Is that the sweet spot? Am just 2 weeks out, so let's see!
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Younger blokes will mostly go back to barbers, although not all, but the number of older fellas going will plummet. Why drive or walk to the barbers and sit waiting your turn to pay £8, or more in the south, when the missus can do it in five minutes flat? A lot of blokes have learned to do their own of course.
Yeah, that all makes sense.
Is that what you’re seeing geographically? Recent case numbers driven by regions which don’t have the sort of stringent lockdowns you mentioned above?
They are already getting into abusing the extra power...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...lice-apologise-over-threat-to-make-up-offence
I caved in after five weeks and ended up shaving it all off, what started off as a three all over ending up being a zero.
The whole country is locked down to the same extent in theory. The difference is in how seriously the residents take the restrictions. The North was hit hard and i think it's possible by now to say nobody is more than 2 degrees of separation from a death. Here within a few days everybody was following the rules. In the South even now there are stories of parties in apartment blocks and things like that.
Cases in the North have been declining since March but there are some regions in the South that haven't really seen any improvement at all, but it's orders of magnitude less. A bad day there is to report 100 cases, whereas a good day in Lombardy right now would be to go under 1,000.
The number of coronavirus-related deaths in the US has now surpassed 41,000, according to Johns Hopkins.
I just drove by a golf course in CT and my mind remains blown that the parking lot was packed to the brim, with people on the green, golfing
I believe the chap is being factitious at how late the first guy posted it, bearing in mind there's been a million posts about it on this thread alone
I've never had anything fancy, but the idea of some shave your own head situation, even grade 4, which must be the least severe, is too much for me!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I cannot make a blanket statement for Europe, but that was certainly what happened in Portugal, and most likely the vast majority of Europe.
To me, doctors are to blame, they're the main culprits. Only a subset of them of course (mostly Public Health specialists, but not only), and a few other related categories of professionals.
Last edited:
Can't this feckers decide on a strategy?
Sweden's numbers are shocking when you take in to account how few people live in it compared to the density of the UK. If anything it's evidence that they should've had a lock down, surely?
kpk
That beach is massive. The Florida mention in the headline threw me.
Video on youtube with a renowned French virologist claiming Sars cov 2 was man made?
To be fair (shudder) i don't think it'll be a change of strategy but they'll want to wrap the opening back up around a strategy they'd like to sell as a working one.
The UK could not have initially done what Sweden did as i don't think we'd have been as responsible, especially with bars open. Opening up from this a stricter position seems to me a lot more controlled as societal preparations have now been made.
Let's open up gradually and we'll be able to see if behaviour has adapted to not need full enforcement.
It just seems like a non-story to me. I’d be worried if we weren’t monitoring what other countries are doing
Nobody can do what Sweden did without a much higher mortality (which is pretty high to begin with). Because nobody has 50% of their population living in single person accommodation.
It’s the 1000 cases new a day in Lombardy that has me curious. In a region under total, very strict, lockdown. Could that realistically all still be spread within households? Or is something else going on?
This is truly crazy. And their president is encouraging them.
Comments closed on yt. More dislikes than likes.
I really thought the battle against racism and xenophobia was almost won in britain in the 90s and 00s. How wrong I was.
Link? I saw he is the co discover of HIV, and a Nobel laureate. But just found bits and pieces in different videos.
It’s crazy. The rise of Trump and the Brexit crew has enabled them to crawl out from under their rocks.
You have to understand, it's very difficult to have a strategy when you're winging it.
"Let us back into the tarantula enclosure!" Demand peasants covered in tarantula luring jam.
"We must give the people what they want" says the man who sells tickets to the 'Watch peasants being eaten by horny tarantulas' show.
Thanks Wibbs. I'm not inclined to believe this is man made but are you able to help me better understand his argument?
I don't find his first point about Yunnan compelling, maybe I'm misunderstanding it or it's worded badly but viruses and animals, especially ones that fly aren't known for their respect of political geography. If it's due to things like different ecosystems between the provinces I'd understand but these two places aren't that far away from each other.
The second point I'm just not knowledgeable enough. 20 - 50 years sounds like a long timeline but couldn't this be accelerated in a lab setting? How many generations of evolution does this represent for a coronavirus (that might be a better quantification for me)?
That means nothing (comments, like to dislike ratio).
All you need to have to soil a video in that way is an interested party with a sufficient number of time/access to companies that will spam downvote a video.
For what its worth, the majority of children's videos on yt have a negative like to dislike rate and didabled comments.
I'd have to read it again but I think the point is that the virus in the lab can't be the source of Covid-19 because SARS-Cov-2 has taken 20-50 years of evolution to be in its current form. The virus held in the lab is the original virus RaTG13 so it can't have been an accidental release. The conspiracy theory that the lab were genetically engineering the virus also doesn't hold water as you couldn't possibly replicate 20-50 years of gradual evolution in a lab - it would look very different if engineered. Not that there is anyone not wearing (or listening to someone who is wearing) a tin foil hat who thinks this is what happened.
It is virtually certain that RaTG13 or a closely related virus passed from bats to another host and that the virus then jumped to humans from that host. Some evolution of the virus could have occurred in bats that were isolated from the original bat population that still has RaTG13 and then presumably further evolution occurred once the intermediate host was infected, but we will need to find the intermediate host to know this. Pangolins are the best guess at the moment but we just don't know what the intermediate host is yet. The chances are that we will eventually find an animal with a viruses very close to SARS-CoV-2.
Last edited:
Link also here : https://mega.nz/file/rxs3CaJJ#8wth6thR2bmsu9HwOdAz82F4Z6n8l2d3hyG-fAKJBwE
Minutes of New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) 21 Feb: Corona threat "moderate"
minute 2.4 on page 5:
PH asked the committee if anyone thought that the PHE risk assessment should change. No objections were raised however after the meeting, JE emailed to say that he was online but for some technical reason could not be heard. JE believes that the risk to the UK population (in the PHE risk assessment) should be high, as there is evidence of ongoing transmission in Korea, Japan and Singapore, as well as in China.
Cheers. Reading the minutes it seems like a failing of the risk level scale. NERVTAG's analysis of the situation looks relatively accurate, but
"Some members commented that there may be sustained transmission outside of Mainland China. Others commented that there is plenty of scope for escalation in the UK and this would be an argument to keep the assessment as moderate rather than high at this time."
The current level is "high" which suggests they only had one more card to play at the time (moderate to high). My interpretation is that they believed moving to high at the point would stymie them for further escalation, rather than it being an unfair reflection. It's frustrating that this single and low-precision recommendation seems to have trumped all of the underlying information. I'm sure it was being communicated, but not driven home to laymen.
Last edited:
To be fair, plenty of ethnic minorities spent the 90's and 00's screaming about how racism was alive and well but nobody believed us. It's only through the connectivity of the internet that we've been afforded the opportunity to collate and present evidence. Basically these sentiments were always there, the internet has just turned the volume up for both sides.
Why don't they drive to DC and ask their Lord Leader to set them all free from the clutches of this evil State Governors. And they also can shake the hands of the Lord Leader to prove to the world that this is all a hoax.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
A small caveat is that I work with bacteria not viruses, but I think the same principles apply.
The way we do genetic changes is to target a particuar region of the genome and replace it. This could be an entire gene or a single letter at one position. Natural selection does not work like that.
During normal propogation of any species, there are random changes at random positions throughout the genome. Most of them don't stick - some are harmful, others have no fitness effect but simply disappear during random sampling to form the next generation. For this, imagine if a virus with some mutations that have no effect on its activity infected someone living totally alone. After that person fully recovers or dies that strain of the virus never gets a chance to spread, and that particular mutational strain vanishes. The same vanishing can happen for many many reasons.
Some of the mutations do stick - again, due to random sampling to form the next generation (say, a particular strain happens to infect a super-spreader), these become widespread. The rarest of mutations involve those that do impact the function of the virus in a positive way. This beneficial mutation at that same spot coud possibly be generated artificially in a lab studying the virus.
But because in natural evolution there are mutations everywhere compared to what you started with, this final extra-virulent virus will not resemble a lab strain, which will have only the mutation under study. In fact, if we study a particular mutation and accidentally create more mutations elsewhere, the study becomes invalid since we can't say for sure which mutation is doing what.
Because we know the background rate of mutations per generation and we know roughly how many generations per year, we have a rough estimate of how much the total number of mutations should be. That's how that professor was able to give an estimate of 50 years.
I hope this makes sense!
A small caveat is that I work with bacteria not viruses, but I think the same principles apply.
The way we do genetic changes is to target a particuar region of the genome and replace it. This could be an entire gene or a single letter at one position. Natural selection does not work like that.
During normal propogation of any species, there are random changes at random positions throughout the genome. Most of them don't stick - some are harmful, others have no fitness effect but simply disappear during random sampling to form the next generation. For this, imagine if a virus with some mutations that have no effect on its activity infected someone living totally alone. After that person fully recovers or dies that strain of the virus never gets a chance to spread, and that particular mutational strain vanishes. The same vanishing can happen for many many reasons.
Some of the mutations do stick - again, due to random sampling to form the next generation (say, a particular strain happens to infect a super-spreader), these become widespread. The rarest of mutations involve those that do impact the function of the virus in a positive way. This beneficial mutation at that same spot coud possibly be generated artificially in a lab studying the virus.
But because in natural evolution there are mutations everywhere compared to what you started with, this final extra-virulent virus will not resemble a lab strain, which will have only the mutation under study. In fact, if we study a particular mutation and accidentally create more mutations elsewhere, the study becomes invalid since we can't say for sure which mutation is doing what.
Because we know the background rate of mutations per generation and we know roughly how many generations per year, we have a rough estimate of how much the total number of mutations should be. That's how that professor was able to give an estimate of 50 years.
I hope this makes sense!
Last edited: