[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

No you are missing that a virus that adapts to transmit outside has a higher tolerance to sunlight

If 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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[Bored chemist]

No you dont,

Yes we do.
 

from: Jolly2 on 25/02/2021 23:01:13
Could also have evolved in a human population somewhere.

Not without them noticing.

Why do you insist on suggesting that these people are stupid?

[Petrochemicals]

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.

We do know that. We know that the corona 19  variant started in wuhan for the reasons we have gone over,

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.

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.

with no evidence for the contrary. That is fact.

No its assumption.

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.

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.

they are facts, there would be a spike in pneumonia, during the summer this would be very 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.

weeks in November is prior to the December start date. A summer release in the USA would have been apparent.

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

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

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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/222/4/564/5856149

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.

Thanks for the info.

So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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".

So that looks like 2.5 minutes for influenza compared to 1.8 for Corona. 0.7 difference.

Microbiologists will tell you that those numbers have error margins on them.
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

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Petrochemicals]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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?

Stop wasting peoples time with nonsense.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[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.