My Geller Report link the other day had the wildlife source as “bat”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3810647/posts?page=617#617
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/scientists-blame-coronavirus-bats-pics-21337997
This is from.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3805130/posts?q=1&;page=101
The article is from a ligit. med. source re. a previous study.
SARS -
Disturbing news coming from the medical journal “The Lancet”, one of the first non-internet doom porn reports I’ve read. Basically the report states (based upon Chinease portion of the outbreak) that the transmission rate is as high as a whopping 83%! On top of that, the mortality rate is 15% (initial estimates had it at 2-3%)! If Chinease authorities were aware of these numbers, then perhaps their response to locking down over 63 million into quarenteen makes sense. Here is the link to the article for your reading.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
We still need better information from outside of China due to state censorship. Stock markets in Asia suffering severe losses due to panic associated with the outbreak. US markets expected to follow. Confirmed cases continue to be reported around the globe with 5 currently in the US alone.
Unfortunately historically, quarantines have never worked. At best they slow down the progression allowing time for resources to be brought to bare, but they have never proven successful in eliminating the spread.
I seem to recall the best on record was when the Venetians required a 40 day waiting period prior to deboarding and confirmation at anchor in harbor for any ships coming into port from potentially infected areas and even that was not 100%.
``````````
Whoooooa there big fella. The mortality rate is 15% (initial estimates had it at 2-3%) of Chinese people admitted to that particular hospital in China.
Think about all the people possibly sitting at home, waiting out their illness. That would drive the denominator down a bit.
Also, maybe the hospital is known specifically for addressing patients that are critically ill --thus biasing the sample population.
What if it's a crappy hospital with crappy practitioners --more bias.
41 of 59 patients did not have coronavirus by RT-PCR, could be the incubation period, but RT-PCR should be ble to detect very low titers of virus. So 69% of pneumonia patients had coronavirus, while 31% did not.
Again, maybe we should panic, but maybe not. I always considered The LANCET the most politically-charged left leaning "top-tier" medical journal, even beyond JAMA and NEJM. It always seemed to provide data showing the superiority/positives of the British government-run health system. I have not however, looked at it for 10 years.