from NEJMedicine
Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany
Posted on 01/31/2020 8:50:37 PM PST by catnipman
They found that all four of these spike protein inserts appear as matches to at least one sequence in at least one variant of the HIV virus. The sequences come from the gp120 and Gag proteins in HIV, the former of which is also a viral envelope recognition protein. This has led many to credulously assume that this is evidence, or even a strong indication, that 2019-nCoV was engineered from its bat ancestor by humans inserting HIV sequences.
But they’re wrong; it’s still not engineered. An analysis of the paper clearly reveals that:
1. There is nothing remarkable about the fact that 2019-nCoV’s sequence diverges from its nearest known relative, or that its unique sequences are conserved among cases of 2019-nCoV.
2. The sequence matches with HIV are very short and appear in hypervariable regions of both virus, and similar overlaps are seen between 2019-nCoV sequences and many other organisms.
3. The unique biological properties that HIV sequences could theoretically impart to another virus are completely missing from 2019-nCoV, and 2019-nCoV has no unique clinical properties that are outside what is known to be possible for a coronavirus.
In other words, the sequence overlap is not actually uncanny, and there is no big scoop here. The group in India fell prey to some of the pitfalls of bioinformatics research.
The 2019-nCoV genome does not contain remarkable genomic properties which need explaining, and for which we’d look to some kind of bioengineering as a cause.
2019-nCoV continues to give every appearance of being a wild coronavirus that jumped from bats to humans by way of an animal intermediary in the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan in late 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at theprepared.com ...
It doesn’t matter how many people you are referring to, the rate would still be the same, regardless if it were 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 1 million. Rates don’t change until the number gets overwhelming to the system.
The answer is we don’t have enough data to answer definitively. We only have one month’s worth of data and that is incomplete.
From what I so far have gleaned from the data to date, I would estimate the nCorV survivability rate is somewhere between 98% and 99% of the population who contracts it. Those who get a severe case and require hospitalization will have a lower survivability rate of somewhere near 97 percent . . .
You said: Let me see if I can explain it to you.
I said earlier:
Let me speculate/guess?You've got a net fatality rate of 0.3%, I've got 5%. I bet I'm closer...For every 100 exposed, 60 made ill, for every 60 sick, 30 recover with rest, fluids, OTC medicine, 30 need hospital treatment, 20 of those will need ICU/respiratory support, as long as there is enough oxygen and mechanical ventilation available 15 of those will fully recover, 5 will die or have chronic lung damage. Given the availability of ventilators, the long term rate will be “close” (whatever that means!) to 4%.
Any side bets?
There’s a bell curve of patient reaction to any infection and at one end is no symptoms and at the other end is death. Depending on the condition, genetics, resistance, age, etc, of the contracting person. In the middle is the vast population with a range of mild to moderate symptoms. Some people are possibly naturally immune and will not contract it at all.
I guessed 40% wouldn’t get sick. *shrug* It’s a guess...
Pretty reasonable. The CDC agrees with 30/100 sent to the hospital (0.25 to 0.32). The CDC also says mortality in the hospital is 0.11 to 0.15 so their mortality with your number (30) is 3, 4 or 5.
Not bad for a SWAG...
Your attempts at ad hominem fall flat. Nothing I’ve stated is inaccurate or sophomoric. Your examples were all poisons individually delivered, personally. They were not wholesale population directed biowarfare weapons. You don’t know what you are talking about. Umbrella guns, really?
Georgi Markov
You cannot use the absurd 50% rate you are using. You have no clue what source that data point is derived from. YOU assume that is people who have been released from an ICU. YOU don’t know that. Neither do I. No one is releasing those data. The more people who are infected, the lower that rate drops. It started about 4.6% when there were few people infected. Now there are more people, it’s down to 2.2% after dropping steadily as the number infected grew.
The only squishy hard data we have at this point is number of deaths and total number of infections. From that we get a 2.2% mortality rate. YOU are imputing an approximate 50% mortality rate by grabbing an extremely unknown sourced “recovered” survivors without knowing exactly what the definition of “recovered” is, and ignoring the large portion of infected people who are recovering and who won’t die, so you can gratuitously exaggerate the mortality rate.
Again, I repeat, this is NOT about an ICU mortality rate. For all you know there may be some guy in the ICU knocking people in the head after randomly flipping a coin to decide who lives and who dies, and not nCorV that’s killing them.
1. pointing out inaccuracies in your posts is not an
ad hominem. methinks you might consider
looking in the mirror given what
you posted about ‘clouds’.
AND
2. you said explicitly that
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”.
my post then responded and corrected you on that, too;
with several examples in two links.
In response, you then inaccurately purported that
I claimed that the examples were
“wholesale population directed biowarfare weapons”.
In fact, that, too, was not true,
as anyone who reads the posts can easily observe.
You are using the guessing method. I am using the scientific approach with evidence of historic data from the SARS outbreak of 2003 and extrapolating on that.
I will bet my figures based on that will be far more accurate than your wild ass guess.
Please tell me how your list of “Poison pens and lipstick guns: 8 real-life spy weapons, Exploding Chocolate, Poisoned Scuba Suits, and the Bulgarian Umbrella: A Survey of Strange Assassination Tech,” all designed to assassinate single persons are in any way the equivalent of any biological warfare weapons designed to infect and kill populations of thousands people. They simply are not in the same league. . .
Ad hominem is when you claim I am “naive” and “sophomoric”, among other slurs. I am none of those things, especially when it is you who is using false strawman arguments to try to refute my points such as the above individual “spy weapons” which are not at all germane to the issues of weapons of mass destruction.
And, diogenesis, sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar and nothing changes what it is. . . Or a flu bug is just a flu bug.
I feel better now, thank you.
Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany
I have never presented it as anything but the survival rate of the absolutely worst cases, usually with the caveat that this cohort, the sickest of the sick in the ICU would be expected to have the worst prognosis!
It is however the only data set that mentions recovered.
Of course a rapidly spreading disease will have a falling apparent death rate, getting infected is a much faster process that slowly dying of the disease.
If you were sick how many people could you infect before you died? Let's say you were patient zero. and the disease process takes 4 weeks to kill, and you're infectious after the first week, you and each person you infect spread it to 1 other person per day:
In 3 weeks 11 people would be infected
In 4 weeks 174 people would be infected
In 5 weeks 1947 people would be infected
At this point patient zero dies. The death rate by your formula is 0.0513%
If we make the wildly pessimistic assumption that EVERYONE dies at 28 days:
In 6 weeks 22145 people would be infected
And we'd have 11 fatalities, but your formula would show the rate had dropped to 0.0496%
As long as the rate of infection outpaces the rate of fatalities, your method will show the fatality rate ad dropping like a stone!
7 weeks 256314 infected 174 dead 0.0077% fatalities...
$10 to be donated to FR?
Thanks for the informative chart. Appreciate it.
Sure, but it seems ghoulish, don’t you think? Let’s keep an eye on it. I think it will be close to 2% on the reported cases, under 1% overall.
Not any more
No, that’s not what happened. Your initial post implied that because the Chinese were attempting to treat the Wuhan victims with drugs commonly used for HIV/AIDS treatments, the Wuhan virus *must* have some HIV parts in it.
I pointed out that by that logic, anyone treated with atropine, a drug most famously used as a nerve agent antidote, for any other disease (and it’s used for quite a few) must also have been exposed to a nerve agent. Your argument does not make any sense.
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.