Why is the NYC metro area CV infection TEN TIMES worse?

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:26:12 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:51:53 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2020 04:24, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:20:55 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

You ARE really SLOW, aren't you? The Wuhan lab was doing
RESEARCH into coronavirus, not STOCKPILING it.

What makes you think that - apart from a congenital weakness for
fatuous conspiracy theories?

There are numerous reports that they were cooperating with US
researchers on the SARS coronavirus in bats. That was discussed in
a thread here somewhere. The Chinese asked for more assistance and
we had embassy scientists inspect their facility. They recommended
we give them the assistance and we declined to act.

Whether or not this lab was the source of the pandemic is not yet
known, but it's not looking so improbable.

Only to a rabid conspiracy theory nut.

If there's one thing that research institutions do well, it is
stopping the different viruses they are studying from leaking from
one lab to next one.

If they can't manage that they won't be doing research that will be
taken seriously. Imagining that a virus could leak out into the
outside world takes a Flyguy level of mental incompetence.


Stuff leaks out of biolabs all the time. Usually, no harm comes of it -
sometimes people die.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu

It is not at all unrealistic to suppose that the virus spread after an
accidental leak from this lab. (Equally, there is - AFAIK - no direct
evidence that this is what happened.)

Intentional leaks, bioweapon research, etc., are the stuff of conspiracy
theorist fantasies. But accidents happen despite the best of
intentions, the best of routines, the best of staff, the best of equipment.

The best argument for the SARS-CoV-2 being from a Chinese lab is that the argument for it coming from the "live" fish market is poor.

It was primarily a live fish market, but it did sell various sort of wild animals for food as well.

> While we want to believe this happened from a natural process (but then do we?) it seems at this point there is as much evidence it came from some other source.

Such as?

> That is not to say the virus didn't evolve naturally. But it may have been the efforts of the lab that brought the virus from a cave to a population center.

Bush meat is a rather more likely source. And the virus didn't "come from a cave".

The ancestral strain of the virus does infest bats that live in caves, but Covid-19 can infect humans, which the ancestral strain can't, and we haven't got a clue about the recent ancestors in which the ability to infect humans appeared, or which animals they'd been infecting at the time.

Pangolins have cropped up as a possible host, and they were sold as food at the Wuhan wet market

> If, indeed that is how the virus was spread, it may be that we would have never seen this strain infect humans and it may have died out in the wild.

Anything is possible, but it's not a useful speculation.

Viruses are very strange pathogens. They are the ultimate expression that the purpose of life is to replicate nucleic acids. The corporeal expression of the nucleic acids are just a means to an end... propagating the information contained in them. In the case of the virus, there is never really a viral organism, just an incredibly simple carrier of the nucleotides.

Viruses are really just nucleic acid accidents that happen to be able to exploit weaknesses in their hosts.

Not so much a weakness as a necessary capacity. Cells have to be able to synthesise their own strings of nucleotides to be able to reproduce themselves, and successful viruses can exploit this capability.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:26:12 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:51:53 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2020 04:24, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:20:55 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

You ARE really SLOW, aren't you? The Wuhan lab was doing
RESEARCH into coronavirus, not STOCKPILING it.

What makes you think that - apart from a congenital weakness for
fatuous conspiracy theories?

There are numerous reports that they were cooperating with US
researchers on the SARS coronavirus in bats. That was discussed in
a thread here somewhere. The Chinese asked for more assistance and
we had embassy scientists inspect their facility. They recommended
we give them the assistance and we declined to act.

Whether or not this lab was the source of the pandemic is not yet
known, but it's not looking so improbable.

Only to a rabid conspiracy theory nut.

If there's one thing that research institutions do well, it is
stopping the different viruses they are studying from leaking from
one lab to next one.

If they can't manage that they won't be doing research that will be
taken seriously. Imagining that a virus could leak out into the
outside world takes a Flyguy level of mental incompetence.


Stuff leaks out of biolabs all the time. Usually, no harm comes of it -
sometimes people die.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly-pathogens-escape-lab-smallpox-bird-flu

It is not at all unrealistic to suppose that the virus spread after an
accidental leak from this lab. (Equally, there is - AFAIK - no direct
evidence that this is what happened.)

Intentional leaks, bioweapon research, etc., are the stuff of conspiracy
theorist fantasies. But accidents happen despite the best of
intentions, the best of routines, the best of staff, the best of equipment.

The best argument for the SARS-CoV-2 being from a Chinese lab is that the argument for it coming from the "live" fish market is poor.

It was primarily a live fish market, but it did sell various sort of wild animals for food as well.

While we want to believe this happened from a natural process (but then do we?) it seems at this point there is as much evidence it came from some other source.

Such as?

Links to pages discussing this have already been posted and you have read them. You seem to be dismissive of them while I'm not. The US government certainly is capable of lying, but I don't see the percentage for them to do so in this case unless they are trying to cover for Trump's bungling.

That is not to say the virus didn't evolve naturally. But it may have been the efforts of the lab that brought the virus from a cave to a population center.

Bush meat is a rather more likely source. And the virus didn't "come from a cave".

The original source is thought most likely to have come from bats. Bats live in caves. Another animal such as a pangolin is thought to be an intermediary.


> The ancestral strain of the virus does infest bats that live in caves, but Covid-19 can infect humans, which the ancestral strain can't, and we haven't got a clue about the recent ancestors in which the ability to infect humans appeared, or which animals they'd been infecting at the time.

No, we don't proof and I never said we did.


> Pangolins have cropped up as a possible host, and they were sold as food at the Wuhan wet market

Yes, "possible" with as much supporting evidence as other theories.

If, indeed that is how the virus was spread, it may be that we would have never seen this strain infect humans and it may have died out in the wild.

Anything is possible, but it's not a useful speculation.

Not useful in what way? Any thoughts on the matter present a potential truth. The problem is we have too little evidence. Calling a speculation not "useful" is not useful.

Viruses are very strange pathogens. They are the ultimate expression that the purpose of life is to replicate nucleic acids. The corporeal expression of the nucleic acids are just a means to an end... propagating the information contained in them. In the case of the virus, there is never really a viral organism, just an incredibly simple carrier of the nucleotides.

Viruses are really just nucleic acid accidents that happen to be able to exploit weaknesses in their hosts.

Not so much a weakness as a necessary capacity. Cells have to be able to synthesise their own strings of nucleotides to be able to reproduce themselves, and successful viruses can exploit this capability.

That's not the weakness I am talking about. Before they hijack the replication machinery, they have to get into the cell past it's natural barriers. These are the weaknesses.

I wonder if viruses are significantly newer than cellular life? If early cells with the various receptors that allow viruses to infect them were attacked by viruses early on, I would think they would have adapted with stronger defenses. If the viruses developed much later on it could be too late for cells to develop alternate mechanisms.

Or maybe it is just inherent that no matter the details of the cellular design, it will have to admit a sufficiently clever invader just as unhackable computers doing useful work seem to be impossible.

I seem to recall that sharks have very little disease. Hmmm...

https://didyouknow.org/animals/files/2010/08/most-dangerous-animal.jpg

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:26:12 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:51:53 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2020 04:24, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:20:55 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

The best argument for the SARS-CoV-2 being from a Chinese lab is that the argument for it coming from the "live" fish market is poor.

It was primarily a live fish market, but it did sell various sort of wild animals for food as well.

While we want to believe this happened from a natural process (but then do we?) it seems at this point there is as much evidence it came from some other source.

Such as?

Links to pages discussing this have already been posted and you have read them.

They aren't exactly convincing.

> You seem to be dismissive of them while I'm not.

I can do critical thinking, and you don't seem to be able to.

> The US government certainly is capable of lying, but I don't see the percentage for them to do so in this case unless they are trying to cover for Trump's bungling.

Trump has been a liar all his life, and does little else but lie to cover his bungling. Apart from the time spent telling us how wonderfully well he performed.

That is not to say the virus didn't evolve naturally. But it may have been the efforts of the lab that brought the virus from a cave to a population center.

Bush meat is a rather more likely source. And the virus didn't "come from a cave".

The original source is thought most likely to have come from bats. Bats live in caves. Another animal such as a pangolin is thought to be an intermediary.

I said that. But bats aren't "the original source". Covid-19 is clearly descended from an ancestral strain that lives in bats, and we are clearly descended from a bunch of mouse-sized mammals that were better adapted to the world as it was 65 million years ago after the asteroid had struck. It's not a particularly direct connection.

The ancestral strain of the virus does infest bats that live in caves, but Covid-19 can infect humans, which the ancestral strain can't, and we haven't got a clue about the recent ancestors in which the ability to infect humans appeared, or which animals they'd been infecting at the time.

No, we don't proof and I never said we did.

That's not the problem.

Pangolins have cropped up as a possible host, and they were sold as food at the Wuhan wet market

Yes, "possible" with as much supporting evidence as other theories.

We do know very little about that stage of the process.

If, indeed that is how the virus was spread, it may be that we would have never seen this strain infect humans and it may have died out in the wild.

Anything is possible, but it's not a useful speculation.

Not useful in what way? Any thoughts on the matter present a potential truth.

Some thoughts present very little potential truth and a lot of demented conspiracy theory.

> The problem is we have too little evidence. Calling a speculation not "useful" is not useful.

It's politer than labelling it as raving lunacy.

Viruses are very strange pathogens. They are the ultimate expression that the purpose of life is to replicate nucleic acids. The corporeal expression of the nucleic acids are just a means to an end... propagating the information contained in them. In the case of the virus, there is never really a viral organism, just an incredibly simple carrier of the nucleotides..

Viruses are really just nucleic acid accidents that happen to be able to exploit weaknesses in their hosts.

Not so much a weakness as a necessary capacity. Cells have to be able to synthesise their own strings of nucleotides to be able to reproduce themselves, and successful viruses can exploit this capability.

That's not the weakness I am talking about. Before they hijack the replication machinery, they have to get into the cell past it's natural barriers.. These are the weaknesses.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would be referring to the Angiotensin II receptor on the cell wall.

"ACE-2 is a type I transmembrane metallocarboxypeptidase with homology to ACE, an enzyme long-known to be a key player in the Renin-Angiotensin system (RAS) and a target for the treatment of hypertension.14 It is mainly expressed in vascular endothelial cells, the renal tubular epithelium, and in Leydig cells in the testes.15,16 PCR analysis revealed that ACE-2 is also expressed in the lung, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract, tissues shown to harbor SARS-CoV.The major substrate for ACE-2 is Angiotensin II.20 ACE-2 degrades Angiotensin II to generate Angiotensin 1-7, thereby, negatively regulating RAS.15,20 ACE-2 has also been shown to exhibit a protective function in the cardiovascular system and other organs."

It's part of the blood pressure regulation system - a feature rather than a bug.

> I wonder if viruses are significantly newer than cellular life? If early cells with the various receptors that allow viruses to infect them were attacked by viruses early on, I would think they would have adapted with stronger defenses. If the viruses developed much later on it could be too late for cells to develop alternate mechanisms.

Viruses can't reproduce on their own, so they can't predate cellular life that can.

Or maybe it is just inherent that no matter the details of the cellular design, it will have to admit a sufficiently clever invader just as unhackable computers doing useful work seem to be impossible.

I seem to recall that sharks have very little disease. Hmmm...

And how would we know if they did?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky C]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 11:50:32 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:26:12 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:51:53 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2020 04:24, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:20:55 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

snip

The best argument for the SARS-CoV-2 being from a Chinese lab is that the argument for it coming from the "live" fish market is poor.

It was primarily a live fish market, but it did sell various sort of wild animals for food as well.

While we want to believe this happened from a natural process (but then do we?) it seems at this point there is as much evidence it came from some other source.

Such as?

Links to pages discussing this have already been posted and you have read them.

They aren't exactly convincing.

You seem to be dismissive of them while I'm not.

I can do critical thinking, and you don't seem to be able to.

The US government certainly is capable of lying, but I don't see the percentage for them to do so in this case unless they are trying to cover for Trump's bungling.

Trump has been a liar all his life, and does little else but lie to cover his bungling. Apart from the time spent telling us how wonderfully well he performed.

That is not to say the virus didn't evolve naturally. But it may have been the efforts of the lab that brought the virus from a cave to a population center.

Bush meat is a rather more likely source. And the virus didn't "come from a cave".

The original source is thought most likely to have come from bats. Bats live in caves. Another animal such as a pangolin is thought to be an intermediary.

I said that. But bats aren't "the original source". Covid-19 is clearly descended from an ancestral strain that lives in bats, and we are clearly descended from a bunch of mouse-sized mammals that were better adapted to the world as it was 65 million years ago after the asteroid had struck. It's not a particularly direct connection.

The ancestral strain of the virus does infest bats that live in caves, but Covid-19 can infect humans, which the ancestral strain can't, and we haven't got a clue about the recent ancestors in which the ability to infect humans appeared, or which animals they'd been infecting at the time.

No, we don't proof and I never said we did.

That's not the problem.

Pangolins have cropped up as a possible host, and they were sold as food at the Wuhan wet market

Yes, "possible" with as much supporting evidence as other theories.

We do know very little about that stage of the process.

If, indeed that is how the virus was spread, it may be that we would have never seen this strain infect humans and it may have died out in the wild.

Anything is possible, but it's not a useful speculation.

Not useful in what way? Any thoughts on the matter present a potential truth.

Some thoughts present very little potential truth and a lot of demented conspiracy theory.

The problem is we have too little evidence. Calling a speculation not "useful" is not useful.

It's politer than labelling it as raving lunacy.

Viruses are very strange pathogens. They are the ultimate expression that the purpose of life is to replicate nucleic acids. The corporeal expression of the nucleic acids are just a means to an end... propagating the information contained in them. In the case of the virus, there is never really a viral organism, just an incredibly simple carrier of the nucleotides.

Viruses are really just nucleic acid accidents that happen to be able to exploit weaknesses in their hosts.

Not so much a weakness as a necessary capacity. Cells have to be able to synthesise their own strings of nucleotides to be able to reproduce themselves, and successful viruses can exploit this capability.

That's not the weakness I am talking about. Before they hijack the replication machinery, they have to get into the cell past it's natural barriers. These are the weaknesses.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would be referring to the Angiotensin II receptor on the cell wall.

"ACE-2 is a type I transmembrane metallocarboxypeptidase with homology to ACE, an enzyme long-known to be a key player in the Renin-Angiotensin system (RAS) and a target for the treatment of hypertension.14 It is mainly expressed in vascular endothelial cells, the renal tubular epithelium, and in Leydig cells in the testes.15,16 PCR analysis revealed that ACE-2 is also expressed in the lung, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract, tissues shown to harbor SARS-CoV.The major substrate for ACE-2 is Angiotensin II.20 ACE-2 degrades Angiotensin II to generate Angiotensin 1-7, thereby, negatively regulating RAS.15,20 ACE-2 has also been shown to exhibit a protective function in the cardiovascular system and other organs."

It's part of the blood pressure regulation system - a feature rather than a bug.

I wonder if viruses are significantly newer than cellular life? If early cells with the various receptors that allow viruses to infect them were attacked by viruses early on, I would think they would have adapted with stronger defenses. If the viruses developed much later on it could be too late for cells to develop alternate mechanisms.

Viruses can't reproduce on their own, so they can't predate cellular life that can.

Or maybe it is just inherent that no matter the details of the cellular design, it will have to admit a sufficiently clever invader just as unhackable computers doing useful work seem to be impossible.

I seem to recall that sharks have very little disease. Hmmm...

And how would we know if they did?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I see you aren't serious about discussing this. You are using some of Larkin's patented denialist techniques, combined with a good measure of dismissiveness and topped off with your own special brand of bullshit.

I would go through and address each point, but as usual, you aren't really interested in discussing anything. You just want to puff up and feel superior.

I feel for you in the same way I feel for people like the fly guy. It would probably be more healthy for you to not post here. This is actually an extension of a rather unhealthy habit on your part. You would be much better off finding something to do that promotes a much more healthy outlook on life and the world you live in.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:27:29 PM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 11:50:32 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 5:14:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 2:26:12 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 5:51:53 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 16/04/2020 04:24, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 3:20:55 AM UTC+10, Ricky C wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 1:39:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

> I see you aren't serious about discussing this.

Not with you. You don't go in for discussion. It's more setting out what you think and sticking with it.

> You are using some of Larkin's patented denialist techniques,

Unkind, and inaccurate. I mostly know what I'm talking about, and can accept correction when it is justified.

> combined with a good measure of dismissiveness

You think you deserve anything else?

> and topped off with your own special brand of bullshit.

I don't have to bullshit. I can always find loads of more or less relevant detail with which to swamp under-informed argument.

> I would go through and address each point, but as usual, you aren't really interested in discussing anything. You just want to puff up and feel superior.

Your capacity to react to other people's ideas isn't great. You aren't quite as resentful about not being flattered as John Larkin is, but you aren't any more receptive to ideas that don't support your own.

I really don't feel any need to puff up and feel any more superior than I actually am. I certainly don't imagine that I'm superior to people like Phil Hobbs, Jeorg, Speff or Win Hill (and I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm inferior in particular areas).

> I feel for you in the same way I feel for people like the fly guy.

Probably not a good comparison. He is remarkably stupid. Phil Allison might have been a better choice.

> It would probably be more healthy for you to not post here.

It might suit you. Your sillier ideas might not get shown up quite as often..

> This is actually an extension of a rather unhealthy habit on your part.

Couldn't agree more.

> You would be much better off finding something to do that promotes a much more healthy outlook on life and the world you live in.

I do put in some effort on that, and have been doing so for some years. Being treasurer of the NSW section of the IEEE is one of my few successes in that area, but neither that nor editing their newsletter takes up much of my time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney