Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

90k infected in china ....Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Well that I don't know.  I read somewhere today it's the 5th time the coronavirus has broken the animal / human line.  I don't know what the previous animals are.

Bummer is if you google 5th coronavirus all you get is that there are now 5 confirmed cases in the US.  So I guess we wait a bit until the 6th pops up. .

Read today that all previous jumps were mammals (like MERS, camels or birds, SARS)

Eta Found the source Nature.com

Edited by msommer
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Only reason it would matter if it originated from the lab, would be if the strain were engineered and it affects how it spreads compared to if it occurred in nature.

All facts stated are true, per Scientific American and Nature.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bat-cave-solves-mystery-of-deadly-sars-virus/

https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487
 

The distance, nature of the work done there, and concerns of leak of biohazard are true.

That said, here’s a thoughtful article making the case for the virus occurring naturally as transmitted from bats to an intermediary, as happened with civit cats and SARS. Makes a compelling case why it is not an escaped bioweapon.

https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-wuhan-coronavirus-is-not-an-escaped-bioweapon/

What I wrote after the facts I just backed up, how a virus might leak as scientists were concerned about when it was announced, is conjecture. However, and this is discussed in comments within the article I just linked, it’s possible a strain being researched in the lab could be the source. It doesn’t mean it was released intentionally if it occurred at all. Again, only reason it really matters if it came from the lab or didn’t is whether it has bearing on its virulence.

It’s curious at the least that scientists thought a lab of this type and Chinese culture were a dangerous combo, and the lab is known to be researching bat-originated coronaviruses.

 

No need to bring up the lab except as origin which at this point is complete conjecture. Conjecture should go in the conspiracy thread, IMHO

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Ham said:

I respectfully disagree, in that the first post in the topic is about the government lying about infection numbers by a factor of 50. If that’s the case, because their government lies (though at this point it is conjecture, but reasonable conjecture), it is also reasonable to entertain whether there are factors we don’t know about that precipitated their dramatic response and are response for WHY this is progressing at an unparalleled rate - if conjecture of 90k infected is close to true.

Conjecture of 90k should also go in the conspiracy thread. Even scmp only theorizes half that

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

Will Corona the beer have the same fate as Ayds the diet supplement?

I can picture the Board of Directors Meeting for Corona where they are wringing their hands and saying: "Why couldn't they have called it the Coors Virus?"

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote yesterday that so far as I could see there was no political element to this story. 

It appears I was incorrect. President Trump’s budget, which was approved by Congress, cut spending for the Centers for Disease Control by 20% last year. It was barely noticed in the news at the time, given all of the various scandals that always consume this presidency,  but the health community did take notice and objected as loud as they could: 

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/49/3/1.2

That’s from April of 2019. Of course one of the objections made is that we will have less money to spend on pandemics. 

This is one of many reasons why I personally have switched over to the Democratic Party. As a general philosophy they are willing to spend more money in advance on CDC, on FEMA, on EPA, on dealing with the possibility of future emergencies. And no I am NOT saying that Trump or the Republicans are to blame if this situation becomes dire. I am simply saying that I prefer the Democratic Party’s greater willingness when it comes to issues like this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I wrote yesterday that so far as I could see there was no political element to this story. 

It appears I was incorrect. President Trump’s budget, which was approved by Congress, cut spending for the Centers for Disease Control by 20% last year. It was barely noticed in the news at the time, given all of the various scandals that always consume this presidency,  but the health community did take notice and objected as loud as they could: 

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/49/3/1.2

That’s from April of 2019. Of course one of the objections made is that we will have less money to spend on pandemics. 

This is one of many reasons why I personally have switched over to the Democratic Party. As a general philosophy they are willing to spend more money in advance on CDC, on FEMA, on EPA, on dealing with the possibility of future emergencies. And no I am NOT saying that Trump or the Republicans are to blame if this situation becomes dire. I am simply saying that I prefer the Democratic Party’s greater willingness when it comes to issues like this. 

Meh.  Even if the Dems had a cure, they would probably just lock it in a warehouse until the pandemic was over.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

Puerto Rico

That’s a combination of local officials and federal inaction. And it goes to my point. Trump like Bush before him cut spending on FEMA just as he is cutting spending on the CDC. And IMO such cuts make these situations worse, or at least more risky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That’s a combination of local officials and federal inaction. And it goes to my point. Trump like Bush before him cut spending on FEMA just as he is cutting spending on the CDC. And IMO such cuts make these situations worse, or at least more risky. 

No federal inaction to it.  The feds got them the supplies.  The locals chose to put them in a warehouse.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That’s a combination of local officials and federal inaction. And it goes to my point. Trump like Bush before him cut spending on FEMA just as he is cutting spending on the CDC. And IMO such cuts make these situations worse, or at least more risky. 

Perhaps if such cuts were accompanied by a purchase of several million pairs of bootstraps for distribution during emergencies.  The savings from the cuts would be less, of course, but still substantial.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

No federal inaction to it.  The feds got them the supplies.  The locals chose to put them in a warehouse.  

That’s the administration line to excuse some of their own incompetence. There is some truth to it but as usual it’s a lot more complicated. Yes some of the supplies were stupidly left in warehouses due to ineptitude and local corruption. But it’s also true that cuts in FEMA spending helped contribute to this problem along with a general disinterest on the part of President Trump. 

There’s not much we can do about Puerto Rico, but how our federal government reacts to these situations is a different story. If the Coronavirus becomes a crisis here we’re going to need a greater amount of efficiency than we demonstrated in previous situations. Cutting spending from the the CDC’s budget was not a good idea. Democrats wouldn’t have done it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

That’s the administration line to excuse some of their own incompetence. There is some truth to it but as usual it’s a lot more complicated. Yes some of the supplies were stupidly left in warehouses due to ineptitude and local corruption. But it’s also true that cuts in FEMA spending helped contribute to this problem along with a general disinterest on the part of President Trump. 

There’s not much we can do about Puerto Rico, but how our federal government reacts to these situations is a different story. If the Coronavirus becomes a crisis here we’re going to need a greater amount of efficiency than we demonstrated in previous situations. Cutting spending from the the CDC’s budget was not a good idea. Democrats wouldn’t have done it. 

just let it go.   it was a joke made in really poor taste (and poor humor, I might add).  The kind of post best ignored.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I wrote yesterday that so far as I could see there was no political element to this story. 

It appears I was incorrect. President Trump’s budget, which was approved by Congress, cut spending for the Centers for Disease Control by 20% last year. It was barely noticed in the news at the time, given all of the various scandals that always consume this presidency,  but the health community did take notice and objected as loud as they could: 

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/49/3/1.2

That’s from April of 2019. Of course one of the objections made is that we will have less money to spend on pandemics. 

This is one of many reasons why I personally have switched over to the Democratic Party. As a general philosophy they are willing to spend more money in advance on CDC, on FEMA, on EPA, on dealing with the possibility of future emergencies. And no I am NOT saying that Trump or the Republicans are to blame if this situation becomes dire. I am simply saying that I prefer the Democratic Party’s greater willingness when it comes to issues like this. 

You’re like a walking, talking confirmation bias billboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonessed said:

You’re like a walking, talking confirmation bias billboard.

Not really. If I was I would approve of how the Democrats execute their philosophy. And I’m usually not. All of the Republican criticisms of big bureaucratic government- waste,  incompetence, corruption, lots of rules and unnecessary delays that make no sense- are all pretty dead on accurate. These things happen whenever Democrats take charge and they’re almost inevitable. 

But that being said I still think the overall philosophy is preferable: far better to have a CDC that is large, wasteful and sometimes incompetent than a small CDC with not enough money to spend on whats important. At least that’s the way I see it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

That’s the administration line to excuse some of their own incompetence. There is some truth to it but as usual it’s a lot more complicated. Yes some of the supplies were stupidly left in warehouses due to ineptitude and local corruption. But it’s also true that cuts in FEMA spending helped contribute to this problem along with a general disinterest on the part of President Trump. 

There’s not much we can do about Puerto Rico, but how our federal government reacts to these situations is a different story. If the Coronavirus becomes a crisis here we’re going to need a greater amount of efficiency than we demonstrated in previous situations. Cutting spending from the the CDC’s budget was not a good idea. Democrats wouldn’t have done it. 

True indeed.  They are not budget cutters by nature.  the question is, though, whether at the same budget or even increased budgets would they be better prepared to respond to a pandemic, or would thy have dedicated those funds to other matters, study of gender identification, gun violence in teens, social media addiction?

 

Now all may be worthy of study.  All may be worthy of government funded study, though that is a more open question, but would we be more ready for the CDC's central mission, I wonder.  (I get that others may say all is part of the central mission.  Maybe so, maybe not, I just know I have observed mission creep in nearly all such organizations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

True indeed.  They are not budget cutters by nature.  the question is, though, whether at the same budget or even increased budgets would they be better prepared to respond to a pandemic, or would thy have dedicated those funds to other matters, study of gender identification, gun violence in teens, social media addiction?

 

Now all may be worthy of study.  All may be worthy of government funded study, though that is a more open question, but would we be more ready for the CDC's central mission, I wonder.  (I get that others may say all is part of the central mission.  Maybe so, maybe not, I just know I have observed mission creep in nearly all such organizations. 

I don’t know the answer. I agree with your concern. But I don’t think a slash of funds by percentage straight down the line will ever solve these concerns. 

Its funny to me: liberals always seem to believe that if you raise taxes on corporations it will simply result in greater efficiency; the corporations will absorb the costs, perhaps they will pay their executives a little less. But the reality is that none of this happens; what they do is simply pass on the added cost to the consumer; thus a “tax on the rich” becomes a tax on all of us. 

On the other hand conservatives believe that if they slash spending in government programs it will make those programs more efficient; they will stop spending money on wasteful stuff and concentrate on the important places where we all want the money to go. But this never happens either. Inevitably when funds are cut the wasteful spending remains and the important stuff gets cut. 

It’s the same error in both situations: solutions based on wrong presumptions about human nature. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I don’t know the answer. I agree with your concern. But I don’t think a slash of funds by percentage straight down the line will ever solve these concerns. 

Its funny to me: liberals always seem to believe that if you raise taxes on corporations it will simply result in greater efficiency; the corporations will absorb the costs, perhaps they will pay their executives a little less. But the reality is that none of this happens; what they do is simply pass on the added cost to the consumer; thus a “tax on the rich” becomes a tax on all of us. 

On the other hand conservatives believe that if they slash spending in government programs it will make those programs more efficient; they will stop spending money on wasteful stuff and concentrate on the important places where we all want the money to go. But this never happens either. Inevitably when funds are cut the wasteful spending remains and the important stuff gets cut. 

It’s the same error in both situations: solutions based on wrong presumptions about human nature. 

We are in agreement..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some demented idiot at my daughters high school spread a story on social media this morning that one of the teachers there had been hospitalized with the coronavirus. The principal was forced to send two separate emails to all of the parents exposing this as a hoax. 

Sick and twisted...and it shows you how dangerous social media can be because the news was spread so quickly- by the time the principal sent out the email virtually every student knew about it per my daughter thanks to Instagram. If they find out who did it, should that be a crime? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...