On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:25:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:32:48 AM UTC+11,
bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:11:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:17:53 AM UTC+11,
bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:35:53 PM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT),
> > > > > >That guy doesn't know much about epidemiology and more importantly immunology. For instance the idiot thinks mutation is a function of susceptible population size. The idiot has no idea of the fact that each replication presents an opportunity for mutation, and within just a single individual there are billions if not trillions of replications. A lot of his graphs are dated. He doesn't know much about mathematical modeling of infectious disease, he ignores the fact that 99% of people recover and the course of illness is relatively short, 99% of these people don't require hospitalization, therefore his death estimates are wildly inflated. His education is in business, he's an ignorant sensationalist looking to make a buck somehow. It's a waste of time reading his stupid crap. This misinformation belongs in the same toilet as the chloroquine and vaccine will be ready in 12 months fiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, you can have all sorts of fun with a math model. Or a
> > > > > spreadsheet. But the chloroquine might help, seems to help.
> > > > >
> > > > > Flu viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal. It's not in their
> > > > > interest to quickly kill the hosts that spread them.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what impresses me is that an entire planet worth of viruses mutate
> > > > > together. No one virus mutates and passes the less-lethal trend to its
> > > > > offspring.
> > > >
> > > > The people who study these things think this one we have now is some kind of hybrid of two wild strain corona viruses that exist naturally in nature. This would strengthen the theory that mixing up the animals in wild meat markets created the virus. Probably a bat/pangolin merger, or interspecies zoonosis.
> > >
> > > Covid-19 is 96% identical with the ancestral bat corona virus. How this hydbridisation between what would have to be two closely related viruses might have happened needs to be discussed - they'd both have had to infected the same cell at the same time for any RNA mixing to have occurred.
> >
> > The human genome is a 98% match with that of the common mouse.
>
> And enormously larger.
>
> > Any other questions?
>
> What made you think that this might be of any relevance?
It's sarcasm in response to your statement "How this hydbridisation between what would have to be two closely related viruses might have happened needs to be discussed - they'd both have had to infected the same cell at the same time for any RNA mixing to have occurred."
There are two ways in which a new strain of an RNA virus develops: 1) mutation and 2) recombination.
Mutation refers to an error in the transcription of the RNA into DNA for integration into the host cell nucleus. Corona has been found to be fairly stable in this regard.
Recombination is when two separate strains have infected the same host cell, both end up integrating DNA into the host nucleus simultaneously, causing progeny with mixed RNA from the two different strains. This becomes more likely as you mix up infected animals in close proximity as in those "wet" wild meat animal markets. Virologists are able to do very accurate PCRs on the resulting virus and identify the gene mixing exactly, and not just look at percentage overlaps of gene sequences. You can end up with very bad results like, and this really a mainly in this case, a brand new strain that now infects humans even though the two parent strains either did not infect humans or were harmless.
You might apprise yourself of the rudiments of the basic science before you make more statements as crazy as your vaccine development hysteria.
>
> > > Quite why it might have seemed sensible to hypothesise isn't made clear either.
> > >
> > > Fred isn't good at getting hold of reliable data. The Wuhan data listed 20% of those infected as being seriously or critically ill so his 99% not requiring hospitalisation is a very odd figure.
> >
> > What's not reliable is the Chinese data. It is CCP data and therefore full of inconsistencies and fabrications.
>
> This is claimed from time to time. The claim even less reliable than the Chinese data - basically a conspiracy theory fabrication.
It's not conspiracy theory, the CCP are compulsive liars even when there's nothing to cover up. No point in going over the ocean of history that justifies this characterization.
>
> > "As physicians and researchers have seen since the start of the outbreak, many infected people never become sick. As few as 14% of people in Wuhan with early coronavirus infections were being detected, said epidemiologist Jeffrey Shaman of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who led a study published on Monday in Science on undocumented coronavirus infections."
>
> They got better a picking them out as the cases accumulated.
>
> >
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
>
> Jeffrey Sharman isn't listed as an author on the paper you seem to be relying on.
>
> Not yet peer-reviewed and dated February 13, 2020, written by people a rather long way away from the actual patients
>
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7#author-information
>
> is the published version that came out on the 19th March.
>
> It seems to drag in a lot of non-CCP data, and makes it clear that it is based on a lot of assumptions (which are spelled out).
Epidemiological estimates tend to be logarithmic. It's not physical chemistry. There is too much variability to begin to formulate anything approaching the status of a scientific "rule."
There are other scarier developments unfolding. Something called antibody-dependent (disease) enhancement ADE is a big one, and a studied factor in the lethality of MERS, another corona virus.
This thing is going to around for the rest of our lives. Life will NEVER return to normal, and 1) people lose immunity after about a year or so, and 2) second time around infection /can/ be much worse due to this ADE phenomenon, and of course damage accumulated from a previous infection.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney