[evan_au]

I heard an interview this morning with Dominic Dwyer, one of the investigators in the recent WHO team to visit China.
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

[Bored chemist]

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 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?

[Bored chemist]

Ro7 with an incubation period of 3 days starting in October

It probably didn't start in October, so that's meaningless anyway.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 October

It probably didn't start in October, so that's meaningless anyway.

More likely September. Wrong again.

Past infections .  current infections

There 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.

[Bored chemist]

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) ?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

And the answer is unsurprisingly trolly

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.

[Bored chemist]

Wow did they really say around the order of 3. Wow. Amazing its 3.28

It 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 2020

That 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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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 active

You 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.

[alancalverd]

Dont agree, finding Patient 0 is extremely important. 

On the contrary. He is probably dead and his legacy is universal.

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).

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Dont agree, finding Patient 0 is extremely important.

On the contrary. He is probably dead and his legacy is universal.

On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arround. They may identify as a bat ofcourse.

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.

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).

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Wow did they really say around the order of 3. Wow. Amazing its 3.28

It 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 2020

That 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.

Past infections .  current infections

There 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.

[Bored chemist]

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 March

And 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.

[alancalverd]

On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arround

Wrong. 96% if you are lucky. The figure came from Wuhan.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

On the contrary as over 99% of people survive he or she is probably still arround

Wrong. 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%

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 March

And 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

If you have an issue with the number

I have an issue with the stupid idea that there is one number.