Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, davos said:

I agree.  I would go so far to say as to say that containment has failed.  Given that we are being told that this virus has a observed incubation period of up to 2 weeks, I fully expect that sometime next week we will start seeing a lot more cases popping up around the world, with some areas starting to become new outbreaks.  Given the number of cases in the Wuhan area, I really have a hard time imagining that even with the steps that have been taken both by the Chinese and by other governments to prevent spread to their countries, that enough undetected cases didn't slip through the cracks to destroy any hope of keeping it regional.  The question is how much will the warmer weather in the northern hemisphere, as discussed up-thread, impact its spread.   I tend to think that this will not be something that goes away after its initial  outbreak but will be with us as a significant problem for a while.

Here is an article from a few days back, an "exclusive" Reuters interview with Dr. Zhong, a Chinese expert:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-doctor-exclusive/exclusive-coronavirus-outbreak-may-be-over-in-china-by-april-says-expert-idUSKBN2050VF

Dr. Zhong does indeed opine that, based on the data, the virus will peak in February and disappear by April.  This appears to be consistent with what Trump says Xi told him.

I very much doubt that Dr. Zhong would be expressing his opinion without Chinese government sanction.  Nothing of this sort comes out of China without government approval.  The icing on the cake is that Dr. Zhong is said to have "shed tears" about the death of Dr. Li.  Are you kidding me?  I bet Dr. Zhong never even met Dr. Li.  But every Chines propagandist and his brother is shedding phony tears over his death.  

Curiously, the idea that the new cases had already peaked in February, and were in decline, has already been exploded as an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

355 people on a Cruise ship docked in Japan are now confirmed to have the virus. An increase of 70 over the previous day's total. Peak Corona virus in Feb? Hmmm, maybe in China where it all began in January. But elsewhere things might just be getting started.

And in other reassuring news: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-17/coronavirus-who-underfunded-internal-corruption-allegations/11970382 

Quote

World Health Organisation division tackling coronavirus underfunded and facing internal corruption allegations, audits reveal

The World Health Organisation division leading the global response to the coronavirus outbreak is so chronically underfunded it has repeatedly been found to pose a "severe" level of hazard to the organisation, deemed "unacceptable" by its internal risk policy, recent audits reveal.

The WHO Health Emergencies Program, established in 2016, scored the highest-level risk rating in 2018 and 2019 because the "failure to adequately finance the program and emergency operations [risks] inadequate delivery of results at country level".

The ABC can also reveal the WHO is still struggling to implement vital reforms in the fallout of its widely criticised response to a deadly Ebola outbreak six years ago.

As to it being seasonal, there's no way it can be truly seasonal, if it doesn't get fully eradicated. Just like cold and 'flu aren't truly seasonal. They have a seasonal peak, but people still get colds and 'flu in summer, and of course it's always winter, or heading into winter on half of the globe. The truly seasonal diseases are normally the vector-borne diseases where the vector (like mosquitoes) is only active during one or two seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, dornishpen said:

Anyone have good resources for combatting corona virus conspiracy theories. I've been seeing one that it was bioengineered in a lab and I've seen a few people are even linking a Daily Mail article (I'm not going to link to that trash). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, dornishpen said:

Anyone have good resources for combatting corona virus conspiracy theories. I've been seeing one that it was bioengineered in a lab and I've seen a few people are even linking a Daily Mail article (I'm not going to link to that trash). 

If you want to combat conspiracy theories, then send a team of spy/researchers undercover into Wuhan to try to research what really happened, and how this disease actually originated.  Because until you find out, definitively, what really happened, then a whole host of possible explanations remain in the realm of possibilities.  I'm guessing we will never know.

Until you find out exactly how this disease jumped to humans, it's escape from a lab in Wuhan remains within the realm of possibility.  It is also possible (though perhaps rather less likely) that it was actually engineered in a lab as well.  The prevailing theory, and perhaps the most likely one, is that it jumped spontaneously to humans from some animal host.  And a multi-species animal market in Wuhan might be the ideal place for a virus to learn to jump species.  But that too is a theory.

