OT: More on the CoronaVirus

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:36:37 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:

…addthis.com
…ajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
…google-analytics.com
…googlesyndication.com
…googletagmanager.com
…pagefair.com
…pagefair.net
…pub.network
…quantserve.com
…realtimestatistics.net


Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...

And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?

John :-#(#

They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.


Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:

Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.

Sources:

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...

All of those references are links.


My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.

Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?

Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...

Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.

I think the current infection is around 100,000. Assumptions:
First 4 generations are uncontrolled grow with R0 of 4.
Currently in WH and SH is around 3.
Rest of China is between 2 and 3.
Rest of the world is around 2.

WuHan official data is not believable because they are overwhelmed.

12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 335872 671744 1343488
SH 98 294 882 2646 7938 23814 71442
BJ 113 226 452 904 1808 3616 7232
US 11 22 44 88 176

WH:WuHan SH:ShanHai BJ:Beijing US:USA

You can assume what you like.

There are bound to be more people infected than are reported, because an infection isn't reported until the patient is sick enough to go to the doctor and get tested for the virus.

Guesswork about how many of them there might be is just guesswork.

Claiming that Wuhan's official data is unreliable because they are overwhelmed rather ignores the enthusiasm with which the Chinese authorities moved in and built complete new hospitals.

The 3000 new beds are already included.

> There doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that thye are anything like overwhelmed

Sure, the gov, is not. But the hospitals are overwhelmed. People gave up going to the hospital already.

- 31,481 cases is a lot, but China a has about 1.38 billion people, and it's not a significant proportion of the total population.

It the numbers got up to Spanish Flu levels it might be a different story..

We will be there around end of the month. There will be enough hosts for mutations beyond G10.

 

> The numbers tie up with other reputable sources, which is what matters.

The reported number for WuHan also line up exactly with the estimated beds in hospital, around 20,000. They can't accept anymore and won't record any higher number. Even with very conservative R0 of 2.2 after G4, the number should reach 100,000 now. HK is high of 1.8 with influx of mainlander. SH and BJ is unusually low with 1.4.


G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
R0 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 2.2 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 369459 812809 1788179
SH 1.4 98 137 192 268 376 527 737
BJ 1.4 113 158 221 310 434 607 850
LS 1.7 521 885 1505 2559 4351
RS 1.7 566 962 1635 2780 4727
RE 1.7 391 664 1129 1920 3265
HK 1.8 17 30 55 99 178
US 1.5 11 16 24 37 55

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 7:39:52 AM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:

…addthis.com
…ajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
…google-analytics.com
…googlesyndication.com
…googletagmanager.com
…pagefair.com
…pagefair.net
…pub.network
…quantserve.com
…realtimestatistics.net


Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...

And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?

John :-#(#

They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.


Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:

Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.

Sources:

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...

All of those references are links.


My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.

It doesn't take long, and in fact google throws up the day to day numbers as soon as you include coronavirus in the search string.

Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?

In this case it is two numbers - total infections so far, and total deaths so far.

This isn't difficult to keep track of.

Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...

Probably because the world has a significant content of psychopathic nitwits.

Jim Thompson claimed to have reported me to the FBI for dangerously un-
American activities, and claimed (probably as some kind of joke in very poor taste) to be sending hitmen to my address in Nijmegen when it leaked out.

Avoiding the attentions of that kind of lunatic is prudent. It wasn't an issue back in 1996 (or whenever) when I started posting under my own name. It is now.

Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.

I do but they don't post the graphs that strike me as the most easily comprehensible way of seeing what's going on, even if they do validate the graphs I linked to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:36:37 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:

…addthis.com
…ajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
…google-analytics.com
…googlesyndication.com
…googletagmanager.com
…pagefair.com
…pagefair.net
…pub.network
…quantserve.com
…realtimestatistics.net


Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...

And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?

John :-#(#

They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.


Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:

Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.

Sources:

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...

All of those references are links.


My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.

Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?

Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...

Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.

I think the current infection is around 100,000. Assumptions:
First 4 generations are uncontrolled grow with R0 of 4.
Currently in WH and SH is around 3.
Rest of China is between 2 and 3.
Rest of the world is around 2.

WuHan official data is not believable because they are overwhelmed.

12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 335872 671744 1343488
SH 98 294 882 2646 7938 23814 71442
BJ 113 226 452 904 1808 3616 7232
US 11 22 44 88 176

WH:WuHan SH:ShanHai BJ:Beijing US:USA

You can assume what you like.

There are bound to be more people infected than are reported, because an infection isn't reported until the patient is sick enough to go to the doctor and get tested for the virus.

Guesswork about how many of them there might be is just guesswork.

Claiming that Wuhan's official data is unreliable because they are overwhelmed rather ignores the enthusiasm with which the Chinese authorities moved in and built complete new hospitals.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that thye are anything like overwhelmed - 31,481 cases is a lot, but China a has about 1.38 billion people, and it's not a significant proportion of the total population.

It the numbers got up to Spanish Flu levels it might be a different story.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 3:57:57 AM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

<snipped the rest>

They give graphs of total infections per day and total deaths per day.

Nobody else seems to - or at least none on the first few pages that google throws up.

The numbers tie up with other reputable sources, which is what matters.

It also fits with what their website says it does.

John Robertson is a little too dim to have noticed this.

He seems to get his climate change information from less reliable sources, and seems to think that being rude about the source works even when the source is putting out reliable information, and doesn't have any obviously questionable associations (as his sources seem to have).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 12:27:05 PM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:36:37 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

<snip>

Claiming that Wuhan's official data is unreliable because they are overwhelmed rather ignores the enthusiasm with which the Chinese authorities moved in and built complete new hospitals.

The 3000 new beds are already included.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that they are anything like overwhelmed

Sure, the gov, is not. But the hospitals are overwhelmed. People gave up going to the hospital already.

And you know this because somebody whom you can't be bothered to identify has told you this.

When the place is crawling with security people with infrared thermometers checking everybody for elevated body temperature, people don't get a choice about "not going to the hospital". It probably won't be one of the existing hospitals, or the newly constructed emergency centers, but rather some hotel or school that has been taken over to serve as an emergency isolation centre.

The hospitals will be reserved for people who are dangerously sick.

31,481 cases is a lot, but China a has about 1.38 billion people, and it's not a significant proportion of the total population.

It the numbers got up to Spanish Flu levels it might be a different story.

We will be there around end of the month. There will be enough hosts for mutations beyond G10.

If your deluded fantasies happen to be correct. Your calculation - which I've snipped - sets the current R0 for Wuhan as 3.0.

Wuhan is in lock-down, which should take the R0 well below two. People have got mix quite frequently to get appreciable cross-infection, and that's exactly what lock-down is intended to minimise.

Today's total infections has just fallen short of an exponential rise, which does suggest that the strategy is working. The lag between infection and a positive test result has to be at least a few days, so we are looking at the R0 from at least a couple of days ago.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

It's a little too soon to say anything more, except that you are an alarmist twit, but we've known that for some time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:00:33 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 12:27:05 PM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:36:37 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

snip

Claiming that Wuhan's official data is unreliable because they are overwhelmed rather ignores the enthusiasm with which the Chinese authorities moved in and built complete new hospitals.

The 3000 new beds are already included.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest that they are anything like overwhelmed

Sure, the gov, is not. But the hospitals are overwhelmed. People gave up going to the hospital already.

And you know this because somebody whom you can't be bothered to identify has told you this.

When the place is crawling with security people with infrared thermometers checking everybody for elevated body temperature, people don't get a choice about "not going to the hospital". It probably won't be one of the existing hospitals, or the newly constructed emergency centers, but rather some hotel or school that has been taken over to serve as an emergency isolation centre.

The hospitals will be reserved for people who are dangerously sick.

31,481 cases is a lot, but China a has about 1.38 billion people, and it's not a significant proportion of the total population.

It the numbers got up to Spanish Flu levels it might be a different story.

We will be there around end of the month. There will be enough hosts for mutations beyond G10.

If your deluded fantasies happen to be correct. Your calculation - which I've snipped - sets the current R0 for Wuhan as 3.0.

My updated number is 2.2 for Wuhan. Surrounding area (also in quarantine) is around 1.7, based on 5 days back projections. River South, River East, Lake South are more believable. Conditions in WuHan is much worst. I don't think it will be below 2.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
R0 12/30 1/6 1/13 1/20 1/27 2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/2
WH 2.2 41 164 656 2624 10496 41984 167936 369459 812809 1788179
SH 1.4 98 137 192 268 376 527 737
BJ 1.4 113 158 221 310 434 607 850
LS 1.7 521 885 1505 2559 4351
RS 1.7 566 962 1635 2780 4727
RE 1.7 391 664 1129 1920 3265
HK 1.8 17 30 55 99 178
US 1.5 11 16 24 37 55

Wuhan is in lock-down, which should take the R0 well below two. People have got mix quite frequently to get appreciable cross-infection, and that's exactly what lock-down is intended to minimise.

Today's total infections has just fallen short of an exponential rise, which does suggest that the strategy is working. The lag between infection and a positive test result has to be at least a few days, so we are looking at the R0 from at least a couple of days ago.

So, you think WH is much better than RS, RE and LS? They are still going up.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

It's a little too soon to say anything more, except that you are an alarmist twit, but we've known that for some time.

I am using real Baidu report data. You can check it yourself.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 3:39:52 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:

…addthis.com
…ajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
…google-analytics.com
…googlesyndication.com
…googletagmanager.com
…pagefair.com
…pagefair.net
…pub.network
…quantserve.com
…realtimestatistics.net


Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...

And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?

John :-#(#

They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.


Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:

Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.

Sources:

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...

All of those references are links.


My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.

If you don't have time to verify sources, just stay away from the Internet. Yes, it's that simple.

Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?

Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...

Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.

Or maybe you should read for yourself.

https://www.worldometers.info/about/

https://www.worldometers.info/contact/

What are you going on about really?

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 1:33:14 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 3:39:52 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/06 12:18 p.m., Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:57:57 AM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 7:59 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:55:21 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

I find this more informative.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And who exactly IS worldometers.info? They have no list of principals of
contacts.

Their FAQ says:

--------------------(quote)-------------------------

Worldometer shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and
projections from the most reputable official organizations.

Our sources include the United Nations Population Division, World Health
Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

We analyze the available data, perform statistical analysis, and build
our algorithm which feeds the real time estimate.

Our counters have been licensed for the United Nations Conference
Rio+20, BBC News, U2 concert, World Expo, and prestigious museums and
events worldwide.
------------------(end quote)---------------

Since when does an anonymous web site (godaddy & domainsbyproxy -
whois.net) have credence?

They have a list of javascript monitoring tools:

…addthis.com
…ajax.googleapis.com
-https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com
…google-analytics.com
…googlesyndication.com
…googletagmanager.com
…pagefair.com
…pagefair.net
…pub.network
…quantserve.com
…realtimestatistics.net


Sounds suspiciously like someone with an agenda set this up...

And this is your idea of valid science? Unaccountable web sites?

John :-#(#

They list their references with each statistic. You know, like anyone who wishes to report information credibly.


Statistics of the Month
566Wuhan coronavirus deaths this year
Quick facts:

Wuhan Coronavirus Update
Tracking confirmed cases and deaths by country, transmission & fatality rates, incubation period, daily chart, flu, SARS, MERS comparison, US Coronavirus cases, etc.

Sources:

Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation reports - World Health Organization (WHO)
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the U.S -. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)...

All of those references are links.


My point is the web site is anonymous. One has no idea who or what
organization/country is behind it. As a result one has to implicitly
trust that they are actually taking the data as stated and presenting it
accurately as who has time to verify their sources.

If you don't have time to verify sources, just stay away from the Internet. Yes, it's that simple.


Anonymous web sites are always suspect in my view - the fact they claim
to use data from legitimate sites does not mean they actually DO compile
the data without their own agenda in mind. Who the heck are they and how
does one know they are any good at what they claim to do?

Why aren't they proud of their web site? Proud enough to put their names
on it...

Go the real sources, the ones that present the unfiltered data and think
for yourself.

Or maybe you should read for yourself.

https://www.worldometers.info/about/

https://www.worldometers.info/contact/

What are you going on about really?

John Robertson is a climate change sceptic, which means - in practice - that he's a gullible sucker for climate change denail propaganda, like John Larkin.

John Larkin has learned enough not to post links to the propaganda websites that have influenced his thinking. John Robertson is a slower learner, and is still smarting from comments that labelled him a gullible twit.

He's too dim to appreciate the difference between the web-site I cited and the ones that have formed his thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney (in counter-troll mode)

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!
--

"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us with the question, 'Will you join us in this undertaking?' we should reply, “Nay Sir, for we are an island race and we dwell among our own.”

- Winston Spencer Churchill

 

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:29:34 AM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

John

or panic:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon

Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???

"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"

And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?

"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting..." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"

He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.

Zero Hedge is definitely promoting the idea it is a bioweapon. Zero Hedge is the source of this info.


Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.

There are other sources confirming the data.

There are no other sources, only other sites echoing what they found on Zerohedge.

Are you really so gullible that you can't tell when you are being zoomed?


Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.

Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.

No, none of this is true. There is nothing that was originated and there is nothing to "currently administer". The basic premise of your original post was about adding genes to the virus to "build ACE2 receptors". The genes to utilize the ACE2 receptors in the host were already in the virus as that is how the virus attacks the host cell. That was present in SARS and in many other corona viruses for a long, long time.

The entire idea is based on BS pseudo-science. So give it up and stop being an idiot.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The place near Wuhan that does virus work is 20 miles outside the city.
The outbreak is closely tied to exposure at the live animal food market
inside the city. So, there's that. If it's origin is the lab, then
the release would point to being deliberate, which makes no sense.

 

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:01:37 AM UTC-8, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:29:34 AM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

John

or panic:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon

Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???

"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"

And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?

"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting...." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"

He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.

Zero Hedge is definitely promoting the idea it is a bioweapon. Zero Hedge is the source of this info.


Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.

There are other sources confirming the data.

There are no other sources, only other sites echoing what they found on Zerohedge.

Are you really so gullible that you can't tell when you are being zoomed?


Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.

Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.

No, none of this is true. There is nothing that was originated and there is nothing to "currently administer". The basic premise of your original post was about adding genes to the virus to "build ACE2 receptors". The genes to utilize the ACE2 receptors in the host were already in the virus as that is how the virus attacks the host cell. That was present in SARS and in many other corona viruses for a long, long time.

The entire idea is based on BS pseudo-science. So give it up and stop being an idiot.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The place near Wuhan that does virus work is 20 miles outside the city.
The outbreak is closely tied to exposure at the live animal food market
inside the city. So, there's that. If it's origin is the lab, then
the release would point to being deliberate, which makes no sense.

If it's release there, it's more likely accidental. On the other hand, they were already working on using "remdesivir" as antivirus and filed patent in early Jan. That means their work on virus/anti-virus started way before this year.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:27:35 AM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!
--

"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us with the question, 'Will you join us in this undertaking?' we should reply, “Nay Sir, for we are an island race and we dwell among our own.”

- Winston Spencer Churchill

Too bad they breached the island thing with a tunnel, multiple ferries, powerlines and global trade. These days no one is an island and it is rather pointless to think that way. This goes for Great Britain as well as China and the rest of the world needs to recognize the fact as well.

We are only islands in our own minds.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 07/02/20 19:50, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:16:07 -0800 (PST), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

I am using real Baidu report data. You can check it yourself.

He won't, though. You can post data from the most unimpeachable source
but it won't be good enough for Bill Sloman, who just loves an
argument for the sake of it and you are being sucked in by him.
Many years ago, he was a valuable contributor here, but those days are
long gone. He has since become, for reasons known only to him, one of
the worst trolls on this group and the only way to prevail against him
is to not engage in futile exchanges with him in the first place.

You've done more than a little trolling yourself.

Quoting zerohedge as unimpeachable fact is unquestionably
troll bait.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 18:16:07 -0800 (PST), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

>I am using real Baidu report data. You can check it yourself.

He won't, though. You can post data from the most unimpeachable source
but it won't be good enough for Bill Sloman, who just loves an
argument for the sake of it and you are being sucked in by him.
Many years ago, he was a valuable contributor here, but those days are
long gone. He has since become, for reasons known only to him, one of
the worst trolls on this group and the only way to prevail against him
is to not engage in futile exchanges with him in the first place.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:30:39 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>You've done more than a little trolling yourself.

Nonsense, but not surprising coming from you.

Quoting zerohedge as unimpeachable fact is unquestionably
troll bait.

Well, looks like I've hooked myself a troll. :-D

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 07/02/20 22:46, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:30:39 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

You've done more than a little trolling yourself.

Nonsense, but not surprising coming from you.

Quoting zerohedge as unimpeachable fact is unquestionably
troll bait.

Well, looks like I've hooked myself a troll. :-D

A classic troll technique is to omit the context,
which is exactly what you have chosen to do.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 2:53:32 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 6:27:35 AM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:19:47 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4


Some Chinese official who was concerned about certain Western news
organisations alarmist reports said, and I quote: "It's not as bad as
ebola or SARS."
I'm guessing he thought this statement would be received as welcome
reassurance!

Yes, put him on the Diamond Princess. One Super Spreader infected at least 61 (as of now). It more than double many infection rate R0 in south ease Asia.

Infection rates depend on environment. An air-conditioned cruise ship with lots of social activities, and lots of elderly passengers with compromised immune systems is a great environment for a virus.

Even so it is pretty unlikely that a single person directly infected 61 others - they probably infected a few others, each of whom infected a few more.. An R0 of three would give you three secondary infections, nine tertiary infections, and 27 fourth generation infections for total of forty. Pushing R0 up to fours gives you a total of 53 in the same number of generations

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The total number infected is still rising, but the rate of increase is finally decreasing, so the Chinese program to reduce R0 by getting people to stay at home does seem to be working.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 4:31:20 AM UTC+11, edward...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:01:37 AM UTC-8, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:29:34 AM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 10:04:40 PM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 11:41:52 PM UTC-5, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC-8, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/02/05 5:19 p.m., John S wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldm3n0hEsd4

I prefer the non-panic, science based sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/index.html

John

or panic:

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/coronavirus-contains-hiv-insertions-stoking-fears-over-artificially-created-bioweapon

Why would anyone panic when reading something that the source of acknowledges is made up???

"The theory is that China obtained the coronavirus via a Canadian research program, and started molding it into a bioweapon at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. Politifact pointed the finger at Zero Hedge, in particular"

And in addition acknowledges is based on highly doubtful info?

"Dr. Feigl-Ding has issued a few tweets clarifying and correcting...." "Though beforehand, he acknowledged that the paper' conclusions are "bat shit" wild"

He is not saying that it is bioweapon.
He is saying that the virus look artificial.

Zero Hedge is definitely promoting the idea it is a bioweapon. Zero Hedge is the source of this info.


Why would you give any credence to anything you read at Zerohedge? It's a well known example of yellow journalism.

There are other sources confirming the data.

There are no other sources, only other sites echoing what they found on Zerohedge.

Are you really so gullible that you can't tell when you are being zoomed?


Actually, this article refutes your statements anyway. You say a Dr Stone produced the virus and they say it was Dr. Peng Zhou.

Dr. Stone started the research in 2015. Dr. Zhou is the current administer.

No, none of this is true. There is nothing that was originated and there is nothing to "currently administer". The basic premise of your original post was about adding genes to the virus to "build ACE2 receptors". The genes to utilize the ACE2 receptors in the host were already in the virus as that is how the virus attacks the host cell. That was present in SARS and in many other corona viruses for a long, long time.

The entire idea is based on BS pseudo-science. So give it up and stop being an idiot.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The place near Wuhan that does virus work is 20 miles outside the city.
The outbreak is closely tied to exposure at the live animal food market
inside the city. So, there's that. If it's origin is the lab, then
the release would point to being deliberate, which makes no sense.

If it's release there, it's more likely accidental. On the other hand, they were already working on using "remdesivir" as antivirus and filed patent in early Jan. That means their work on virus/anti-virus started way before this year.

Loads of people are working on anti-virus medications. A treatment for the common cold that worked would sell very well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney