Corona Virus Updates Part 3

originally posted by: Adski989

originally posted by: EricEdert
This was yesterday, but if true then what!


www.taiwannews.com.tw...

It's not true though is it, so many made up stories to get the clicks, everybody knows in the UK you go to the dailymail for the real scoop not some random Taiwanese paper.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. If you haven't already, check out this video -> www.youtube.com...

Right around the 27:00 or so timestamp, he explains the importance of the ACE2 receptor concerning it's mechanism to protect the health of heart tissue. So if medications are being used to bock 2019-nCoV from attaching to ACE2 receptors they will likely at the same time be blocking that defense mechanism of the heart's tissues to keep those tissues healthy. In effect, the medication is trying to block something bad, but the drawback is that that same medication is blocking something needed for a healthy heart.

So yeah, makes sense to me, IMHO.

originally posted by: deccal

originally posted by: ItsOkToBeHappy
Your chances of dying from the coronavirus even if you get it are so miniscule it almost amounts to no risk at all. The real risk will be if there are quarantines. Stores will run out of food and people will run out of food and supplies. Stock up some food and essentials and you're fine. You really have nothing to worry about. If you're old or have severe pre-existing conditions you might be at a small risk but even at that the risk of death is low. This forum is hilarious.


a reply to: SpartanStoic

You are wrong. This is not a joke. Just look at the death rate. It seems that you are not well informed about the virus ir you are just kidding

2 out of 100 people you may know could die from this if it spreads.. Those are NOT miniscule odds

a reply to: Rich Z

With all the alleged recovered,its about time we get some first hand accounts
An interview please
Why are we not getting these?

originally posted by: deccal

originally posted by: ItsOkToBeHappy
Your chances of dying from the coronavirus even if you get it are so miniscule it almost amounts to no risk at all. The real risk will be if there are quarantines. Stores will run out of food and people will run out of food and supplies. Stock up some food and essentials and you're fine. You really have nothing to worry about. If you're old or have severe pre-existing conditions you might be at a small risk but even at that the risk of death is low. This forum is hilarious.


a reply to: SpartanStoic

You are wrong. This is not a joke. Just look at the death rate. It seems that you are not well informed about the virus ir you are just kidding

2 out of 100 people you may know could die from this if it spreads.. Those are NOT miniscule odds

w

t

f

originally posted by: deccal

originally posted by: ItsOkToBeHappy
Your chances of dying from the coronavirus even if you get it are so miniscule it almost amounts to no risk at all. The real risk will be if there are quarantines. Stores will run out of food and people will run out of food and supplies. Stock up some food and essentials and you're fine. You really have nothing to worry about. If you're old or have severe pre-existing conditions you might be at a small risk but even at that the risk of death is low. This forum is hilarious.


a reply to: SpartanStoic

originally posted by: ItsOkToBeHappy
"Your chances of dying from the coronavirus even if you get it are so miniscule it almost amounts to no risk at all."

You are wrong. This is not a joke. Just look at the death rate. It seems that you are not well informed about the virus ir you are just kidding

Agreed. 1 in a hundred will die? I don't fancy those odds. 2 in a hundred?

Is that for the first wave? 2nd wave of Spanish Flu was more deadly and took more realatively healthy subjects. This was because their stronger immune systems produced a stronger cytokine storm where your own immune system causes organ damage, organ failure, death.

Eventually, after enough waves, this will likely just be another cold for those who survive. Until then... 1 in a hundred? 2 in a hundred? You'll be lucky.

a reply to: Oppenheimer67

With those odds, you'll be exceedingly unlucky if you die.

If you have the ability to either roll d100 dice or pull up a random number generator, do so and see how often you can either roll or have it generate the specific number(s) you're thinking of out of 100. That's your odds of dying should you get this.

Granted, those are not stakes anyone likes thinking about, but the odds are not all that high that you hit the worst lottery of your life. Heck, in the NHS hospitals, your odds of dying to a routine surgery are roughly 1 in 28.

a reply to: all2human

Haven't you noticed that the site stutters every hour and about 12 minutes past? You likely tried posting multiple times on the same post during that lag time.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: all2human

Haven't you noticed that the site stutters every hour and about 12 minutes past? You likely tried posting multiple times on the same post during that lag time.

Indeed my friend...

But, back to the Corona theme :

If someone here have the tendency to put this Covid on the same level as a typical Influenza flu we have the CoronApocalypse disciples almost killing him/her... However if we put this Corona on the same level and doing some comparison with last century and long time buried Spanish one it's a very normal and intelligent action... Can't see why?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Oppenheimer67

With those odds, you'll be exceedingly unlucky if you die.

If you have the ability to either roll d100 dice or pull up a random number generator, do so and see how often you can either roll or have it generate the specific number(s) you're thinking of out of 100. That's your odds of dying should you get this.

Granted, those are not stakes anyone likes thinking about, but the odds are not all that high that you hit the worst lottery of your life. Heck, in the NHS hospitals, your odds of dying to a routine surgery are roughly 1 in 28.

Oh I understand probability...

I also know for a fact that if I had a revolver with 100 chambers and one bullet: Playing Russian roulette I would blow my head off first time It's called Sod's Law.

I would point out though that even at 1% mortality rate, with 60% getting infected, in the UK for example, that's 400k dead. Second wave could be much worse. And if those that suffer block beds for 1-2 months each, there will be many more deaths, not just from the virus.

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: musicismagic

I am listening too. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it..😳

I've sent pm's check it. if you want one and you that posted recently and didnt get a pm from me send a request. as you know I'm not one for posting rumors and any type of bs, but it talk on the streets or even on this forum proves likely it may be true and in some cases actually prove to be true, I'v e have posted street talk before it happens. 2 ex. are: the mask , all sold out. 2. the alcohol clothe base disenfectants , all sold out. I posted about them and sure enough the street talk came true. But what I would like to post may... need some advice on this one, small world we live in

If I knew how to send you a PM for this info, I would.........

Yeah sure looks contained. Just like Wuhan cases 2 weeks ago...

a reply to: confiden

Thank you for the graph. Do you have a source for tabulated day by day data? I used to get mine from Johns Hopkins but they stopped giving spreadsheets a while back.

Any help appreciated. Kind regards.

I'm pretty certain my wife, daughter and I have the flu,it's the middle of summer here,what are the chances? My wife's friend bought some things off that wish website before all this virus stuff happened,and gave some.items to my wife,wish sent alot if free items for some reason.
Could it be Corona? I don't know,it's possible I suppose.

originally posted by: confiden

Yeah sure looks contained. Just like Wuhan cases 2 weeks ago...

This is it - people work by comparisons - "oh a few hundred vs 65000 - pah, nothing".

They don't understand it started at just 1 case everywhere.

a reply to: Oppenheimer67

I'll go back to a comparison I made a while ago:

It all depends on how this thing moves through. If it comes in a concentrated wave all at once, then the low mortality rate will seem sky high.

If it trickles through more like a normal, but heavy flu season, then no one will notice it much.

Here's why, in Chicago, the average rate of people getting shot is sky high all the time. In fact, it's not uncommon on a summer weekend for there to be 50 or so shootings over a single weekend. But, because those shootings are spread out all over the city and happening at different approximate times, it's considered part of Chicago's normal background noise/rhythm of life.

However, if all 50 of those shootings were concentrated into one place at one time, it suddenly becomes a horrific mass shooting event that everyone all over the world hears about as a terrible, terrible tragedy.

Same type of event, same number of potential deaths, all that's changing is how concentrated they are.

Do that with this illness. Have it break out such that it hyper-concentrates all its casualties into one concentrated time period, and it suddenly becomes a very, very scary thing because it will rack up a noticeable pile of bodies. It will overwhelm hospitals and morgues with them.

But if it's spread out over time, it won't seem any worse than any other flu season even though it takes the exact same number in the exact same way.

That's why the worst thing that can happen with this would be a mass outbreak similar to what we see in Wuhan or on the Diamond Princess.

yeah, no I didn't leave, as threatened.

Go to:
The near and far horizons
The realization that a handful of envelopes containing B. anthracis in 2001 was sufficient to cause widespread panic, and precipitated the first evacuation of the houses of the US government since the war of 1812, provided a clear demonstration of the power of cheap biological weapons. In an age of terrorism biological weapons are perfectly suited for asymmetric warfare where the relatively low costs of producing such weapons combined with their potential for amplification through communicability have a disproportionately strong effect on targeted populations. Consequently, biological weapons are likely to remain very attractive to terrorists and fringe groups like millennial sects. Thus the near horizon is likely to witness continued concern about low intensity use of biological weapons fashioned around known pathogenic microbes such as Salmonella spp. and B. anthracis, which have already been used in terrorism.

The scene on the far horizon is much harder to discern simply because the current rapid the pace of technological advance suggests that new technologies are likely to be developed in coming years that will completely change the landscape for biological warfare offensive and defensive possibilities. Even without envisioning new biological agents, such as those that could be generated by synthetic biology, the technology already exists for significantly enhancing the lethality of biological weapons. The introduction of antimicrobial resistance genes into bacterial agents could significantly enhance their lethality by reducing treatment options. In this regard, it is relatively easy to generate B. anthracis resistant to first line antimicrobial therapies such as ciprofloxacin (Athamna et al., 2004). The efficacy of vaccines can be circumvented by genetically modifying agents to express immune modifier genes that interfere with the immune response as was demonstrated by the expression of IL‐4 in ectromelia virus (Jackson et al., 2001). It is noteworthy that microbial modifications to increase lethality is only one possible outcome for engineering biological weapons since these could also be designed to incapacitate instead of kill.

Given the enormous universe of microbial threats, the power of modern biology to enhance the microbial virulence and the high likelihood that biological weapons will continue to threaten humanity one must face the question of how best to protect society. The sheer number of threats and the availability of technologies to modify microbes to defeat available countermeasures suggest that any attempt to achieve defence in depth using microbe‐by‐microbe approaches to biodefence is impractical and ineffective.

Go to:
A prescription for defence in depth
Continued development of specific diagnostic assays and countermeasures (vaccines, drugs, antibodies) for high risk threats identified by current matrix threat analysis. This is essentially a continuation of the major societal response to perceived biological threats in the first decade of the 21st century when a significant proportion of government supported research has focused on known agents such as variola major, B. anthracis and other high risk agents. This approach makes sense given that known agents will continue to be the most likely threats in the near horizon.

Develop host‐targeted interventions that enhance immune function against a wide variety of threats. In other words, develop therapies that produce temporary increases in immune function that would protect against known and unknown threats. This approach would provide defensive options against yet to be identified microbial threats.

Develop new ways to assess the healthy state that could allow monitoring of the population to identify the appearance of new agents. Although physicians can readily identify the disease state and surveillance systems for known agents are critically important for identifying a biological attack, such approaches may not suffice for all threats. For example, consider the situation with the outbreak of the HIV epidemic. The epidemic was identified in 1981 as a consequence of clusters of cases with known infectious diseases that did not fit known epidemiological parameters for such maladies as they included rare diseases in individuals with no predisposing conditions. However, we now know that AIDS can follow many years after the HIV infection and the interval between infection and disease is characterized by a slow decline in immune function during which the individual does not exhibit signs of disease. Arguably, the existence of methodology that could assess the healthy state might have identified the silent spread of the virus in certain populations years prior to the onset of the epidemic.

Obtain a better understanding of microbial diseases in animal species and especially those that come in close contact with humans. Given that 72% of emergent infectious diseases described in recent decades have been zoonosis (Jones et al., 2008), it is reasonable to assume that wildlife will continue to be source of new pathogenic microbes for humans and a potential source of biological weapons. Consequently any effort to design a system for defence in depth should include efforts to describe, catalogue and study microbial diseases in wildlife.

In preparing for known and unknown threats the availability of a vigorous scientific research establishment that can respond rapidly is an essential component for any effort to defend society. The rapid identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS and the development of effective anti‐retroviral therapies was made possible by prior societal investments in studying the biology of retroviruses at a time when these were not associated with human diseases. Hence, continued investments in basic research with emphasis on fostering a better understanding of host–microbe interactions is an essential cornerstone for any effort to defend in depth against biological weapons.

NIH

Templates, perhaps, in making undetectable, and therefore, uncontrollable spread of viruses? For everything you read about how to cure from a disease, is also, conversely, a template in how to spread a disease and make it uncurable.
regards, stay safe and well,
tetra