, though.
Which drops even lower after you account for unrecorded cases. The data is all based on recorded deaths and recorded cases or positive test results and there are millions unrecorded and untested.
Hence the suggestion of 4% isnt appropriate with the data we have and its even less appropriate with the unrecorded cases. 80% mild symptoms or asymptomatic many have had covid and not even realised.
That covid evolved in bats which is a total lie
How do you know?
Well as Bret points out covid 19 isn't adapted to transmission in Bats, Firstly, secondly they are not even sure the similar virus found in Bats is the original virus covid came from. Looking at the virus structure and evolution, they are certain the intermediary was a critter, not a bat. Mink seems to be an animal that covid is adapted to infect, ferrets also.
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say and as petrochemicals stated harresses people.
When has he harassed people?
Once he starts trolling he generally doesn't stop, ofcourse only those trolled notice it first. I'll follow your advice and the decision of petrochemical and just ignore him.
Nice it's the chemist calling people stupid not me.
If he's called anyone stupid in this thread, please show me the quote.Ask Bret if actually watched the video. You know as much as me.
I did watch the video. I'm not going to ask Bret when you are the one here supporting his views. If you are promoting his arguments, it's up to you to defend them.
Ok, not sure I was defending his views rather I was adding them to the discussion. I would happily critic him also if he said something I didn't agree with.
Yes diminishing suspects absolutely.
And is it at all sensible to seriously consider that an alien or ghost or some other non-human entity shot someone simply because the police have eliminated several possible human suspects?
You missed the gist of my argument, there is a murder and the owners pet knows how to fire a gun, because the owner thought it was a funny party trick.
Point being the police are unlikely to think the cat or dog shot the person, on discovering the dog or cat can fire a gun, they would ofcourse become an unlikely suspect, and the main suspect should all the other suspects be eliminated by an investigation.
Not an arguement only some animals can have been the intermediary, not all.
And all of those individuals have been checked?
Why would they? The evidence of the viruses evolution points to critters, you could test a dolphin but when covid wont infect or be transmitted by them its kinda pointless.
You should have referenced the link as your evidence in the first place, by not doing so I was left believing you were talking about the video we were discussing originally.
I'll accept that as my fault. I should have posted the link.
All good.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2021 18:12:11
Well the WHO and CDC both Cite 1.4 to 2.5.No. They do not.
They cite that range for the virus TODAY.
But not for its growth in the city of Wuhan before it was known that there was an outbreak.
And that is the value that you need to use to model how the disease would spread in a naïve population.
And that was the issue under discussion at the time.
So there's no question about the current value being something like 1.4 to 2.5.
But that's not relevant.
The trouble is that Jolly can't accept any sensible value for R0 in the early stages of the outbreak of covid, because it makes it clear that his suggestion that it might not have started in Wuhan is even more absurd.
Once he starts trolling he generally doesn't stop,You forgot something.
There is, of course, no evidence of me trolling.
As I pointed out, it isn't trolling to explain why you are hopelessly wrong.
Which drops even lower after you account for unrecorded cases.Because unrecorded cases are unrecorded, there is no way to know what their effect is.
You can't allow for something that you can't measure. That's just wishful thinking, not data.
However, I was able to provide real numbers to show that about 5%
You have not been able to provide any data to show that you are right.
So, once again, showing that you are flat out wrong, is not trolling.
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 19:59:50
Well the WHO and CDC both Cite 1.4 to 2.5.No. They do not.
They cite that range for the virus TODAY.
But not for its growth in the city of Wuhan before it was known that there was an outbreak.
And that is the value that you need to use to model how the disease would spread in a naïve population.
And that was the issue under discussion at the time.
So there's no question about the current value being something like 1.4 to 2.5.
But that's not relevant.
The trouble is that Jolly can't accept any sensible value for R0 in the early stages of the outbreak of covid, because it makes it clear that his suggestion that it might not have started in Wuhan is even more absurd.Once he starts trolling he generally doesn't stop,You forgot something.
There is, of course, no evidence of me trolling.
As I pointed out, it isn't trolling to explain why you are hopelessly wrong.Which drops even lower after you account for unrecorded cases.Because unrecorded cases are unrecorded, there is no way to know what their effect is.
You can't allow for something that you can't measure. That's just wishful thinking, not data.
However, I was able to provide real numbers to show that about 5%
You have not been able to provide any data to show that you are right.
So, once again, showing that you are flat out wrong, is not trolling.
If that were true it would be nice, sadly you are still just posting nonsense, that I'm not replying to anymore.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2021 20:07:16
If that were trueEveryone reading this far knows that it is true.
I'm not the one posting nonsense.
For example, I'm not the one posting that I'm not posting.
that I'm not replying to anymore.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 00:16:45
he has been suggesting an R0 of 7
I haven't researched it, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's no doubt a variable number, though. EDIT: Having done some research, I found a reported R0 value of 5.7: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0QuoteThe R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%
The death rate has varied over time and from one place to another. The statistics show a case fatality rate range of less than 1% to above 14%: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid The case fatality rate worldwide does seem to be below 4% at the present moment, though.
Just going to add a point you missed.
The only reason I was looking at the R0 incubation period and morality rate. Was in an attempt to use the data. To find when patient 0 was.
I did the data for an R0 7 with a mortality rate of 4% with an incubation period of 4 days.
With 20,000 deaths world wide at the beginning of March 2019. Patent 0 would have been in February 2019 an entire month after China already declared an outbreak.
Hence those number are rediculas.
An R0 3 with an incubation period of a week puts patient 0 in arround the begining of November maybe late October.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2021 00:56:55
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/02/2021 02:50:36
Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days after exposure, this is the incubation period.
People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.
So 6 days after exposure seems a good average, any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2021 08:38:48
Hence those number are rediculas.Yes, those numbers are ridiculous.
I don't know why you bothered to calculate them.
Were you trying to undermine the fact (based on the data) that the R0 value early on in the outbreak is bigger, but falls as people recognise that there is a problem?
That seems pointless. Common sense would tell you that people will change their behaviour if they think there's an epidemic.
Are you really so stupid as to not recognise that?
Or were you just trolling?
Pretending that the R0 value at the very start is somehow impossible?
Which is it?
Did you not understand that nobody ever said that R0 would stay that high, or were you lying about it?
Are you foolish, or dishonest?
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 19:33:17
For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.
You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse, because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive, which is limited to available tests.
The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,
Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days after exposure, this is the incubation period.
People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.
So 6 days after exposure seems a good average, any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.
Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 19:43:36
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690
“all models are wrong, but some are useful,” he notes, citing a popular aphorism. “You just hope you’re in the useful category.”
They are citing between 1.4 and 4 as the R0.
I was modelling of 3, 2 and 1.4.
Trouble is superspreders are an issue, but it's also an issue about when and where people meet.
The R0 can only give an overall average when looking at all infected people and how many they will infect.
A superspreerder could infect 100s. Some infected people wont infect anyone.
Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.
Looking at world wide totals we have about 560 million cases 2.4 million deaths so that's a mortality rate. Of 0.5%
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2021 20:35:48
Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.
Not according to the link I posted earlier, which stated 5.7.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/02/2021 21:01:58
Setting the R0 between 2 and 3 is probably the best bet.
Not according to the link I posted earlier, which stated 5.7.
They cite
"five other research groups had produced their own R0 estimates, which all fell somewhere between 1.4 and 4" they cite between 1.4 and 4 twice.
I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/02/2021 22:04:23
No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.
You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse, because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive, which is limited to available tests.
The R rate in problematic cases is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,
Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days after exposure, this is the incubation period.
People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.
So 6 days after exposure seems a good average, any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.
Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2021 22:47:41
I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.
Quote
The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
This is the link I'm referring to, by the way: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#meaning
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 01:48:52
I dont see a suggestion of 5 in there you'll have to quote it.QuoteThe R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
This is the link I'm referring to, by the way: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#meaning
It's one study, compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.
Thanks for the link.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 01:56:08
No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.
You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse, because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive, which is limited to available tests.The R rate in problematic cases is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,
Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days after exposure, this is the incubation period.
People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.
So 6 days after exposure seems a good average, any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.
Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.
It's a game of averages. If the R0 for asymptomatic people is lower, and 80% are generally Asymptomatic, then the overall R0 is gonna be a lot lower.
I suppose you could run them in tandem.
A composite.
A serious infection data set
With a higher R0 and faster incubation period
And then an asymptomatic data set with both lower and then.
Somehow combine them.
For every 10 people infected 8 generally wont notice.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 02:06:10
No I addressed this in the post, I am addressing the problematic cases. Asymptomatic cases are not infectious for a long period, plus the fact that the asymptomatic cases and normal cases are responsible for latter serious infections, they have already been accounted for.For a good estimation of uncontrolled spread of serious infection ofthe virus look at the first reported case in Italy and the increase over time. It will not give asymptomatic cases, but it will give the R value of the spread of problematic cases, asymptomatic cases such as children seen not to be infectious for very long.
You're missing that we know the asymptomatic cases range between 60 and 80%. So we can get a good estimate of the R0 looking at confirmed cases. There is the issue of tests ofcourse, because confirmed cases only relates to tested positive, which is limited to available tests.The R rate in problematic cases is what I was suggesting YOU calculate!The infectious period is variable between children and adults of varying ages, the incubation periods vary, but,
Symptoms start on average 5 to 6 days after exposure, this is the incubation period.
People mostly become most infectious between 2 days before symptoms and decline in infectiousness. People decline in infectious quality, ending 7 days after symptoms or 12 after exposure.
So 6 days after exposure seems a good average, any cases with symptoms are likely to be less social in the symptomatic stages.
Yeah a weekly doubling is probably fair.
It's a game of averages. If the R0 for asymptomatic people is lower, and 80% are generally Asymptomatic, then the overall R0 is gonna be a lot lower.
I suppose you could run them in tandem.
A composite.
A serious infection data set
With a higher R0 and faster incubation period
And then an asymptomatic data set with both lower and then.
Somehow combine them.
For every 10 people infected 8 generally wont notice.
You could just start with 10.
2 serious and more infectious will cause ? Amount of new infections
And 8 mild or asymptomatic will cause ? Infections and just build them up together.
The morality rate globally looks to me to be arround 0.5%
Which ever numbers you choose effects the data. Let's look for a good asymptomatic R0.
We see 20,000 deaths world wide at the beginning of March you need 4 million cases to hit that mortality figure.
So we know atleast 4 million infections in March.
Build the data sets and work back the time line from when you hit 4 million might tell us when patient 0 was.
Still its interesting 80% of data set one move into data set 2 and 20% of data set 2 move into data set one with each doubling.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 02:57:46
Data set two R0 1 weekly doubling.
Week one
2 becomes 6 and 4 move to set2
8 infect 8 and 3 move to set1
Set 1= 2 + 3 = 5 for week one.
Set 2 = 5 + 4 = 9 for week one.
New infections 14
Total cases 24
Week 2
5 infect 15 and 12 move to set2
9 infect 9 and 2 move to set1
Set 1 - 3 + 2 = 5
Set 2 - 7 + 12 = 19
New infections 24
Total cases 48
Week 3
Set1- 5 infect 15 and 12 move to S2
Set2 - 19 infect 19 and 4 move S1
Set1 - 3 + 4 = 7 for week 3
Set2 - 15 + 12 = 27 for week 3
New infections 34
Total cases 82
Week 4
Set1 - 7 infect 21, and 16 move to S2
Set2, 27 infect 27 and 5 move to S1
Set 1 - 5 + 5 = 10 for week four
Set2 - 22 +16 = 38 for week four.
New infections 48
Total cases 130.
Week 5
Set1 - 10 infect 30 and 24 move to S2
Set2 38 infect 38 and 8 move to S1
S1 - 6 + 8 = 14 for week 5
S2 - 30 + 24 = 54 for week 5
New infections 68
Total cases 198
Week 6
S1 - 14 infect 42 and 33 move to S2
S2 - 54 infect 54 and 9 move to S1
S1 - 9 + 9 = 18
S2 - 43 + 33 = 76
New infections 94
Total cases 292
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 08:53:33
It's one study, compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.
You still refuse to answer this simple question.
Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 13:55:55
It's one study, compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.
You still refuse to answer this simple question.Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
I daren't answer. Ofcourse if you paid attention you would have noticed I have been citing R0 between 1.4 and 3 so I Daren'ted.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 14:13:28
Data set one R0 7 weekly doubling,
Data set two R0 1 weekly doubling.
Week one
2 becomes 14 and 11 move to set2
8 infect 8 and 3 move to set1
Set 1= 3 + 3 = 6 for week one.
Set 2 = 5 + 11 = 16 for week one.
New infections 22
Total cases 32
Week 2
6 infect 42 and 34 move to set2 -8
16 infect 16 and 3 move to set1-13
Set 1 - 8 + 3 = 11
Set 2 - 13 + 34 = 47
New infections 58
Total cases 90
Week 3
Set1- 11 infect 77 and 62 move to S2- 14
Set2 - 47 infect 47 and 11 move S1-38
Set1 - 14 + 11 = 25 for week 3
Set2 - 38 + 62 = 100 for week 3
New infections 125
Total cases 215
Week 4
Set1 - 25 infect 175 and 140 move to S2- 35
Set2, 100 infect 100 and 20 move to S1-80
Set 1 - 35 + 80 = 115 for week four
Set2 - 80 + 140 = 220 for week four.
New infections 335
Total cases 550
So after a month and the initial week to get to 10 infections from patient 0. So after 5 weeks.
You have 115 more serious infections and potentially 1 death, depending on who is infected. If they are all healthy with no underlying conditions you won't see any deaths.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 17:39:23
That still isn't an answer.It's one study, compared to alteast 7 or so more that all put the number lower.
You still refuse to answer this simple question.Why daren't you answer this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 20:43:37
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:46:04
I already asked this, but I don't think you answered.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:56:27
First question: do you think that R0 only has one value, or do you recognise that, for example in the UK it's near 1 (hopefully a little below) ?
I daren't answer. Ofcourse if you paid attention you would have noticed I have been citing R0 between 1.4 and 3 so I Daren'ted.
Do you think it has a single value which falls in that range or do you think it has a variable value?
Incidentally, pretending that you have answered a question when you haven't is probably trolling.
Post by: charles1948 on 25/02/2021 18:59:00
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 19:10:56
In answer to the OP's question, Covid-19 originated from China.
Ok where is the evidence?
There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.
So the intermediary what ever it was, was somewhere else. Either in a ferret Badger population, or some other critter somewhere else in China or somewhere in the world. Alternatively in a human population somewhere else in China or somewhere else in the world.
Or it's from a laboratory and either escaped from an accident or been released intentionally.
The population around fort Detrick could be an intermediary population. And the final evolved virus of covid19 arrived at wuhan in the wuhan military games in October 2019. Afterall Fort Detrick is a military base, so any leak would effect the military first, American military personel could be the intermediary. one possible hypothesis.
But having come straight out of wuhan, today seems highly unlikely, unless a biological weapons attack happened in wuhan or an international released by the people running the wuhan Lab.
The actions of the Laboratory in Wuhan are suspicious, they destroyed data bases after the out break happened, have not shared their notes or opened the freezers for inspection. And the WHO team that looked at the lab were not equipped to do a full laboratory investigation.
The WHO team is now looking at ferret Badger steaks, that were sold at the local market. But they are not farmed in wuhan, ferret badgers amoung other critters are farmed all over Asia.
Post by: evan_au on 25/02/2021 19:23:59
Quote from: Jolly2
There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.How about a post on Chinese social media at the end of December 2019, mentioning a lot of patients with a mysterious respiratory disease?
- That is pretty clear evidence that it first reached epidemic contagiousness in the big city of Wuhan.
- The WHO team found evidence of 13 RNA variants circulating in Wuhan from early RNA sequences they were able to obtain. That points to a spillover that had been circulating for a couple of months (in humans and/or animals).
I agree that this evidence does not show in which geographical region the original spillover happened
- But then you try to claim that this same evidence shows that Fort Detrick was the source!
Post by: charles1948 on 25/02/2021 19:50:04
Quote from: Jolly2There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.How about a post on Chinese social media at the end of December 2019, mentioning a lot of patients with a mysterious respiratory disease?
- That is pretty clear evidence that it first reached epidemic contagiousness in the big city of Wuhan.
- The WHO team found evidence of 13 RNA variants circulating in Wuhan from early RNA sequences they were able to obtain. That points to a spillover that had been circulating for a couple of months (in humans and/or animals).
I agree that this evidence does not show in which geographical region the original spillover happened
- But then you try to claim that this same evidence shows that Fort Detrick was the source!
Evan, some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is the source of all evil.
So they think that Covid-19 must have a US origin, such as Fort Detrick.
You can't argue with such people. They won't accept anything you say.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 20:16:11
Either in a ferret Badger population, or some other critter somewhere else in China or somewhere in the worldAnd then one of the ferret badgers got on a plane to Wuhan, and the rest is history.
Afterall Fort Detrick is a military base, so any leak would effect the military first,And it didn't.
An outbreak in a close community like that would have been spectacularly obvious.
It didn't happen.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 21:05:08
Either in a ferret Badger population, or some other critter somewhere else in China or somewhere in the worldAnd then one of the ferret badgers got on a plane to Wuhan, and the rest is history.
You should write to the WHO, they might like this hypothesis of yours.
Afterall Fort Detrick is a military base, so any leak would effect the military first,And it didn't.
An outbreak in a close community like that would have been spectacularly obvious.
It didn't happen.
Someone is forgetting that under the laboratory leak hypothesis, what escaped the Lab wasn't Covid 19, but another Corona virus that evolved into Covid 19 after it escaped.
Anyone sick with a Corona virus that escaped wouldn't have Covid 19, as covid 19 would be a later evolution.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 21:10:08
Quote from: Jolly2There is no evidence of the Corona Virus that evolved into covid19, in the surrounding area of wuhan.How about a post on Chinese social media at the end of December 2019, mentioning a lot of patients with a mysterious respiratory disease?
- That is pretty clear evidence that it first reached epidemic contagiousness in the big city of Wuhan.
- The WHO team found evidence of 13 RNA variants circulating in Wuhan from early RNA sequences they were able to obtain. That points to a spillover that had been circulating for a couple of months (in humans and/or animals).
I agree that this evidence does not show in which geographical region the original spillover happened
- But then you try to claim that this same evidence shows that Fort Detrick was the source!
Evan, some people have been brainwashed into thinking that the USA is the source of all evil.
"The concept of being anti American is only a concept that exists in totalitarian states" Noam Chomsky a few minutes in.
So they think that Covid-19 must have a US origin, such as Fort Detrick.
You can't argue with such people. They won't accept anything you say.
Charles its simply one hypothesis, and a valid one. Fort Detrick had a leak FACT, Fort Detrick was doing gain of function research into Bat Corona virus' FACT.
Fort Detrick was Closed in mid July 2019 due to the Leaks FACT. And there was an Outbreak of a Respiratory infections in a nursing home relatively near by Two weeks before the Base was closed.
The hypothesis, states maybe a Corona virus escaped from fort Detrick and over the next 3 to 4 months evolved into covid 19. Before coming to wuhan at the wuhan military games that October 3 months later.
Another leak hypothesis cites the wuhan lab as the source.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 21:59:16
Someone is forgetting that under the laboratory leak hypothesis,No.
I'm ignoring it; just like I'm ignoring the "unicorns did it " hypothesis, and for much the same reason.
There is no reason to imagine that it is true.
Anyone sick with a Corona virus that escaped wouldn't have Covid 19So, you finally recognise that covid19 didn't escape from a lab.
See above.
However, at some point there was a first covid19 virus- and it was probably in some non-human animal.
Then it spread to some human - plausibly in a Wuhan market.
And then it spread very rapidly through a population who had no immunity and no idea that there was an outbreak.
So it must have multiplied and spread very fast.
So, we have a pretty good idea when and where it started.
It started not long before, and not far from, the first place we noticed it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 22:02:13
Fort Detrick had a leak FACT,So did Pirbright, but it wasn't covid.
Post by: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 23:01:13
Someone is forgetting that under the laboratory leak hypothesis,No.
I'm ignoring it;
Highly scientific approach.
Anyone sick with a Corona virus that escaped wouldn't have Covid 19So, you finally recognise that covid19 didn't escape from a lab.
See above.
No mr 'not a virologist' the lab leak hypothesis looks for a corona virus that escaped and evolved into Covid19 one hypothesis.
Another laboratory leak hypothesis it that the Laboratory had developed covid19 as a hybrid chimera that either escaped or was released intentionally.
Two different hypotheses
However, at some point there was a first covid19 virus- and it was probably in some non-human animal.
Could also have evolved in a human population somewhere.
Then it spread to some human - plausibly in a Wuhan market.
And then it spread very rapidly through a population who had no immunity and no idea that there was an outbreak.
So it must have multiplied and spread very fast.
So, we have a pretty good idea when and where it started..
No you don't, you can at best say when the first covid 19 patient 0 was. How long it took for the original Corona Virus that became covid 19, to evolve we dont know, could have been months or even years.
We don't know the what, where, when or how, of the intermediary that first caught the Corona virus that evolved into covid19.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/02/2021 23:09:44
Charles its simply one hypothesis, and a valid one. Fort Detrick had a leak FACT, Fort Detrick was doing gain of function research into Bat Corona virus' FACT.Too true, if wre looking at the spread of unspecified respiratory syndrome throughout the continental United States in 2019, the swift covert efforts of the US government and European allies to control and suppress it and then the purpousful diversion the CIA created by spreading it to China in the autumn, he suppressed death toll and the celebrity obituaries that where written off as something else.
Fort Detrick was Closed in mid July 2019 due to the Leaks FACT. And there was an Outbreak of a Respiratory infections in a nursing home relatively near by Two weeks before the Base was closed.
The hypothesis, states maybe a Corona virus escaped from fort Detrick and over the next 3 to 4 months evolved into covid 19. Before coming to wuhan at the wuhan military games that October 3 months later.
As this is new theories, now find the evidence to support it. hybrid chimera, a Zebricorn.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 00:43:02
Charles its simply one hypothesis, and a valid one. Fort Detrick had a leak FACT, Fort Detrick was doing gain of function research into Bat Corona virus' FACT.Too true, if wre looking at the spread of unspecified respiratory syndrome throughout the continental United States in 2019, the swift covert efforts of the US government and European allies to control and suppress it and then the purpousful diversion the CIA created by spreading it to China in the autumn, he suppressed death toll and the celebrity obituaries that where written off as something else.
Fort Detrick was Closed in mid July 2019 due to the Leaks FACT. And there was an Outbreak of a Respiratory infections in a nursing home relatively near by Two weeks before the Base was closed.
The hypothesis, states maybe a Corona virus escaped from fort Detrick and over the next 3 to 4 months evolved into covid 19. Before coming to wuhan at the wuhan military games that October 3 months later.
As this is new theories, now find the evidence to support it. hybrid chimera, a Zebricorn.
If that is what happened, it was Trump that would have over seen it. I was slightly disturbed by Trump continually calling it the China virus, seemed to me to be a mud slinging exercise, as I suggested before the same endeavour Hilary Clinton engaged in with Russia Gate. Blame others for your faults as a cover.
Could very well be the case, that covid is the Trump virus.
If it was proven I wonder if it would hamper his reelection chances for 2024? Do you think MAGA would care? I suppose some would.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 02:05:15
If that is what happened, it was Trump that would have over seen it. I was slightly disturbed by Trump continually calling it the China virus, seemed to me to be a mud slinging exercise, as I suggested before the same endeavour Hilary Clinton engaged in with Russia Gate. Blame others for your faults as a cover.There is evidence to the contrary, myself for example, I did not witness any surgical mask wearing Secret service operatives in the autumn or winter of 2019. I cannot remember the hospitals being overstreched. I do not remember a spike in illness or mortality in the retired peoples of my parents friends. So calculations of R rate and source cannot come from an outbreak in the populace in the USA in 2019 in not viable.
Could very well be the case, that covid is the Trump virus.
If it was proven I wonder if it would hamper his reelection chances for 2024? Do you think MAGA would care? I suppose some would.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2021 08:49:54
Highly scientific approach.Ignoring false "information" is indeed highly scientific.
Could also have evolved in a human population somewhere.Not without them noticing.
Why do you insist on suggesting that these people are stupid?
How long it took for the original Corona Virus that became covid 19, to evolve we dont know, could have been months or even years.And nobody cares.
The covid 19 virus causing a pandemic is what we are looking at in this thread.
Not its evolutionary ancestors.
And, as soon as it evolved into covid19 it would have been noticed.
So we know that covid evolved near where the first outbreak was.
No mr 'not a virologist' the lab leak hypothesis looks for a corona virus that escaped and evolved into Covid19 one hypothesis.The points remain Mr "Never actually worked in science" that neither hypothesis is plausible, nor do they have supporting evidence.
Another laboratory leak hypothesis it that the Laboratory had developed covid19 as a hybrid chimera that either escaped or was released intentionally.
Two different hypotheses
But one of those suggestions is irrelevant anyway.
If the virus that left the lab wasn't covid then covid evolved outside the lab, in some animal or other; and that's what the grown-ups have been saying all along.
The other hypothesis is more or less impossible because nobody would be doing that sort of work.
.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 09:45:03
Highly scientific approach.Ignoring false "information" is indeed highly scientific.Could also have evolved in a human population somewhere.Not without them noticing.
Why do you insist on suggesting that these people are stupid?How long it took for the original Corona Virus that became covid 19, to evolve we dont know, could have been months or even years.And nobody cares.
The covid 19 virus causing a pandemic is what we are looking at in this thread.
Not its evolutionary ancestors.
And, as soon as it evolved into covid19 it would have been noticed.
So we know that covid evolved near where the first outbreak was.No mr 'not a virologist' the lab leak hypothesis looks for a corona virus that escaped and evolved into Covid19 one hypothesis.The points remain Mr "Never actually worked in science" that neither hypothesis is plausible, nor do they have supporting evidence.
Another laboratory leak hypothesis it that the Laboratory had developed covid19 as a hybrid chimera that either escaped or was released intentionally.
Two different hypotheses
But one of those suggestions is irrelevant anyway.
If the virus that left the lab wasn't covid then covid evolved outside the lab, in some animal or other; and that's what the grown-ups have been saying all along.
The other hypothesis is more or less impossible because nobody would be doing that sort of work.
.
As always you post nonsense and I'm not replying to it.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 09:54:24
If that is what happened, it was Trump that would have over seen it. I was slightly disturbed by Trump continually calling it the China virus, seemed to me to be a mud slinging exercise, as I suggested before the same endeavour Hilary Clinton engaged in with Russia Gate. Blame others for your faults as a cover.There is evidence to the contrary, myself for example, I did not witness any surgical mask wearing Secret service operatives in the autumn or winter of 2019.
Could very well be the case, that covid is the Trump virus.
If it was proven I wonder if it would hamper his reelection chances for 2024? Do you think MAGA would care? I suppose some would.
Know many do you? If you dont how do you know?
There was the a Corona virus pandemic drill ran towards the end of 2019, that could have been organised as soon as they realised a Corona virus had escaped as a means of assessing damage control, and potential opportunities.
I cannot remember the hospitals being overstreched. I do not remember a spike in illness or mortality in the retired peoples of my parents friends.
You're forgetting that what escaped might not have been covid19 but a different Corona virus that after a few months free evolves into covid 19, what ever that virus was, we cant without finding it know what it would have done to the people it infected.
So calculations of R rate and source cannot come from an outbreak in the populace in the USA in 2019 in not viable.
As above. You cant know the R0 for the virus either. It would be a different virus than covid.
Still whatever the ancestor of Covid was, it probably wasnt very deadly, we would have noticed critters dying from a new virus, so I would suggest the ancestor probably had a high R0 but all that caught it like the majority with covid19 had no symptoms, then a mutation occurred that made it more deadly. That would be for both laboratory escape or zoological origin. The only hypothesis that offers a different beginning is going to be a hybrid chirmera made in a laboratory and released intentionally or by accident and only because the evolution happened in the laboratory, as a gain of function.
Covid is highly adapted to transmission in humans and that suggests a human population that it evolved in, but it's also highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission, which is suggestive of a laboratory gain of function virus more then a virus that evolved in nature.
Applying Occam's razor, a laboratory release seems most likley. Especially when you consider that gain of function research is geared towards human infection as a means to protect people.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2021 16:35:54
but it's also highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission, which is suggestive of a laboratory gain of function virus more then a virus that evolved in nature.
How?
Applying Occam's razor, a laboratory release seems most likley.
Except the lab-release explanation requires a cover-up, so it's not exactly favored by Occam's razor.
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/02/2021 19:20:00
but it's also highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission, which is suggestive of a laboratory gain of function virus more then a virus that evolved in nature.
How?
You'll have to be clearer.
Applying Occam's razor, a laboratory release seems most likley.
Except the lab-release explanation requires a cover-up, so it's not exactly favored by Occam's razor.
A cover up is after the fact. Not related to where the Virus came from.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Sure is, them zebracorns in the US, or them horses in wuhan.
Applying Occam's razor, a laboratory release seems most likley. Especially when you consider that gain of function research is geared towards human infection as a means to protect people.
You are now telling me the evidence is inadmissible. Find some that agrees with you. We know the R rate of visible cases, plus they know roughly by now the R rate of the general populace with invisible cases thrown in.
It could have been released into the community by a Maryland lab, it could have been aliens, it could be a trick of a malignant demon, or it could be Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
They are all just as creditable in the land of possibility. Sinece is there to narrow the possibilities
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2021 21:07:02
How?in this context means
In what way is it " highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission,"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2021 21:08:28
As always you post nonsense and I'm not replying to it.Does anyone but Jolly think I have been posting nonsense here?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2021 21:10:41
In what way is it " highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission,"?
As well as, "How is that evidence that it is lab-made"?
A cover up is after the fact.
It's an essential part of the scenario you posit. Without evidence of a cover-up, another unevidenced claim is tacked on to your explanation. That hurts its plausibility.
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 22:16:28
Sure is, them zebracorns in the US, or them horses in wuhan.
Applying Occam's razor, a laboratory release seems most likley. Especially when you consider that gain of function research is geared towards human infection as a means to protect people.
You are now telling me the evidence is inadmissible.
What evidence?
We don't have the ancestor of Covid19, we dont know in which intermediary it was in where evolved into Covid 19. We don't know where or when that happened, or how long it took to evolve.
All we have are the genetic markers in covid that give clues to its origin. It's highly adapted to human infection also good at infecting mink, and ferrets. But covid appears to be more adapted to human infection then any other animal. And that points to a human population somewhere as the intermediary or to a laboratory chimera designed to infect humans as a gain of function.
Find some that agrees with you.
I'm building a hypothesis from the information we have, not grabbing a hypothesis out of the air then looking for data to support it, the latter is bad science. Clues from the genetics of the virus lead to certain hypotheses.
We know the R rate of visible cases, plus they know roughly by now the R rate of the general populace with invisible cases thrown in.
Of covid19 not its ancestors. The best we can do with the R0 and incubation period is work out a time frame for when patent 0 was.
It could have been released into the community by a Maryland lab, it could have been aliens, it could be a trick of a malignant demon, or it could be Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
"Could" have been many things but we are looking at likley and more probable/credible sources.
They are all just as creditable in the land of possibility. Sinece is there to narrow the possibilities
Exactly.
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 22:27:11
In what way is it " highly adapted to indoor transmission and not outdoor transmission,"?
As well as, "How is that evidence that it is lab-made"?
Generally because Laboratories are indoors, and if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones, then taking any that get sick and repeating the process as a means to increase the virus' transmission as a part of that gain of function research.
It's all a process that takes place indoors, where the virus wouldn't adapt to contend with the outdoor environment.
There is evidence that sunlight destroys covid19, showing that it must have evolved either in a nocturnal critter, or in an environment without sunlight, a laboratory with electrical lighting also would qualify.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-sunlight-coronavirus-quickly-scientists.html
A cover up is after the fact.
It's an essential part of the scenario you posit. Without evidence of a cover-up, another unevidenced claim is tacked on to your explanation. That hurts its plausibility.
A cover up isnt involved in the development of the virus, in anyway, it's only involved in a group of people responsible trying to hide their involvement later. Important to note as Bret Weinstein has that the laboratory in Wuhan destroyed data bases, hid and didnt share their note books. The Laboratory in wuhan has engaged in a cover up of some type. What evidence they were destroying we dont know however.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/02/2021 22:58:47
I'm building a hypothesis from the information we have, not grabbing a hypothesis out of the air then looking for data to support it, the latter is bad science. Clues from the genetics of the virus lead to certain hypotheses.You are building up a hypothesis from your chosen amount of very inconclusive evidence and imagining a very complex chain of events. You have set out to support a theory of conspiracy and are trying to pick evidence to support it. Possibilities and "yeh but it could have happened" are nothing more than conjecture. Theories here are supposed to have some supporting evidence and no evidence concrete to the contrary.
Given you think a mutation happened, the corona 19 was not released in the USA by your own admission.
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/02/2021 23:37:11
I'm building a hypothesis from the information we have, not grabbing a hypothesis out of the air then looking for data to support it, the latter is bad science. Clues from the genetics of the virus lead to certain hypotheses.You are building up a hypothesis from your chosen amount of very inconclusive evidence
No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.
The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.
and imagining a very complex chain of events. You have set out to support a theory of conspiracy and are trying to pick evidence to support it.
In your imagination, not in reality.
Possibilities and "yeh but it could have happened" are nothing more than conjecture. Theories here are supposed to have some supporting evidence and no evidence concrete to the contrary.
I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing.
Given you think a mutation happened, the corona 19 was not released in the USA by your own admission.
Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.
You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/02/2021 00:25:59
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.
The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.
In your imagination, not in reality.
but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source
I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.
You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion
Your rejection of facts, lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 02:38:44
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.
The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.
Again it's not my hypothesis, the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary, and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.
In your imagination, not in reality.
No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.
The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international
And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone, to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.
If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.
espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.
Not espionage more sabotage.
but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source
I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate
Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.
the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.
You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion
Not mine, as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.
Your rejection of facts,
What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?
lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.
That would be you currently, if you have some facts then present them
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2021 03:55:06
Generally because Laboratories are indoors, and if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones, then taking any that get sick and repeating the process as a means to increase the virus' transmission as a part of that gain of function research.
It's all a process that takes place indoors, where the virus wouldn't adapt to contend with the outdoor environment.
The flu survives better indoors than outdoors as well. Is that evidence that the flu is lab-made?
There is evidence that sunlight destroys covid19, showing that it must have evolved either in a nocturnal critter, or in an environment without sunlight, a laboratory with electrical lighting also would qualify.
Again, that's also true of the flu: https://medium.com/@ra.hobday/coronavirus-and-the-sun-a-lesson-from-the-1918-influenza-pandemic-509151dc8065
A cover up isnt involved in the development of the virus
But, as I said...
Quote
It's an essential part of the scenario you posit. Without evidence of a cover-up, another unevidenced claim is tacked on to your explanation. That hurts its plausibility.
It's just another reason why something like the Moon-landing hoax is implausible. An unevidenced cover-up is required in order to hold the hoax explanation together.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/02/2021 04:07:15
But the sum total is the R rate of your hypothesised mutant is that of the virus that originated in wuhan, Corona 19. The corona19 virus originated in wuhan.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.
The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.
Again it's not my hypothesis, the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary, and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.
In your imagination, not in reality.
No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international
And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone, to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.
If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.
Not espionage more sabotage.but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source
I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate
Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.
You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion
Not mine, as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.Your rejection of facts,
What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.
That would be you currently, if you have some facts then present them
Anything else is just conjecture, as in Randy Marsh in South park.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 09:25:30
But the sum total is the R rate of your hypothesised mutant is that of the virus that originated in wuhan, Corona 19. The corona19 virus originated in wuhan.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.
The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.
Again it's not my hypothesis, the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary, and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.
In your imagination, not in reality.
No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international
And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone, to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.
If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.
Not espionage more sabotage.but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source
I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate
Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.
You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion
Not mine, as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.Your rejection of facts,
What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.
That would be you currently, if you have some facts then present them
We dont know that, that statement is conjecture. They isolated the virus from infections in wuhan,
we don't know how it started there, with 80% having mild flu like symptoms or being asymptomatic, possible it started somewhere else and an infected person caught a train to Wuhan, also possible it came to wuhan at the military games or It escaped the wuhan laboratory Or someone bought ferret badger steaks at the local wuhan market, that were inflected at the farm somewhere else in Asia.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 10:18:09
if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones,But there's no reason to imagine that they were doing that sort of research, is there?
You made that up.
It's just a guess- and not a very plausible one.
Generally because Laboratories are indoors,The virus does not know that.
So that fact can't influence the virus, can it?
In your imagination, not in reality.No.
In this thread.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 11:46:27
if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones,But there's no reason to imagine that they were doing that sort of research, is there?
You made that up.
It's just a guess- and not a very plausible one.
I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.
Generally because Laboratories are indoors,The virus does not know that.
Another nonsense reply.
So that fact can't influence the virus, can it?In your imagination, not in reality.No.
In this thread.
Grow up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:20:15
I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.OK you posted something which someone else made up.
Do you think that's really different?
Do you think that viruses understand, or are aware of, the fact that labs are inside?
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:26:24
I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.OK you posted something which someone else made up.
Do you think that's really different?
Do you think that viruses understand, or are aware of, the fact that labs are inside?
No I think indoor transmission is different to outdoor transmission, as they have different environments, and for a virus to transmit effectively has to be adapted to their environment to do so.
Sarscov1 isnt adapted to transmit outside but is adapted to indoor transmission. Sunlight kills it.
Your just as always making nonsense points.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:27:10
Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand. Neither are adapted to human transmission, but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature. The samples were found after re-examination of frozen samples kept in storage, so the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.
I suppose the WHO will be looking at Thailand ferret badger farms now.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:27:20
Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand.OK, so that confirms that bats have been harbouring a covid like virus for long enough that it has had time to travel between China, Cambodia and Thailand.
In doing so, they have pretty much eliminated that idea that this virus is man made- it's not plausible that a man made virus would move that quickly through a non-human population (Bats might fly, but not on aircraft).
So we know that the covid 19 virus is of natural origin.
but it could be...
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.As you would expect.
There was a lot of interest in this sort of virus when the SARS outbreak happened.
the initial virus used for gain of function researchThere is still no evidence for that research ever having happened.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:28:25
Sunlight kills it.Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:30:29
Your just as always making nonsense points.Pointing out things like the universal susceptibility of DNA and RNA to UV isn't nonsense.
Nor is it nonsense to point out that there is no evidence for any "gain of function" research in covid.
What is nonsense is to carry on as if those facts aren't there.
So, are you about to post nonsense?
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:35:14
Sunlight kills it.Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.
Yes and a virus adapted to outdoor transmission would need higher levels of light intensity to work.
Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand.OK, so that confirms that bats have been harbouring a covid like virus for long enough that it has had time to travel between China, Cambodia and Thailand.
In doing so, they have pretty much eliminated that idea that this virus is man made-
🤣🤣
The virus they found doesnt transmit to humans. They have only found one of the potential ancestors. The initial virus that still had to have evolved into covid19 in an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human population or a ferret badger.
it's not plausible that a man made virus would move that quickly through a non-human population (Bats might fly, but not on aircraft).
More nonsense. Not plausible a gain of function virus designed for human infection would more quickly through the population. Its rapid spread through the population and its clear adaptability to human infection, is one of Bret Weinsteins main reasons for citing a laboratory released as the source.
So we know that the covid 19 virus is of natural origin.
No you don't, terrible science chemist.
but it could be...Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.As you would expect.
There was a lot of interest in this sort of virus when the SARS outbreak happened.the initial virus used for gain of function researchThere is still no evidence for that research ever having happened.
Do you understand that?
There is tons of evidence laboratories were doing gain of function research with bat Corona virus'. More nonsense
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:41:59
It's a logical fallacy.
You can't talk about things that happen because of "gain of function" research unless you can show that the research happened.
Otherwise it's like blaming it on unicorns.
Without strong evidence the "gain of function" research is still implausible because- as I keep pointing out- Covid is a rubbish bioweapon.
So the assumption is that nobody would be doing that research.
So you can't use that research( which almost certainly never happened) as the basis for anything.
More nonsenseIt was, and we would be better off if you stopped posting more nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:43:24
an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human
Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:45:07
an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a humanQuote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
More nonsense which I'm not replying to
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:46:23
You just did...an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a humanQuote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
More nonsense which I'm not replying to
It is not nonsense to point out that you are assuming something as true when at best it's a remote possibility.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 12:47:48
Sunlight kills it.Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:50:50
You just did...an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a humanQuote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
More nonsense which I'm not replying to
It is not nonsense to point out that you are assuming something as true when at best it's a remote possibility.
I'm not assuming anything true. There are plenty of biologists and virologists, citing the laboratory leak hypothesis as a the cause due to gain of function, you're the one assuming it implausible. And the one burying your head in the sand with regards to any explanation save the one you like. It's utterly unscientific approach.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 12:53:10
You really need to respond to this.Sunlight kills it.Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.
Again I'll be ignoring your constant trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 13:25:56
And the one burying your head in the sand with regards to any explanationYou have yet to offer an explanation.
What are the military applications of a virus that kills 5% of the world's grandparents?
Also, why do you think this virus is adapted to indoor transmission, what are the adaptations?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 13:28:04
you're the one assuming it implausible.I'm not "assuming" it is implausible; I am explaining why it is implausible.
Do you really not understand the difference?
Post by: puppypower on 28/02/2021 14:09:18
Why send many of its top people, to the infected lands, while buttoning up its own country? China also claimed to have the virus under control way sooner than anyone else. This would also make sense. If they created the virus, they would be already prepared for immunization. If you develop bio-weapons, you need to have an antidote in place, or else it could backfire on you. It would be like developing poison gas without also having respirators for your own soliders.
The Democrat party in the USA and China had a good alliance, before the virus. The Democrats sent jobs overseas allowing China to grow in power and wealth. Both control fake news in their countries. They have a lot in common. Neither had good relationships with Trump. It appears the teams were already set before the virus was used. Biden's son had already received $billions in loan guarantees from China that was under investigation. If this had been Trump's family this would be grounds for collusion and impeachment. Biden-China collusion for Biden personal gain and Chinese leverage, was ignored by fake news or called conspiracy theory until it went away. Why not call for an investigation since Hunter admitted it on TV.
Trump was at his strongest in 2019 and the Democrats needed a miracle to win in 2020. They also needed a miracle to escape justice for their spying in 2016. Trump's strongest suit was the economy and the China Virus was the leveling agent that took that took that away from Trump, and gave the Democrats a fighting chance. Was this timing coincidence? It seems weird that the virus appears at the start of the election year and target the opposition strong point.
Nobody in the Obama administration went to jail for the spying on the Trump Campaign, that was worse than Watergate. Nixon used amateur campaign aids to spy, while Obama and Biden used government intel agencies to do the spying. Nixon almost went to jail for something less. Why didn't Obama go to jail, since the buck stopped with him? For those whose job it is to deny this, maybe you can answer this question. Why is there now a push to alter or do away with FISA, if nothing bad ever happened? If this was legal, why change anything?
I sort of partially agree with the current claim, that the USA was responsible for the virus. The twist is it was not all of America, but the Democrat party and the Swamp; ends just the means. The strategy to create and/or take advantage of tragedy is common to the Democrats; never let a good tragedy go to waste. They created the "peaceful protests" that were not peaceful. In the end, who gained by all this? How we got get from point A to point B; virus is not a clear as is who ended on top at point B. Democrats killed the economy, and China increased its trade surplus with the world. China was very prepared in advance.
China and the Democrats gained the most by the appearance of the virus. Was it coincidence that the Democrat leadership on Democrat controlled states became like mini China dictatorships, in terms of citizen control? In the end, open versus closed states had similar rates of attrition, with Democrats preferring the China approach.
The push to sanitize China from all blamed, did not begin in force until Biden became president. There is an attempt to rewrite history. Revisionist history is a common Democrat party tactic to distract from their scams. Is anyone still aware, because of revisionist history, that the Democrat party was the original party of slavery in the USA, and Lincoln was a Republican? Democrat led revisionist history blames all whites, and not just th one's with D's next to their name. The blacks appear to be fooled which may be why they cannot leave the plantation.
Instead of following the faux leads connected to nebulous science claims, being presented by Democrats and China minions to distract, look at who were allies, who had the strongest motives, who had opportunity and who in the end, gained the most.
If Cuomo the governor of NY gets to skate, after his nursing home scandal, that killed thousands, this will tell us that he was following orders, from above, to increase the drama of the Democrat-China collusion scam, to help undermine Trump. New York and California combined are a large chunk of the US economy, and if their economies took a dive, Trump's economy feather in his cap could be removed, even with sober Republican states doing the right thing. Cuomo is being ignored by the same fake news that is sanitizing China; motivation and means.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 14:30:15
you're the one assuming it implausible.I'm not "assuming" it is implausible; I am explaining why it is implausible.
Do you really not understand the difference?
You haven't offered any explanation as to why its implausible. You've just made statements. Like "its implausible".
And seem to ignore the FACT that gain of function research into bat Corona virus' has gone on for years and that many biologists and virologists also see it as very plausible.
The only thing I understand is your obstification.
Post by: puppypower on 28/02/2021 15:21:47
For example, if you were a scientist working for a tobacco company or a solar power company, you can still do good science, but you will need to make sure your goals and published results are acceptable to your host. You will not be able to publish good science that makes them look bad, such as tobacco causes cancer, or cost affective solar power is still decades away. That can put egg on the face of your host. The same is true for climate change, since this money comes almost exclusively from governments and therefore politicians.
This does not mean good science is not being done It only means that good science that contradicts the needs at the top, will be suppressed, or else you will be sent packing. It is easy to buy a consensus in federally funded science. NASA was cut back by the Obama Administration not because the science was bad or self inflicting, but because of the optics of politics. Less output data, due to less resources, makes this look self induced; political optics. If we cut back on climate change research by 50%, this makes it appear less data is now supporting the premise. If we double it the end can look nearer.
This is why the science approach to the Corona Virus origins is not the best approach. In the end the money managers of governments control this science. I took the approach of motivation, means and who benefits the most in terms of the money managers, since the buck of science will stop there.
If you defy the money managers, in China, and/or are not with the program, you will disappeared from the lab. China has its own consensus in mind. Anyone who did not parrot the company line was disappeared in China. This is not as possible in the USA, due to the Constitution, which is why powers above came up with the denier scam to erase those whose good science disagrees with the money manager goals. The Democrats and China have so much in common when it comes to science control and induced optics.
The Democrat money managers take this one step further but paying for mercenary science that fits their social agenda. For example, male and females differ by an entire chromosome. There is not anywhere near this genetic potential to support any of the gender claims, expect by epigenetic changes associated with choice and willpower. Yet this bad science is a dime a dozen, because the money is there of those who will agree, and pressure is applied to those who don't, regardless of the quality of the science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 17:53:11
You haven't offered any explanation as to why its implausible.Yes I have.
Can you get a grown up to explain this to you?
What are the military applications of a virus that kills 5% of the world's grandparents?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 17:54:22
The only thing I understand is your obstification.You only understand made up words...
That explains a lot.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 18:08:14
You haven't offered any explanation as to why its implausible.Yes I have.
Can you get a grown up to explain this to you?What are the military applications of a virus that kills 5% of the world's grandparents?
I dont know why Military Gain of function research scientists hate Grannies. You'll have to ask them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2021 18:32:01
So, you think they exist... that these granny hating military budget holders are plausible...?You haven't offered any explanation as to why its implausible.Yes I have.
Can you get a grown up to explain this to you?What are the military applications of a virus that kills 5% of the world's grandparents?
I dont know why Military Gain of function research scientists hate Grannies. You'll have to ask them.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2021 18:40:38
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 21:44:48
Funny how my post was skipped over. Tell me why I can't use your exact same logic about sunlight to argue that the flu is lab-made.
They could be developing new and different flu virus as a part of gain of function research, I was once told by someone that during his military training he watched flu being released intentionally as a operation to track the virus as it spread, I never enquired so much about it, but I assumed it was a bio weapons drill.
So in a sense I already know the British establishment engages in that, there is also the biological weapons attack the British intelligence services conducted in the London underground back in the 60s.
Put nothing past the sociopaths incharge.
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/02/2021 21:58:08
So, you think they exist... that these granny hating military budget holders are plausible...?You haven't offered any explanation as to why its implausible.Yes I have.
Can you get a grown up to explain this to you?What are the military applications of a virus that kills 5% of the world's grandparents?
I dont know why Military Gain of function research scientists hate Grannies. You'll have to ask them.
Considering the utter abhorrent levels of depravity the sociopathic despots that run Britain have, there isnt much they are not prepared to do, if anything, if Britain wasnt enough of a Big brother tyranny before, it seems quiet clear today, with the passing of the Covert human intelligence bill the sociopaths incharge are not only happy about the massive human rights abuses they engage in to defend their sordid position, they are absolutely intent in getting worse.
As we see with the massive propaganda campaign run against Jeremy Corbyn and the Massive propaganda network Mi6 has established world wide, they are determined to build a system that will never move from the course that they seek to dictate. I say let them have it, they can go build their depraved tyrannical nightmare, I'm honestly curious about just how disgusting they are prepare to be, and how much lower they can sink.
I just counterpose that anyone who cares about the Rule of law, human rights, truth, freedom, or morality shouldn't want anything to do with the place, and they certainly shouldn't want to live there.
Calling on people to fight for change in a society that seeks to make change impossible, in many respects is simply a call for them to be tortured and brutalised like Assange is, I'm not interested in more people suffering under the despotism, so I recommend they leave.
So the idea of a few scientists building a gain of function virus to kill the elderly isnt even a blip on the sociopathic radar.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/02/2021 22:49:27
We do know that. We know that the corona 19 variant started in wuhan for the reasons we have gone over, with no evidence for the contrary. That is fact. If anyone elsewhere had contracted it prior we would have two hotpots. These are facts.
We dont know that, that statement is conjecture. They isolated the virus from infections in wuhan,
we don't know how it started there, with 80% having mild flu like symptoms or being asymptomatic, possible it started somewhere else and an infected person caught a train to Wuhan, also possible it came to wuhan at the military games or It escaped the wuhan laboratory Or someone bought ferret badger steaks at the local wuhan market, that were inflected at the farm somewhere else in Asia.
A government cover up on a prior unidentified strain is conjecture.
Ferret badgers on a train is fantasy.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2021 23:15:07
They could be developing new and different flu virus...
You realize I'm talking specifically about the natural flu virus, right? If the natural flu virus is destroyed by sunlight, then the fact that COVID-19 is also destroyed by sunlight cannot be used to support the "made in a lab" claim.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 13:25:03
They could be developing new and different flu virus...
You realize I'm talking specifically about the natural flu virus, right? If the natural flu virus is destroyed by sunlight, then the fact that COVID-19 is also destroyed by sunlight cannot be used to support the "made in a lab" claim.
No you are missing that a virus that adapts to transmit outside has a higher tolerance to sunlight, an indoor transmission virus doesnt, to be transmitted outside during the day that's a requirement.
Still it's clear governmental policy of telling everyone to stay inside and not go to the park or beach was absolutely rediculas
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 13:42:46
We do know that. We know that the corona 19 variant started in wuhan for the reasons we have gone over,
We dont know that, that statement is conjecture. They isolated the virus from infections in wuhan,
we don't know how it started there, with 80% having mild flu like symptoms or being asymptomatic, possible it started somewhere else and an infected person caught a train to Wuhan, also possible it came to wuhan at the military games or It escaped the wuhan laboratory Or someone bought ferret badger steaks at the local wuhan market, that were inflected at the farm somewhere else in Asia.
No you dont, you only know that's when China after testing samples identified the virus, before it was identified as a novel strain of SARS, most doctors would have told people they have the flu on presenting symptoms. It's only the very elderly they show more severe symptoms.
with no evidence for the contrary. That is fact.
No its assumption.
If anyone elsewhere had contracted it prior we would have two hotpots. These are facts.
No they are not, they are complete assumptions based in hind sight. Until the virus was identified it didn't exist, as far as doctors were concerned, and any doctors seeing a patient expressing the symptoms of covid would most likely diagnose flu.
It's only on testing samples a new virus was found GPs don't do that. Not until the elderly became seriously sick anyone bothered to test.
A government cover up on a prior unidentified strain is conjecture.
Not with regards to China it isnt, a doctor who was silenced by the Chinese government had been reporting for weeks in November about a respiratory illness, he later died of covid19, the laboratory in wuhan destroyed databases.
Ferret badgers on a train is fantasy.
No one suggested ferret badgers on a train. There was the suggestion by the WHO that a ferret Badger farm may have been the source of the intermediary, probably now somewhere in Thailand or Cambodia where the Virus evolved before being shipped as ferret badger steaks to wuhan leading to someone in Wuhan catching covid. Of course in that circumstance you would Expect farm workers to also get infected potentially and you should also be able to find a ferret badger population with a Corona virus strain.
Or you could find the driver of the ferret badger steaks bringing the virus to wuhan.
All possible, as is also a gain of function virus escaping by accident or being released intentionally.
Each hypothesis has certain requirements to be true, with an accidental release you would expect a cover up and we see one in the wuhan laboratory.
With an intentional release you would expect the group responsible to use it and the pandemic it would cause to further their agenda. I wonder if there is any international group currently do just that?
Ofcourse they can go together where the group that intentionally released the virus had a degree of control and investment in the wuhan laboratory that conducted a cover up.
I'm still looking at fort Detrick, where we know there was a release of something, there was a respiratory outbreak the weeks before it closed in an old peoples home, and military personal took covid to the wuhan games. Where many athletes claimed to have had a covid like sickness they caught at the games. Also would if true, explain why, right at the beginning of the pandemic we saw many politicians world wide get sick, all countries had military personal at the games, and military has fsr more close connections to politics, then the public does.
There is ofcourse another possibility that the elites of the west and China did it together and that would answer some questions.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2021 15:11:41
No you are missing that a virus that adapts to transmit outside has a higher tolerance to sunlight, an indoor transmission virus doesnt, to be transmitted outside during the day that's a requirement.
Do you have data that shows COVID-19 is more vulnerable to sunlight than the flu is?
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 15:38:07
No you are missing that a virus that adapts to transmit outside has a higher tolerance to sunlight, an indoor transmission virus doesnt, to be transmitted outside during the day that's a requirement.
Do you have data that shows COVID-19 is more vulnerable to sunlight than the flu is?
Comparing two different viruses, both of which could potentially be gain of function. I havent seen any direct comparisons between the two, a study would be nice tho.
https://news.yahoo.com/more-sunlight-equals-less-covid-060000315.html
Proctor said. "And essentially what we found was that UV had the strongest and most remarkable signal, and what we found there was that following a sunny day you see reduced COVID-19 growth rates in the following two and a half weeks."
They have done studies of flu with UV light.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/221/3/372/5645407?login=true
2.4 minutes the virus can survive under intense UV light as an average. Still reading tho. Seems a lot stronger then covid.
"However, It is important to note that there are relatively little data on the effect of sunlight on the survival of influenza virus, either alone or in conjunction with other environmental factors"
2.4 minutes under intense UV light which is blocked by the atmosphere, therefore you would expect flu to potentially survive longer with sunlight.
Flu certainly seems alot stronger then covid.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2021 18:14:37
No you are missing that a virus that adapts to transmit outside has a higher tolerance to sunlightIf you think that is possible, please indicate the chromophore that it uses to protect the DNA/ RNA.
Because, unless you can do that, you have suggested something impossible.
The reason I am "missing" it is simple.
It can't happen.
I'm allowed to do that, because this is a science site.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2021 18:22:17
Flu certainly seems alot stronger then covid.That's a stupid comment to make just after you say
havent seen any direct comparisons between the two
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2021 18:28:33
No you dont,Yes we do.
Quotefrom: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 23:01:13Not without them noticing.
Could also have evolved in a human population somewhere.
Why do you insist on suggesting that these people are stupid?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/03/2021 21:23:03
Yes we do because it would have become apparent elsewhere, discounting government cover ups due to lack of fatcual evidence in support, but with factual evidence against.We do know that. We know that the corona 19 variant started in wuhan for the reasons we have gone over,
We dont know that, that statement is conjecture. They isolated the virus from infections in wuhan,
we don't know how it started there, with 80% having mild flu like symptoms or being asymptomatic, possible it started somewhere else and an infected person caught a train to Wuhan, also possible it came to wuhan at the military games or It escaped the wuhan laboratory Or someone bought ferret badger steaks at the local wuhan market, that were inflected at the farm somewhere else in Asia.
No you dont, you only know that's when China after testing samples identified the virus, before it was identified as a novel strain of SARS, most doctors would have told people they have the flu on presenting symptoms. It's only the very elderly they show more severe symptoms.
no it is the facts of my own eyes, corona would have become apparent in 3 months. There where no travel bans or increased cases.with no evidence for the contrary. That is fact.
No its assumption.
they are facts, there would be a spike in pneumonia, during the summer this would be very apparent.If anyone elsewhere had contracted it prior we would have two hotpots. These are facts.
No they are not, they are complete assumptions based in hind sight. Until the virus was identified it didn't exist, as far as doctors were concerned, and any doctors seeing a patient expressing the symptoms of covid would most likely diagnose flu.
It's only on testing samples a new virus was found GPs don't do that. Not until the elderly became seriously sick anyone bothered to test.
weeks in November is prior to the December start date. A summer release in the USA would have been apparent.A government cover up on a prior unidentified strain is conjecture.
Not with regards to China it isnt, a doctor who was silenced by the Chinese government had been reporting for weeks in November about a respiratory illness, he later died of covid19, the laboratory in wuhan destroyed databases.
Unsupported self recognised possibilities, in possible land it could have come from a fish at the antarctic eating discarded food from Chile, it is possible but there is no proof. This possibility though still has the fis being landed in China and sent to Wuhan, the only place that had an outbreak, so it has more credit than ferret badgers attacking the Alamo.Ferret badgers on a train is fantasy.
No one suggested ferret badgers on a train. There was the suggestion by the WHO that a ferret Badger farm may have been the source of the intermediary, probably now somewhere in Thailand or Cambodia where the Virus evolved before being shipped as ferret badger steaks to wuhan leading to someone in Wuhan catching covid. Of course in that circumstance you would Expect farm workers to also get infected potentially and you should also be able to find a ferret badger population with a Corona virus strain.
Or you could find the driver of the ferret badger steaks bringing the virus to wuhan.
All possible, as is also a gain of function virus escaping by accident or being released intentionally.
Each hypothesis has certain requirements to be true, with an accidental release you would expect a cover up and we see one in the wuhan laboratory.
With an intentional release you would expect the group responsible to use it and the pandemic it would cause to further their agenda. I wonder if there is any international group currently do just that?
Ofcourse they can go together where the group that intentionally released the virus had a degree of control and investment in the wuhan laboratory that conducted a cover up.
I'm still looking at fort Detrick, where we know there was a release of something, there was a respiratory outbreak the weeks before it closed in an old peoples home, and military personal took covid to the wuhan games. Where many athletes claimed to have had a covid like sickness they caught at the games. Also would if true, explain why, right at the beginning of the pandemic we saw many politicians world wide get sick, all countries had military personal at the games, and military has fsr more close connections to politics, then the public does.
There is ofcourse another possibility that the elites of the west and China did it together and that would answer some questions.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2021 21:32:21
Comparing two different viruses, both of which could potentially be gain of function.
The flu is not gain of function (at least not artificially). The Spanish flu pandemic happened back in 1918. Do you think gain-of-function research was being done back then on the Spanish flu?
Flu certainly seems alot stronger then covid.
How did you come to that conclusion? Your reference doesn't even give us any numbers for how long COVID survives under UV light to compare with the flu results. Here is a study on the half-life of coronavirus aerosols in sunlight: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/4/564/5856149
Quote
Simulated sunlight rapidly inactivated the virus in aerosols in either suspension matrix, with half-lives of less than 6 minutes and 90% of the virus inactivated in less than 20 minutes for all simulated sunlight levels tested. There was a small but statistically significant reduction in decay rate under high-intensity sunlight when the virus was suspended in culture medium compared to simulated saliva, suggesting that the matrix in which the virus is suspended may also be an important factor to consider when examining the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in an aerosol.
This is a website that simulates how long COVID-19 lasts in various conditions (with sunlight, humidity and temperature variables): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/sars-airborne-calculator
Setting all of them to the maximum levels gives COVID a half-life of 1.86 minutes. So the half-life of both viruses in sunlight is a matter of minutes (with the specific values depending on the total amount of sunlight, humidity and temperature). Hardly a significant difference.
Post by: Jolly2 on 01/03/2021 23:35:35
Comparing two different viruses, both of which could potentially be gain of function.
The flu is not gain of function (at least not artificially). The Spanish flu pandemic happened back in 1918. Do you think gain-of-function research was being done back then on the Spanish flu?
Kyriptid it's a rediculas suggestion, influenza is a virus as is Corona, neither are gain of function in of themselves, gain of function research seek to increase the functionality of the virus involved.
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.
Flu certainly seems alot stronger then covid.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Simply but seeing that the lower UV levels in sunlight destroy covid wear as it was high intensity UV lamps used to destroy Influenza and it still took, 2.5 minutes.
Your reference doesn't even give us any numbers for how long COVID survives under UV light to compare with the flu results. Here is a study on the half-life of coronavirus aerosols in sunlight: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/4/564/5856149QuoteSimulated sunlight rapidly inactivated the virus in aerosols in either suspension matrix, with half-lives of less than 6 minutes and 90% of the virus inactivated in less than 20 minutes for all simulated sunlight levels tested. There was a small but statistically significant reduction in decay rate under high-intensity sunlight when the virus was suspended in culture medium compared to simulated saliva, suggesting that the matrix in which the virus is suspended may also be an important factor to consider when examining the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in an aerosol.
This is a website that simulates how long COVID-19 lasts in various conditions (with sunlight, humidity and temperature variables): https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/sars-airborne-calculator
Setting all of them to the maximum levels gives COVID a half-life of 1.86 minutes. So the half-life of both viruses in sunlight is a matter of minutes (with the specific values depending on the total amount of sunlight, humidity and temperature). Hardly a significant difference.
Thanks for the info.
So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/03/2021 23:44:03
gain of function research seek to increase the functionality of the virus involved.
So the natural flu isn't gain-of-function.
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.
Get back to me when you have evidence for it.
Simply but seeing that the lower UV levels in sunlight destroy covid wear as it was high intensity UV lamps used to destroy Influenza and it still took, 2.5 minutes.
Your link about the flu says that it was "simulated sunlight", just like in the COVID experiment I posted.
So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.
You are comparing apples with oranges. The 2.4 minutes for the flu was an average, whereas the 1.8 minutes for COVID was the most extreme scenario.
Post by: Jolly2 on 02/03/2021 00:18:28
gain of function research seek to increase the functionality of the virus involved.
So the natural flu isn't gain-of-function.
Isnt that a contradiction in terms? Unless you want to see as Bret Weinstein suggested with the intermediary of covid as "gain of function ferret badgers".
If by gain of function you are solely referencing scientific research to add function to a virus then ofcourse flu isn't, unless some forms of flu have been developed as a part of gain of function research that is.
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.
Get back to me when you have evidence for it.Simply but seeing that the lower UV levels in sunlight destroy covid wear as it was high intensity UV lamps used to destroy Influenza and it still took, 2.5 minutes.
Your link about the flu says that it was "simulated sunlight", just like in the COVID experiment I posted.So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.
You are comparing apples with oranges. The 2.4 minutes for the flu was an average, whereas the 1.8 minutes for COVID was the most extreme scenario.
Most extreme as the shortest time, or longest?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2021 05:50:46
If by gain of function you are solely referencing scientific research to add function to a virus then ofcourse flu isn't
Now we're on the same page.
Most extreme as the shortest time, or longest?
Shortest. At maximum sunlight intensity, the half-life of COVID can be made to vary from 1.86 minutes to 3.27 minutes by toggling the humidity and temperature. That's an overall average of 2.565 minutes, about the same as the flu average. At 20 oC and 40% humidity, the half-life is as long as the average half-life of the flu under maximum sunlight intensity (2.4 minutes). So their average half-lives are very close.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2021 09:03:39
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.Well, if you don't know, ask a grown up, rather than posting nonsense based on your ignorance.
They will tell you that nobody even knew what the flu virus was in 1919 because it wasn't identified until 1933.
Most viruses exist outside of buildings.
So all of them are under evolutionary pressure to resist sunlight.
And yet, in spite of that, they only seem able to cope with it for a few minutes.
What Jolly is saying is that , somehow, covid has evolved to be even more troubled by sunlight.
Why would it bother?
If it was the other way round it might make sense, but why bother to increase your susceptibility to a widespread threat?
Being destroyed by the ubiquitous UV in daylight isn't a "gain of function" it's a "loss of function".
Microbiologists will tell you that those numbers have error margins on them.
So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.
So much so that they don't typically consider the magnitude of effects, they use log units.
Anything that isn't a change of half a log unit probably isn't significant (statistically or clinically).
You are looking at a change of about 0.13 log units
Post by: Jolly2 on 02/03/2021 18:37:01
If by gain of function you are solely referencing scientific research to add function to a virus then ofcourse flu isn't
Now we're on the same page.Most extreme as the shortest time, or longest?
Shortest. At maximum sunlight intensity, the half-life of COVID can be made to vary from 1.86 minutes to 3.27 minutes by toggling the humidity and temperature. That's an overall average of 2.565 minutes, about the same as the flu average. At 20 oC and 40% humidity, the half-life is as long as the average half-life of the flu under maximum sunlight intensity (2.4 minutes). So their average half-lives are very close.
Ok thanks for the information.
Post by: Jolly2 on 02/03/2021 18:37:46
Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand. Neither are adapted to human transmission, but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature. The samples were found after re-examination of frozen samples kept in storage, so the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.
I suppose the WHO will be looking at Thailand ferret badger farms now.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2021 19:33:00
but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature.
or it could be Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 00:40:02
but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature.or it could be Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
Highly unlikely film negative isnt a good host.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 03/03/2021 14:59:06
Dodging the point. You must elaborate on your dodging, possibly bringing Hitler and the Nazis into it. Then make an obvious point that is impossible to argue against or ignore, for example, " Hitler was bad, but enslaving people from Africa is morally wrong". Sure enough you have successfully evaided the prior point and brought attention to human rights.but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature.or it could be Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.
Highly unlikely film negative isnt a good host.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 17:35:48
Highly unlikely film negative isnt a good host.It's good to see that you recognise the concept.
Now, do you understands that it applies to this
it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research
to such an extent that we should ignore that idea, for the same reasons that we ignore the idea that it was down to Randy and Mickey?
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:45:57
Highly unlikely film negative isnt a good host.It's good to see that you recognise the concept.
Now, do you understands that it applies to thisit could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research
to such an extent that we should ignore that idea, for the same reasons that we ignore the idea that it was down to Randy and Mickey?
Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.
Post by: Jolly2 on 03/03/2021 20:52:20
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.Well, if you don't know, ask a grown up, rather than posting nonsense based on your ignorance.
They will tell you that nobody even knew what the flu virus was in 1919 because it wasn't identified until 1933.
Irrelevant, 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.
Gain of function to increase mortality of flu. Dont need to have identified the virus to achieve that. Such an undertaking could be justified as most Gain of function research is, to help look for treatments.
That could have happened
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 21:26:16
Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...
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.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.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 00:50:19
Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...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.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.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/03/2021 00:58:49
That could have happened
Winston Churchill could have dressed up like a baby everyday in private too. That could have happened.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 01:26:59
That could have happened
Winston Churchill could have dressed up like a baby everyday in private too. That could have happened.
Maybe one day old files will get opened and we'll know for sure.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2021 09:09:21
I recognise that your making stupid false assertions (and the rebuttals of those assertions) are irrelevant.Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...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.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.
Please stop making them.
I take it that your comment means that you realise that a false claim like this
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.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.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 18:13:58
I recognise that your making stupid false assertions (and the rebuttals of those assertions) are irrelevant.Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.Just as soon as you stop posting it...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.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.
Please stop making them.
I take it that your comment means that you realise that a false claim like thisI 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.
Not irrelevant it related to the question of weather Flu could be a gain of function Virus, as I stated before I know Britian has in the past released Flu into the general population. So some strains of flu could well be gain of function virus' strains.
With regards to 1900s and experimentation with Flu its certianly possible.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/03/2021 18:29:52
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 18:58:34
The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523
This 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2021 19:43:33
Not irrelevant it related to the question of weather Flu could be a gain of function Virus,After we had answered the question and established that it pretty much could not.
I stated before I know Britian has in the past released Flu into the general population.You stated this, but offered no evidence.
And you don't enjoy a reputation for getting things right. So it makes sense to more ore less ignore you.
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 21:21:01
from
Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 21:22:02
The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523
This 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.
The mortality rate for the high R0 group looks to be about 2.5%.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2021 21:51:05
Posting stuff and then not replying to points raised about it is trolling.from
Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.
Post by: Jolly2 on 06/03/2021 22:02:45
Posting stuff and then not replying to points raised about it is trolling.from
Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.
You dont raise points, you simply default to personal attacks. You try to clothe them, but they are still just personal attacks that add nothing to the actual discussion and waste peoples time and fill up the thread with unrelated nonsense. If you have a point related to patient 0 go ahead an add it, otherwise stop wasting peoples time.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 00:25:47
1 becomes 7 and 6 move to set 2
Set 1 = 1
Set 2 = 6
Week two
Set1 1 becomes 7 and 6 move to S2
Set 2 6 infect 6 and 1 moves to S1
Set1 = 2
Set2 = 12
So its around a week and a half to get to 10 active cases 2 more serious and 8 less serious.
Week three
2 becomes 14 and 11 move to set2
8 infect 8 and 3 move to set1
Set 1= 3 + 3 = 6 for week one.
Set 2 = 5 + 11 = 16 for week one.
New infections 22
Total cases 32
Week 4
6 infect 42 and 34 move to set2 -8
16 infect 16 and 3 move to set1-13
Set 1 - 8 + 3 = 11
Set 2 - 13 + 34 = 47
New infections 58
Total cases 90
Week 5
Set1- 11 infect 77 and 62 move to S2- 14
Set2 - 47 infect 47 and 11 move S1-38
Set1 - 14 + 11 = 25 for week 3
Set2 - 38 + 62 = 100 for week 3
New infections 125
Total cases 215
Week 6
Set1 - 25 infect 175 and 140 move to S2- 35
Set2, 100 infect 100 and 20 move to S1-80
Set 1 - 35 + 80 = 115 for week four
Set2 - 80 + 140 = 220 for week four.
New infections 335
Total cases 550
Week 7
S1 115 infect 805 and 644 move S2
S2 220 infect 220 and 44 move to S1
S1= 161 + 44 =205 for week 7
S2 = 644 + 176 = 820 week 7
New infections 1025
Total cases 1575
Total S1 infections = 366
Week 8
S1 205 infect 1435, 1148 move to S2-287
S2 820 infect 820, 164 move to S1. 656
S1= 287 + 164 = 451 week 8
S2 656 + 1148 = 1804 week 8
.
New infections 2255
Total cases 3831
Total s1 817
Week 9
S1 451 infect 3,157 and 2527 move to S2
S2 1804 infect 1804 and 361 mice to S1
S1 = 361+ 630 = 991 week 9
S2 = 2527 + 1444 = 3971 W.9
New infections 4962
Total cases 8793
Total S1 cases 1808
Week 10
S1 991 infects 6,937, 5,550 move to S2. 1387.
S2 3971 infects 3,971 and 794 move to S1. 3,177
S1 = 1,387 +794 = 2,181
S2 = 3,177 + 5,550 = 8,727
New infections 10,908
Total cases 19,701
Total S1 cases 3,989
Week 11
S1 2,181 infects 15,267 and 12,214 move to S2.3,053
S2 8,727 infect 8,727 and 1,746 move to S1. 6,981
S1 = 3,053 + 1,746 = 4,779 W.11
S2 = 6,981 + 12,214 = 19,195 W.11
New infections 23,974
Total cases 43,675
Total S1 cases 8,768
Week 12
S1 4,779 infects 33,453 and 26,763 move to S2.6,690
S2 19,195 infect 19,195 and 3,839 move to S1.15,365
S1 = 6,690 + 3,839 = 10,529
S2 = 15,365 + 26,763 = 42,128
New infections, 52,657
Total cases 96,332
Total S1 cases 19,297
Week 13
S1 10,529 infect 73,703 and 58,963 move to S2. 14,740
S2 42,128 infect 42,128 and 8,426 move to S1. 33,702
S1 14,740 + 8,426= 23,116 W.13
S2 33,702 + 58,963 = 92,665 W.13
New infections 115,831
Total cases 212,163
Total S1 cases 42,413
Week 14
S1 23,116 infects 161,812 and 129,450 move to S2. 32.362
S2 92,665 infect 92,665 and 18,533 move to S1.74,112
S1 = 32,362 + 18,533 = 50,915
S2 = 74,112 + 129,450 = 203,562
New infections, 254,477
Total infections 466,640
Total s1 cases 93,328
Week 15
S1 50,915 infects 356,407 and 285,124 move to S2. 71,281
S2 203,562 infect 203,562 and 40,713 move to s1. 162,849
S1 = 71,281 + 40,713 = 111,994
S2 = 162,849 + 285,124 = 447,937
New infections 559,967
Total cases 1,026,607
Total s1 cases 205,322
Week 16
S1 111,994 infects 783,958 and 627,167 move to S2. 156,791
S2 447,937 infect 447,937 and 89,588 move to S1.358,349
S1 156,791 + 89,588 = 246,379
S2 358,349 + 627,167 = 985,516
New infections 1,231,895
Total cases 2,258,502
Total s1 cases 451,701
Week 17
S1 246,379 infects 1,724,635 and 1,379,723 move to S2. 344,930
S2 985,516 infect 985,516 and 197,103 move to S1. 788,413
S1 344,930 + 197,103 = 542,033
S2 788,413 + 1,379,723 = 2,168,136
New infections 2,710,169
Total cases 4,968,671
Total s1 cases 993,704
Ok so under that R0 and weekly incubation period, we see 20,000 deaths in week 16.5 to 17.
Puts patient 0 at the end of Oct 2019.
That's with R0 for set 1 of 7
And R0 for set 2 of 1
Weekly doubling/incubation period, and mortality rate of .5% over all and 2.5% for the 20% more serious infections.
And again the Wuhan military games looks like a potential sourse for the outbreak. Athletes have claimed they got sick there.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1094347/world-military-games-illness-covid-19
"However, Swedish pentathlete Melina Westerberg said that many of her compatriots were sick at the Games, but none tested positive for the virus"
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.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/18/health/who-coronavirus-tests-cdc/index.html
On January 17, WHO published a protocol from German researchers with the instructions necessary for any country to manufacture coronavirus tests
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 11:47:27
You 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.
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.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.
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleadingThat's a lie.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/03/2021 14:59:35
No its not, you did not read the article so I will not read the rest of your reply.The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523
This 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.
.
It is the R rate and increaced of cases, the R rate coming to fluition after a 17 day interval. Lockdown effects the R number.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2021 15:01:08
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.You can test positive (or indeed negative) for a "viral infection" without specifically identifying the virus.
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading the athletes may well have been tested for something back in October 2019 but it certainly wasnt covid 19.
Post by: Jolly2 on 07/03/2021 19:45:16
You 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,
Right during the spainsh flu pandemic, widely reported at the time in Spanish media, no one knew what flu was. Great points you make, really highly intelligent.
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.
The only troll here is you, I simply pointed out you don't have to have identified a virus to experiment with it.
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.Really?
You mean it isn't obvious to you?
They can do the testing later- all they need to do is look for antibodies.
When in January? After the antibodies tests were developed and the athletes may have caught it from somewhere else?
You're assuming very scientific as usual. We don't know what test she claims to have had.
It's also common practice for athletes to get blood samples taken for drugs testing.
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.
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.
Keep on trolling
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleadingThat's a lie.
You think she is outright liar? fair enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2021 20:41:11
You 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.
Right 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.
The 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.
When 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.
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.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?
Keep on trollingDo you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?
Post by: Jolly2 on 08/03/2021 22:27:31
You 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.
Neither the covid 19 test or antibody test were available in Oct 2019, she and the other athletes may well have been tested for antibodies in January, a full 3 months later. But the statement she made was that they had been tested negative for Covid. You're assuming she had an antibody test. And I'm assuming she was being misleading.
Right 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.
Irrelevant, the sickness was known as influenza. You're the one claiming no one knew flu existed in the early 1900s and that's a lie.
The 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,
Yes they could have, they could house sick people with healthy people, then take those that get the sickest and repeat the process until a more infectious more deadly variation emerges. Completely possible, without identifying the actual virus responsible.
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.
Seems to be more your racket.
When 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.
All assumptions, you dont know what test she had if any, the claim they were tested could be a lie also. Also possible the athletes caught the ancestor Corona virus that evolved into covid19, and the test for antibodies wouldn't identify it. As always you propose simplistic answers to more complicated issues. So rather then me lying, you as a consistent part of your troll campaign seek simply to throw out personal attacks as part of that agenda, you should grow up.
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.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?
You dont know that, more assumptions, the standards for civilian games are not the same for the military.
Keep on trollingDo you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?
Which you dont, hence you keep on trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2021 22:53:22
You dont know that,I do know that the US military do a lot of drugs testing.
I checked.
Why did you lie about my knowing it?
All assumptions,Yes and no.
I only had to show one way in which it was possible to prove that when you said this.
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019.you were missing the point that it was perfectly possible for it to have happened.
And thus this
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleadingis a lie.
As always you propose simplistic answers to more complicated issues.A simple solution is the one which evaded you.
Remember?
You said this
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019.
Which you dont, hence you keep on trolling.
Do you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?
Post by: patriciacorse007 on 09/03/2021 05:27:30
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/03/2021 01:01:52
You dont know that,I do know that the US military do a lot of drugs testing.
I checked.
Why did you lie about my knowing it?
🤣you're hilarious.
They may well test for drugs like cocaine and Marijuana, that's not the same as taking blood sample and then testing them for a virus. Just pure assumptions on your part as always.
All assumptions,Yes
Oh it is a yes really.
and no.
I only had to show one way in which it was possible to prove that when you said this.
"Prove" 🤣
I ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019.you were missing the point that it was perfectly possible for it to have happened
No it was not possible for someone to have have a covid 19 test in Oct 2019.
And again you ignore the possibility that the athletes could have caught the ancestor virus of covid.
And thus thisMelina Westerbergis clearly being misleadingis a lie.
No it's an opinion. And an opinion I currently believe matches reality better then your assumptions. I see you keep up the lie rubbish and avoid the reality you lied about people not knowing the illiness of flu, in the 1900s, so desperate to score points?
As always you propose simplistic answers to more complicated issues.A simple solution is the one which evaded you.
Remember?
You said thisI ponder how someone can claim they had been tested negative for a virus that didn't exist in October 2019.Which you dont, hence you keep on trolling.Do you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?
The only person engaging in being wrong and dishonest is you.
Post by: Jolly2 on 10/03/2021 01:02:30
Informative discussion. :)
Thanks
When not interrupted by trolls we sometime get somewhere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2021 10:49:15
No it was not possible for someone to have have a covid 19 test in Oct 2019.Nobody said they did.
If you think that anyone said they did please quote it.
Otherwise admit you are the troll writing nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2021 10:52:09
The only person engaging in being wrong and dishonest is you.This
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading
is a lie which you told.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2021 10:53:10
No it's an opinion.It is stated, by you, as fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2021 10:54:37
I presume that's ironic.Informative discussion. :)
Thanks
When not interrupted by trolls we sometime get somewhere.
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/03/2021 17:27:31
The only person engaging in being wrong and dishonest is you.ThisMelina Westerbergis clearly being misleading
is a lie which you told.
No it's an opinion.It is stated, by you, as fact.
How exactly Is it stated as a fact? I am questioning, what test she had, or if she had any test at all?
You are the one Claimimg you know what test she had. Which is a statement of fact, which none my positions are.
And you start talking about lies, then we can talk about your lies that no one 1900s knew that the illness of Flu existed or your lie that Bats were the intermediary in which covid 19 evolved. While you have lied repeatedly I have not, while you spend your time leading personal attacks against people, which has caused some to refuse to discuss with you. While you add nothing to the actual discussion and persist in dragging the topic of discussion away from their actual theme to discuss nonsense, All the time you do that I will hold that you are a troll and here for little more then to prevent an actual discussion happening and desire all topics you engage in to be closed down as all trolls do.
As others have done and I have stated many times I will. I am no longer going to engage with you, I would ask you stop pestering myself and all other that no longer wish to engage with you.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2021 17:31:34
then we can talk about your lies that no one 1900s knew that the illness of Flu existed
Please quote where he said that. To my memory, what he actually said was that no one knew that the flu was caused by a virus.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:21:07
How exactly Is it stated as a fact?
It is stated like this
Melina Westerbergis clearly being misleading
There's no qualifier there.
Now "I think that" or "I wonder if".
No smiley to indicate that it's a joke.
Just a bold statement as a fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:21:34
You are the one Claimimg you know what test she had.I never made that claim.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:23:17
. I am no longer going to engage with you,Since I'm a member of this forum, that means you are leaving.
Bye.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 19:03:09
. I am no longer going to engage with you,Since I'm a member of this forum, that means you are leaving.
Bye.
Can't someone cease to engage with you, without being forced to leave the forum?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 19:42:16
Not if they follow the rules, and if they don't follow them, then they will get kicked out.. I am no longer going to engage with you,Since I'm a member of this forum, that means you are leaving.
Bye.
Can't someone cease to engage with you, without being forced to leave the forum?
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 19:59:44
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:02:00
Have you the power to kick people out?No.
Did you read the rules of the forum when you signed up?
Post by: Jolly2 on 11/03/2021 20:13:53
then we can talk about your lies that no one 1900s knew that the illness of Flu existed
Please quote where he said that. To my memory, what he actually said was that no one knew that the flu was caused by a virus.
They will tell you that nobody even knew what the flu virus was in 1919 because it wasn't identified until 1933.
He says it there in black and white a NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE FLU VIRUS WAS.
And It's an irrelevance to the point that I was making, we all knew of the illness of influenza.
And scientists could still have conducted experiments on people sick with influenza. His claim is that experimentation was Impossible because flu had not been identified.
While the virus itself may well not have been identified the sickness of flu was well known, hence I consider his position deceptive.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:15:18
He says it there in black and white a NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE FLU VIRUS WAS.
That's because it was discovered in 1933.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 20:17:22
Have you the power to kick people out?No.
Did you read the rules of the forum when you signed up?
Nobody reads them. If you don't mind me saying so, BC, aren't you getting a bit like a new Stalin, in your bossiness.
No offence meant. I do appreciate the power of your intellect. But don't overdo it. Only the moderators have power to eject people. And you're not a moderator, by your own admission.
So please calm down. Just overwhelm people with your superior mind.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:19:18
And scientists could still have conducted experiments on people sick with influenza.Let me know how the ethics cttee reacts to that.
There's also the fact that they didn't actually know for certain that there was an infectious agent.
More importantly, you still fail to understand the point I made ages ago.
£
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:20:15
Nobody reads themWho are you calling a nobody?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:21:17
you getting a bit like a new Stalin, in your bossiness.I'm plainly not a boss, and equally plainly not "bossy".
No offence meant. I do appreciate the power of your intellect. But don't overdo it. Only the moderators have power to eject people.
"Only the moderators have power to eject people."
Nobody said otherwise, did they?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2021 20:46:47
He says it there in black and white a NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE FLU VIRUS WAS.
That's exactly what I thought he said. He never said that nobody knew what the flu was. That's an important distinction.
Can't someone cease to engage with you, without being forced to leave the forum?
Yes. If it was against the rules to ignore members, then there wouldn't be a feature here that allowed you to do exactly that (Petrochemicals has Bored Chemist on ignore, for example. He hasn't been banned). I would suggest that Jolly2 do exactly that, since he seems to get riled up by Bored Chemist's posts. Ignoring one member doesn't mean ignoring all discussion, so I would personally allow it. Bored Chemist, meanwhile, should feel free to continue to correct Jolly2 where he is wrong (so long as he doesn't resort to ad hominem). Even if he can't convince Jolly2 of something, it could prove helpful to lurkers.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 21:00:49
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2021 21:06:25
I'm fairly sure that the forum rules require you to respond (sensibly) to a reasonable comment or question; otherwise it's preaching.
If the other moderators want to enforce that, they can feel free to. I will not, as I don't see any sense in disciplining someone for not responding to a member that they are ignoring using a feature of the forum designed specifically to do exactly that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 21:12:08
Anyone else have a view on that?
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 21:33:22
How naive I was! Human nature triumphs over Scientific objectivity.
To produce a "Lord of the Flies" situation, where posters sharpen sticks at both ends.
Which is probably not a bad thing, in the long run. At least it encourages vigorous debate.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 21:53:26
Some athlete apparently said that some competitors at the Wuhan Military games fell ill, but were tested and found not to have covid.
Jolly says that, because the games happened before covid was identified, they couldn't have tested for the virus then.
And, on that basis he calls her a liar.
I point out that they didn't need to do it "then" the testing could be done later.
In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.
The fact that it is perfectly reasonable to see how she might be telling the truth shows that Jolly's "deduction" that she lied is incorrect.
I never said that the pathway I suggested was the only one, or the right one, just that it was a possible one.
You can not legitimately say {at the time of the games, the virus was not identified} therefore {she is lying}.
But that's what Jolly keeps doing.
In addition he is accusing me of lying and claiming that I know that the samples were taken in this way and were analysed.
I never said that. I just said it was plausible.
It's also possible that they simply tested those athletes who were there for antibodies.
If they found them that would be inconclusive, but if they found none that would show that they hadn't been exposed (and thus that the illness was caused by something else).
Post by: Colin2B on 11/03/2021 23:19:05
In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.I have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/03/2021 08:47:58
I'm fairly sure that the forum rules require you to respond (sensibly) to a reasonable comment or question; otherwise it's preaching.
If the other moderators want to enforce that, they can feel free to. I will not, as I don't see any sense in disciplining someone for not responding to a member that they are ignoring using a feature of the forum designed specifically to do exactly that.
I can't see how, that is the case it would be compelled speech. And a demand to feed the troll, umm
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/03/2021 08:51:40
In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.I have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.
Do you have any links to this information? I've only seen sewage samples.
A test taken months later could only be inconclusive. Even a negative test is meaninglrss when the ancestor virus might have been the cause
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2021 10:43:49
that is the case it would be compelled speech.No
Because you signed up to it, and can always simply walk away.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/03/2021 11:56:20
Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322
Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/03/2021 12:47:07
Wuhan, I can see why this is in new theories.
Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322
Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/03/2021 11:48:46
Not to hand, but I may have marked it, will lookI have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.
Do you have any links to this information? I've only seen sewage samples.
These were not sewage but tissue/bloods
A test taken months later could only be inconclusive.That would depend on the sample, how it was taken, how it was stored and the type of test.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 13:08:55
You dont know that, more assumptions, the standards for civilian games are not the same for the military.Yes they are, at least in this context.
The world anti doping agency lists the International Military Sports Council as one of the groups that use their services.
So, it's not an assumption.
You lied about that.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/adams/list-of-organizations-using-adams
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 13:15:20
And scientists could still have conducted experiments on people sick with influenza. His claim is that experimentation was Impossible because flu had not been identified.There are a few major problems with that.
The simple one is that scientists don't work for fun. someone has to pay us (and for our facilities).
And there's no sensible cash source for the work you are suggesting.
There's also the fact that it would be immoral.
But there's another factor.
The scientists aren't stupid.
They would recognise that, even within a family, some people are more severely affected by the virus than others.
Even today, we have a hazy understanding of how that works. In 1919, they might as well have said it was God's will.
So the atrocity you suggested (and called an "experiment") wouldn't have worked anyway.
Even back then, they would have recognised that not only was it appalling, but it was pointless.
All this says is that you have a sick imagination.
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.
It wouldn't have led to a "gain in function" because it would have been swamped by the variation between people.
You can't "breed" viruses in people the way you can breed dogs in a stud farm.
Post by: set fair on 13/03/2021 18:53:24
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.No it's the otherway round. People who get sick stay at home, people who don't get sick are out and about spreading the infection.
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/03/2021 21:01:06
08:51:40
Wuhan, I can see why this is in new theories.
Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322
Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.
Why is that?
The food market hypothesis is pretty much now dead in the water. Especially as the first recorded patient had no connection to the market at all.
My only point with regard to the article was that, while they argue for a laboratory release as the most likely source they simply ignore Fort Detrick which had a leak 4 months before we see the first cases
Post by: Jolly2 on 13/03/2021 21:07:24
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.No it's the otherway round. People who get sick stay at home, people who don't get sick are out and about spreading the infection.
Gonna disagree, firstly people who get sick have a higher amount of Viral load and are propagating a higher amount of viral load.
Asymptomatic people have a lower amount of virus and so don't propagate as much virus.
Sick peoples immune systems are having a harder time responding, and so the body is being overcome by the virus which leads to a greater production of viral particles. Sicker people will be more contagious than Asymptomatic people.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 21:11:29
Gonna disagree,Disagreeing with facts makes you look like a troll.
People who are stuck at home in bed can't spread the bug very far.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 21:16:06
Asymptomatic people have a lower amount of virus and so don't propagate as much virus.Or we can ignore the troll, and look at the facts.
"Conclusion Approximately one-fifth of the individuals without severe symptoms were asymptomatic, and their viral loads were comparable to those in symptomatic patients. A large proportion of mildly symptomatic patients with COVID-19 or asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 showed persistent positive upper respiratory RT-PCR results at follow-up."
from
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/76/1/61
Or
"Findings In this cohort study that included 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection isolated in a community treatment center in the Republic of Korea, 110 (36.3%) were asymptomatic at the time of isolation and 21 of these (19.1%) developed symptoms during isolation. The cycle threshold values of reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients."
From
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235
Post by: evan_au on 13/03/2021 23:36:01
Quote from: Jolly2
The food market hypothesis is pretty much now dead in the water.It would be more accurate to say "The food market hypothesis is now recognized as only part of the story."
- Undoubtedly, many of the early cases picked up COVID-19 through contacts who worked at the food market, or who had visited the food market. That's why it was shut down so quickly, early in the pandemic.
- But the WHO team asked for re-analysis of the earliest cases, and recognized nearly as many cases that did not have an obvious association with the food market.
- That means there was other cluster(s) of cases whose source has not yet been determined (and it will be pretty hard, a year later!)
Quote from: Jolly2
virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and ThailandIt was identified quite early that the Hubei province (where Wuhan is located) is too cold to host significant populations of bat species year-round.
- The bat coronaviruses published by Wuhan/US researchers around 2015 came from warmer provinces to the south.
- Undoubtedly, other bat coronaviruses will be circulating in more tropical countries around China's southern border
- The illegal (and legal) wildlife trade does not respect national borders
- It just means that the food market is still considered as one epicenter of the human-transmissible COVID-19 outbreak.
Quote from: Jolly2
Sick peoples immune systems are having a harder time respondingWhen you say "sick", the usual early viral symptoms of fever, malaise, tiredness, etc are a side-effect of interferons which are initial response of the body to a viral infection, ie part of the immune response.
- SARS-COV2 is unusual in that it has an interferon suppressor gene, that inhibits interferons, so you are less likely to feel "ill"
- This allows SARS-COV2 to grow and spread from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals (which has made it much harder to contain than the earlier SARS Coronavirus pandemic).
- So the people who immediately feel ill have a quicker immune response.
Whether you feel sick or not does not directly affect the virus replication and spread through breathing and talking - what it affects is whether you are likely to go outside and spread it
- However, people who get an interferon response have an early-warning signal to their immune system, so their immune system has a head-start in addressing the infection.
Many of the people who get severely ill with COVID-19 have damage to their lungs caused by:
- viral replication in their lungs
- the immune system attacking and killing infected cells in their lungs
Ironically, there are some people who can be severely ill without feeling ill
- The first symptom is that their family notices that their lip look a bit blue
- Or they collapse in the street
- A blood oxygen test shows that their blood oxygen content is very low
- Because their lung function is severely impaired - this shows up as a "ground glass" texture on X-Rays
- But they never had the traditional classic "viral" symptoms, caused by interferon
PS: There are some other symptoms that seem specific to SARS-COV2, around loss of sense of smell and taste. This is because SARS-COV2 sometimes attacks and kills the smell sensors in the nose. For some people, this is the only symptom; fortunately, anosmia is not immediately fatal.
Post by: Jolly2 on 14/03/2021 13:01:13
Quote from: Jolly2The food market hypothesis is pretty much now dead in the water.It would be more accurate to say "The food market hypothesis is now recognized as only part of the story."
- Undoubtedly, many of the early cases picked up COVID-19 through contacts who worked at the food market, or who had visited the food market. That's why it was shut down so quickly, early in the pandemic.
- But the WHO team asked for re-analysis of the earliest cases, and recognized nearly as many cases that did not have an obvious association with the food market.
- That means there was other cluster(s) of cases whose source has not yet been determined (and it will be pretty hard, a year later!)
Another cluster that has nothing to do with the food market.
Quote from: Jolly2virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and ThailandIt was identified quite early that the Hubei province (where Wuhan is located) is too cold to host significant populations of bat species year-round.
- The bat coronaviruses published by Wuhan/US researchers around 2015 came from warmer provinces to the south.
- Undoubtedly, other bat coronaviruses will be circulating in more tropical countries around China's southern border
- The illegal (and legal) wildlife trade does not respect national borders
- It just means that the food market is still considered as one epicenter of the human-transmissible COVID-19 outbreak.
Still have to find the intermediary
Quote from: Jolly2Sick peoples immune systems are having a harder time respondingWhen you say "sick", the usual early viral symptoms of fever, malaise, tiredness, etc
Ok when I was referring to "sick" I was referring to people who were seeing greater cell infection and so greater viral replication, which the immune system was having trouble suppressing, this leading to greater viral production, compared to an immune response that managed the amount of cell infection better. But I take the point potentially people can be sick and not realise it.
That ofcourse suggests a variation amoung Asymptomatic people where some are actually sick but not showing any symptoms and others have a low viral load infection which the body is managing to suppress and destroy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 13:36:37
Ok when I was referring to "sick" I was referring to people who were seeing greater cell infection and so greater viral replication, which the immune system was having trouble suppressing,It hardly matters what you were referring to; you were wrong.
"Conclusion Approximately one-fifth of the individuals without severe symptoms were asymptomatic, and their viral loads were comparable to those in symptomatic patients. A large proportion of mildly symptomatic patients with COVID-19 or asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 showed persistent positive upper respiratory RT-PCR results at follow-up."
from
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/76/1/61
Or
"Findings In this cohort study that included 303 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection isolated in a community treatment center in the Republic of Korea, 110 (36.3%) were asymptomatic at the time of isolation and 21 of these (19.1%) developed symptoms during isolation. The cycle threshold values of reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients."
From
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/03/2021 21:15:30
Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand. Neither are adapted to human transmission, but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature. The samples were found after re-examination of frozen samples kept in storage, so the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.
I suppose the WHO will be looking at Thailand ferret badger farms now.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 18/03/2021 01:14:56
Wuhan is not a new theory, The first patient was probably retired as a guess, but I'm willing to be cOrrected. 66 percent of all carriers are asymptomatic, 99.9 percent of extreme cases are over 50.08:51:40Wuhan, I can see why this is in new theories.
Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322
Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.
Why is that?
The food market hypothesis is pretty much now dead in the water. Especially as the first recorded patient had no connection to the market at all.
My only point with regard to the article was that, while they argue for a laboratory release as the most likely source they simply ignore Fort Detrick which had a leak 4 months before we see the first cases
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/03/2021 08:45:10
they simply ignore Fort Detrick which had a leak 4 months before we see the first casesBecause, if covid had leaked there, then there would have been an outbreak of covid there.
Unless you can explain how a virus "slept" for 4 months, you must rule our Fort Detrick.