d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Coronavirus Thread
Prev1400401402403404910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 54,190
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Apr 17 2020 03:42pm
Regarding the draft: keep in mind how fertility rates have changed.

in 1918, the average family was having 5-7 kids, so it was much easier for the state to ask them to sacrifice a couple of their children for some wars.
simply put, when people only have one or two children, they will never be ok with sending them to die in needless wars.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 17 2020 03:43pm
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Apr 17 2020 04:10pm
Checking numbers on https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
wtf with new york, wasn't supposed to "end soon" ? or is it because they now decided to add other-than-hospital deaths ?


Quote (fender @ 17 Apr 2020 23:08)


This is really disturbing. I hope they get lowest priority if they get sick.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Apr 17 2020 04:17pm
Quote (fender @ Apr 17 2020 05:08pm)


The amount of unpresidential behavior that's been normalized under Trump is pretty epic. Biden could go full blown dementia patient in office and he'll still be operating on the level that Trump has.
Member
Posts: 50,923
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Apr 17 2020 08:17pm
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

Quote
Background Addressing COVID-19 is a pressing health and social concern. To date, many epidemic projections and policies addressing COVID-19 have been designed without seroprevalence data to inform epidemic parameters. We measured the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County. Methods On 4/3-4/4, 2020, we tested county residents for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a lateral flow immunoassay. Participants were recruited using Facebook ads targeting a representative sample of the county by demographic and geographic characteristics. We report the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a sample of 3,330 people, adjusting for zip code, sex, and race/ethnicity. We also adjust for test performance characteristics using 3 different estimates: (i) the test manufacturer's data, (ii) a sample of 37 positive and 30 negative controls tested at Stanford, and (iii) a combination of both. Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, thepopulation prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.


Based on this study
estimated 48,000 to 81,000 infections resulting in 42 deaths (risen to 73 since study was done)
if that antibody estimate is accurate, that's an extremely high infection rate of 2.5-4.2%, but an extremely low mortality rate of 0.05-0.08%

We're still at 1870 confirmed cases in Santa Clara county two weeks after that study that estimated up to 81k back then. Having 50-85x higher than the reported number is quite an estimate

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 17 2020 08:21pm
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Apr 17 2020 10:48pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 17 2020 10:17pm)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1



Based on this study
estimated 48,000 to 81,000 infections resulting in 42 deaths (risen to 73 since study was done)
if that antibody estimate is accurate, that's an extremely high infection rate of 2.5-4.2%, but an extremely low mortality rate of 0.05-0.08%

We're still at 1870 confirmed cases in Santa Clara county two weeks after that study that estimated up to 81k back then. Having 50-85x higher than the reported number is quite an estimate


Doesnt matter. We should still stop the entire economy and kill everyone because orange man is bad 😡 😡 🍊
Member
Posts: 50,923
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Apr 17 2020 11:21pm
so what are the completely arbitrary odds at now for the source of the virus?
I'm guessing like 70% accidental lab release, 30% wet market? at least between the two, disregarding others

Its pretty substantial evidence at this point that the WIV lab accidentally released the virus. It matches a strain they were already studying, it appears to be native to a bat population 800 miles away that had samples brought to the WIV facility, and the lab is right smack exactly in the middle of the Wuhan outbreak. And now we get these diplomatic cables from 2018 saying Washington fears that the WIV facility poses a potential risk of accidental virus release that could cause a SARs epidemic. And now there's a SARs epidemic that started right on top of them. And China is pretty infamous for their lax safety regulations and cutting corners. I've also heard people saying there's no evidence the wet market sold bats, and even with bat soup being a thing its not exactly a wet market product to begin with.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 17 2020 11:22pm
Member
Posts: 43,761
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Gold: 63,142.89
Apr 17 2020 11:25pm
Quote
in a politically fragmented society, the confusion has led to recrimination and sinister claims, with opposition politicians accusing the fragile coalition government of covering up the real numbers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/europe/coronoavirus-spain-death-toll.html
Member
Posts: 43,761
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Gold: 63,142.89
Apr 17 2020 11:44pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2020 01:21am)
so what are the completely arbitrary odds at now for the source of the virus?
I'm guessing like 70% accidental lab release, 30% wet market? at least between the two, disregarding others


I'm satisfied just calling it 50/50.

The fact that the lab and the market are near each other is probably not a coincidence. Since they know viruses originate from those animals, you'd build the lab in a place where you can conveniently get them for study. If the lab took in one bat that had this virus, then it probably means that other bats in the population had it as well. And bats from that population were probably also in that market.
Member
Posts: 50,923
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,335.99
Apr 18 2020 12:20am
Quote (Kayeto @ Apr 18 2020 12:44am)
I'm satisfied just calling it 50/50.

The fact that the lab and the market are near each other is probably not a coincidence. Since they know viruses originate from those animals, you'd build the lab in a place where you can conveniently get them for study. If the lab took in one bat that had this virus, then it probably means that other bats in the population had it as well. And bats from that population were probably also in that market.


The recent development seems to be that the species of bat identifies as a carrier of an identical coronavirus is not native to wuhan, but 800 miles away in southern china. And that lab was importing bats from that same area of southern china to use for virus research to look at coronaviruses. That seems like way too much of a coincidence. Without strong evidence bats were even being sold at the wet market at all, its hard to figure bats were also being imported for slaughter from southern china to the wet market. The other theory that fits the evidence is figuring the disease spread between bats and pangolins in southern china and then spread to humans in southern china, who traveled to wuhan coincidentally.

from the WSJ;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bats-behind-the-pandemic-11586440959
http://archive.is/mQ6OO

Quote
RaTG13 is the name, rank and serial number of an individual horseshoe bat of the species Rhinolophus affinis, or rather of a sample of its feces collected in 2013 in a cave in Yunnan, China. The sample was collected by hazmat-clad scientists from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan that year. Stored away and forgotten until January this year, the sample from the horseshoe bat contains the virus that causes Covid-19.
The scientists were mostly sampling a very similar species with slightly shorter wings, called Rhinolophus sinicus, in a successful search for the origin of the virus responsible for the SARS epidemic of 2002-03. That search had alarming implications, which were largely ignored.
In Shitou Cave, south of Kunming, the capital of Yunnan, they found viruses in the bats’ droppings and anal swabs that were more similar to human SARS than anything found in palm civets, the small mammals that until then were presumed to be the source of human infection. Back in the laboratory, they found that one of the viruses from bat droppings, called WIV1, could thrive in monkey and human cells specially engineered to activate the gene for ACE2 receptors, the lock to which a coronavirus’s spike protein can fit as a key. This suggested that people could catch SARS directly from a bat dropping.
Then in 2016, Ralph Baric and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that the same bat virus could infect live mice that had been engineered to express the human gene for the ACE2 receptor. The virus was “poised for human emergence,” as the title of Dr. Baric’s paper put it.
When Covid-19 broke out, attention focused on pangolins, mammals often called scaly anteaters. Early analyses of the pangolin version of the virus seemed to indicate it was even more closely related to the human version than the RaTG13 bat sample was. The illegal pangolin trade for traditional Chinese medicine brings people into contact with sick animals. Just over a year ago, 21 live Malayan pangolins destined for sale in China were intercepted by anti-smuggling officers in Guangdong. Despite the best efforts of a local wildlife rescue center, 16 died with swollen, flooded lungs, rich in coronaviruses.
The role of pangolins in the spread of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, remains unclear. A closer look at more of the Sars-CoV-2 genome, published last week by Maciej Boni at Penn State University and David Robertson at Glasgow University, together with Chinese and European colleagues, finds that human versions of the virus are more closely related to the RaTG13 horseshoe bat sample from the cave than they are to the known pangolin versions. It is not yet possible to tell whether the virus went from bat to pangolin to people, or from bat to pangolin and bat to people in parallel.
Significantly, the same analysis shows that the most recent common ancestor of the human virus and the RaTG13 virus lived at least 40 years ago. So it is unlikely that the cave in Yunnan (a thousand miles from Wuhan) is where the first infection happened or that the culprit bat was taken from that cave to Wuhan to be eaten or experimented on.
Rather, it is probable that somewhere much closer to Wuhan, there is another colony of bats carrying the same kind of virus. Unless other evidence emerges, it thus looks like a horrible coincidence that China’s Institute of Virology, a high-security laboratory where human cells were being experimentally infected with bat viruses, happens to be in Wuhan, the origin of today’s pandemic.
Bats are sold in markets and supplied directly to restaurants throughout China and southeast Asia, but no direct evidence of their sale in Wuhan’s wet market has come to light. Also, horseshoe bats, which are much smaller than the tastier fruit bats, are generally not among the species eaten. The significance of the Yunnan cave sample is that it shows the bat virus didn’t need to recombine with viruses in other species in a market to be infectious to people. The role of the wet markets may be that other animals get infected there and produce much higher loads of virus than the bats would, amplifying the infection.
All over Asia and Africa human beings encounter horseshoe bats, any one of which could be carrying a virus that could start an epidemic if amplified in a market or similar setting. Bats have supplied most of the dangerous new diseases of the past two decades. The natural reservoir of rabies is in bats, especially in the Americas. Ebola, Marburg and other highly dangerous viruses come from bats, mainly in Africa. The Hendra and Nipah viruses are caught from fruit bats and have caused lethal but small outbreaks in south Asia and Australia. And most coronaviruses seem to originate in bats, including SARS and MERS, a frequently fatal illness that people in the Middle East began catching from camels in 2012, the camels having picked it up from bats.
There are good reasons why bats spread so many viruses. Bats are long-lived mammals, like us, and live in large crowds, like us—ideal for spreading respiratory infections in particular. One bat roost in Texas houses 20 million bats at certain times of year, a concentration of mammals paralleled only by people in cities. There are lots of different species—one-quarter of all mammal species are bats—so they have lots of different viruses. And they fly, carrying diseases long distances, allowing viruses to indulge in “host-shifting” between bat species. This especially suits viruses that can “recombine” with related strains, like coronaviruses.
It is not yet clear why horseshoe bats, in particular, are so infested with coronaviruses. These are average-size bats, distinguished by large, pointed ears and weird little sonar dishes known as nose-leafs, the outer part of which are often shaped like horseshoes. There are at least 100 species, many of which look very alike. Absent from the Americas, they are found all over the tropics of the Old World and in some warm temperate regions. They seem to be fond of living in caves and gathering in large aggregations.
In a paper published in February last year, Patrick Woo and colleagues at Hong Kong University surveyed the coronaviruses found in bats and came to a prescient conclusion: “Bat–animal and bat–human interactions, such as the presence of live bats in wildlife wet markets and restaurants in Southern China, are important for interspecies transmission of [coronaviruses] and may lead to devastating global outbreaks.”
We had fair warning with Ebola, Hendra, Nipah, MERS and SARS, and the Yunnan cave discovery in 2013 should have sounded a loud alarm. Even when this pandemic is over, others are possible. Bats live for up to 30 years and don’t seem to suffer much in the way of symptoms from coronaviruses, so bat number RaTG13 may well still be alive.


