SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[senorgregster]

It is by definition in the center of the interval, so it would be 170k deaths (which can also be seen from the graph).

I thought it may be but didn't want to assume it followed a symmetrical distribution (I'm now at the limit of my stats level...)

Which graph by the way? Apparently they are easy to find but no luck yet.

Judging by the deaths per day projection, the mid point of the peak is around 2200 around 15th of April. The same projection had tomorrow at around 750. I believe today is 741 already and yesterday 558?

Edit rephrasing point estimate to mid point.

 

[senorgregster]

Confidence intervals only tell you that X% of the time (in this case 95%), you can expect a mean calculated (from a sample of a population) to fall within that particular interval. The name "confidence" only applies to the statistical procedure and not to the actual sample. You will never know if the mean you've calculated actually lies in the interval or not. The values of the interval will also change with each sample because each sample has a different standard deviation and the confidence intervals are calculated, in part, using the standard deviation of the sample, because you don't know the standard deviation of the population.

It gets more complicated and well beyond anything I understand. Only a statistician/mathematician can really explain the entire concept well. (I don't think I've explained it well either!)

Fair enough. These numbers are in a different format to what I've typically done with CIs and point estimates.

 

[Revan]

I thought it may be but didn't want to assume it followed a symmetrical distribution (I'm now at the limit of my stats level...)

Which graph by the way? Apparently they are easy to find but no luck yet.

Judging by the deaths per day projection, the point estimate peak is around 2200 in mid April. The same projection had tomorrow at around 750. I believe today is 741 already and yesterday 558?

One of the graph Brix showed, cannot find it (it didn't have a line for the point of estimate, but it was clearly symmetric).

Interval confidence is not the same as the distribution. So, the distribution does not need to be symmetric for the interval confidence to be symmetric. 170k is quite believable if everything goes right though. Scaled back to Italy, that would be Italy having 32k deaths. If we assume that the peak in Italy is this week, and the distribution is Gaussian, then the numbers perfectly match the current data in Italy.

The problem is that I am not sure how much this model counts for a second wave. With 0.65% fatality rate, 170k deaths scale to 26m infected people. That is less than 10% of the population. In that case, no herd immunity is created, so there is going to be a second wave. And if there is no seasonality to the virus, then the second wave does not need to happen in the winter. It will start building the moment when the lockdown gets removed.

The hammer and the dance article seem to be the only solution to the problem (although the article is extremely pessimistic and over exagerates the numbers). But a semi-permanent lockdown (or well some measures + intensive testing/quarantine/contact-tracing needs to happen until the vaccine comes). And even when the vaccine comes, the elderly will still be at risk, considering that most of vaccines do not work as well for old people.

 

[senorgregster]

One of the graph Brix showed, cannot find it (it didn't have a line for the point of estimate, but it was clearly symmetric).

Interval confidence is not the same as the distribution. So, the distribution does not need to be symmetric for the interval confidence to be symmetric.

I stand corrected, I'm beyond my stat level

 

[Dante]

For the ones that have skin problems with their hands because of the extensive washing? What soaps are you using? I think that using different soaps (I e.g. use natural handmade soaps from the pharmacy) might be a help.

Use baby wash.

 

[0le]

I stand corrected, I'm beyond my stat level

And mine, though we were taught that in most cases better to use the statistics correctly (i.e. applying formulas) and leave the derivation/hardcore understanding (deriving formulas/ understanding why formulas are like they are) to statisticians.

 

[senorgregster]

Here are the graphs...

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

There was a second group involved. Not found that source.

 

[ryansgirl]

Well @ryansgirl, the first thing to understand is that all of the deaths happening now are from cases that happened three weeks ago before any country was locking down, in that sense these were inevitable deaths even if we locked down when England or France did.
The Swedish experts are doing a press conference every day at 2 PM and they seem still fairly happy that the responses they put in place are having an effect because the amount of people going into ICU every day is a very stable level and has been now for quite a while.

For all countries, we will only really know how well they are doing in another two weeks or so, but trust me on the fact that Sweden does not have such a lax attitude as many people think; we have put lots and lots of precautions in place and everyone I know and see everywhere is social distancing.


Add to that we have the most single households in the world at almost 50%, we have the youngest moving out age in the world at just over 18 and people very rarely live in large families with grandparents etc. This means Sweden is a little bit more unique compared to France Spain Italy and even the UK.
Denmark for its population has a similar number of deaths to Sweden and they locked down so that should show you that you can’t draw any conclusions at this point.

Comparing to Australia is daft considering when Australia were getting it’s first 10 deaths. The next couple of weeks will be very telling in Aus.

Thank you for that information.

 

[ryansgirl]

I'm not sure Korean ways of dealing with this would be possible to replicate in Europe. Certainly not in Poland.

South Korea has dealt well with this health emergency. However, as somebody who lived there for nearly 5 years and worked there, I have to say I am not at all surprised that the measures involve a level of surveillance that countries more concerned with human rights would find excessive. The Koreans love technology, it's among the most wired countries in the world and when I lived there high speed open wifi hotspots were everywhere, if you had a contract it was cheap.

It's always been the next step to track people the intrusive way they are doing there right now. South Korea is also similar to Japan. One of the key similarities is the acceptance of authorities running things in such a way as to treat citizens and foreign residents as in constant need of observation and instruction. There has been no terrorism from non Koreans there, there are no groups that pose a threat to the country's system apart from a few North Korean spies. The village mentality is still strong - I had so many people I hardly or didn't know snooping around my legitimate and not interesting activities.

Group pressure is incredibly strong in South Korea. Japan is a softer version but from rental agencies to employers to authorities, there is an over-bearing sense that people with some power and financial influence have the right to take an excessive interest in you and treat you like a child. Again, Japan's terror has not come from foreigners - their own country's people shot up an airport counter in Europe in the 1970s and the sarin gas attack in the 90s was by Japanese. Be careful what we wish for in wanting to control this virus - there will be some loss of civil liberties but we should be careful of approaches like that in South Korea.

 

[Wibble]

I stand corrected, I'm beyond my stat level

I'm just realising how much if this stuff I have forgotten. Not sure I have the energy to get it back either.

 

[Revan]

I'm just realising how much if this stuff I have forgotten. Not sure I have the energy to get it back either.

Statistics and probability are very non-intuitive. I always forget it despite dealing with some form of statistics all the time.

 

[ryansgirl]

Governments have been clear that masks are most helpful at reducing how far a sick person spreads droplets.

There is some anecdotal evidence from South Korea and Taiwan that masks can help people stay healthy but you have to know how to use them and most of us don't.

People here in Japan use them regularly during hay fever season, to go to work when they're sick - incredibly irresponsible but don't tell them that - when the flu is around and now during this pandemic. It's reasonable to say that face masks play a role among the general population in reducing the spread of infections but there is a big BUT.

I don't wear a mask. Anytime. I keep my distance from people especially people I don't know. It's harder to do that here in Japan but you can. It just takes vigilance. The trouble with masks as I have seen in both South Korea and Japan is that not taking proper care of them is just about inviting an infection.

So the maskless people hacking up and coughing/sneezing their droplets across the train are contaminating the masks that those close to them/not that close to them are wearing. Some people can't find masks because greedy hoarders, selfish people, organised crime have cleaned out stocks.

Mask-wearers then touch their masks, not everyone but I've seen it plenty of times. They hang their masks down to their chins to eat, drink, smoke or talk to people - the interior of the mask is exposed although they think because the surface is in the same place it's fine. If you wear a mask, unless it's an authentic medical one as in solidly protective inside and out, it's possible for your coughing and sneezing to escape in droplets.

Working with customers - I tell them to please keep on their masks if they feel more comfortable and I won't touch any of their documents and books. Some take their masks off and put them on the desk. They don't know if it has been thoroughly cleaned or not - it has by me - but they don't ask and at times the mask is put on the surface the wrong way around.

Many males here wear the same mask from the time they leave their home to the time they get home. Sometimes that's around 12 hours. During that time they have handled it a number of times. Some females are similarly careless but not quite in the same way. Masks also encourage complacency and crowding around others even if they can find a different space.

East Asians seem to have a fear of being alone physically. Theare are countless times in South Korea and Japan where strangers preferred to be very close in free seating trains cars when they could have sat elsewhere, wandered into my space on a main road waiting for the lights when they could have comfortably been somewhere else, in shops literally breathed down my neck around shelves and lines when there weren't many other customers, etc. I've had to tell people nicely to move back as there is some space behind us and there's no need to just about touch me.

So yes - I don't wear a mask. I'm not saying people shouldn't but if they wear one it requires vigilance and commonsense. Since late January I have walked part of my way to work and back home to avoid my local subway line. I know not everybody can do that but there are precautions including that one I take.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[mu4c_20le]

People here in Japan use them regularly during hay fever season, to go to work when they're sick - incredibly irresponsible but don't tell them that - when the flu is around and now during this pandemic. It's reasonable to say that face masks play a role among the general population in reducing the spread of infections but there is a big BUT.

I don't wear a mask. Anytime. I keep my distance from people especially people I don't know. It's harder to do that here in Japan but you can. It just takes vigilance. The trouble with masks as I have seen in both South Korea and Japan is that not taking proper care of them is just about inviting an infection.

So the maskless people hacking up and coughing/sneezing their driplets across the train are contaminating the masks those close to them/not that close to them are wearing. Some people can't find masks because greedy hoarders, selfish people, organised crime have cleaned out stocks.

Mask-wearers then touch their masks, not everyone but I've seen it plenty of times. They hang their masks down to their chins to eat, drink, smoke or talk to people - the interior of the mask is exposed although they think because the surface is in the same place it's fine. If you wear a mask, unless it's an authentic medical one as in solidly protective inside and out, it's possible for your coughing and sneezing to escape in droplets.

Working with customers - I tell them to please keep on their masks if they feel more comfortable and I won't touch any of their documents and books. Some take their masks off and put them on the desk. They don't know if it has been thoroughly cleaned or not - it has by me - but they don't ask and at times the mask is put on the surface the wrong way around.

Many males here wear the same mask from the time they leave their home to the time they get home. Sometimes that's around 12 hours. During that time they have handled it a number of times. Some females are similarly careless but not quite in the same way. Masks also encourage complacency and crowding around others even if they can find a different space.

East Asians seem to have a fear of being alone physically. Theare are countless times in South Korea and Japan where strangers preferred to be very close in free seating trains cars when they could have sat elsewhere, wandered into my space on a main road waiting for the lights when they could have comfortably been somewhere else, in shops literally breathed down my neck around shelves and lines when there weren't many other customers, etc. I've had to tell people nicely to move back as there is some space behind us and there's no need to just about touch me.

So yes - I don't wear a mask. I'm not saying people shouldn't but if they wear one it requires vigilance and commonsense.

A mask does not guarantee protection from the virus, but it's a pretty cheap and effective way defend against it. In that scenario you posted, if you weren't wearing a mask on the train, then the droplets coughed/sneezed by maskless people will directly contaminate your mouth and your face. The only downside I can see, besides panicking the public into hoarding them up like toilet paper, is when it gives people a false sense of security. But if I knew there was an outbreak in the city or town I'm in, I'd definitely wear it as an added precaution amongst other things.

 

[Revan]

Anyone can find the paper form South China University of Technology on the origin of covid-19 virus, which concludes that the virus most likely came from a Wuhan laboratory?

 

[0le]

Anyone can find the paper form South China University of Technology on the origin of covid-19 virus, which concludes that the virus most likely came from a Wuhan laboratory?

It has been removed by the author or it has a different link:
http://ifttt.itbehere.com/2020/02/1...obably-originated-from-a-laboratory-in-wuhan/

 

[berbatrick]

It has been removed by the author or it has a different link:
http://ifttt.itbehere.com/2020/02/1...obably-originated-from-a-laboratory-in-wuhan/

I read the l purported full paper - the researchgate link is dead, and it's weird that they woud put a pre print on that site rather than biorxiv. The big evidence in the paper is citation 10, the chimeric SARS virus. But if you follow the link to that paper, which is here, you can see under Biosafety that the research was done in Chapel Hill in the US, 30 mins from where I live, and not in Wuhan. The last author of a paper is usually the professor in whose lab it is done, and he is a professor at UNC-CH. I will also add that the language in the researchgate paper does not match what you usually see in a scientific publication, it reads like a blog.

 

[Revan]

I read the l purported full paper - the researchgate link is dead, and it's weird that they woud put a pre print on that site rather than biorxiv. The bg evidence in the pper is citation 10, the chimeric SARS virus. But if you follow the link to that paper, which is here, you can see under BIosafty that the research was done in Chapel Hill in the US, 30 mins from where I live, and not in Wuhan. The last author of a paper is usually the professor in whose lab it is done, and he is a professor at UNC-CH. I will also add that the language in the researchgate paper does not match what you usually see in a scientific publication, it reads like a blog.

I couldn't find the paper, so yes, it is more from what I read on other sources mentioning the paper, rather than the paper.

The citation you mentioned comes from a US lab, but does the removed paper I am talking about comes from Wuhan/China? I cannot comment on the language of the paper, but isn't it strange that it comes from a Chinese university, and then was removed entirely? Shame that it was not put in arxiv (well, I guess biorxiv, which I assume is the arxiv equivalent for biology), where a paper cannot be removed.

 

[Wibble]

Statistics and probability are very non-intuitive. I always forget it despite dealing with some form of statistics all the time.

I was ok but unspectacular at biostats at Uni and then in my honors year I was asked to teach the 2nd year Biostats course that I trudged through the year before. I needed the money so said yes and that REALLY motivated me to learnt univariate and multivariate stats properly. Which has leeched away gradually over the last 20 years.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I cannot comment on the language of the paper, but isn't it strange that it comes from a Chinese university, and then was removed entirely? Shame that it was not put in arxiv (well, I guess biorxiv, which I assume is the arxiv equivalent for biology), where a paper cannot be removed.

Maybe it was pulled because it read like it was written by a ridiculous conspiracy theorist?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Revan]

Maybe it was pulled because it read like it was written by a ridiculous conspiracy theorist?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yeah, it does not look great from the snippets posted there. But it is still weird seeing a paper totally removed (papers get retracted from conferences/journals if the authors find out that there were incorrect things, but they don't disappear. And in the case of researchgate, it is just an online website when the paper does not even need to be peer-reviewed to be put there).

Edit: stalked the authors, I cannot find in scholar the last author (typically the last author is the senior author), while the first author seems to be an assistant professor at that university. His credentials seem okay, on the level you would expect from a postdoc or assistant professor who just started the tenure track. He is not an immunologist though (unless we are talking for two people with that name from that same university).

 

[Wibble]

Sounds like bollocks as the proof seems to be,

1) Bats don't fly 800kms
2) Bio-engineering is possible
3) A bio-engineering lab exists near the Wuhan wet market
4) QED is was bio-engineered in that lab and escaped somehow.

Not totally impossible but ...........

As an intermediate host will be responsible and not the original bat population, it strikes me as being little more than a conspiracy theory.

 

[4bars]

Sounds like bollocks as the proof seems to be,

1) Bats don't fly 800kms
2) Bio-engineering is possible
3) A bio-engineering lab exists near the Wuhan wet market
4) QED is was bio-engineered in that lab and escaped somehow.

Not totally impossible but ...........

As an intermediate host will be responsible and not the original bat population, it strikes me as being little more than a conspiracy theory.

What about "Nature" article that rules out bioengineering?

 

[Revan]

Sounds like bollocks as the proof seems to be,

1) Bio-engineering is possible
2) A bio-engineering lab exists near the Wuhan wet market
3) QED is was bio-engineered in that lab and escaped somehow.

Not totally impossible but ...........

The most interesting part for me was that there are no colonies of that type of bat within a few hundred km of Wuhan, and that they interviewed dozen of people who frequented the market and all of them said that they don't sell bats there.

Which leaves a few possibilities (I would say in order of likelihood, but just a hunch):

a) their analysis is wrong
b) bio-engineered or natural, but leaked from Wuhan lab which experiments with bats.
c) came from an intermediate species who was infected in nature from a bat.

 

[Wibble]

What about "Nature" article that rules out bioengineering?

I think I might just go with Nature on this one

 

[Redplane]

What? There's a difference of about 150 thousand confirmed cases.

Talking about deaths. Confirmed cases is a slightly meaningless stat to me. Though we took a big jump again ourselves.

 

[Wibble]

The most interesting part for me was that there are no colonies of that type of bat within a few hundred km of Wuhan, and that they interviewed dozen of people who frequented the market and all of them said that they don't sell bats there.

Which leaves a few possibilities (I would say in order of likelihood, but just a hunch):

a) their analysis is wrong
b) bio-engineered or natural, but leaked from Wuhan lab which experiments with bats.
c) came from an intermediate species who was infected in nature from a bat.

All human coronavisuses that have bat origins have infected humans through intermediate hosts (Civet and camel I think) so the location of the bat population is irrelevant. Assuming infection was in the Wuhan wet market the intermediate host would presumably have been sold/butchered there.

 

[0le]

A mask does not guarantee protection from the virus, but it's a pretty cheap and effective way defend against it. In that scenario you posted, if you weren't wearing a mask on the train, then the droplets coughed/sneezed by maskless people will directly contaminate your mouth and your face. The only downside I can see, besides panicking the public into hoarding them up like toilet paper, is when it gives people a false sense of security. But if I knew there was an outbreak in the city or town I'm in, I'd definitely wear it as an added precaution amongst other things.

What you've done is just assumed a worst case-scenario.

TLDR - provided you obey the social distance rules, you don't need a mask.

Long answer:

Most of the droplets, even the small ones, will likely fall to a surface because they have sufficient momentum (from coughing/sneezing) to avoid "becoming suspended" in the surrounding non-moving air. "Becoming suspended" means that the droplets remain within the air for some period of time before they fall (or more technically settle) in the ground. The only likely way you can become "contaminated" on a train via this mechanism is if you don't obey the social distance instructions or someone deliberately coughs/sneezes in your face.

Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to how far apart you should be from an infected individual. This is because there are a range of different droplet sizes and each has different momentum for various reasons. In essence this means droplets can go off along different paths from the mouth, potentially reaching different distances away from the infected individual. But in non-moving air, the droplets will fall to the ground (settle) pretty quickly, regardless of the paths they follow when they leave the mouth. As long as the social distancing of 6ft or whatever is obeyed, you won't need a mask to protect you from others coughing/sneezing because the distance proposed is likely to be conservative.

 

[Wibble]

What you've done is just assumed a worst case-scenario.

TLDR - provided you obey the social distance rules, you don't need a mask.

Long answer:

Most of the droplets, even the small ones, will likely fall to a surface because they have sufficient momentum (from coughing/sneezing) to avoid "becoming suspended" in the surrounding non-moving air. "Becoming suspended" means that the droplets remain within the air for some period of time before they fall (or more technically settle) in the ground. The only likely way you can become "contaminated" on a train via this mechanism is if you don't obey the social distance instructions or someone deliberately coughs/sneezes in your face.

Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to how far apart you should be from an infected individual. This is because there are a range of different droplet sizes and each has different momentum for various reasons. In essence this means droplets can go off along different paths from the mouth, potentially reaching different distances away from the infected individual. But in non-moving air, the droplets will fall to the ground (settle) pretty quickly, regardless of the paths they follow when they leave the mouth. As long as the social distancing of 6ft or whatever is obeyed, you won't need a mask to protect you from others coughing/sneezing because the distance proposed is likely to be conservative.

I don't disagree but aerosol transmission is possible, t stops you touching your face to some degree and other people often aren't good at social distancing. But to me the biggest advantage is that if you are infected it significantly reduces your ability to infect others. And all of this is about reducing risk of infection.

That said I'm not wearing one yet and being paranoid about social distancing.

 

[Arruda]

Spoiler

Some years ago, this was were FC Porto's hockey, basketball, handball, and other sports team played. Since FC Porto now has its own pavilion, it has been used a general arena for concerts, fairs, etc, probably the most iconic in the city.

I find this creepy, despite the emptiness.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I think I might just go with Nature on this one

I’m gonna go with the actual study too. Let the likes of Revan keep their tin foil hats on.
Guess ze Germans engineered the plague, TB came from the Russians and Polio from a lab in Iraq.

 

[berbatrick]

I couldn't find the paper, so yes, it is more from what I read on other sources mentioning the paper, rather than the paper.

The citation you mentioned comes from a US lab, but does the removed paper I am talking about comes from Wuhan/China? I cannot comment on the language of the paper, but isn't it strange that it comes from a Chinese university, and then was removed entirely? Shame that it was not put in arxiv (well, I guess biorxiv, which I assume is the arxiv equivalent for biology), where a paper cannot be removed.

The research gate one comes from China, but Guangdong not Wuhan. It's copied fully in the blog that was linked here. You can read it and decide, just from the style I think it was written as a blog not as a paper.

 

[Ludens the Red]

@Leroy The Red

UK has been behind the curve on this and they did not need to be. It's tragic.

Yeah like I said in the other thread...

Not sure why you’re talking about the government. Its clear I’ve been referencing the general population. You made out as if you were ahead of things and were criticising people for ‘not taking it seriously’ and telling me to listen to Charlie Austin when literally you yourself only took a ‘serious’ stance at the start of the month, which is completely fine btw. I just don’t really understand why you’ve taken this whole Gandalf the wise stance.

 

[0le]

I don't disagree but aerosol transmission is possible, t stops you touching your face to some degree and other people often aren't good at social distancing. But to me the biggest advantage is that if you are infected it significantly reduces your ability to infect others. And all of this is about reducing risk of infection.

That said I'm not wearing one yet and being paranoid about social distancing.

I think I should have added and made clearer in the post you quoted of mine and my other posts (@Revan) that I am arguing based on probabilities, not absolutes. You are correct that regardless of where you are and what the surrounding conditions are, you can't gurantee zero transmission, but the possibility of transmission will reduce with increasing distance from the infected patient.

I agree with what you said, masks can stop those already infected from spreading the disease. My point of view here though is that people who are sneezing/coughing should be self-isolating already and should not be in public. People who have the infection but don't have obvious symptoms may exhale droplets when they breathe. If you are practising social distancing than it shouldn't really be an issue indoors. This could potentially be more problematic outdoors because it would be simpler for the droplets to become suspended in the air. But I'm not sure if you can exhale droplets through normal breathing.

We must also reiterate the points about masks:

• Some offer little to no protection for inhalation of droplets e.g. surgical masks.
• Some respirators offer fair protection to inhalation (FFP1), others are better (FFP2) and some better still (FFP3).
• The reusable ones have a better quality seal than the disposable ones. But both seals depend on facial features like hair.
• There are half respirators (cover nose/mouth) and full respirators (cover your entire face).
• It becomes difficult to breathe through some masks as the filters clog up, so you shouldn't really offer a mask to someone who is already ill. See the description here.
• The majority of people won't care or bother to look up which type of masks they have, nor look up how to wear them properly. This means that many may still inhale droplets, giving them a false sense of security.
• A lot of people will also keep re-using the same desposable mask. Whether this is a good idea or not is anyones guess, I certainly don't know and if I went to the trouble of buying and wearing these masks for this purpose, then I wouldn't risk it.

I agree that some people will be incapable of social distancing/ self isolation. I guess a lot of this discussion is then about how you view the risk for each individual.

1. NHS Keyworkers: I think we all agree they will definitely need it. As stated above, this must be the focus. NHS workers are trained professionals and much more likely to use the appropriate masks properly. They have a non-negligible probability of exposure, at some point, via aerosol transmission.
2. Those already infected (wth symptoms): Masks for people already infected won't help the infected individual, as already explained above. The filter(s) will clog up and may make it even more difficult for these individuals to breathe. I'm not sure if integrated oxygen masks exist but if they do they would be more expensive/complex to use.
3. Other individuals: Those who find themselves surrounded either by idiots (people refusing to self isolate and/or refusal to practice social distancing) e.g. at a supermarket may feel they need it as well.

But we do need to draw a line somewhere. You almost certainly won't need to wear a mask going for walks. You probably won't need to wear a mask at home if everyone in your household is following instruction. And the chances are, you probably won't need a mask for the supermarket because lots of people are actually listening to the advice, at least for now.

 

[Penna]

I only have a few so I'm wary of using them up too soon.

I've been re-using the same single mask since it all started, one I had spare from when I did some decorating last year. I bought some new ones from Amazon back in Feb which never arrived. I've now got a few n95 masks on their way from the USA - perhaps they'll arrive before it's all over.

It's very clear when you go out here that people have one mask which they're using all the time, as they're all looking a bit worn-out now.

 

[LordNinio]

We are all stressed I think is the answer. I know I'm not managing my stress that well.

I didn't think your original post deserved more than someone saying why log scales were used and I think under normal circumstances that is what would have happened.

So lets all let this lie and carry on shall we (that was directed to everyone BTW)?

Yes, I guess you're right, and why I didn't further engage when another poster had try to reignite the conversation last night. I figured the conversation had been carried to its conclusion to be honest.

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[stepic]

Anyone can find the paper form South China University of Technology on the origin of covid-19 virus, which concludes that the virus most likely came from a Wuhan laboratory?

Have you read the title of this thread?

 

[JPRouve]

The most interesting part for me was that there are no colonies of that type of bat within a few hundred km of Wuhan, and that they interviewed dozen of people who frequented the market and all of them said that they don't sell bats there.

Which leaves a few possibilities (I would say in order of likelihood, but just a hunch):

a) their analysis is wrong
b) bio-engineered or natural, but leaked from Wuhan lab which experiments with bats.
c) came from an intermediate species who was infected in nature from a bat.

Based on our past experiences with coronaviruses this is the one. As an example MERS-Cov came to humans from dromedaries but they were only an intermediary species which is generally required for the evolution of the virus from its original host to humans. So there is most likely one animal, exotic or not, that was infected by Covid-19 and infected someone from that point it's a simple interhuman contamination.