COVID-19

[ABMD]

Maybe it's only my state, MD, but I thought they were only testing people who had symptoms AND a note from their Dr saying they needed a test. There is no need to test the world, except to increase the sample size for statistics.

To me, this is the same as "flattening the curve". If we have everyone tested today, A) we don't have enough tests, and B) it will take forever to get results back. If you spread out testing, you don't get ahead of supply (tests) and don't overwhelm the labs and those that really need the tests/results will get them in a timely manner (those that are displaying symptoms and confirmed by their Dr.)

 

[antonkr]

"Debunked" is a stronger word than the word I used ("likely") - nothing's been completely debunked yet or eliminated from possibility yet.

Ha, wow. So this opinion piece (which it is) discounts the possibility of an accidental release of a test environment sample because Dr. Le Duc of Galveston thinks that Dr. Shi Zhengli of Wuhan (former director of the Wuhan Virology Institute) was a swell lady, and seemed real reputable when he heard her speak at conferences.

Here are some alternative viewpoints:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220300528
"we identified a peculiar furin-like cleavage site in the Spike protein of the 2019-nCoV, lacking in the other SARS-like CoVs"

https://www.newsweek.com/controvers...may-have-started-coronavirus-pandemic-1500503

The firsrt article simply shows an absence of a particular gene. This in no way supports a theory of the virus being man made. Viruses like any other carrier of genetic information become modified by environmental interactions and are bound by laws of natural selection. The second article is not scientific or peer reviewed and does not cite any actual direct evidence for the virus being man made.
There are litterally terrabytes of data about coronavirus and millions of researchers worldwide staring at this genome (including me). If it had properties suggesting it was man made, you would know. As pointed out in the opinion article the technologies to create a virus in the manner the conspiracy theorists are suggesting is simply impossible and wrong.

 

[taxi1]

The amount of positives hovering at 5-10% of total tests says we're testing way too many people.

If it is more than 5% we are under-testing. We don't know what is actually going on in the population.

The key to opening up any college or university with in-person teaching (not to mention K-12) is broad, fast testing of the population. Without the fast testing, you can't contact trace and put out the flare-ups. Without fast testing, everyone with symptoms goes into quarantine. You are flying blind.

In just a few weeks the requirement for testing is going to greatly increase as the students show up, but it looks like the testing shortfall is not going to get better. The result is going to be a big cluster-#$% with surprise flare-ups, and the schools will shut back down again.

Where I work we do classified stuff, so not everyone gets to work from home. We have key people on projects who are sitting around on their ass waiting for the test results, and it is impacting key projects.

Maybe it's only my state, MD, but I thought they were only testing people who had symptoms AND a note from their Dr saying they needed a test. There is no need to test the world, except to increase the sample size for statistics.

There is an absolute need to "test the world" otherwise the only way you know there's a hot spot is when someone shows up at the doctor's or worse at the hospital. This Epidemiology 101.

Quick google, PA isn't the only one seeing this...

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (WJZ) — Governor Larry Hogan said national labs must do a faster job of processing coronavirus tests as delays are leaving some people in limbo about their status for weeks.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The firsrt article simply shows an absence of a particular gene. This in no way supports a theory of the virus being man made. Viruses like any other carrier of genetic information become modified by environmental interactions and are bound by laws of natural selection. The second article is not scientific or peer reviewed and does not cite any actual direct evidence for the virus being man made.
There are litterally terrabytes of data about coronavirus and millions of researchers worldwide staring at this genome (including me). If it had properties suggesting it was man made, you would know. As pointed out in the opinion article the technologies to create a virus in the manner the conspiracy theorists are suggesting is simply impossible and wrong.

When you say "manmade" do you consider a naturally-occurring bat coronavirus that has been given or exposed to gain-of-function properties for research purposes to be included in the definition of "manmade"?

Also - "simply shows an absence of a particular gene" is underselling it, and twisting it. It actually has a peculiar gene that other CoVs don't have.

 

[antonkr]

When you say "manmade" do you consider a naturally-occurring bat coronavirus that has been given or exposed to gain-of-function properties for research purposes to be included in the definition of "manmade"?

Yes. Manmade as in intentionally modified. There is zero evidence to suggest that this is the case. And once again this is normal and is a result of environmental interaction and selection.

Not to mention from the article
"Conversely, the highly pathogenic forms of influenza have a furin-like cleavage site cleaved by different cellular proteases, including furin, which are expressed in a wide variety of cell types allowing a widening of the cell tropism of the virus"

Furin cleavage sites aren't something new and something that would be unexpected of a virus. You can't just read the article title.

 

[scoolbubba]

The US estimates its own newest level 4 lab's likelihood of accidental release of a virus capable of causing "major economic impact" in the next 50 years at 70%. I would take those odds every day and twice on sundays.

It's not a kook theory to think that this was an accidental release. In fact, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it. To dismiss it out of hand, especially at the word of groups like USAID and NIH (who are both directly funding gain of function research in US and foreign labs) is the definition of anti-science. They have a vested interest in protecting their reputation...quite the conflict of interest.

If there's anything that this pandemic has taught us, it's that science does not deal in certainty. Due to far reaching geopolitical implications, I don't know that we will ever in our lifetimes have a certain origin point for knowing where this started, just a few leading theories with differing levels of probability.

 

[Pags]

The US estimates its own newest level 4 lab's likelihood of accidental release of a virus capable of causing "major economic impact" in the next 50 years at 70%. I would take those odds every day and twice on sundays.

It's not a kook theory to think that this was an accidental release. In fact, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it. To dismiss it out of hand, especially at the word of groups like USAID and NIH (who are both directly funding gain of function research in US and foreign labs) is the definition of anti-science. They have a vested interest in protecting their reputation...quite the conflict of interest.

If there's anything that this pandemic has taught us, it's that science does not deal in certainty. Due to far reaching geopolitical implications, I don't know that we will ever in our lifetimes have a certain origin point for knowing where this started, just a few leading theories with differing levels of probability.

There's a difference between accidental release and "made it in a lab." An naturally occurring virus could still be accidentally released. Saying that it was made/altered/tuned in a lab is a technological leap that, as others have pointed out, doesn't look as though it has happened based on scientific observations of the virus.

 

[Pags]

And how do you square the prevailing wisdom that we must follow the data and listen to the scientist/experts? That is the cudgel that is being used to beat up everyone that would suggest an alternative or specialized approach. Leaders have little choice here. Most don't have the courage or communication skills to deviate from the CDC and the lock down crowd and sell it to their constituents. The decisions were largely out sourced to the "experts" and the policy folks nodded their heads. And that is why we have gotten mixed messages and poor implementation. Experts should not be setting policy. And that is especially so when the information they have is incomplete, variable and evolving. Leaders make policy and lead. That is not the case in this crisis on any level thanks to the notion that we must do what the experts say.

I'd say at the top of this you should listen to the experts because, at the core, they're largely talking fact. Experts have said fire is hot and can burn you. People shouldn't be surprised if they get burned or if their house burns down because they played with fire. Experts have said you shouldn't fly you airplane into the ground or at over X deg of bank. If you don't listen those experts you shouldn't be surprised if you end up with a windscreen full of ground, the stick full aft, and a negative VSI with the throttles at max.

Beyond the scientific facts this sounds like a leadership problem. If leaders feel they HAVE to turn this over to the experts than, frankly, they're not doing their job. If leaders lack the skills to handle complex policies issues and people are feeling that their leadership's performance has underwhelmed them than maybe they should keep that in mind when they pick leaders.

The leaders should be listening to MANY experts; epidemiologists, public health, economists, education, law enforcement, legal, etc to craft their policies. Policies should be trying to balance a lot of various factors. Personally, I think a lot of areas have been myopic one way or the other, often in line with their politics. Which is stupid because the virus doesn't care. The fact that the Federal level has, as far as I can tell, decided to provide no guidance or framework is making states go it on their own and go in their own directions that has resulted in tons of confusion.

I also think that the public has been ignorant in how they've approached what is a new situation for everyone. People who say "but the guidance was different 6mo ago?!" are being STUPID. Guidance was limited based on the knowledge available at the time. Guidance is different now because we know more. Guidance will be different 6 months from now and different again 12mo from now. People who are confused by changing guidance aren't doing their part to be informed citizens and are the same type of people who don't leave their house when a wildfire is consuming the neighborhood: "but last week the mayor said it was a small fire down in the gulch and I didn't need to evacuate then. i'm mad that the fire has gotten bigger but i'm not going to live in fear! I don't care that it's a huge fire now and the mayor has said we need to evacuate, I'm sticking with the first guidance!"

 

[taxi1]

Beyond the scientific facts this sounds like a leadership problem. If leaders feel they HAVE to turn this over to the experts than, frankly, they're not doing their job

Along those lines, this is an interesting read, for anyone wanting to get their nerd on. Written in 1973, boy is it prescient on what info tech will do to the balkanization of society. Speaks to the ongoing pandemic response.

Dilemmas in a general theory of planning - Policy Sciences

The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a...

link.springer.com

 

[scoolbubba]

There's a difference between accidental release and "made it in a lab." An naturally occurring virus could still be accidentally released. Saying that it was made/altered/tuned in a lab is a technological leap that, as others have pointed out, doesn't look as though it has happened based on scientific observations of the virus.

The WIV does gain of function research and also studies bat coronaviruses, it's one of the world's foremost in that particular field of study due to the prevalence of bat populations carrying coronaviruses in China. In 2007 and 2017, the WIV engineered hybrid coronaviruses receptor binding motifs to enhance their infectious traits. In fact, the NIH was co-funding a research study on the transmissibility of bat coronaviruses in that very lab up until the kaibosh got put on it in the last few months by the current administration. Whether that was a good idea is questionable, but there is no doubt that our own NIH was uniquely intertwined with this particular lab.

Super nerdy warning: There are specific traits of this virus that make it particularly suited to binding to human cells that some scientists claim should have taken far longer to naturally evolve. Those traits are what raise the suspicion that this was a virus subjected to gain of function research, ie accelerated evolution. Gain of function research is not a 'technological leap,' it's something scientists have repeatedly spoken out about as an ethical nightmare due to the potential for an accidental release of a novel pathogen. We've been screwing with viruses to make them more infectious to purportedly learn how to better treat them for about a century. It's the very definition of Pandora's box.

I admit, all of this is circumstantial and I am the definition of a layman when it comes to genetic research, virology, immunology, epidemiology, and most other ologies., but like I said, I think there's way too many geopolitical factors due to the connected nature of china and our country's economies in general, and our scientific communities in specific, to ever get a 99% answer on where this thing started.

All that's left now is is to manage the clean up. We've also got to come up with ways forward to be more prepared while balancing the quest for knowledge with the statistically likely risk that something nasty gets out of our control in the future.

To summarize: I think it was a really wise mathematician that once said "Life finds a way."

 

[wink]

I'd say at the top of this you should listen to the experts because, at the core, they're largely talking fact. Experts have said fire is hot and can burn you. People shouldn't be surprised if they get burned or if their house burns down because they played with fire. Experts have said you shouldn't fly you airplane into the ground or at over X deg of bank. If you don't listen those experts you shouldn't be surprised if you end up with a windscreen full of ground, the stick full aft, and a negative VSI with the throttles at max.

These are not good analogs to the crisis at hand. There is absolutely no doubt that fire is hot or that certain maneuvers at certain altitudes and power settings in certain airplanes will cause you to hit the ground. In the case of COVID, the experts have been all over the map, even flat out wrong, and could not be certain about anything, especially in the early weeks. Fire/hot, conclusive. COVID/millions dead, educated guess. Asystematic/contagious, who knew? This is why leaders need to make the judgment calls.

