[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Hence your suggestion of 4% is utter nonsense.

I never suggested that.
Please try to keep up.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 arround

Wrong. 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 arround

Wrong. 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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 number

I 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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 number

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

As I suggested take it up with the CDC or WHO

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.

[/quote]

Oh my couldn't an American have been in wuhan then? You claim it certainly wasnt implies you know who it was.

[Bored chemist]

As I suggested take it up with the CDC or WHO

But 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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[puppypower]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

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/

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

rediculas

Is that some sort of joke, or do you really not know how to spell?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

rediculas

Is 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.

[Bored chemist]

Yep really adding to the discussion.

Just like calling people ridiculous.

You forgot to answer the question, BTW.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So we can forget about the WHO investigation ruling out the wuhan  laboratory as the source.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.