Coronavirus 2019-2020 thread (no unsubstantiated rumours!)

solarz

Brigadier
Don't know about Canadian media specifically, but most Western MSM had focused on the political aspects of China's outbreak control efforts, not the public health aspects. The lack of awareness among Western political elites and general public on the dangers of COVID-19 were in significant part results of biased reportings from the Western MSM. Just like Trump, who would never admit mistakes and instead double down the rhetoric, the Western MSM will find ways to blame China to avoid taking on responsibilities for their own failure. I anticipated this.

I'm afraid it's not just the media coverage, but a genuine attitude of superiority leading to a false sense of security. North American and European countries were utterly convinced the outbreak would not happen in their countries.

Practically every public health official was downplaying the risk in February and well into March. These are professionals in the medical health domain and not lay people who are only informed by MSM.
 

getready

Senior Member
I'm afraid it's not just the media coverage, but a genuine attitude of superiority leading to a false sense of security. North American and European countries were utterly convinced the outbreak would not happen in their countries.

Practically every public health official was downplaying the risk in February and well into March. These are professionals in the medical health domain and not lay people who are only informed by MSM.
Yes I have been reading old comments in Twitter from some foreigners who didn't think it would happen to their countries, it boiled down to their sense of superiority
 

KYli

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


Study charts the “incipient supernova” of COVID-19 through genetic mutations as it spread from China and Asia to Australia, Europe and North America. Researchers say their methods could be used to help identify undocumented infection sources.



Phylogenetic network analysis has the potential to help identify undocumented COVID-19 infection sources
Peter Forster

Researchers from Cambridge, UK, and Germany have reconstructed the early “evolutionary paths” of COVID-19 in humans – as infection spread from Wuhan out to Europe and North America – using genetic network techniques.
By analysing the first 160 complete virus genomes to be sequenced from human patients, the scientists have mapped some of the original spread of the new coronavirus through its mutations, which creates different viral lineages.
“There are too many rapid mutations to neatly trace a COVID-19 family tree. We used a mathematical network algorithm to visualise all the plausible trees simultaneously,” said geneticist Dr Peter Forster, lead author from the University of Cambridge.
“These techniques are mostly known for mapping the movements of prehistoric human populations through DNA. We think this is one of the first times they have been used to trace the infection routes of a coronavirus like COVID-19.”
The team used data from virus genomes sampled from across the world between 24 December 2019 and 4 March 2020. The research revealed three distinct “variants” of COVID-19, consisting of clusters of closely related lineages, which they label ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.
Forster and colleagues found that the closest type of COVID-19 to the one discovered in bats – type ‘A’, the “original human virus genome” – was present in Wuhan, but surprisingly was not the city’s predominant virus type.
Mutated versions of ‘A’ were seen in Americans reported to have lived in Wuhan, and a large number of A-type viruses were found in patients from the US and Australia.
Wuhan’s major virus type, ‘B’, was prevalent in patients from across East Asia. However, the variant didn’t travel much beyond the region without further mutations – implying a "founder event" in Wuhan, or “resistance” against this type of COVID-19 outside East Asia, say researchers.
The ‘C’ variant is the major European type, found in early patients from France, Italy, Sweden and England. It is absent from the study’s Chinese mainland sample, but seen in Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea.
The new analysis also suggests that one of the earliest introductions of the virus into Italy came via the first documented German infection on January 27, and that another early Italian infection route was related to a “Singapore cluster”.
Importantly, the researchers say that their genetic networking techniques accurately traced established infection routes: the mutations and viral lineages joined the dots between known cases.
As such, the scientists argue that these “phylogenetic” methods could be applied to the very latest coronavirus genome sequencing to help predict future global hot spots of disease transmission and surge.
“Phylogenetic network analysis has the potential to help identify undocumented COVID-19 infection sources, which can then be quarantined to contain further spread of the disease worldwide,” said Forster, a fellow of the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research at Cambridge, as well as the University’s Institute of Continuing Education.
The findings are published today in the journal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The software used in the study, as well as classifications for over 1,000 coronavirus genomes and counting, is available free at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Variant ‘A’, most closely related to the virus found in both bats and pangolins, is described as “the root of the outbreak” by researchers. Type ‘B’ is derived from ‘A’, separated by two mutations, then ‘C’ is in turn a “daughter” of ‘B’.
Researchers say the localisation of the ‘B’ variant to East Asia could result from a “founder effect”: a genetic bottleneck that occurs when, in the case of a virus, a new type is established from a small, isolated group of infections.
Forster argues that there is another explanation worth considering. “The Wuhan B-type virus could be immunologically or environmentally adapted to a large section of the East Asian population. It may need to mutate to overcome resistance outside East Asia. We seem to see a slower mutation rate in East Asia than elsewhere, in this initial phase.”
He added: “The viral network we have detailed is a snapshot of the early stages of an epidemic, before the evolutionary paths of COVID-19 become obscured by vast numbers of mutations. It’s like catching an incipient supernova in the act.”
Since today’s PNAS study was conducted, the research team has extended its analysis to 1,001 viral genomes. While yet to be peer-reviewed, Forster says the latest work suggests that the first infection and spread among humans of COVID-19 occurred between mid-September and early December.
The phylogenetic network methods used by researchers – allowing the visualisation of hundreds of evolutionary trees simultaneously in one simple graph – were pioneered in New Zealand in 1979, then developed by German mathematicians in the 1990s.
These techniques came to the attention of archaeologist Professor Colin Renfrew, a co-author of the new PNAS study, in 1998. Renfrew went on to establish one of the first archaeogenetics research groups in the world at the University of Cambridge.
 

vesicles

Colonel
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?

Well, yes, the authors did not specifically say those words if that's what you've been looking for. Yes, they suggested that the Wuhan wet market might not be the originating location for the virus. However, I believe that you have been trying to over-interpret their conclusions/suggestions, i.e. the Wuhan wet market is not the originating location = it must be outside of China. Those two statements are not equal. In their discussion, it is plainly clear that they meant other places in China, NOT other places outside of China. And they suggested that other places might have also contributed, including Guangdong and Shenzhen. Nowhere in their paper did they suggest any non-Chinese locations as a possibility. None! They did not mention anything about outside of China.

And their analysis has since been corroborated by other similar analyses using more genomic samples, including the most recent one that we discussed yesterday. I have not yet their actual study. I will share with you as soon as I find it. But here is an NYT article on it first posted by another fellow forum member. I apologize for forgetting who posted it here first!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The latest analysis used thousands of genomic data from all around the world. As you can see from their analysis, the original Chinese strains are almost completely gone. So we no longer have the bias that you mentioned (I agree with you that the bias in that early paper is important). Yet, all the genomes of the latest strains still trace back to China. We have yet found any other parent strains from any outside of China locations. All the evolutionary analyses still point to a Chinese bat species as the most probable incubator and host for the virus and all the ancient genetic traces still tracks back to China.
 

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So when can we do the same to the US for being ignoring everything till the end and causing more to spread because their response was inept, dishonest, and utterly inconsiderate of the world? We need to teach the US government a lesson.

Though I really wonder how much longer they can shoot their own leg for. It's gotta be breaking records already. Truly setting the gold standards for shooting their own foot.
 

OppositeDay

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What a load of utter non-sense. China never denied human-to-human transmission. All Chinese health authority was saying at that time was there wasn't enough evidence for human-to-human transmission. American CDC kept saying there were no evidence for asymptomatic transmission weeks after Chinese health authority announced there were. Was the American CDC trying to deceive the world?

Shanghai government began to stock up PPE around Jan 2 or Jan 3. I'm sure a lot of local governments in China did that too. Wuhan government never did secure enough PPE until well after the lockdown. Why? Because the Shanghai government acted on the RISK of human-to-human transmission while the Wuhan government didn't. That's what a competent government does: planning for the risks. Just because most of Western governments (like the Wuhan government) were utterly incompetent doesn't mean competency should be punished. But of course some will never admit they're incompetent. So this is what they will do, they will criminalize competency.
 
I'm guessing the most interesting around this weekend are going to be Michigan deaths: if they go up towards N. Y. or remain 'manageable'

(for today, the number isn't yet available at Last updated: April 10, 2020, 16:09 GMT
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
so it's 1,076 in total so far)
 
Top