Coronavirus Outbreak

[Vod]

Even more reason to isolate. If we are all infected then we want this virus to die completely so it doesn't have a chance to mutate and reinfect us all again. Only way to do that is isolation for a month.

Do you think Trump will reopen the country by easter?  Or do you think he'll be stopped?

[1715569545]

1715569545

[1715569545]

1715569545

[TwitchySeal]

Even more reason to isolate. If we are all infected then we want this virus to die completely so it doesn't have a chance to mutate and reinfect us all again. Only way to do that is isolation for a month.

Do you think Trump will reopen the country by easter?  Or do you think he'll be stopped?

He hasn't really closed anything down, I don't think.

The White House is doing a '15 days to slow the spread' thing where they suggest everyone practice social distancing, but I think all the official orders to shut down xyz have been made by Mayors and Governors.

[UserU]

Do you think Trump will reopen the country by easter?  Or do you think he'll be stopped?

He could try, but it'd be a disaster. The death tolls are rising like crazy and even China's still experimenting with their vaccines.

That fella totally downplayed the gravity of the whole situation. 2 weeks is insufficient to say the least.

[PrimeNumber7]

Even more reason to isolate. If we are all infected then we want this virus to die completely so it doesn't have a chance to mutate and reinfect us all again. Only way to do that is isolation for a month.

Do you think Trump will reopen the country by easter?  Or do you think he'll be stopped?

He hasn't really closed anything down, I don't think.

The White House is doing a '15 days to slow the spread' thing where they suggest everyone practice social distancing, but I think all the official orders to shut down xyz have been made by Mayors and Governors.

He can effectively invalidate the orders and encourage people to come back to work. The orders are almost certainly unconstitutional, but ignoring this fact, they cannot be realistically be enforced if they are defied in masse.

If Trump says that it is safe for certain people to go to work and come out of their homes and he has the support of doctors, people would likely listen to him, especially if they are needing money to pay their bills.

I think a fairly large part of the shelter in place orders in much of the country are intended to harm the economy. San Francisco has a shelter in place order and there are only about 150 cases. The mayor of los Angelos said that he expects residents to have to stay in their homes for months rebutting what Trump said about reopening the economy by Easter. LA has about 650 cases, I would estimate that at most there are 130 people hospitalized in LA and the mayor is saying the hospitals are overwhelmed. I would say that claiming hospitals are overwhelmed with 130 patients and pre-judging the outcome before the data is available removes his credibility.

The orders are fairly transparently political when governments are allowing pot dispensaries to stay open while shutting down gun shops.

[TECSHARE]

[appeal to popularity]
[appeal to authority]

The number of people who believe a thing is not related to its validity.

No shit sherlock. Its not just a "number of people" -- its people whose job it is to know this issue inside and out. THEIR consensus is this is a naturally-evolved virus. I take their word on this issue over yours, as should any rationally-thinking human being who has the intellectual honesty to accept they are not educated enough on the matter to object to the conclusions of experts. You would rather take the word of some anonymous dipshits whose job is churning out clickbait for conspiratards because you are too feeble and insecure to admit you may be wrong about _anything_.

What I said is a fact regardless of all the dumb shit you say. Logic overpowers the words of hundreds of people appealing to popularity and or authority. This isn't my opinion, it is a scientific fact.

There's far too many variables involved for anyone to declare it a fact. Nobody is claiming it is a fact but you. Again, you can't entertain the idea that you may be wrong about something for even one minute. Which is why nobody should ever take you seriously when it comes to matters as complicated or as serious as this.

Science is not determined by consensus, or by appeal to authority, both of which you are relying completely on here to try to argue your point. Experts are inevitably wrong, because the understanding of science is constantly changing. Furthermore, they are also influenced by out side forces that control their publication, their funding, their employment, and their general reputation in the community. These offer plenty of motive to manipulate outcomes to desired goals.

Your argument that the consensus of these people is the only thing that should be relied upon is asinine, and the words of some one with zero critical thinking abilities who wants to be held in the warm embrace of the establishment and have mommy and daddy tell them everything they want to hear.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know more about this issue than the authors of this article, who work for the largest non-profit biomedical research organization in the United States.

An "accelerated forced mutation process"? Because you have no idea how little you understand about the issue, you will have no way of understanding why you are so incredibly wrong.

"This would essentially be mostly indistinguishable from natural evolution."

 

First of all, there's an entire section of the article called "Evidence for natural evolution".

"These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2"

"They conclude that the virus is the product of natural evolution,"

"Accelerated forced mutation" is NOT the same thing as "natural evolution."

They're not saying "similar to natural evolution," they're saying it is natural evolution. But because you are so very very smart you know better than the people whose jobs it is to study the topic day and night, right?

They studied the issue. You did not. That is why I support their conclusion:

In one scenario, the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. This is how previous coronavirus outbreaks have emerged, with humans contracting the virus after direct exposure to civets (SARS) and camels (MERS)...

In the other proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population. For instance, some coronaviruses from pangolins, armadillo-like mammals found in Asia and Africa, have an RBD structure very similar to that of SARS-CoV-2...

over yours:

likely a bio-weapon

1,000x, every day of the week.

Oh, but let me guess, they are just political pawns used to facilitate a cover-up. And meanwhile you're completely unbiased and just presenting facts as you see them. Right.

It sure does seem like you are claiming your premise is factual while my premise has no basis in fact.

1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed


Which of these points is not scientific fact Nutilduhh?

People like you who sit around waiting for permission to have their own thoughts will always be behind the curve and in the dark. That is why I showed up here in 2011, while you showed up in 2014 with the first huge wave of free lunch Doge noobs. That is why I was warning about this virus at the end of January while people like you were still pooh poohing it. You require the cult of establishment to approve your thoughts for you first before you have them. You don't even trust your own abilities for reasoning, and as a result to sooth your fragile ego, you have to argue no one else can either because you are too weak intellectually and emotionally to make that step. In short, you are ignorant and afraid, and anyone else who doesn't join you in that state is wrong, because obviously you are the best, so no one else could possibly do any better.

[suchmoon]

I think a fairly large part of the shelter in place orders in much of the country are intended to harm the economy. San Francisco has a shelter in place order and there are only about 150 cases.

I take it NYC has helped the economy a lot by dragging their feet initially.

The time to lock the shit down is before the heathcare system gets FUBARed.

[PrimeNumber7]

I think a fairly large part of the shelter in place orders in much of the country are intended to harm the economy. San Francisco has a shelter in place order and there are only about 150 cases.

I take it NYC has helped the economy a lot by dragging their feet initially.

The time to lock the shit down is before the heathcare system gets FUBARed.

NYC likely has had an outbreak for several weeks now according to Doctor Brix. This would put the outbreak likely starting before Trump (or anyone in NY) declared a national emergency.

Everyone is being advised to operate under the assumption that they have the coronavirus and if additional spread of the virus can be prevented this way, it should die out naturally over about three weeks.

It is not possible to do a Chinese style lockdown because some people need to work to produce and deliver food and other bare necessities at a minimum and realistically others need to work to maintain critical infrastructure. We are basically at this point in most of the economy now, either because governments have forced the shutdown of businesses or because people are not going to businesses that remain open.

It remains my opinion that the best way to defeat the virus is to develop herd immunity. The majority of people who have coronavirus have mild or no symptoms. If we can reasonably determine who will have mild/no symptoms, these people need to get infected in masse, while the vulnerable are isolated so the virus will run out of  people to spread to as more people recover from (and are now immune to) the virus.

It costs an estimated $1 trillion dollars per month to keep the US economy closed and that is simply not sustainable. If the economy is closed for too long, businesses will permanently close and many will be unable to pay for food and shelter and will be living in long term poverty. This will cause additional negative health outcomes, including deaths.

This is a bad situation but the cold hard truth is people will die as a result of anything that is done.

There are some things being looked at such as the malaria drugs, and blood transfusions from those that who have recovered that hopefully can reduce the number of people who die.

I hope that politicians in California and elsewhere will stop playing politics with this crisis.

[TwitchySeal]

Even more reason to isolate. If we are all infected then we want this virus to die completely so it doesn't have a chance to mutate and reinfect us all again. Only way to do that is isolation for a month.

Do you think Trump will reopen the country by easter?  Or do you think he'll be stopped?

He hasn't really closed anything down, I don't think.

The White House is doing a '15 days to slow the spread' thing where they suggest everyone practice social distancing, but I think all the official orders to shut down xyz have been made by Mayors and Governors.

He can effectively invalidate the orders and encourage people to come back to work. The orders are almost certainly unconstitutional, but ignoring this fact, they cannot be realistically be enforced if they are defied in masse.

If Trump says that it is safe for certain people to go to work and come out of their homes and he has the support of doctors, people would likely listen to him, especially if they are needing money to pay their bills.

I think a fairly large part of the shelter in place orders in much of the country are intended to harm the economy. San Francisco has a shelter in place order and there are only about 150 cases. The mayor of los Angelos said that he expects residents to have to stay in their homes for months rebutting what Trump said about reopening the economy by Easter. LA has about 650 cases, I would estimate that at most there are 130 people hospitalized in LA and the mayor is saying the hospitals are overwhelmed. I would say that claiming hospitals are overwhelmed with 130 patients and pre-judging the outcome before the data is available removes his credibility.

The orders are fairly transparently political when governments are allowing pot dispensaries to stay open while shutting down gun shops.

The governors are responsible for declaring a state of emergency, I don't think Trump would have the authority to over rule them as they aren't his subordinate.  A governor could over rule a mayor, but the president couldn't over rule a governor.

I'm sure there are some loop holes that Trump could find to exploit, or just simply start insulting/attacking a governor to get a similar effect, but that's definitely not the way the system was intended to work.

In the current political climate I can see why people think all those blue states are just trying to fuck up the economy because they have TDS and are sick of hearing Trump bragging about how good his economy and stock market are....but if you are assuming that there is not a very real possibility that things could get very very bad, I think you're making a serious miscalculation.

A densely populated area that chooses to not take the steps you see Major cities around the world taking right now are risking 10s of thousands of lives or more.  Yes, some people will get sick and die no matter what.  It's the people that get sick and would be able to recover as long as the hospital isn't out of beds, doctors, or supplies I'm talking about.

Of course, I'm not a Doctor.  But that's the gist of what they seem to be saying.  I think Dr. Faucci is great and if he says it's all clear that would be good enough for most people I think.  But I worry about him getting rid of Faucci and finding a doctor that will simply say what he's told.  Regardless, at least in NYC, for the vast majority of people and businesses, Trumps word is considered pretty worthless when it comes to this kind of thing.

[TECSHARE]

1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed


Which of these points is not scientific fact Nutilduhh?

If the experts are "inevitably wrong," that means you have no chance of being right. My main point is that you don't have the background to understand any of this stuff, and its ridiculous that you utterly refuse to recognize this. The rest of your reply is just a giant "NO U!!!!!!" and not worth responding to.

Which one of those are not facts Nutilduuuuh?

[TwitchySeal]

1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed


Which of these points is not scientific fact Nutilduhh?

If the experts are "inevitably wrong," that means you have no chance of being right. My main point is that you don't have the background to understand any of this stuff, and its ridiculous that you utterly refuse to recognize this. The rest of your reply is just a giant "NO U!!!!!!" and not worth responding to.

Which one of those are not facts Nutilduuuuh?

In this case, I think you're both right.

[suchmoon]

If we can reasonably determine who will have mild/no symptoms

We already tried that, by not testing people for two months. The only missing part was a time machine to check those symptoms in advance.

The sad thing about these lockdowns is that if they're at least somewhat successful then every conspiratard will be claiming that we didn't need lockdowns.

[TECSHARE]

1. Animals are used in pathogen testing
2. Mutation of pathogenic viruses can be accelerated in labs using animals
3. Monitoring these mutations, traits resulting from mutation can be selected for and further mutated
4. This process is identical to the natural process of mutation, only controlled by selection
5. Even if the virus was 100% naturally occurring, there is no reason it couldn't have been collected and purposely distributed

Which one of those are not facts Nutilduuuuh?

4 isn't a fact. Controlling something for selection doesn't make it a "natural process" by virtue of the fact that the selection is being controlled. They are in no way identical processes.

5 isn't a fact either, its conjecture.

You're free to continue believing in your conspiracy unfettered. I'd just like to remind everybody here that its backed by zero evidence.

That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction. The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature.

So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What?

[nutildah]

That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction.

OK, well, its not identical then, is it? Generally speaking, when man is controlling something, its not regarded as a natural process.

The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature.

I'm not so sure about that. I know enough about the issue to understand that I can't know that for sure, one way or the other. I also see no reason to cling to a 1% possibility that something _could have_ happened instead of the remaining 99% that it didn't.

So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What?

No, I never said that. I just think its highly unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence that it was, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

[TECSHARE]

That is why I said "only controlled by selection", specifically to make that distinction.

OK, well, its not identical then, is it? Generally speaking, when man is controlling something, its not regarded as a natural process.

The fact is this could be done in a way to make it impossible to know for sure if it was done in a lab or done in nature.

I'm not so sure about that. I know enough about the issue to understand that I can't know that for sure, one way or the other. I also see no reason to cling to a 1% possibility that something _could have_ happened instead of the remaining 99% that it didn't.

So your argument is naturally occurring viruses can not be sampled, cultured, and then intentionally released? What?

No, I never said that. I just think its highly unlikely, given the complete lack of evidence that it was, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes.

You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise.

[nutildah]

I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes.

You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise.

You just said it yourself: there is no evidence that the virus was made in a lab. You're arguing that there are ways in which it could have been made in a lab and we can't tell the difference. I'm not so sure about that, yet you are -- for reasons beyond me. Nobody else seems to be claiming that except for your blog published to Zerohedge, which made several other claims that can easily be debunked.

There is more evidence that it came from the wild than from a lab. Introducing unfounded, poorly researched "could have" scenarios does nothing to sway me in the direction of your claim that it is "likely a bio-weapon."

[TECSHARE]

I made the distinction in the original statement. This is desperate straw grasping. You have fun with the semantic argument over what "natural" is. The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered, if the study is accurate. It is not evidence against accelerated selective mutation via natural incubation processes.

You keep screaming about how I am making assumptions, but when you are forced to get to the core of your argument, you show a string of your own assumptions and totally fabricated statistical probabilities. I never excluded the possibility of it being a totally natural occurrence, you on the other hand are pretty desperately straining to claim it could not be a bio-weapon when you have nothing but assumptions to support this premise.

You just said it yourself: there is no evidence that the virus was made in a lab. You're arguing that there are ways in which it could have been made in a lab and we can't tell the difference. I'm not so sure about that, yet you are -- for reasons beyond me. Nobody else seems to be claiming that except for your blog published to Zerohedge, which made several other claims that can easily be debunked.

There is more evidence that it came from the wild than from a lab. Introducing unfounded, poorly researched "could have" scenarios does nothing to sway me in the direction of your claim that it is "likely a bio-weapon."

Is that what I said? Please quote.

Again, I am not excluding a natural process, now you are busting out the NO Us and just repeating what I literally just said to you, back to me in a refractory manner. "There is more evidence I am right, cuz I said so!"  I don't give a fuck what you believe Nutilduhhh, it is for everyone else reading, so they can see how completely devoid of logic your argument is.

[Ibian]

It ultimately doesn't matter.

If the virus is manmade, according to whatever definition you prefer to use, then the chinese state is responsible. In this case, china must be destroyed.

If the virus is natural, again choose your preferred definition, then the entire chinese population is responsible due to their disgusting lack of hygiene. In this case, china must be destroyed.

China has no redeeming qualities. Besides their history of spreading plagues around the globe, including the actual plague, the spanish flu and the yearly sniffles, they are communists.

China delenda est.

[TECSHARE]

It ultimately doesn't matter.

If the virus is manmade, according to whatever definition you prefer to use, then the chinese state is responsible. In this case, china must be destroyed.

If the virus is natural, again choose your preferred definition, then the entire chinese population is responsible due to their disgusting lack of hygiene. In this case, china must be destroyed.

China has no redeeming qualities. Besides their history of spreading plagues around the globe, including the actual plague, the spanish flu and the yearly sniffles, they are communists.

China delenda est.

[Ibian]

It ultimately doesn't matter.

If the virus is manmade, according to whatever definition you prefer to use, then the chinese state is responsible. In this case, china must be destroyed.

If the virus is natural, again choose your preferred definition, then the entire chinese population is responsible due to their disgusting lack of hygiene. In this case, china must be destroyed.

China has no redeeming qualities. Besides their history of spreading plagues around the globe, including the actual plague, the spanish flu and the yearly sniffles, they are communists.

China delenda est.

Yes.

[nutildah]

Is that what I said? Please quote.

The fact is this form of selective mutation does not leave the markers of genetic engineering, as cited as supposed proof that this virus was not created in a lab. This is evidence against it being genetically engineered

You provided no evidence that it was made in a lab. While you did not say "there is no evidence that the virus was made in a lab" verbatim, you did at least acquiesce to admit there is evidence against it being made in a lab.

You're going to say, well it could have been made in a lab in a way that has so far fooled hundreds of trained scientists into thinking that it was not. I'm saying neither one of us knows that for sure. Most people who have some to a large degree of expertise on the matter argue that either we don't know the origins or that it has natural origins (as in purely natural and not manipulated in a laboratory in any way):

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm

An analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered.

https://sciencespeaksblog.org/2020/03/15/recent-data-and-maps-to-help-find-the-origin-of-covid-19/

Q:  What is the overwhelmingly likely origin of this outbreak-become-pandemic of the three possible ways an outbreak could begin: Naturally occurring, accidental, or intentional?

This outbreak was naturally occurring, arising from a still unidentified animal or more than one animal species. This coronavirus then infected humans and most likely over several months, e.g., between September and December, was able to acquire the ability to be transmitted from human-to-human. Whether it began in Wuhan, elsewhere in Hubei province or in China remains to be proven.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/theory-that-coronavirus-escaped-from-a-lab-lacks-evidence-67229

The pathogen appears to have come from wild animals, virologists say, and there are no signs of genetic manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

Just for fun, here's an excerpt from that same reference that helps your conspiracy theory:

Mosher agrees that animals were the likely origin. “That doesn’t mean [the virus] wasn’t collected, brought to the lab, and was being tested on in various ways, and escaped from the lab,” he says. Mosher also does not claim that China genetically engineered the virus. “I’m not saying this has been genetically engineered to be a bioweapon that’s escaped from the lab. . . . I’m just saying that [China is] collecting dangerous pathogens, [and] they have a history of letting them escape from the lab,” he says.

(he is also the guy that wrote this article... still not exactly the same thing as "likely a bio-weapon", however)

What evidence do you have or does anybody has that it was made in a lab? What evidence do you have that anybody with any sort of medical or scientific background thinks that it was?