Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

Im sick of all the "it was created in a lab" and "China was studying bats!" nonsense.

 

Viruses have evolved and spread and jumped from species ALL THE TIME throughout human history. Why does it have to be intentional this one time?

 

Even if China had a lab studying bat coronaviruses it is almost surely a coincidence. For one it's not even confirmed that covid19 DID come from bats.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, AndyK said:

So what do you think of this?

 

 


The Washington Post is generally considered credible, yes, and I'm sure the columnist (it's an opinion piece, as noted above) is accurately describing the statements of the people they interviewed. But the problem is, all of the people he interviewed almost certainly have no opinion worth hearing (on this subject). I'm sorry if that sounds harsh.

Yes, many of the early cases don't have a known direct link to the market - but since it's the only common link found among a substantial portion of the cases, it stands to reason that the others can't be directly linked because there was community spread before it was first determined that a novel virus was circulating, and it's very difficult to do contact tracing well after the fact. All of this has been published in peer-reviewed research in the world's leading scientific journal, Nature.

The biosafety level means that the lab is supposed to follow safety protocols, not that the research is secret - and there's been plenty of collaboration between scientists there and internationally - which is how we know that safety protocols weren't 100%. There's no evidence to suggest that the lab has been secretly acquiring other samples no one knows about. Fact is, none of the samples at the lab are a perfect match for this virus, not even close.

The professor being quoted "I don't think it's a conspiracy theory"? He doesn't have any background in biology at all. From his page at UC Berkeley, he's a physicist by training now appointed to the School of Information, and his research has to do with "state censorship, propaganda and disinformation, as well as emerging big data and AI-empowered state surveillance mechanisms in China." I'm sure he's a very smart guy, but he's not a biologist, and having spent thousands of hours studying this stuff, it's definitely not something you just pick up on the side.

As for all the intelligence officials? I can't prove they don't have a background in biology since they're being quoted anonymously, but if any of them did, they shouldn't be offering opinions as obviously uninformed as those quoted in the article. It's completely absurd to suggest there's more evidence in favour of the leak theory instead of natural origin.

Edited by Jason
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plain Old Tele said:

We live in a country run by vile, venal people.

 

 

Thats pure evil. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, terrestrial said:

 

sooo, the whole actions was nothing than a big=mouthed play to give the banks money instead of the people actually needing to survive.

 

🤑🤮🤢🤮🤑

 

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Republicans love it. I'm so angry

Edited by cdsacken
  • Sad 1
  • Not Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Killimano3 said:

Im sick of all the "it was created in a lab" and "China was studying bats!" nonsense.

 

Viruses have evolved and spread and jumped from species ALL THE TIME throughout human history. Why does it have to be intentional this one time?

 

Even if China had a lab studying bat coronaviruses it is almost surely a coincidence. For one it's not even confirmed that covid19 DID come from bats.

I do not think people (except very few) are talking about being intentional, or at least this is not at all what people are talking about in the article being talked about right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, a2k said:

India, new cases last 10 days:

1242 - today

758 Sun

854 Sat

871

813

565

573

489

606 Sun

579 Sat

India, new cases last 10 days:

1033 - today

1242

758 Sun

854 Sat

871

813

565

573

489

606 Sun

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if already posted, Tim Brooke-Taylor died at Sunday (79)

 

Old Willy Wonka movie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I do not think people (except very few) are talking about being intentional, or at least this is not at all what people are talking about in the article being talked about right now.

I'm more talking about people I speak to IRL. all my coworkers are convinced China did this on purpose. One even told me that this was set up in advance by the Obama administration to lose trump the election =/

 

As for that article it just reminded me of it, I can't even read it haha

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Killimano3 said:

As for that article it just reminded me of it, I can't even read it haha


Good call, it's dumb as a bag of hammers. Real short on evidence and real long on bullshit. (I wrote a longer explanation above, but maybe you don't want to read that either :lol:)

Edited by Jason
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the "slow down" in the US is just a temporary holiday effect. Already at 2000 deaths today :whosad:

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governor Cuomo  basically told "King Trump" to go to hell with his "I have total Power to reopen America" crap. Good for the Governor. If anybody doubted Trumps goal is to become a dictator his rant yesterday should have removed it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bladels said:

Looks like the "slow down" in the US is just a temporary holiday effect. Already at 2000 deaths today :whosad:

but it IS slowing down ... deaths do not happen upon infection, there's a 10-14 day window. The fact that numbers are now more or less stable are showing that the lockdown is having the desired effect and daily death numbers should begin dropping very soon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IndustriousAngel said:

but it IS slowing down ... deaths do not happen upon infection, there's a 10-14 day window. The fact that numbers are now more or less stable are showing that the lockdown is having the desired effect and daily death numbers should begin dropping very soon.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is slow down in death count.

But on the other hand, I don't think number of infection is gonna go down either. The slowdown might be because of New York, there could be a 2nd wave coming from other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, bladels said:

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant is slow down in death count.

But on the other hand, I don't think number of infection is gonna go down either. The slowdown might be because of New York, there could be a 2nd wave coming from other states.

Arguably that already started 7 or 12 days before April 2.

 

Date New test Pos % of positive
       
20200413 129,114 24,948 19%
20200412 140,226 28,983 21%
20200411 136,384 29,591 22%
20200410 153,927 34,617 22%
20200409 162,789 34,346 21%
20200408 139,536 30,133 22%
20200407 148,099 30,437 21%
20200406 149,248 28,752 19%
20200405 122,603 25,974 21%
20200404 229,268 33,536 15%
20200403 132,011 32,054 24%
20200402 121,955 28,074 23%
20200401 103,481 25,251 24%
20200331 106,972 24,481 23%
20200330 118,644 21,220 18%
20200329 93,086 19,493 21%
20200328 107,930 19,400 18%
20200327 110,641 18,673 17%
20200326 96,393 17,303 18%
20200325 78,890 12,284 16%
20200324 66,583 10,158 15%
20200323 55,729 10,675 19%
20200322 46,526 8,956 19%
20200321 45,093 6,527 14%
20200320 35,805 5,774 16%
20200319 25,966 4,195 16%
20200318 21,688 2,573 12%
20200317 14,133 2,184 15%
20200316 14,760 1,280 9%
20200315 6,578 1,056 16%
20200314 4,240 751 18%
20200313 6,446 874 14%
20200312 2,399 464 19%
20200311 2,686 392 15%
20200310 785 317 40%

 

 

The peak of new infection was maybe 10-12 days before that peak in positive test coming back positive (around March 22), that would make sense that match when American started to practice social distancing:

https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-05_US_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

 

Didn't daily death also started to go down in the USA, went from 4 days in a row above 1900 to 4 days in a row below that ?

 

Considering we are 22-24 days after social distancing and the median death occured I think 20.5 days after infection that would make sense to see them starting to go down.

 

I think we have yet to see a place that the infection didn't go down with social distantancing (and that the effect became quite visible 10-13 days after in the numbers)

 

Edited by Barnack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jason said:


Good call, it's dumb as a bag of hammers. Real short on evidence and real long on bullshit. (I wrote a longer explanation above, but maybe you don't want to read that either :lol:)

The only real bit of journalism in that article, from what I can tell, is in regard to a statement that may have been scrubbed from a website about a visit to the lab. It is not a surprise that's the bit of info the writer leads with. Maybe the removal of that statement is a harmless coincidence? We don't know why it was removed or who made the call. Whatever the case may be, the way it was incorporated into the article did add something to the idea that there's a cover up, whether there actually is one or not. The writer brings up the disappearing statement, provides a link, and then takes us on a ride with literally no receipts to back up the narrative. We get a "trust me, I've seen the cables". 

 

After reading your previous post, I believe the best counter to this theory is that as far as it is known there is/was no virus in the lab genetically close enough to the one behind COVID-19 to be the source of the pandemic. If the lab didn't have such a virus in it, then we can completely rule out the theory the virus escaped from it. This seems like a very important point to address when bringing up concerns about lab security.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cdsacken said:

Thats pure evil. 


A follow-up. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • ...wtf 1
  • Disbelief 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Arguably that already started 7 or 12 days before April 2.

 

Date New test Pos % of positive
       
20200413 129,114 24,948 19%
20200412 140,226 28,983 21%
20200411 136,384 29,591 22%
20200410 153,927 34,617 22%
20200409 162,789 34,346 21%
20200408 139,536 30,133 22%
20200407 148,099 30,437 21%
20200406 149,248 28,752 19%
20200405 122,603 25,974 21%
20200404 229,268 33,536 15%
20200403 132,011 32,054 24%
20200402 121,955 28,074 23%
20200401 103,481 25,251 24%
20200331 106,972 24,481 23%
20200330 118,644 21,220 18%
20200329 93,086 19,493 21%
20200328 107,930 19,400 18%
20200327 110,641 18,673 17%
20200326 96,393 17,303 18%
20200325 78,890 12,284 16%
20200324 66,583 10,158 15%
20200323 55,729 10,675 19%
20200322 46,526 8,956 19%
20200321 45,093 6,527 14%
20200320 35,805 5,774 16%
20200319 25,966 4,195 16%
20200318 21,688 2,573 12%
20200317 14,133 2,184 15%
20200316 14,760 1,280 9%
20200315 6,578 1,056 16%
20200314 4,240 751 18%
20200313 6,446 874 14%
20200312 2,399 464 19%
20200311 2,686 392 15%
20200310 785 317 40%

 

 

The peak of new infection was maybe 10-12 days before that peak in positive test coming back positive (around March 22), that would make sense that match when American started to practice social distancing:

https://www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-04-05_US_Mobility_Report_en.pdf

 

Didn't daily death also started to go down in the USA, went from 4 days in a row above 1900 to 4 days in a row below that ?

 

Considering we are 22-24 days after social distancing and the median death occured I think 20.5 days after infection that would make sense to see them starting to go down.

 

I think we have yet to see a place that the infection didn't go down with social distantancing (and that the effect became quite visible 10-13 days after in the numbers)

 

You can't just look at the % positive tests. The number of raw positives, taken as a 3 day rolling average, peaked 4 days ago. The US should continue to hover in the 2k deaths a day range for the next 7 to 10 days as a result.

 

I don't think the US has reached peak deaths. There is evidence that testing is limiting our understanding of the scope of the problem, and a theory floating around that the US has not yet flattened the curve. The piecemeal approach to lockdowns has helped in some geographic areas but there are gaps. We could see a surge of cases in Wisconsin in a week from the primary there, for example.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:


A follow-up. 
 

 

What if a client is in a negative balance ?

 

Because the bank I work for in canada made it cover negative balances first on their accounts.

Edited by Lordmandeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-new-york-city-death-count-20200414-fanr6mhybrb73ezaleo2rja2ie-story.html

 

 

Revised figures in nyc say over 10k have died in nyc alone so far.

 

 

Also over 100 deaths in Canada today. Horrid. Senior homes are being wiped out like if its the plague.

Edited by Lordmandeep
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.