Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

poodle? LOL

Poodles are the 2nd most intelligent dog breed - on the other hand, huskies are among the least intelligent, also the Korean "yellow-dogs" which are bred for food tend to be not very intelligent. It just seems more humane to eat less intelligent breeds. But of course, it would be best if people stopped dog consumption altogether.
 
Lately, a lot of governments and people in various countries want to put the blame entirely on China. However, the latest studies are coming out and saying that, if they did the same tough measures, which they employed against China, on themselves, they should be ok.

All the latest genetic and epidemiological studies actually tell several important things:
(1) Governments in Europe and the US knew exactly what happened in China and how terrible it was. Thats why their own "quarantining China" policies had been successful. They immediately shut down all travels with China. that's why the initial Chinese strains didn't explode outside of China. So no more excuses and no more "you didn't tell us and we had no idea!" No one was left in the dark! That's why everyone started isolating China.

A good example of this uneven policy would be Taiwan. Taiwan initially had a very tough lockdown policies on anyone coming from China. Because of that, they managed to keep the confirmed cases down to about a total of ~20 cases throughout late January, entire Feb and early March. However, Taiwan has a very soft policy with Europe and the US. That's why their cases also exploded to >300 since the sudden outbreak in Europe and the US in mid March.

(2) Very few infected Chinese "escaped" Wuhan before their lockdown. Many have been accusing China of letting so many infected people escape to all corners of the world before the lockdown. If this happened and no one in Europe and the US did anything to stop the transmission for 2 months (from the lockdown of Wuhan to the later explosion in Europe and the US), the entire world would be filled with virus strains directly coming out of China. However, this is not the case. For example, the outbreak in the US is dominated with strains coming from Italy. If both Chinese strains and the Italian ones had been allowed to propagate uncontrolled in the US, the Chinese strains, being the older strains with more time to mutate and to replicate, should dominate between the two populations if left unchecked. Yet, this is not the case at all. The the direct Chinese strains are almost non-existent. That means very few direct Chinese strains managed to arrive at the US. that means very few Wuhan population escaped.

(3) Many have been questioning the Chinese numbers, mainly the amazingly low case totals in the provinces other than the province of Hubei, where Wuhan is the capital city. Given their assumption that many many people escaped Wuhan before the lockdown and spread out all of China, it would be impossible for China's other provinces to have such low case totals. Hence, fake numbers! Well, we now know very few people escaped Wuhan and caused no damage in other parts of the world, most of which had implemented nothing to control the spread of anything. Given how tough all other Chinese provinces had been screening for Wuhan people and other potentially infected people, it makes perfect sense that China has been able to keep the case total low in other provinces.

Contrast this with what the US did with the Swine Flu, which was responsible for 280,000 to 600,000 death in one year.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Sure there was error here and there but in overall scheme of things, the CCP actually did a extra-ordinary job of containing the spread of the virus.
Yet, the pandemic still happened not because of negligence or incompetence and more because of western arrogance in spite of China's extra-ordinary sacrifices.
 

Intrepid

Major
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"About 0.37 percent of the people in Gangelt who were found to have the virus died. The mortality rate there is five times lower than in the rest of Germany. According to data from John Hopkins University, the rate for all of Germany is currently 1.98 percent. According to the researchers, the reason why apparently fewer people in Gangelt die from the consequences of a corona infection is that a particularly large number of people were tested there. Including many that show hardly any symptoms and often go undetected. The numbers suggest that the coronavirus could be less fatal than feared. However, it was still too early for a reliable projection."Heinsberg slipped past a huge catastrophe" According to the researchers, the numbers suggest that the lockdown was the right decision to contain the number of infections. "Heinsberg slipped past a huge disaster," said the district district administrator, Stephan Pusch."
This study should be treated with caution. Maybe it's more of a courtesy report. The interim report was published under time pressure. The measurement methods assume an extraordinarily high accuracy, which the same method could not offer in other investigations. The head of the study has personal contacts with the government of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the study was accompanied by a PR agency with personal contacts in the state government.

At least the level of immunization of 15% is questioned by many scientists. It is probably actually lower.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Best thing I’ve read in a while

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Voice of America spends your money to speak for authoritarian regimes
Voice of America
is a global news network funded by American taxpayers. It spends about $200 million each year on its mission to “tell America’s story” and “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively” to people around the globe.

Today, however, VOA too often speaks for America’s adversaries—not its citizens.

The Coronavirus pandemic is no exception. Secrecy from the Communist Party of China allowed the deadly virus to spread across the world.

Journalists should report the facts, but VOA has instead amplified Beijing’s propaganda. This week, VOA called China’s Wuhan lockdown a successful “model” copied by much of the world—and then
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of the Communist government’s celebratory light show marking the quarantine’s alleged end.

Even worse, while much of the U.S. media takes its lead from China, VOA went one step further: It created graphics with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to compare China’s Coronavirus death toll to America’s. As intelligence experts point out, there is simply no way to verify the accuracy of China’s numbers.

The Coronavirus story is just one example of this pattern. Last year, VOA helped highlight the Twitter feed of Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif while he was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and sharing Russian anti-U.S. propaganda videos.

“VOA will represent America,” its guiding Charter reads. And for years after its founding during World War II, VOA served that mission by promoting freedom and democracy across the world for audiences who longed for both.

Today, VOA is promoting propaganda instead—and your tax dollars are paying for it.

WATCH: The First Lady’s message to frontline responders

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The biggest heroes during our national Coronavirus response are America’s healthcare workers and frontline responders. First Lady Melania Trump recorded a video message thanking them this week on behalf of a grateful nation.

“The President and I appreciate all that you are doing to keep the people of our country healthy and safe,” Mrs. Trump said. “In the most difficult of times, the United States never fails to rise to the occasion with both unity and strength.”

“It is because of you, that the people of America are receiving the care and treatment they need.”

President Trump is fighting to make sure these workers have the support they need, as well. The CARES Act, which he signed into law last month, provides $100 billion for hospitals and healthcare providers. FEMA and its partners, meanwhile, continue to work with states to distribute ventilators and other equipment across the country.
o_O
 
Last edited:
Well, they examined a total of 93 genomes, of which 54 were inside of China and 39 outside of China. So they apparently attempted to analyze a sample cohort as diverse as they possibly could. And yes, I concur that many of their outside China samples might still have a China connection since this study was done at the beginning of the outbreak and most of the people tested for the virus might have some kind of connection (familial or travel history) with China. This is indeed a weakness from all earlier studies on this topic. The GISAID site has so far collected thousands of genome samples of this virus. Hopefully, someone will do a more comprehensive analysis and shed more light.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I also agree that the origin of H13 and H38 is still not known. I'm not sure if later analyses might have more insight on this. However, the authors noted a weird phenomenon: H13 and H38 are less frequent than H1 (Page 11). they further stated on page 11 (and I paraphrase): "it is highly possible that H1 acquired adaptive mutations, such as NS of site 28151, from H3, or H13 (and/or H38), evolved in an independent circulation after they jumped into intermediate hosts or directly transmitted to human in Wuhan". So despite their findings that the Wuhan wet market is not the originating location, their suspicion was still that Wuhan might be where one of the haplotypes (H1) made the initial jump onto human.

To be honest with you, I first heard of this study from one of my relatives who watched a Taiwanese talk show, where a guest discussed the study and his interpretation was that "the grandfather haplotypes originated outside of China" (or something like that). She sent me a clip of the show. I was very excited and spent a lot of time trying to find the actual manuscript. Obviously, I wanted to clear the name of the Chinese and disconnect myself from the virus. I wanted to tell everyone to shut their mouths about the "Chinese virus". When I finally found it and went through it, I was utterly disappointed since the study does not suggest that any of the haplotypes originated from outside of China.

I understand your concerns and I agree that their study has a lot of holes. This is the same with any study, no matter how comprehensive and how stunning and where they are published. If you scrutinize them closely, you will find holes. And you will find even more holes if you initially disagree with their conclusions to begin with. And a lot of times, they put in ambiguous languages to please their reviewers who might hold opposite views from them. Many times, they are actually forced to put in languages to acknowledge opposing views, as requested by the reviewers. So I would not read too much into every single word they say. However, the main message of the study is still clear, as well as the other similar later studies on the same topic (some of which I cited in my earlier posts). The direction of the transmission still all traces back to China.

With that being said, I do hope that later analyses will solve many of the questions and give us more details. As I described in an earlier post, I have high hopes for the hypothesis focusing on the polybasic cleavage site, which would conclusively show that the virus has jumped on human years ago. I hope someone will do some detailed genomic analysis of the actual samples. I will happily concede (to my utter delight) that this virus originated somewhere else but China. I won't have to leave guns loaded in the house anymore...

Thank you for feedback. I am not criticizing the paper and I understand there was constraint in time and sample. But this is not just a small hole but a large gaping hole and it should be treated as such. The paper did not provide any inference or conclusion on whether the virus originated in China as you suggested. A takeaway from this paper is that there needs to be more investigation to find the source of the virus and it does not have to be limited to China again as you may have unintentionally suggested. The data set shows samples relating to China and you may have been too quick to inferred that the virus most likely originated in China. It is just a self-fulfilling conclusion from a bad set of data.

Not discounting this possibility but a scientific approach to pursue all lead to find the source, understand how it happened and take measure to mitigate any future risk, will serve us all better.

On another note, the grandfather haplotypes H13 and H38 did not magically infect human after the virus had spread, It would also have to make the jump onto human. Why can't it be the more likely source of the initial jump onto human?
 
Last edited:

Intrepid

Major
Considering how big the economic damage has become and how small it would have been if much stricter health controls had been in place for air traffic, ICAO will have a lot to think about.

When passenger flights had long since become a rarity: even on freight flights, the crews go to the local hotel for one night and the ground staff board the aircraft.
 
Why do people point to countries where pandemics have their origin?


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"For years, it was common for viral diseases to be linked with the landscapes, places or regions where the first virus outbreak occurred – the Middle East respiratory syndrome and the Zika virus, which is named after a forest in Uganda, to name a few.

But in 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced guidelines to stop this practice and thereby reduce stigma and negative impacts. The guidelines also highlighted that when an outbreak happens, everyone will be at risk no matter who they are or where they come from."

Hence there is no excuse to continue pointing to countries where pandemic outbreak first started. Intentional use of such language today are irresponsible and malicious with ulterior motives. Just look around and see who are those that continue to do so.

Here's the same statement from Nature Editorial Board.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in February that the disease caused by the new coronavirus would be called COVID‑19, the name was quickly adopted by organizations involved in communicating public-health information. As well as naming the illness, the WHO was implicitly sending a reminder to those who had erroneously been associating the virus with Wuhan and with China in their news coverage— including Nature. That we did so was an error on our part, for which we take responsibility and apologize.

For years, it was common for viral diseases to be associated with the landscapes, places or regions where the first outbreaks occurred — as in Middle East respiratory syndrome, or Zika virus, named after a forest in Uganda. But in 2015, the WHO introduced guidelines to stop this practice and thereby reduce stigma and negative impacts such as fear or anger directed towards those regions or their people. The guidelines underlined the point that viruses infect all humans: when an outbreak happens, everyone is at risk, regardless of who they are or where they are from.

And yet, as countries struggle to control the spread of the new coronavirus, a minority of politicians are sticking with the outdated script. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly associated the virus with China. Brazilian lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro — the son of President Jair Bolsonaro — has called it “China’s fault”. Politicians elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom, are also saying that China bears responsibility.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
There is only one strain of Covid-19 virus in China but there are 5 strains in the US, The Covid-19 strain in Italy is not the same as the one in China, but the same as one of the strains in the US
These are mutations of the same virus, mutating several times

The Chinese virus is the original, every other exported from China, through different chains of infection.
 
Top