[Bored chemist]

Nobody reads them

Who are you calling a nobody?

[Bored chemist]

you getting a bit like a new Stalin, in your bossiness.

No offence meant.  I do appreciate the power of your intellect.  But don't overdo it.  Only the moderators have power to eject people.

I'm plainly not a boss, and equally plainly not "bossy".
"Only the moderators have power to eject people."
Nobody said otherwise, did they?

[Kryptid]

He says it there in black and white a NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE FLU VIRUS  WAS.

That's exactly what I thought he said. He never said that nobody knew what the flu was. That's an important distinction.

Can't someone cease to engage with you, without being forced to leave the forum?

Yes. If it was against the rules to ignore members, then there wouldn't be a feature here that allowed you to do exactly that (Petrochemicals has Bored Chemist on ignore, for example. He hasn't been banned). I would suggest that Jolly2 do exactly that, since he seems to get riled up by Bored Chemist's posts. Ignoring one member doesn't mean ignoring all discussion, so I would personally allow it. Bored Chemist, meanwhile, should feel free to continue to correct Jolly2 where he is wrong (so long as he doesn't resort to ad hominem). Even if he can't convince Jolly2 of something, it could prove helpful to lurkers.

[Bored chemist]

I'm fairly sure that the forum rules require you to respond (sensibly) to a reasonable comment or question; otherwise it's preaching.

[Kryptid]

I'm fairly sure that the forum rules require you to respond (sensibly) to a reasonable comment or question; otherwise it's preaching.

If the other moderators want to enforce that, they can feel free to. I will not, as I don't see any sense in disciplining someone for not responding to a member that they are ignoring using a feature of the forum designed specifically to do exactly that.

[Bored chemist]

As far as I can tell, it's not just me. Jolly ignores reality, no matter who tells him about it.

Anyone else have a view on that?

[charles1948]

When I first came on here, I thought it was a Science Forum, where Scientific issues would be calmly discussed without personal polemics and vitriolic rancour.

How naive I was!  Human nature triumphs over Scientific objectivity.

To produce a "Lord of the Flies" situation, where posters sharpen sticks at both ends. 

Which is probably not a bad thing, in the long run.  At least it encourages vigorous debate.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I wonder; do you think this is a summary of the latest exchange.
Some athlete apparently said that some competitors at  the Wuhan Military games fell ill, but were tested and found not to have covid.
Jolly says that, because the games happened before covid was identified, they couldn't have tested for the virus then.
And, on that basis he calls her a  liar.
I point out that they didn't need to do it "then"  the testing could be done later.
In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.

The fact that it is perfectly reasonable to see how she might be telling the truth shows that Jolly's "deduction" that she lied is incorrect.

I never said that the pathway I suggested was the only one, or the right one, just that it was a possible one.
You can not legitimately say {at the time of the games, the virus was not identified} therefore {she is lying}.
But that's what Jolly keeps doing.

In addition he is accusing me of lying and claiming that I know that the samples were taken in this way and were analysed.

I never said that. I just said it was plausible.
It's also possible that they simply tested those athletes who were there for antibodies.
If they found them that would be inconclusive, but if they found none that would show that they hadn't been exposed (and thus that the illness was caused by something else).


 

[Colin2B]

In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.

I have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I'm fairly sure that the forum rules require you to respond (sensibly) to a reasonable comment or question; otherwise it's preaching.

If the other moderators want to enforce that, they can feel free to. I will not, as I don't see any sense in disciplining someone for not responding to a member that they are ignoring using a feature of the forum designed specifically to do exactly that.

I can't see how, that is the case it would be compelled speech. And a demand to feed the troll, umm

[Jolly2 (OP)]

In particular, it's perfectly plausible that blood samples taken at (or just after) the games would have been kept and might have been analysed.

I have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.

Do you have any links to this information? I've only seen sewage samples.

A test taken months later could only be inconclusive. Even a negative test is meaninglrss when the ancestor virus might have been the cause

[Bored chemist]

that is the case it would be compelled speech.

No
Because you signed up to it, and can always simply walk away.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322


Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.

[Petrochemicals]

Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322


Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.

Wuhan, I can see why this is in new theories.

[Colin2B]

I have read reports that this same type of post analysis of samples was used in Italy to identify the realistic time the virus entered the country.

Do you have any links to this information? I've only seen sewage samples.

Not to hand, but I may have marked it, will look
These were not sewage but tissue/bloods

A test taken months later could only be inconclusive.

That would depend on the sample, how it was taken, how it was stored and the type of test.

[Bored chemist]

You dont know that, more assumptions, the standards for civilian games are not the same for the military.

Yes they are, at least in this context.
The world anti doping agency lists the International Military Sports Council as one of the groups that use their services.

So, it's not an assumption.
You lied about that.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/adams/list-of-organizations-using-adams

[Bored chemist]

And scientists could still have conducted experiments on people sick with influenza. His claim is that experimentation was Impossible because flu had not been identified.

There are a few major problems with that.
The simple one is that scientists don't work for fun. someone has to pay us (and for our facilities).
And there's no sensible cash source for the work you are suggesting.
There's also the fact that it would be immoral.

But there's another factor.
The scientists aren't stupid.
They would recognise that, even within a family, some people are more severely affected by the virus than others.
Even today, we have a hazy understanding of how that works. In 1919, they might as well have said it was God's will.

So the atrocity you suggested (and called an "experiment") wouldn't have worked anyway.

Even back then, they would have recognised that not only was it appalling, but it was pointless.

All this says is that you have a sick imagination.

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.

It wouldn't have led to a "gain in function" because it would have been swamped by the variation between people.
You can't "breed" viruses in people the way you can breed dogs in a stud farm.

[set fair]

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.

No it's the otherway round. People who get sick stay at home, people who don't get sick are out and about spreading the infection.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

08:51:40

Recently published Politco Article speaks of the Wuhan Laboratory as the most likley source of Covid19


https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322


Article talk about how diplomats in 2017 and 2018 had expressed concerns about the Wuhan Laboratory in terms of its activities and safety standards. All of which is rather hilarious when the American Laboratory also engaged in the same research actually had a leak and was closed yet isnt even mentioned.

Wuhan, I can see why this is in new theories.

Why is that?

The food market hypothesis is pretty much now dead in the water. Especially as the first recorded patient had no connection to the market at all.

My only point with regard to the article was that, while they argue for a laboratory release as the most likely source they simply ignore Fort Detrick which had a leak 4 months before we see the first cases

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

No it's the otherway round. People who get sick stay at home, people who don't get sick are out and about spreading the infection.

Gonna disagree, firstly people who get sick have a higher amount of Viral load and are propagating a higher amount of viral load.

Asymptomatic people have a lower amount of virus and so don't propagate as much virus.

Sick peoples immune systems are having a harder time responding, and so the body is being overcome by the virus which leads to a greater production of viral particles.  Sicker people will be more contagious than Asymptomatic people.