Assuming that The Viscount Ridley (yay for british titleage) is accurate in his details, it seems very compelling if there's no evidence of bat sales in the wet market and the species of bat that carries the disease wasn't even used for human consumption anyway. And since that same species from that same area is already known to have been imported to Wuhan for this virology lab since it was set up, that would fit pretty much every single checkbox for the source.
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Apr 18 2020 12:33am
Quote (Goomshill @ 18 Apr 2020 08:20)
The recent development seems to be that the species of bat identifies as a carrier of an identical coronavirus is not native to wuhan, but 800 miles away in southern china. And that lab was importing bats from that same area of southern china to use for virus research to look at coronaviruses. That seems like way too much of a coincidence. Without strong evidence bats were even being sold at the wet market at all, its hard to figure bats were also being imported for slaughter from southern china to the wet market. The other theory that fits the evidence is figuring the disease spread between bats and pangolins in southern china and then spread to humans in southern china, who traveled to wuhan coincidentally.

from the WSJ;

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bats-behind-the-pandemic-11586440959
http://archive.is/mQ6OO



Assuming that The Viscount Ridley (yay for british titleage) is accurate in his details, it seems very compelling if there's no evidence of bat sales in the wet market and the species of bat that carries the disease wasn't even used for human consumption anyway. And since that same species from that same area is already known to have been imported to Wuhan for this virology lab since it was set up, that would fit pretty much every single checkbox for the source.


We love this story but the sad truth is more likely that stressed/sick bats transmitted it to pangolins which developped the disease even more, enough to transmit it to human.
Well this is what was saying eminent specialist few weeks ago, and that was the most accepted theory within experts.

But yes, we love this story because we are angry against China. I means it's not like US was already aware of the epidemic in november keks.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Apr 18 2020 12:34am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1400401402403404910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll