Posted on 01/29/2020 9:59:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
No, because it's a tricky thing: if too many patients die too quickly, the disease doesn't spread.
Also, if you get too many Americans dying too soon, we'll retaliate with nukes, for which NO vaccine exists.
Also, given geometric expansion in the number of cases, the % of deaths is going to lag, artificially lowering the death % rate.
The question is, what is the binding coefficient of the new spike protein vs. that of the previous SARSlike viruses.
That’s the question.
And IS there an ethnic/racial distribution of this binding coefficient...in favor of the Han.
And that’s just one protein that was looked at.
I’m interested in any differences in the virulence as well but haven’t had time to dig further than that.
It was about a 200+ residue portion that was radically different along with assorted SNPs in the rest. I’d have to model it to tell what the configuration difference was between the two. I’m sure someone will do that soon and publish it.
Yea and that will be the most optimistic case assuming all the currently infected recover.
I will go even further..I doubt patient 0 was really patient 0. Others just died of pneumonia prior to official patient 0.
It’s going to take people getting it in other countries to really figure out what is going on.
As of today, we know that 0.00% in any nation outside of China have died. That’s of 102 known cases.
We know that 800 people died of SARS, total cases reported around 5,500. (were all the cases reported - I highly doubt it - it took place in China too)
Today with over 6,000 people having been documented with Coronavirus, the death toll is 132. 800 vs 132.
I believe this information is something to be optimistic about.
Is Peng still alive?
The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus statistics page seems to have misreported the Taiwan cases on the 01/29/20 13:30 EST release. They updated the reporting figure at 01/29/20 14:30 EST from 16 to 8 (as it had been [8] for four prior reports). They must have made a clerical error.
Cases outside of China were bumped back down to 95 from 102. Finland has now reported it’s first case.
There are still no known deaths outside of China.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
Did the CIA have anything to do with this theory?
Asking for a FRiend.
5.56mm
The article actually I think makes a case that Peng was doing legitimate research spurred by getting the SARS virus. And it looks like he has made some great contributions to science. So maybe not a nefarious purpose. But I think the questions have to be asked:
Yep. Soon as you get the globalist, chicom lovers at the WP debunking something, you can then believe the complete opposite. I hate the leftist controlled media with every fibre of my being.
“How long a sequence?”
Try this paper from the Lancet.
https://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S0140673620302518.pdf
"“Based on the virus genome and properties there is no indication whatsoever that it was an engineered virus,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University."
So you know the lab at North Carolina?
It's been discussed before.
Four or five YEARS ago!
Here:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate
The creation of a chimeric SARS-like virus has scientists discussing the risks of gain-of-function research.
This is an article about the North Carolina lab which WAS bioengineering Coronaviruses (4 or 5 years ago!) doing research on "addition of function"...
And lookee who's in that article from four or five years ago, talking about it...
Yep.
Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision.
The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told Nature.
The know-it-all skeptic from Rutgers, now called upon today to debunk.
...AND the horse he rode in on.
......with a rusty, red-hot railroad spike.
Found the link to the comment in my post #98 about Asians and coronavirus receptors.
It is in FReepmail, for your review. (Twitter link to arxiv.)
If they are used by the Wash. Post on any issue relating to national security/defense/intelligence, view them with a lot of suspicion and reservations (and I don’t mean Lieawatha’s kind).
I read that article days ago.
My question was how long was the spike protein sequence she said diverged from the other virus and she answered the question.
Nods.
Not a mind reader, so I can’t tell from the thread alone what you’ve read or when.
No problem.
I didn’t mean to be terse.
That’s a bingo. Who knew the left would use “1984” as a planning guide ?
I don’t believe in coincidences.
2 Labs at the place where this all started.....HHHMMMMM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.