Corona Virus Updates Part 5

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

I hate to admit how jaded this whole issue has made me; however, whatever the WHO says is true, I am believing the opposite in general. They already screwed the pooch at the beginning, when they had their chance to be heroes, and they totally, completely, and oh - so - embarrassingly failed. Their credibility is about zero.

The CDC was not much better initially, because they seemingly trusted the WHO, and followed their actions at the start, but they have been surpassing the WHO since, and I definitely would favor the CDC's advice over the WHO's at this point.

Summary: all Americans should wear masks, IMHO. At least for anyone outside their personal safe 'green' zone, for now.

New paper from the CDC

High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). We further show that active surveillance, contact tracing, quarantine, and early strong social distancing efforts are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

5.7!

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

sorry to reply but think its important, WHO tedross (spell wrong) today grew a backbone about this virus although he did go say defend Africa and forgot Latin America.

the WHO has no power overall, if WHO says eg France has a pandemic, there's no power to say they are right.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
And it is not surprising that the cocktail theory is difficult to perceive and I hope I am full of crap and wrong but when I think about my own background and experience in engineering and IT (Retired Chartered Engineer) I always look at things from the following perspective, be it cause/effect, re-engineering, desired and practical outcomes, risk and mitigation etc etc putting ones self in the shoes of those with a required outcome and therefore when I think about if there was a requirement to depopulate using virus, how would I go about it and what would the scope or requirements be (what would I want the tool to do and how would I build in those requirements. Well I would first identify the scope of the tool, its purpose and desired outcome and how it would best achieve that outcome and be clear about the risks involved during and post development.

Yep. You're an engineer (she says, laughing. My son's an engineer and my husband is an engineer.)

However, you have to look at it scientifically and not like an engineer (I'm the scientist in the family.) You don't approach a problem with "how would I create this" but by asking "where does it come from and what does it do?" (for those of you not familiar with the difference in the mindset, engineers see a problem and want to fix it. Scientists are not necessarily interested in fixing it but want to know "what caused it?")

I can, for example, cobble a very nice robot out of Legos and an Arduino breadboard and a few parts... but that doesn't mean that this is how the R2-D2 robot from Star Wars was made for the film.

The reason I say cocktail is because of the overwhelming list of symptoms and effects of "The Chrojan Virus" from a single natural virus which just doesn't make sense.

A few years of medical school would change your mind (now... I'm not being snooty here. I worked (as many know) as a research assistant at Texas Tech Medical School in the Department of Preventive Medicine (which was also the Epidemiology section in 1980)) The symptoms are consistent generally with all viruses that attack the respiratory system because they're all attacking the lungs. And that means that every single virus in this class produces fluid and pus in the lungs, produces shortness of breath, produces low oxygen levels, etc, etc.)

It is also surprising how it effect 2 healthy people with no underlying conditions of the same age and sex in such different ways, from just the loss of smell to a quick death (or is there a dormant factor here). The virus almost appears as though someone made a soup virus with multi faceted capability from other viruses available, hence the range of varying/differing symptoms/effects.

Actually, it's not surprising. That's what happens with all diseases. We're all genetic mutts and no two of us react the same (even if outwardly we're similar) to environmental stressors.

And yes the point you make about longer term effects and impacts of the virus for those who have already recovered from it. We just don't know, apart from the impact on the testes. If the re-infections and dormancy are true then sh.t, maybe they added a bit of Syphilis which has dormancy capability. Who knows.

Uhm... no. And syphilis is bacterial. Not even close. And viruses can lay dormant for a long time.

There's some good modeling software you might like to play with - Vensim, for instance vensim.com...

And I think you'll really like the CDC primer on epidemiology. It's a terrific site with good explanations for the layman and a good grounding in hows and whys of epidemics: www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

WHO has no power in the world same with usa cdc its erm stupid

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

I hate to admit how jaded this whole issue has made me; however, whatever the WHO says is true, I am believing the opposite in general. They already screwed the pooch at the beginning, when they had their chance to be heroes, and they totally, completely, and oh - so - embarrassingly failed. Their credibility is about zero.

The CDC was not much better initially, because they seemingly trusted the WHO, and followed their actions at the start, but they have been surpassing the WHO since, and I definitely would favor the CDC's advice over the WHO's at this point.

Summary: all Americans should wear masks, IMHO. At least for anyone outside their personal safe 'green' zone, for now.

CDC and WHO take in 6 billion dollars a year from international governments....

You really think they could spend that $ on "ventilators" instead of their fancy houses?!?

Lolz🤪

Good read about the use of Zinc to treat Covid-19 and just about everything else.

Modern Medicine Knew of Zinc Cure for Coronavirus Infections a Decade Ago But Failed To Put Into PracticeI

a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

WHO's nuts now? Wearing masks by healthy nonsymptomatic people helps to stop the spread. You can be tested today and tomorrow be infected. I think that guy should take a good look at what he is saying. You do not need an N95 mask to stop the spread or deter catching it. This virus does not care if the mask is certified when it gets caught in it instead of going to where it can do it's job.

You would think they would put people with common sense in the high ranking positions governing health. Just because someone can memorize a bunch of words to answer on a test does not mean they possess common sense.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

you are right over paid, but then Who CDC think they are smarter because smart people think they are!

I give up tho because in the end its all over and all that's matter is im richer and have more power than you (lol)

hate these smart idoits.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Does this include covid19? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Steer the immune system to fight the flu and it takes away the immune system's ability to fight the coronavirus and Rhinovirus infections?

I scanned some of the papers citing that one since the study was in 2012 and a small number of participants. It was not a robust finding and other papers (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) indicate that vaccines seem to improve the resistance to other types of respiratory illnesses.

See also www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

...and other papers that cite the one you linked to: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


The conclusion on the first link says it seems to inhibit influenza like illnesses. ILI. The Coronavirus is not at all like an influenza like illness, the treatment tends to be completely different.

If I read correctly, coronavirus is classified as an ILI. Now... I might have misread, so am open to correction here.

As an example, a chemical that actually steers the immune system to fight viruses by inhibiting an enzyme which is found in blackberries and strawberries has an opposite effect with this SARSCOVID19 virus. It inhibits the bodies ability to break down the papain class enzyme of this virus. The Japanese medicine they created actually targets that enzyme that the covid virus makes.

Viruses don't make enzymes

But it would have the opposite effect on influenza. The vaccines steer our bodies to make enzymes in chemistries to fight a particular virus to protect us.

Enzymes and antibodies are not the same thing

(I know... quoting Quora there. I chose the simple Quora answer over a lot of scientific papers with long words and that are tiresome to read, but if you need those I can point you to those.)

To get the conversation back on track, there is a new and promising treatment being investigated now: www.sciencedaily.com...

And the University of Pittsburgh has a new candidate for a vaccine that could be rolled out fairly quickly.

edit on 8-4-2020 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
And it is not surprising that the cocktail theory is difficult to perceive and I hope I am full of crap and wrong but when I think about my own background and experience in engineering and IT (Retired Chartered Engineer) I always look at things from the following perspective, be it cause/effect, re-engineering, desired and practical outcomes, risk and mitigation etc etc putting ones self in the shoes of those with a required outcome and therefore when I think about if there was a requirement to depopulate using virus, how would I go about it and what would the scope or requirements be (what would I want the tool to do and how would I build in those requirements. Well I would first identify the scope of the tool, its purpose and desired outcome and how it would best achieve that outcome and be clear about the risks involved during and post development.

Yep. You're an engineer (she says, laughing. My son's an engineer and my husband is an engineer.)

However, you have to look at it scientifically and not like an engineer (I'm the scientist in the family.) You don't approach a problem with "how would I create this" but by asking "where does it come from and what does it do?" (for those of you not familiar with the difference in the mindset, engineers see a problem and want to fix it. Scientists are not necessarily interested in fixing it but want to know "what caused it?")

I can, for example, cobble a very nice robot out of Legos and an Arduino breadboard and a few parts... but that doesn't mean that this is how the R2-D2 robot from Star Wars was made for the film.

The reason I say cocktail is because of the overwhelming list of symptoms and effects of "The Chrojan Virus" from a single natural virus which just doesn't make sense.

A few years of medical school would change your mind (now... I'm not being snooty here. I worked (as many know) as a research assistant at Texas Tech Medical School in the Department of Preventive Medicine (which was also the Epidemiology section in 1980)) The symptoms are consistent generally with all viruses that attack the respiratory system because they're all attacking the lungs. And that means that every single virus in this class produces fluid and pus in the lungs, produces shortness of breath, produces low oxygen levels, etc, etc.)

It is also surprising how it effect 2 healthy people with no underlying conditions of the same age and sex in such different ways, from just the loss of smell to a quick death (or is there a dormant factor here). The virus almost appears as though someone made a soup virus with multi faceted capability from other viruses available, hence the range of varying/differing symptoms/effects.

Actually, it's not surprising. That's what happens with all diseases. We're all genetic mutts and no two of us react the same (even if outwardly we're similar) to environmental stressors.

And yes the point you make about longer term effects and impacts of the virus for those who have already recovered from it. We just don't know, apart from the impact on the testes. If the re-infections and dormancy are true then sh.t, maybe they added a bit of Syphilis which has dormancy capability. Who knows.

Uhm... no. And syphilis is bacterial. Not even close. And viruses can lay dormant for a long time.

There's some good modeling software you might like to play with - Vensim, for instance vensim.com...

And I think you'll really like the CDC primer on epidemiology. It's a terrific site with good explanations for the layman and a good grounding in hows and whys of epidemics: www.cdc.gov...

Thank you for your perspective and its useful to read. As is the material links supplied.

My own sister (Senior Sister Nurse) and her daughter are nurses and speaking with my sister is most enlightening as to how this Chrojan Virus is operating and its effects on patients with varying levels of infection and pathways to their deaths. She has never seen anything like this virus, not even close and she has almost 35 years experience. She tells me that even the most senior and expert front line doctors and consultants are confused/surprised/puzzled by this virus to the extend that they are very afraid and not just for themselves but for us all. Many on the front line have lost friends and colleagues already not to mention people they know. So whatever it turns out to be things will never be the same! But hopefully when all done, better!

originally posted by: Byrd
You don't approach a problem with "how would I create this" but by asking "where does it come from and what does it do?" (for those of you not familiar with the difference in the mindset, engineers see a problem and want to fix it. Scientists are not necessarily interested in fixing it but want to know "what caused it?")

...And that's exactly why the current problem has been exacerbated rather than mitigated... the engineers should be in charge, not the scientists. Put scientists in charge of a project and your budget will be blown, schedule will be blown, and you never will reach a conclusion of the project. I am also an engineer... I work with wetland and environmental scientists. I am always amazed at how little interest they have in solving problems so long as a steady stream of data comes in, they're thrilled. THAT DOESN'T HELP US AT ALL. We need solutions and fixes, not theorems and models. To that same end, we need solutions that don't cost more than their benefit.

originally posted by: BPilgrim
New paper from the CDC

High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). We further show that active surveillance, contact tracing, quarantine, and early strong social distancing efforts are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

5.7!

You beat me to it.

For those of you blinking at the scientific word salad there, the summary is something like this: "After going back and looking at all the data (and data is clearer when we've got a few months or years of history) it appears that (on the average) one person with an active case of COVID-19 (whether they're very sick with it or show no symptoms) can carry the disease and infect an average of 5.7 (nearly six) other people"

Which means that the numbers we see really are the tip of the iceberg and that (like Cuomo admitted earlier) there's a lot of illness and death that's not being counted that are caused by COVID-19.

Here's an update for NY. This morning we were at 142384 the new update puts us at 149316, with 779 new deaths:
www.worldometers.info...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Byrd
You don't approach a problem with "how would I create this" but by asking "where does it come from and what does it do?" (for those of you not familiar with the difference in the mindset, engineers see a problem and want to fix it. Scientists are not necessarily interested in fixing it but want to know "what caused it?")

...And that's exactly why the current problem has been exacerbated rather than mitigated... the engineers should be in charge, not the scientists. Put scientists in charge of a project and your budget will be blown, schedule will be blown, and you never will reach a conclusion of the project. I am also an engineer... I work with wetland and environmental scientists. I am always amazed at how little interest they have in solving problems so long as a steady stream of data comes in, they're thrilled. THAT DOESN'T HELP US AT ALL. We need solutions and fixes, not theorems and models. To that same end, we need solutions that don't cost more than their benefit.

You can't fix it unless you know what causes it and you can't track if it's solved unless you can identify it.

Most problems are wicked problems (see definition of wicked problem), which is why an engineering approach can make it worse.

Tossing solutions without knowing the problem parameters leads to future problems.

...but, as I keep having this argument with engineers, I suspect you have this same argument with scientists, nu? (grin)

We're both needed for the answer, and that's the truth.

a reply to: Byrd

I've had this argument with many scientists at work, yes. I think it's part of our career DNA and definitely part of the job descriptions. It's also probably a big part of why I've reacted to the CV situation like I have. Every problem has a solution, but every problem also has a variety stop gap short term solutions and my mind immediately looks at cost/benefit to decide which one should be carried forward. From my experience, the science side doesn't look at cost/benefit unless they're forced to and the engineers don't look much beyond the immediate solution because the immediate solution is almost always the scope of work of our contract.

Numbers for Europe, 20h00, GMT +2 (Worldometers) :

Edit : French numbers do NOT include the Retirement home and outside of Hospital Deaths, there was a technical problem.







www.worldometers.info...

BNO Europe update Numbers :






bnonews.com...

originally posted by: EarthShine
A friend who was in the Air Force 15 years said a pilot friend told him recently that Orientals were the primary ones wearing masks for the last couple years. If it is true that US and China may have co-created the C Virus 5 years before Oct. 2019, a statement made by a former gov insider, then a leak could have occurred in China of events to come. a reply to: elitegamer23

Yes people in Asian countries often use masks to mitigate the effects of air pollution.

Correlation does not imply causation..

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Byrd
You don't approach a problem with "how would I create this" but by asking "where does it come from and what does it do?" (for those of you not familiar with the difference in the mindset, engineers see a problem and want to fix it. Scientists are not necessarily interested in fixing it but want to know "what caused it?")

...And that's exactly why the current problem has been exacerbated rather than mitigated... the engineers should be in charge, not the scientists. Put scientists in charge of a project and your budget will be blown, schedule will be blown, and you never will reach a conclusion of the project. I am also an engineer... I work with wetland and environmental scientists. I am always amazed at how little interest they have in solving problems so long as a steady stream of data comes in, they're thrilled. THAT DOESN'T HELP US AT ALL. We need solutions and fixes, not theorems and models. To that same end, we need solutions that don't cost more than their benefit.

You can't fix it unless you know what causes it and you can't track if it's solved unless you can identify it.

Most problems are wicked problems (see definition of wicked problem), which is why an engineering approach can make it worse.

Tossing solutions without knowing the problem parameters leads to future problems.

...but, as I keep having this argument with engineers, I suspect you have this same argument with scientists, nu? (grin)

We're both needed for the answer, and that's the truth.

Hands on Engineers are very practical creatures in general and don't only just look at a problem to fix, they often need to determine cause to understand the effect and also it is sometimes necessary to reverse engineer what is there in order to figure out what is truly going on in order to fully understand it and solve the problem. I have reverse engineering experience on different types of projects be they engineering or IT and in some case both. With experience for Chemical and Oil companies and industry. Hence my feeling that until there is a full molecular understanding of this virus then its rather difficult to know what it truly is, where it came from or whether it is natural or not. If we know that already and somebody may, then they will know exactly what it is and why it has the MO it does. The question is when will there be a fully verifiable molecular breakdown of this virus?