politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » COVID-19: It’s Not Your Fault

The most seductive words in the English language are it’s not your fault.
0
This discussion has been closed.
The most seductive words in the English language are it’s not your fault.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Starcourse/status/1257277717944426497?s=20
https://twitter.com/Starcourse/status/1257278835873251331?s=20
https://twitter.com/Starcourse/status/1257278392354975746?s=20
Lock these bellends up and transport them to the Pitcairn Islands.
(FPT) True.
But this appears to have been a worldwide problem dating back to the first SARS outbreak. And note that, unlike others deadly pathogens such as smallpox, SARS, and as late as March this year, SARS CoV-2, were permitted to be handled in much lower biosecurity level labs than the one at Wuhan - BSL2 rather than BSL4.
Laboratory safety aspects of SARS at Biosafety Level 2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15098644
Laboratory Biosafety Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
https://www.labconco.com/articles/laboratory-biosafety-recommendations-for-sars-co
Rapid adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 in BALB/c mice: Novel mouse model for vaccine efficacy
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.073411v1
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threatens global public health and economy. In order to develop safe and effective vaccines, suitable animal models must be established. Here we report the rapid adaption of SARS-CoV-2 in BALB/c mice, based on which a convenient, economical and effective animal model was developed. Specifically, we found that mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 at passage 6 (MACSp6) efficiently infected both aged and young wild-type BALB/c mice, resulting in moderate pneumonia as well as inflammatory responses. The elevated infectivity of MACSp6 in mice could be attributed to the substitution of a key residue (N501Y) in the receptor-binding domain (RBD). Using this novel animal model, we further evaluated the in vivo protective efficacy of an RBD-based SARS-CoV-2 subunit vaccine, which elicited highly potent neutralizing antibodies and conferred full protection against SARS-CoV-2 MACSp6 challenge. This novel mouse model is convenient and effective in evaluating the in vivo protective efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine....
It's a little more than just that - it's basically Trump's entire re-election strategy.
See:
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1257300183466962947/photo/1
I'm not saying both procedures in Chinese (and other labs) and the operation of wet markets aren't valid issues in the aftermath of this.
But it's also very obvious indeed that it's extremely helpful to those struggling with questions about their own response to up the rhetoric on this.
I still think it likeliest that this has gone from bats to pangolins via the faecal-oral route and some people like eating pangolins, like with SARS1 and palm civets, but I think other possibilities and other origins for the pa demic, if not the virus, need to be considered.
It means (If true) R(t) is falling. If there was a cluster of high r places (Hospital/care homes/normal homes) that have had the populations locally removed from the infection pool via local herd immunity, the local r drops so that might feed into a global r(t) drop.
If the transmission rate is 1.2 per infected person (say) you'd get exponential growth. If it's 0.8 you don't get exponential decay. Indeed you don't get linear decay - you get logarithmic decay.
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
While I`d say this gives government considerable scope when it looks to unwind lockdown at the end of the week, I think it will go very slowly and cautiously. Minor changes to come, I`d suggest.
https://www.carnivalcorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/carnival-cruise-line-announces-plan-phase-service
Of all the cognitive biases, the attribution bias is my favorite. If you mess up, it's your fault. If I mess up, it's because circumstances.
usual caveats about last few days of data etc. Still surprisingly linear.
Spreadsheet at
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZIQAac0pm-Ihgw8wS45zfnAtjrJHJGS_
Is this true? It's not as though much of the world economy hasn't been shutdown anyway. If China wanted to hurt the West, this seems quite a good way to go about it.
I highly doubt China would actually want to do that, but I don't think Robert's logic here is sound.
I had a discussion about this a decade ago with a work colleague. I said I did feel exactly the way Robert describes, everything ultimately is my fault, If I ask someone to do something and they do it badly, I should have asked someone better suited to it... they couldn’t see it - obviously I hadn’t explained it well enough!
Why aren’t I one of the most successful people Robert doesn’t really know?!
"Well, this will not end well"
Is covering the NHS app this afternoon on his header (as well as other virus stuff).
Good questions being asked about a 'honeypot' centralised database vs Apple/Google.
Toby questions whether it will even work.
Before CV, China were winning on a global stage without having to start any new wars. They have evolved from just a place for the West to make cheap crap to now a place the West relies on for so many things.
In recent years, Chinese companies have been heavily investing in Western companies and also own a lot of the West debt.
Totally torpedoing the Wests economy seems massively counter-productive.
They didn't need to do anything, another 10-15 years of the rate of progress and they would easily be the worlds super power.
Now, I think we are going to see a big shake up in some sectors, where governments are going to mandate that industries cannot be beholden to China factory output.
I thought everyone knew. Just shows the difference between the politically engaged and Joe public I think.
1. Is it a weapon for use on the battlefield against enemy troops within a logical military dogma?
2. Is it a weapon of territorial denial (e.g. by contaminating logistics hubs)
3. Is it a weapon of assassination? (Georgi Markov)
4. Is it a weapon of mass disruption/terror? (think Amerithrax letters)
5. Is it a doomsday weapon?
6. Is it a psychological weapon? (e.g. Saddam Hussein - we don't need it, we just need others to think we might).
7. Is it a weapon of economic attrition? (e.g. Saddam's hunt for weapons to take out Iran's crops)
Personally, I'd agree with Robert that COVID is useless in all categories because, while it might seem to do the job in some of those categories, China had no defence for it itself and had no way of knowing ahead of time whether or not it would differentially affect countries.
Robert Dingwall, from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said the rule was 'conjured up out of nowhere'.
The sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University said scientific evidence supports a one-metre gap, but the two-metre advice was a 'rule of thumb'."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8256109/Social-distancing-two-metres-apart-based-figure-says-government-adviser.html
Owen Jones, on the other hand, was an actual cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - a man described by one of his own MPs as a "racist antisemite". If Jones had his way, that same Jeremy Corbyn would be in Number Ten right now.
Twitter can be annoying, infuriating and sometimes plain pointless. But sometimes it can reveal truths. And in one stupid tweet last night, Owen Jones confirmed a truth about himself and his fellow hard left travellers: that their true ideology is hypocrisy.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/one-stupid-tweet-by-owen-jones-confirms-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-hard-left-1.499433
And even then the science is far from settled. It really depends on small droplet vs large droplet transmission. If it is one, 2m isn't anywhere near enough. Basically anybody in an enclosed environment is in danger.
In December 2019, cases of pneumonia associated with an unknown coronavirus were reported to health authorities in Wuhan. The Institute checked its coronavirus collection and found the new virus was 96 percent identical to a sample its researchers had taken from horseshoe bats in southwest China.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
So the lab escape theory really requires no extra assumptions at all, or at least not the ones proposed in the header. We know for certain that the lab was investigating, and had a collection of, bat-borne CV. Nor does the theory require a bat to escape: it might have done, or a researcher might have smuggled one out to eat or to sell, but it's much more likely a researcher was unknowingly infected in the lab and took the virus home when s/he left for the night.
We have two bat/human interfaces, market and lab. Arguments for market: more people, no biosecurity. Arguments for lab: large, dedicated collection of bat viruses. As for raw numbers of bats, who knows? Argument against lab: biosecurity. Counter argument to that: Chinese biosecurity is shit and was known to be shit years ago: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1255805/coronavirus-wuhan-biosafety-lab-china-monkeys-sars-disease-virus-spt
So it is unknowable. What would help is some numbers: how many live bats turned over per day in wet market, how many of those bats harbour coronavirus, vs how many people potentially exp[osed to how many CVs in lab. I don't even know, for instance, whether when you get a bat in a virology lab you harvest its viruses and knock it on the head, or keep it in a cage.
Given the state of our knowledge I'd say it was 50/50 pending being given some numbers.
We should stop conflating "lab escape" with "deliberately engineered" which is an insane idea.
Does anyone want to break the news to him?
That`s in terms of numbers. If you talk in percentages they believe you even less. Maths ignorance and believing what they read in the media, I think. The government have got a heck of a job in persuading people to go back to work. That over 99% survive the virus just isn`t appreciated by many out there - doesn`t sound as scary as "900 people died today".
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1257050566817185792
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8284129/Jeremy-Corbyns-brother-73-leads-anti-lockdown-protest-Covid-19-conspiracy-theory.html
David Icke has been on the phone complaining that this guy is making him look too sane for his USP to enable him to flog his books.
https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1257285910883958785?s=20
Given how contagious this disease is and how quickly it spreads and how quickly it can lead to a spike in deaths and hospital admissions then if this was here back in November then even if we didn't realise that is why people were sick why didn't we a spike in hospital admissions? Why didn't we see a spike in deaths? Why did early testing have over 95% test negative for so long? Why did we only see a spike in deaths a couple of weeks ago when the outbreak was known to happen?
The idea that it was here in November but people weren't dying from it until March just seems illogical. Why were death rates unmoved from average (or ever down from average) over the whole winter until March?
I'm no virologist and don't claim to be but I can read statistics and that just makes zero sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO3Gcb6Nyw4