Hospital bed set up in Wuhan. A disaster waiting to happen.IMO
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...-in-australia-the-different-diseases/11950358
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...-in-australia-the-different-diseases/11950358
Corona Virus 2019-nCoV
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
Do you not read the content you post on this site?
Or do you simply not understand what you post?
Well of course it makes no sense.
I was quoting your various claims in this thread. You know, the very ones you denied making.
Don't worry, your rantings and paranoid ravings make little sense to the rest of us either.
Or, you can stop trolling and post correct information instead of the various conspiracies and rantings that immediately pop into your head at any given time.
You know, like a normal person.
Now we know you are directly lying.
Here is the post Billvon referred to and quoted your quotation of an article while you ranted about airborne transmission, while clearly not understanding what that actually meant:
I highlighted the part he directly quoted your quotation from that post. Now, how do I know that is the post that Billvon referred to?
Because I can read.
Now, when you went for about a page or so about the risk of it being airborne, Billvon correctly noted your sudden turn-around, after your previous arguments and correctly linked what you had quoted and you had previously tried to troll as factual.. Your sudden turn-around, after the post from you, quoted and linked above:
So Billvon, as I just noted, questioned your sudden turn-around:
You then start to dig a bigger hole for yourself:
Billvon then quotes the words you posted from the article noting that they said it was airborne:
And to remind you, in case you again try to lie, this is the post that Billvon was quoting you:
Realising you have been caught out, you now start to flub and push desperation:
He was asking if you wished to retract your quoting that article while you ranted and raved about it being "airborne"..
So you not only trolled, you lied.
And you are still lying, as I addressed in my previous post to you.
Is that because you don't bother to read and understand what you posted?
You are openly contracting what you have presented as "proof" in this thread and then you stupidly try to deny doing it..
As Billvon correctly noted, you dug yourself into a hole, and when your lack of comprehension is pointed out to you, when your scaremongering conspiracy theorist laden drivel is challenged, instead of admitting you are wrong or do not understand the discussion, you double down and come out with absolute rubbish like this:
Billvon understands the difference between 'direct contact' and 'aerosol' transmission. He even quoted CDC report to show it to you.
You are, for some dumbarse reason, suggesting that meaning be changed because you do not understand what any of it means, so you want the 'context' to alter its meaning to match your rantings.
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
The Chinese figures are probably more accurate than Mandiant reports of Chinese hacking in the US.
Bells
Staff member
yes I just went back and tested it now... works fine...
I have screen shots of the error if you want...
Last edited:
And for our readers edification a screen shot of the CDC web page that deals with the virus transmission:
You will notice that there is no mention of airborne transmission. If it was the case just about every media outlet on the planet would be running it... and massive panic globally would probably be the outcome...
It would make the Spanish flu of 1918 insignificant compared. IMO
So perhaps Billvon could take another look at his ...uhm... translation of the CDC quote and attempt to relearn the difference between direct/contact transmission ( about 6 feet) and airborne transmission. ( > 6 feet)
Also the web site is about 4 days behind the WHO and John Hopkins University in updating it's situation reports.
Last edited:
Please don’t get so defensive. The context was understood. You stated that you were confident there was a rationale for the reaction to this outbreak... and now you complain that I provide one. No pleasing some people!
Just because two things result in the same outcome doesn’t make them similar in how they should be treated or controlled. If this is very much like an influenza virus but 20x mor deadly, multiply the deaths from influenza by 20.
If anything, all you’re actually saying is that my estimate was rather low - by a factor of 20 or so, by current estimates (although I wouldn’t be surprised to see the figure drop for this coronavirus).
I don’t think I said “just an influenza virus”, did I? I referred to regular influenza, sure. Do you see something wrong with the way we treat and deal with the regular influenza virus?
And an asteroid could wipe everyone out in the meantime. Just wondering as to the point you are trying to make, compared to reasonable estimates of the death toll if treated in the same manner as influenza.
Being serious is not a binary proposition. In general terms, the more deadly the virus, the more serious it is. Nothing to do with actual death toll. This coronavirus is more deadly than regular influenza, thus should be taken more seriously.
So should we treat it in the same manner as an Ebola outbreak in the same population?
Bells
Staff member
Psst..
YOU are the one who brought up "airborne" transmission:
Here is what Billvon said:
You then responded to that and again prattled on about it being airborne while questioning whether Billvon knew what the difference was between "direct/contact and aerosol transmission":
So stop lying.
You have repeated this lie so many times now, you ridiculous troll.
Billvon said those words to you already, yesterday. Here, I'll quote and link it again, because you are such a dishonest dumb hack, that it it bears repeating in the hope that it somehow or other sinks in:
And just so you are aware, coronavirus is also suspected to be a droplet transmission, as thus far suspected. They are saying 6 feet for close contact. Not droplet transmission from people coughing or sneezing. Now, it depends on how far droplets can travel, its survival time outside of the body, etc... Put it into some perspective, droplets from a sneeze can travel a long way. If the virus can stay alive in droplets outside of the body for more than say, 10 seconds as those droplets settle, then droplets from a sneeze can spread that virus a lot further.
This means that they are airborne for a short period of time, and can settle in the eyes, be inhaled, settle in mouth, etc.. Ebola has a similar transmission that may actually be even further reaching. Other forms of coronavirus, such as MERS, has a longer range and is sometimes classified as being airborne. If you want some more information about what it all means, here is a link you should peruse (that means read): https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-019-3707-y
So let me clear it up for you. Billvon was not wrong. At all.
You, on the other hand, brought up "airborne" without actually understanding what that entailed, then tangled yourself up in knots and dug a hole for yourself in the process and then tried to blame others for your own stupidity.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Does anyone have a realistic estimate of the death rate? The only figure I have seen is 2-3%, but I think that is based on the reported cases of illness.
It seems possible that some people (perhaps many) may be catching it, not noticing anything unusual and not reporting their infection. If so, the true chance of death from it may be a lot lower than 2-3%.
It seems possible that some people (perhaps many) may be catching it, not noticing anything unusual and not reporting their infection. If so, the true chance of death from it may be a lot lower than 2-3%.
?? Right. We are currently spending a lot more effort on this than on the flu, just because it is not yet understood as well as the flu.
And if it is 40x harder to spread, then you will see a much lower rate of infection - and a lower death rate. And in that case, if we neglect flu prophylaxis because CORONOAVIRUS! we will end up seeing more overall deaths.
EXACTLY! Should we therefore drop everything we are doing about both the flu and this new virus and concentrate everything we have on asteroid defenses? That would be a bad decision, because the known risks are likely going to cause a lot more damage than an unknown - but _potentially_ deadly - threat.
"Respiratory droplets" = "aerosol" = "airborne transmission." That's how TB spreads, too. TB is airborne. And the spread of TB is ameliorated via quarantine.
No need. Most people understand that about viruses. It would be like running a front page story on "SOME PEOPLE DIE OF THE FLU!"
Bells
Staff member
They cannot give a mortality rate without knowing what the rate of infection actually is.
And they won't be able to know that until after this epidemic ends.
Also, some people may have died at home and it wasn't reported to the authorities, just as there are probably thousands who have it, but their symptoms are not severe, so they are staying home and it hasn't been reported or documented, as you noted yourself.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
However I think we will get some idea of infection rate - and perhaps mortality - in those countries in in which the first arrival of the virus and its rate of spread can be monitored accurately.
It is interesting that there has been NO media reporting on how the infected passengers on that cruise ship in Yokohama are getting on. I assume from that that none of them have got into a serious condition so far, or I'm sure it would have been reported.
I have said otherwise?
Have I said otherwise?
Who is neglecting flu prophylaxis? Is any government suddenly reducing what it spends on combatting flu? Are people suddenly relaxing their current regime because a new virus is less infectious?
Again, have I said otherwise?
You seem to be raising a large number of strawmen here, so I'll leave you to debate amongst yourself.
Last edited:
The people (not you) who are mocking any comparison between these two viruses because CORONAVIRUS! Look at the pictures! Contagion! Death! Artificial designer virus on track for genocide! Comparing that to the flu is ridiculous!
I was responding to your post (in that discussion) where you said ". . . could result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dying around the world . . If it was left to spread as per a regular influenza virus, you might expect 400k deaths in the US alone... this year... possibly more . . . Ready to take it seriously yet?" To answer your post, 1) yes, people are taking it seriously, 2) it's not on track to kill more people than the flu in the US. (And flu kills about 40K a year in the US.)
Aren't most countries trying to quarantine cases, which will impact on the accuracy of such results, surely? I mean, if you have a single case, quarantine them, and noone else gets infected, do we claim the virus to not be infectious?
How long has it been since the first cases identified, and what is the typical time from infection to death? But with over 100 confirmed cases, I'd be surprised if there is no bad news somewhere down the line.