[Bored chemist]

I think you did right here.

You don't understand the issues.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I think you did right here.

You don't understand the issues.

No I clearly just understand you're a troll

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Who trolls again and again

You.
Perpetually.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Who trolls again and again

You.
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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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

[Bored chemist]

, 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?

[Kryptid]

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.

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?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

and 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.

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

Haven't seen it thanks for the link.

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%"

[Kryptid]

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

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.

[Bored chemist]

Oh my you actually read any of his posts? He has been suggesting an R0 of 7

It 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 down

If I had said I was dumbing down, I would have got the spelling right.

He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say

How 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 has

You 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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-0

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

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

If that were true

Everyone 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690