Why are you so interested in combatting this particular theory, anyway?  What's it to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some old articles on concerns regarding the Wuhan Biosafety Lab, that predate the current crisis:

https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1000921/in-fight-against-diseases%2C-china-to-open-top-safety-biology-lab

https://www.alwihdainfo.com/China-s-first-high-level-biosafety-lab-ready-for-service_a50906.html

It is certainly a curious coincidence.  A lab is set up in Wuhan to study (among other viruses) the SARS virus, and then Wuhan becomes the epicenter of the next SARS-like outbreak.  

I'm not taking a position on the subject.  I am merely pointing out that the animal market theory is also unproven.  

Of course, if anyone can present compelling evidence ruling out this theory, or proving an alternative theory, I am all ears.  I just don't see why the usual howls of "no evidence!" and "conspiracy theory!" should cause us to consider only some theories and exclude others from consideration.

Is there any particular reason we should be answering calls to "combat" this "conspiracy theory"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Of course, if anyone can present compelling evidence ruling out this theory, or proving an alternative theory, I am all ears.  I just don't see why the usual howls of "no evidence!" and "conspiracy theory!" should cause us to consider only some theories and exclude others from consideration.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how conspiracy theories work.

Someone comes up with a fanciful but relatively believable idea, often based on what's claimed to be a "troubling coincidence" or whatever, and suddenly it's up to others to show evidence to rule it out.

By that token, I'll say that there is no coronavirus, it's a conspiracy by Heineken International to hurt the Anheuser-Busch InBev group. I mean, what are the odds that this disease has the same name as a famous beer, uh? Can you prove that I'm wrong? CAN YOU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how conspiracy theories work.

Someone comes up with a fanciful but relatively believable idea, often based on what's claimed to be a "toubling coincidence" or whatever, and suddenly it's up to others to show evidence to rule it out.

In this case, I am the one saying we don't know.

Yes, if you are the one claiming certainty, you do indeed need to offer proof.

If you are not claiming certainty, you do not have to prove anything.

Mindlessly throwing around the term "conspiracy theory" does not make a hypothesis less likely, or shift the burden of proof anywhere.  I note that you have presented no evidence in favor of the animal market theory.  Such evidence as we do have for the animal market theory, probably involves certain coincidences.

Is there a double standard?  If so, why?  Why should be the level-4 biosafety lab be off limits for discussion, while the media has a free-for-all on the poor, powerless operators of the animal market?  Is there a greater burden of proof for one than for the other?

Or should we be not be allowed to discuss the possible origins of this disease at all, merely because we cannot know for sure?

Please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

In this case, I am the one saying we don't know.

Yes, if you are the one claiming certainty, you do indeed need to offer proof.

If you are not claiming certainty, you do not have to prove anything.

Not quite. Casting doubt on an established narrative may also require proof. Otherwise it's too easy to be claiming that you are "just asking questions" when you are really sowing mistrust and fear.

I remember liking Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Alas, my library is a mess and I can't find it right now, but I remember it being an interesting read.
At any rate, I'm certainly not throwing anything around "mindlessly," nor am I the one toying with the burden of proof here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viruses escaping from labs causing outbreaks isn't unheard of, or even limited to certain types of countries. Britain's last Foot and Mouth disease outbreak, that some Brits might remember, came from a British lab.

But diseases jumping the species barrier is also pretty common, possibly more common than diseases "escaping out of lab waste systems." AIDS came from monkeys (I think that's still the working theory?), 'flu circulates through several species and the deadliest versions to people are usually the ones that jump to us from pigs or chickens.

As the saying goes, don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence. Similarly I'd say don't ascribe to human activity what can be explained by nature.

We're experiencing enough racism against Chinese people because the disease originated in China. We don't need to unnecessarily exacerbate it by speculating that some Chinese govt lab doing experiments on SARs created a super-SARs and then unleashed it (deliberately or accidentally) upon an unsuspecting populace.

The big difference between accusing a lab of creating a super-virus, and it getting out, and the FMD situation in Britain is that the FMD virus that got out wasn't a super version created in the lab. It was a reference strain used for ongoing research, vaccine development etc, and such labs are doing important work for the whole world with these viruses. The suggestion with this lab conspiracy theory is that the lab made a new strain of virus for what one would have to assume is nefarious purpose. 

I'm going to choose to assume that "nature did it" until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. And the existence of a bio-safety lab in the province where the disease first appeared is not evidence, it's coincidence unless you can actually make a direct evidentiary link. 

Could it have come from a lab? Yes. Did it come from a lab? We don't know. Should we assume it came from a lab? IMO no we shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Not quite. Casting doubt on an established narrative may also require proof.

What is this "established narrative" that you support?  And what do you claim has established it?

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Otherwise it's too easy to be claiming that you are "just asking questions" when you are really sowing mistrust and fear.

Why is it okay for you to spread fear and distrust against the powerless and voiceless operators of animal markets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm going to choose to assume that "nature did it" until such time as there is evidence to the contrary. And the existence of a bio-safety lab in the province where the disease first appeared is not evidence, it's coincidence unless you can actually make a direct evidentiary link.

Exactly. Without anything more, a coincidence is only that.
Of course, if there is anything more than a "troubling coincidence," I'll be very willing to think about it, I am extremely paranoid.
Which is exactly why I don't take kindly to the "coincidence" argument here in the first place. There are too many "conspiracies" that warrant thought already without adding new ones every time something scary happens.
Also, I don't have enough canned goods at home right now, so please hold the zombie apocalypse for a few days.

Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/world/coronavirus-timeline.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shouldn't take the bait.

The established narrative, that it arose naturally, is not an unreasonable narrative and has millions of years of historic precedent, since every severe disease I know about came into existence that way. So, it should be assumed to be natural unless there is solid evidence to say otherwise.

Why blame animal markets? Because when live humans and live animals mix in large numbers those are precisely the conditions that facilitate diseases jumping between species, which is a known thing. The only people spreading fear and distrust of the people working in animal markets are ignoramuses, since the likelihood of anyone operating in animal markets having some evil plan to unleash a new disease on the world is orders of magnitude lower than the low probability that it came from a lab. 

It's also probably irrational for people to continue to fear live animal markets. The chances of another new zoonotic disease arising from such markets any time soon is very low. given it's all a massive game of chance, it takes thousands of hours of exposure between animals and people over many years for exactly the right conditions to arise for an infectious disease to jump species. But it is true that if any new zoonotic diseases are going to arise they will probably appear in places where live humans and live animals frequently mix in large numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Exactly. Without anything more, a coincidence is only that.
Of course, if there is anything more than a "troubling coincidence," I'll be very willing to think about it, I am extremely paranoid.
Which is exactly why I don't take kindly to the "coincidence" argument here in the first place. There are too many "conspiracies" that warrant thought already without adding new ones every time something scary happens.
Also, I don't have enough canned goods at home right now, so please hold the zombie apocalypse for a few days.

I've got a well laden apple tree and a few pumpkins in the back yard, though because I don't have a 3M high wall with razor wire atop surrounding my house, if the ZA comes I don't think the apples will last long. The pumpkins might be OK, since they need cooking and you really want food on the run when you are facing the ZA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Viruses escaping from labs causing outbreaks isn't unheard of, or even limited to certain types of countries. Britain's last Foot and Mouth disease outbreak, that some Brits might remember, came from a British lab.

But diseases jumping the species barrier is also pretty common, possibly more common than diseases "escaping out of lab waste systems."

I'm not suggesting we rule out either possibility.

Quote

As the saying goes, don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.

Incompetence works perfectly fine for the biolab theory.  I don't think I've seen anyone suggest anything else.  But of course the internet is a big place.

Quote

Similarly I'd say don't ascribe to human activity what can be explained by nature.

LOL.  I've never seen that particular bit of pithy wisdom.  But it does not help us here at all.  Both the biolab theory and the animal lab theory involve human activity.  Both the biolab and the animal lab theory involve natural forces.

Quote

We're experiencing enough racism against Chinese people because the disease originated in China. We don't need to unnecessarily exacerbate it by speculating that some Chinese govt lab doing experiments on SARs created a super-SARs and then unleashed it (deliberately or accidentally) upon an unsuspecting populace.

I doubt that too many people believe it was released deliberately.  But why can't we just have a rational and honest dishonest, without handwringing about whether it is USEFUL (for whatever worthy agenda) to have a rational and honest discussion?

And  is the "animal market" theory any better?  Are not bigots even more likely to hold that against the average Chinese citizen? 

Quote

The big difference between accusing a lab of creating a super-virus, and it getting out, and the FMD situation in Britain is that the FMD virus that got out wasn't a super version created in the lab.

The theory, in its simplest form, is that the virus escaped from the lab.  I don't know why you're trying to burden the theory with all these extra specifics.  Why does it have to have been CREATED there?  (It could have MUTATED there, though.  I don't know why a virus is necessarily less likely to mutate in a lab than in an animal market).

Quote

It was a reference strain used for ongoing research, vaccine development etc, and such labs are doing important work for the whole world with these viruses. The suggestion with this lab conspiracy theory is that the lab made a new strain of virus for what one would have to assume is nefarious purpose. 

Again, I don't know why you're going on about nefarious purposes.  The theory is simply that the virus escaped from the lab.

Quote

I'm going to choose to assume that "nature did it" until such time as there is evidence to the contrary.

Choose to assume what you want.  

Quote

Could it have come from a lab? Yes. 

Yeah, man.  That's what I'm saying.  Thanks for agreeing with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why blame animal markets? Because when live humans and live animals mix in large numbers those are precisely the conditions that facilitate diseases jumping between species, which is a known thing.

Such conditions can also often be found in biolabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

 

The theory, in its simplest form, is that the virus escaped from the lab.  I don't know why you're trying to burden the theory with all these extra specifics.  Why does it have to have been CREATED there?

Again, I don't know why you're going on about nefarious purposes.  The theory is simply that the virus escaped from the lab.

 

No, that's not the theory (or rather it can't be, if people think for more than half a minute). Though I haven't read up on the lab theory because it's not worth the time to find out all the detailed speculation behind it. If the virus came from a lab, it means it was created there, because the disease never existed in humans before January. Ergo created in a lab by the extrapolation of your own description of the theory. You don't create a virus that is worse than its parent version without a nefarious purpose. And despite what some people might believe from movies and popular fiction you don't create these things by accident. Hence if you've created super-SARs in a lab you've done so intentionally and with a purpose that is highly unlikely to be benevolent.

I would think that kind of thing going around the internet is going to create far more racist backlash against Chinese people than what we're seeing now with live animal markets being the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Such conditions can also often be found in biolabs.

Ahhh no.

Only a handful of people work directly with animals in biolabs, and they wear protective equipment and masks that actually work. And animals are typically kept well segregated from one another. So the conditions in biolabs are, in fact, the exact opposite of the conditions you find in live animal markets.

Esp a P4 lab that is meant to be capable of studying Ebola without killing all of its staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

Such conditions can also often be found in biolabs.

You mean facilities with complicated air-handling systems, staff working with extensive PPE, and small samples of viruses and other infectious agents stored and handled with numerous precautions, mainly to test things like growth media and other testing? 

But I could be wrong - COVID-19 could be a conspiracy involving the RAND Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires to divert attention from fiendish "biolabs" to live animal markets. 

We're through the looking glass here, people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

No, that's not the theory (or rather it can't be, if people think for more than half a minute). Though I haven't read up on the lab theory because it's not worth the time to find out all the detailed speculation behind it. If the virus came from a lab, it means it was created there, because the disease never existed in humans before January.

This is pure nonsense.  If the virus came from a lab it was probably sent there.  It could have been sent there from anywhere in China, and indeed from anywhere in the world.  It may have been sent there as a specimen; or a bat specimen may have been sent there and it may have been hidden inside the bat.  And it may also have mutated there, while being cultivated in animal specimens. 

Also, this disease was first identified in a human who first began to show symptoms in December (not January).  

Quote

Ergo created in a lab by the extrapolation of your own description of the theory.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...