Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 63 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I find it strange that America is one of the first countries to develop an anti-body test for COVID19, yet took forever to find a testing kit for infected COVID19 patients.
This is only partially true. Abbott Laboratories has the most promising technology and techniques so far, were you can get,screening,testing and results in @35 minutes,with the test results being issued in @5-10 minutes. This test,or any other test including the @55,000 tests received from a Korean exchange are available. The promise of wide spread testing,conventional or the ever popular drive thru testing are extremely rare. 2 clinics so far in San Diego have been closed for lack of accreditation. I have seen a few stories about fake tests services popping up,but with the country in a state of hypervigilance. If you know anything about the U.S.as a whole,getting caught running a fake testing lab using uniforms from an automobile body shop supply and a pop up awning from Wal-Mart could get you killed.
I found this informative.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VK0Wtjh3HVA
 
Preprint article about antibody prevalence in Santa Clara. Came out to nearly 3%, but one big caveat that I could tell right away.

Other biases, such as bias favoring individuals in good health capable of attending our testing sites, or bias favoring those with prior COVID-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation are also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
 
So much misinformation in 1 post, can people actually do some proper research before spewing the same anti-China propaganda bs with zero facts to back up their claims. And you quote Tom Cotton of all people, LOL that’s like quoting the KKK on their views on black people. Regarding the made in a lab theory: A recent paper published in the leading journal Nature (link already posted above) detailed the ways in which the virus behind COVID-19 did not originate from “laboratory manipulation.” Not only is the way that the actual virus attaches quite different from the way that might be expected of a human-designed pathogen, it also has none of the fingerprints that would almost certainly remain after manipulation with any known laboratory tool. Instead, researchers concluded that the virus was generated either entirely inside an animal host before making the leap to humans, or that it made the leap to humans first, then evolved to become more effective at human-to-human transmission. The conclusion was that they could definitely show was that it was not generated in a lab.

But if you insist on going down that route, then explain why Fort Detrick military bio-weapons lab in Maryland was shutdown for safety violations in August 2019, due to numerous cases of leaks of research pathogens, and thefts of vials of unknown origins. The exact details are unknown because the CDC says it can’t release details because of quote: “national security reasons”. So much for transparency. Then in early October 2019, the flu tracker from the CDC showed a level 5 (highest) alert, and Maryland is the first state in the US with widespread flu activity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/germs-fort-detrick-biohazard.html
Miraculously, in December 2019, Fort Detrick partially reopens even after a federal inspection found two failures in containing unnamed germs or toxins.
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/07/the-army-quietly-re-opens-its-infamous-germ-warfare-lab_partner/
So yeah if you want to go continue to go down that route, I can too.

Regarding missing scientists/reporters? Where are your links and facts to back up your claims? If you mean Dr. Li, he died in a hospital after battling the coronavirus for 2 weeks. If you mean Dr. Ai Fen or Dr. Zhang, they are alive and well and still posting on Twitter/Weibo. View: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245740981195956224

If you mean the NYT/WSJ journalists, they were kicked out of China as retribution.

Regarding not allowing foreign teams into China to investigate, why did you conveniently leave out this: On January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan. Because why would you invite back the CDC when the White House had already disbanded a pandemic health unit as well as removed on purpose a CDC post based in China for monitoring epidemics for these exact purposes.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

Seriously some people are so sure they know just how bad China are and how China are wrong about everything. They have that supreme confidence in their knowledge but they have no facts just speculation, and yet anyone who can do some independent research and critical thinking for themselves can see that these people just can't think for themselves after years of being bombarded with the same anti-China rhetoric from MSM disinformation outlets.
FFS, what's with your contemptuous attitude? If you go back and look at my initial posts on this there's nothing I posted about the virus being bioengineered - the info I posted is there's growing suspicion that the bat virus being researched at the Wuhan lab was accidentally released. And the Chinese government isn't cooperating with the U.S. in this investigation and you know it!



Here's some of Steve Mosher's research (who, BTW, was on FOX NEWS the other night discussing this very issue):


How about safety concerns with the Wuhan lab back in 2018? Hmmm...


The two citizen-journalists missing:


Like I said before, my initial posts had nothing to do with a bioengineered pathogen. However, last night on a national talk radio program, Dr. Peter Breggin, said that this virus is somewhat similar to a SARS-Coronavirus that was "laboratory-manipulated" in a joint research project between U.S. & Chinese (Wuhan lab) scientists back in 2015. He references a paper on it that was published in Nature Medicine:

View: https://youtu.be/Y4E90SCSqS0




Now if you're going to go ballistic on Dr. Breggin's research & theory, then why don't you contact and chastise him? I watched his video, read the info on his website and read the study, and found it thought-provoking & intriguing. Now, if you want to act like a discussion forum-tough guy and chastise me for reading & considering opposing views on the origin of the virus, lack of cooperation & misinformation by the Chinese government, etc. -- then fine; but don't expect me to take your imperious attitude lying down! :mad:

And your remark about Sen. Cotton is total BS - that's Pelosi-type crap and you know it!
 
Last edited:
I would put more stock in what Dr. Breggin said, but he is a psychiatrist.

OTOH, Ralph Baric is one of the biggest luminaries in virology, so this really shows how mainstream that lab in Wuhan was. The type of genetic manipulation that they talk about in the paper is something that can be ascertained by sequencing. As I have mentioned, there is no evidence that COVID-19 is anything but natural.

Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.
LOL.
WHO COULD'VE EVER FORESEEN THIS PANDEMIC?!?!?
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
452
1,230
Maybe this will help with adding some perspective...

Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

"If the deaths are at 66 and the true infected population is 48K then the fatality rate is .14% !! If the range is at the upper end and 81K people were infected then the fatality rate is not even .1% " @justin_hart
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will help with adding some perspective...

Results The unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5% (exact binomial 95CI 1.11-1.97%), and the population-weighted prevalence was 2.81% (95CI 2.24-3.37%). Under the three scenarios for test performance characteristics, the population prevalence of COVID-19 in Santa Clara ranged from 2.49% (95CI 1.80-3.17%) to 4.16% (2.58-5.70%). These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50-85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases. Conclusions The population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection is much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. Population prevalence estimates can now be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

"If the deaths are at 66 and the true infected population is 48K then the fatality rate is .14% !! If the range is at the upper end and 81K people were infected then the fatality rate is not even .1% " @justin_hart
Sounds familiar.
Preprint article about antibody prevalence in Santa Clara. Came out to nearly 3%, but one big caveat that I could tell right away.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
0.1 x 60% x population of the country ---> still not great.

Still think the estimate from Germany is a better number just based on sampling issues.
 
"If the deaths are at 66 and the true infected population is 48K then the fatality rate is .14% !! If the range is at the upper end and 81K people were infected then the fatality rate is not even .1% " @justin_hart
John Hopkins University reports 0.11% Corona deaths in relation to the whole population (not only infected people; every citizen!) in San Marino and 0.08% Corona deaths in relation to the whole population in New York. It seems impossible that the death rate is around 0.1%! At least in these areas.
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and tip-toeing on forbidden topics:

People who are not willing to sacrifice for the good of the all are just selfish...really its that simple. In a traditional war soldiers make sacrifices, but in this war we all need to make sacrifices yet that's too much for some people.

Today we have leaders bashing (select) other leaders, leaders encouraging people to protest, leaders setting bad examples...irresponsible and selfish.

Most of the self centered, poor me, drama reminds me of rebellious 13 year olds.

So maybe its immature, irresponsible, selfishness that is fueling peoples' actions.

Ya see this is what happens when I can't go to the Y or the bar to solve the problems of the world!
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and tip-toeing on forbidden topics:

People who are not willing to sacrifice for the good of the all are just selfish...really its that simple. In a traditional war soldiers make sacrifices, but in this war we all need to make sacrifices yet that's too much for some people.

Today we have leaders bashing (select) other leaders, leaders encouraging people to protest, leaders setting bad examples...irresponsible and selfish.

Most of the self centered, poor me, drama reminds me of rebellious 13 year olds.

So maybe its immature, irresponsible, selfishness that is fueling peoples' actions.

Ya see this is what happens when I can't go to the Y or the bar to solve the problems of the world!

It is an ethical dilemma. The Great Depression wasn't fun either. It ended with WWII and the deaths of 61 Million people. It really isn't helpful accusing people of being self centered or selfish because they want to feed and house themselves. All you need to do is recognise the other point of view. I recognise it is an ethical dilemma. Which it absolutely is. How can restrictions be eased so economies recover without risking lives from COVID-19? There is a human cost to economic ruin and you should recognise that. This human cost is potentially far more widespread than any human cost of COVID-19 based upon what we know of the virility of the virus itself. I agree people as individuals need to show responsibility to others through social distancing and basic measures such as hand washing, wearing plastic gloves or face masks in public and maintaining social distancing. But the economy makes the world go around.
 
Imagining what the 'opening' will be like:

I'm thinking of my five favorite restaurants, and my favorite bar (two of the restaurants also brew their own beer so they are bars to me as well):
How does it look? Three are small, one is medium, one is largish, but the bar is tiny. Can they 'open for business' using only half of their tables? Is that even profitable? Obviously I don't know what their finances look like, but I can't see the bar making it. I can see two of the small ones, and the medium one making it, but the other small one and the large one...I don't know. It certainly depends on their finances, but if they can't at least break even its not worth opening is it?
 
I don't think there will be much issue about crowds wherever you want to go. Just a feeling.

The way we should think about it in the USA is that we are doing the herd immunity strategy without saying we are doing the herd immunity strategy. The new guidelines make that relatively clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaco
[/QUOTE]
I don't think there will be much issue about crowds wherever you want to go. Just a feeling.

The way we should think about it in the USA is that we are doing the herd immunity strategy without saying we are doing the herd immunity strategy. The new guidelines make that relatively clear.
I agree, many people will still be cautious about doing things in a public setting. What I was getting at though is IF the 'rules' are that we must be 6 feet apart, that means that many establishments will only have about half of their capacity so can they stay afloat for six months/year that way? A friend of mine who is a chef said that for 25 years he has encouraged people to enjoy the people, food, beverage, ambiance of the experience, but their reopening plan includes limiting time so that they can fill half of their tables twice as often, hopefully coming out pretty close to the same number of customers...if they come.
 

I agree, many people will still be cautious about doing things in a public setting. What I was getting at though is IF the 'rules' are that we must be 6 feet apart, that means that many establishments will only have about half of their capacity so can they stay afloat for six months/year that way? A friend of mine who is a chef said that for 25 years he has encouraged people to enjoy the people, food, beverage, ambiance of the experience, but their reopening plan includes limiting time so that they can fill half of their tables twice as often, hopefully coming out pretty close to the same number of customers...if they come.
[/QUOTE]


I've seen several Governors saying that once we start to reopen it will be slowly with continued restrictions and for the restaurants that will include the remove of tables to include social distancing rules. Also suspect places like hair salons won't be reopening anytime soon. We actually picked up food at a local pizza and sandwich place today. The owner was there and I did ask how they were doing. He said they are making enough to pay all the bills and keep all staff working. He said that because about half their normal business is take out it helps. He told me that if they can break even until the restrictions are loosened just a little that is a win for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
you are not accurately portraying what the paper is presenting. I think they listed scenario 1 first for a reason. That involves a jump from bat to intermediate species to humans.

Scenario 1: Intermediate host = Probable
Scenario 2: Human evolution = Possible
Scenario 3: Cell Culture = Nope

Well, that’s not the way I interpreted scenario 1.

Although no animal coronavirus has been identified that is sufficiently similar to have served as the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2, the diversity of coronaviruses in bats and other species is massively undersampled. Mutations, insertions and deletions can occur near the S1–S2 junction of coronaviruses22, which shows that the polybasic cleavage site can arise by a natural evolutionary process. For a precursor virus to acquire both the polybasic cleavage site and mutations in the spike protein suitable for binding to human ACE2, an animal host would probably have to have a high population density (to allow natural selection to proceed efficiently) and an ACE2-encoding gene that is similar to the human ortholog.

I took that to mean that bats, at least, in high population density could enable this selection. Some bats have an ACE2 sequence that suggests interaction at least with SARS-CoV:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20567988

You seem to believe they are talking about some other species entirely. But they never suggest any species. It would have to be something sold in the wet market. Given that criterion, the high population density (which suggests a relatively small size), and the need for high homology with hACE2, one would think one could narrow it down considerably, but they make no attempt to do so. They throw out this possibility without ever addressing the fact of whether there is actually any species that fulfills all these criteria. If you're going to conclude that another species was more likely than bats, one would think one would suggest what this species is.

To be fair, other authors have suggested possible intermediate species, based on ACE2 homology. These include civets, pigs, ferrets, cats, and some non-human primates. I don't know if any of these animals, other than pigs, are sold in the wet market, and I would think only domestic pigs would have the requisite high population density (swine flu 2?).

https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/7/e00127-20

With regard to the Santa Clara county Ab screening, if I understand the data correctly, they found about 50 people positive for the Ab. That explains why the range is so large. In addition to Baltimore's point about how there may have been a bias for people who either had experienced symptoms, or knew that had been in close contact with others who were, I also wonder about the false positive correction. They say it was based on the manufacturer's data, as well as on 30 Stanford samples, but don't go into details, at least not in what I've seen. A high false positive rate coupled with a relatively small number of total positives could obviously potentially skew the results badly.

Still think the estimate from Germany is a better number just based on sampling issues.

Plus the Diamond Princess, Iceland, Vo in Italy, a Chinese study, and Belgium, all of which have estimates of asymptomatics in the range of 50-80%.

ohn Hopkins University reports 0.11% Corona deaths in relation to the whole population (not only infected people; every citizen!)

Actually, it's 0.011%.

Thanks for sending me that report on the Belgian study. I found it very interesting that < 50% of the symptomatic people were positive. I guess they had some other flu?
 
Last edited:
Jul 15, 2016
29
52
2,680
FFS, what's with your contemptuous attitude? If you go back and look at my initial posts on this there's nothing I posted about the virus being bioengineered - the info I posted is there's growing suspicion that the bat virus being researched at the Wuhan lab was accidentally released. And the Chinese government isn't cooperating with the U.S. in this investigation and you know it!

Except they have been cooperating with the World Health Organization ever since the outbreak was detected. Read page 31 of this document, and don't tell me bs like they should actually cooperate with the government of a foreign country rather than the organization that is actually in charge of outbreaks like this.
January 3rd, 2020, information on COVID-19 cases has been reported to WHO on a daily basis.
January 7th, full genome sequences of the new virus were shared with WHO and the international community immediately after the pathogen was identified.
January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-so...na-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf


The two citizen-journalists missing:


This is a joke right? You're quoting the National review, which has zero credibility and one of the most biased anti-China outlets that has been proven time and time again to twist facts and outright lie. If you actually did some research you'd know that the "journalist" in question Li Zehua was arrested for breaking a quarantine law forbidding entry in and out of Wuhan since it was in lockdown. Actually, at the time he had quit his job so had ZERO journalist credentials, so breaking into quarantine was breaking the law pure and simple. To top it off, he then snuck to a P4 biolab and took pictures and tried to gain entry, and was later detained and put under house arrest on Feb 28th. Here's the source from Radio Free Asia which is actually quite critical of China.

But I guess the national review thought making an article about "man breaks the law, is arrested" wouldn't be as sensationalistic, so they made up the story about how the evil CCP is "disappearing innocent journalists". Just Imagine if Maryland was put under strict quarantine laws prohibiting entry, and a civilian who had already lost his journalistic credentials not only snuck in, but went to Fort Detrick biolab to try gain entry and take pictures. Would he not be arrested?

You want proof the National review is a propaganda outlet that makes up stories based on pure lies and misinformation? Take a look at this timeline under the date December 6, where they state: "According to a study in The Lancet, the symptom onset date of the first patient was Dec 1, 2019... 5 days after the illness onset, his wife, a 53-year old woman who had no known history of exposure to the market, also presented with pneumonia and was hospitalized in the isolation ward." In other words, as early as the second week of December, Wuhan doctors were finding cases that indicated the virus was spreading from one human to another."

Great, they've nailed it right? They must've known by Dec 6th that human-to-human transmission was possible right? But look at where they conveniently put the ... after Dec 1, 2019. If you actually took time to read the Lancet article in question, the sentences the National review for some reason omitted on purpose by using the ... , which says: "The first fatal case, who had continuous exposure to the market, was admitted to hospital because of a 7-day history of fever, cough, and dyspnoea. 5 days after illness onset, HIS wife, a 53-year old woman etc.". So the 53-year old woman who got sick was actually not the wife of the patient on December 1, but rather the wife of the first fatal case. And when was the first fatal case? Dec 1st 2019? No it was January 10th 2020, so what the National review calling the first case Dec 6th was actually more than a month later. This is pure blatant lie and disinformation.


Like I said before, my initial posts had nothing to do with a bioengineered pathogen. However, last night on a national talk radio program, Dr. Peter Breggin, said that this virus is somewhat similar to a SARS-Coronavirus that was "laboratory-manipulated" in a joint research project between U.S. & Chinese (Wuhan lab) scientists back in 2015. He references a paper on it that was published in Nature Medicine:

View: https://youtu.be/Y4E90SCSqS0



Now if you're going to go ballistic on Dr. Breggin's research & theory, then why don't you contact and chastise him? I watched his video, read the info on his website and read the study, and found it thought-provoking & intriguing. Now, if you want to act like a discussion forum-tough guy and chastise me for reading & considering opposing views on the origin of the virus, lack of cooperation & misinformation by the Chinese government, etc. -- then fine; but don't expect me to take your imperious attitude lying down! :mad:

Funny you mention the 2015 Nature Medicine paper, because in the methods footnote it says: ”Cells were originally obtained from Fort Detrick“, yes the same Fort Detrick that was closed in August 2019 for failure to contain escape of pathogens and missing vials of unknown origins. So are you saying the USA was responsible then?

And your remark about Sen. Cotton is total BS - that's Pelosi-type crap and you know it!

Do some research before you open your mouth again, if you continue to spread propaganda and misinformation then don't blame me for countering all your bs. Tom Cotton is probably one of the most hawkish neocons in the government, who makes Mike "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo look like Mother Teresa in comparison. The same person who wanted to arm numerous Asian countries with nuclear weapons to counter NK/China, accepted nothing short of warring and bombing Iran, urging regime change operations throughout the Middle east, Asia, and Eastern Europe, etc. And you want to defend Cotton and trust his opinion on matters regarding China?
 
Last edited:
Japan is not doing very well, these days. Their initial slow-growing curve seems to be due to very limited testing rather than actual measures.

(from The Guardian's live page)
Japan's emergency medical system pushed to the brink

Hospitals in Japan are increasingly turning away sick people as the country struggles with surging coronavirus infections and its emergency medical system collapses, Associated Press has reported.

In one recent case, an ambulance carrying a man with a fever and difficulty breathing was rejected by 80 hospitals and forced to search for hours for a hospital in downtown Tokyo that would treat him. Another feverish man finally reached a hospital after paramedics unsuccessfully contacted 40 clinics.

The Japanese Association for Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Emergency Medicine say many hospital emergency rooms are refusing to treat people including those suffering strokes, heart attacks and external injuries.
Japan initially seemed to have controlled the outbreak by going after clusters of infections in specific places, usually enclosed spaces such as clubs, gyms and meeting venues. But the spread of virus outpaced this approach and most new cases are untraceable.

Apart from a general unwillingness to embrace social distancing, experts fault government incompetence and a widespread shortage of the protective gear and equipment medical workers need to do their jobs.

Japan lacks enough hospital beds, medical workers or equipment. Forcing hospitalization of anyone with the virus, even those with mild symptoms, has left hospitals overcrowded and understaffed.
 
Actually, it's 0.011%.

Thanks for sending me that report on the Belgian study. I found it very interesting that < 50% of the symptomatic people were positive. I guess they had some other flu?
I was unsure, when I read your comment, but it is really 0.11%:
39/33344*100=0.117 (Hopkins University seem to have a slightly different population number)
So the death rate is at least 0.12% since this estimation assumes that today everyone is/was infected and nobody will die anymore. Both is highly unrealistic. So the true number will be much higher. Since 39 deaths is relatively low for a precise estimation one should also look at the New York numbers with a much larger sample size. There we have 0.09% at the moment, but the number is rising by 0.005% every day.

I also think they have some type of cold (flu season should be over now). I am not sure how many deaths they attributed to Corona in Belgium though it was a normal cold.
 
Singapore, once touted as an example, is also in trouble. Who knew that having a dozen or more semi-slave (sorry 'migrant') workers per room could lead to disease outbreaks?

Singapore has reported a record daily rise in the number of coronavirus cases, with 942 infections today.

It takes Covid-19 cases in the country – which has a population of 5.7 million – to 5,992. The country’s ministry of health said the vast majority of cases were work permit holders living in foreign worker dormitories.

It follows my colleague, Rebecca Ratcliffe, reporting yesterday that the country, praised for its gold standard approach to tracing coronavirus cases, is facing a surge in transmission linked to its cramped migrant workers’ dormitories, where thousands more infections are expected to emerge.

Officials have been accused of overlooking the dormitories, where between 12 and 20 men might share a single room.
 
Those numbers are off by a factor of ten. According to the Worldometer, there have been about 37,000 deaths in the U.S, so the numerator is 37, or 39 if you wish. The population of the U.S. is about 330 million, so the denominator should be 330,000, or 333,440. You have to divide the two numbers by the same factor, in this case 1000. The population is about four times 10,000 times higher than the number of deaths, not three x 10,000 as your formula has it.

The case rate in the U.S. is about 0.2%, so if the mortality rate of the total population were 0.1%, the mortality rate of cases would be 50%, which obviously is not correct. It's about 5%, or .01/0.2%.
There is a complete misunderstanding. I reported the numbers for San Marino and New York, not for the whole USA. In San Marino the Covid19 mortality is 0.12 % and for New York it is 0.09% in relation to every citizen in San Marino respectively every citizen in the state of New York. So basically if you pick 1000 random inhabitans 1 died because of the Corona-Virus. Obviously this is a lower bound for the mortality since not all are infected and many more will die.
 
Questions should be raised about the harshest lockdowns - for example in Spain. Children are made to suffer for minimal benefit to the elder population. Covid-19 is no threat to children, yet they are kept inside (against their will, obviously). I wonder if human rights apply here. It's amazing how sweeping the limitation of freedom is in some countries.

The article is false about Belgium, by the way. As far as I know, there's no restriction on the time children can spend outside here, only that they can mingle with other children. Still a problem in cities, of course.
 
Some of this is a bit dated and subject to revision but it gives a useful chronology to some of the ongoing debates


@MI, I saw a few credible articles suggesting human importation of the virus to the market as acquired via a pangolin/non-pangolin intermediary adaptation but that was 300 hours ago and I didn’t save them. Maybe they’ll come back around.
 

Chris Gadsden

BANNED
Oct 28, 2019
131
452
1,230
This kind of reasoning fails to take into account the possibility of better treatments or even a vaccine being discovered down the line. It might well mean accepting tens/hundreds of thousands of completely unnecessary deaths.

From the virus or economic ruin?

12 to 18 months from a vaccine. Possibly some therapeutics before then. Meanwhile 20 million Americans lost their employment in the last month. That just in the US.