[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

That could have happened

Winston Churchill could have dressed up like a baby everyday in private too. That could have happened.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

I recognise that your making stupid false assertions  (and the rebuttals of those assertions) are irrelevant.
Please stop making them.

I take it that your comment means that you realise that a false claim like 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

I recognise that your making stupid false assertions  (and the rebuttals of those assertions) are irrelevant.
Please stop making them.

I take it that your comment means that you realise that a false claim like 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.

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.

[Petrochemicals]

The current r rate estimates are based upon a 17 day interval between linked cases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52473523

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

from

Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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%.

[Bored chemist]

from

Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.

Posting stuff and then not replying to points raised about it is trolling.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

from

Just more trolling I'm not gonna waste time with.

Posting stuff and then not replying to points raised about it is trolling.

You dont raise points, 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Week one

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

[Bored chemist]

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 misleading

That's a lie.

[Petrochemicals]

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.
.

No its not, you did not read the article so I will not read the rest of your reply.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

You can test positive (or indeed negative) for a "viral infection" without specifically identifying the virus.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 misleading

That's a lie.

You think she is outright liar? fair enough.

[Bored chemist]

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 trolling

Do you realise that pointing out when you are wrong and or dishonest isn't trolling?