Beyond the scientific facts this sounds like a leadership problem. If leaders feel they HAVE to turn this over to the experts than, frankly, they're not doing their job. If leaders lack the skills to handle complex policies issues and people are feeling that their leadership's performance has underwhelmed them than maybe they should keep that in mind when they pick leaders.

The leaders should be listening to MANY experts; epidemiologists, public health, economists, education, law enforcement, legal, etc to craft their policies. Policies should be trying to balance a lot of various factors. Personally, I think a lot of areas have been myopic one way or the other, often in line with their politics. Which is stupid because the virus doesn't care. The fact that the Federal level has, as far as I can tell, decided to provide no guidance or framework is making states go it on their own and go in their own directions that has resulted in tons of confusion.

I also think that the public has been ignorant in how they've approached what is a new situation for everyone. People who say "but the guidance was different 6mo ago?!" are being STUPID. Guidance was limited based on the knowledge available at the time. Guidance is different now because we know more. Guidance will be different 6 months from now and different again 12mo from now. People who are confused by changing guidance aren't doing their part to be informed citizens and are the same type of people who don't leave their house when a wildfire is consuming the neighborhood: "but last week the mayor said it was a small fire down in the gulch and I didn't need to evacuate then. i'm mad that the fire has gotten bigger but i'm not going to live in fear! I don't care that it's a huge fire now and the mayor has said we need to evacuate, I'm sticking with the first guidance!"

+1

 

[Pags]

The WIV does gain of function research and also studies bat coronaviruses, it's one of the world's foremost in that particular field of study due to the prevalence of bat populations carrying coronaviruses in China. In 2007 and 2017, the WIV engineered hybrid coronaviruses receptor binding motifs to enhance their infectious traits. In fact, the NIH was co-funding a research study on the transmissibility of bat coronaviruses in that very lab up until the kaibosh got put on it in the last few months by the current administration. Whether that was a good idea is questionable, but there is no doubt that our own NIH was uniquely intertwined with this particular lab.

Super nerdy warning: There are specific traits of this virus that make it particularly suited to binding to human cells that some scientists claim should have taken far longer to naturally evolve. Those traits are what raise the suspicion that this was a virus subjected to gain of function research, ie accelerated evolution. Gain of function research is not a 'technological leap,' it's something scientists have repeatedly spoken out about as an ethical nightmare due to the potential for an accidental release of a novel pathogen. We've been screwing with viruses to make them more infectious to purportedly learn how to better treat them for about a century. It's the very definition of Pandora's box.

I admit, all of this is circumstantial and I am the definition of a layman when it comes to genetic research, virology, immunology, epidemiology, and most other ologies., but like I said, I think there's way too many geopolitical factors due to the connected nature of china and our country's economies in general, and our scientific communities in specific, to ever get a 99% answer on where this thing started.

All that's left now is is to manage the clean up. We've also got to come up with ways forward to be more prepared while balancing the quest for knowledge with the statistically likely risk that something nasty gets out of our control in the future.

To summarize: I think it was a really wise mathematician that once said "Life finds a way."

My conspiracy theory: NIH was working with WIV because the folks on the "deckplates" in that field understand where the likely risk vectors were and that humanity has a vested interest in understanding these viruses in case one makes the jump to people. And the two countries health experts are working together because they know that a virus doesn't care about national boundaries and that the whole world has a vested interest in understanding the risks and being smart enough about these risks to have a fighting chance in case something bad does happen.

But that's clearly a stupid idea and it's not scary enough so it'll never work as a conspiracy ?

 

[scoolbubba]

My conspiracy theory: NIH was working with WIV because the folks on the "deckplates" in that field understand where the likely risk vectors were and that humanity has a vested interest in understanding these viruses in case one makes the jump to people. And the two countries health experts are working together because they know that a virus doesn't care about national boundaries and that the whole world has a vested interest in understanding the risks and being smart enough about these risks to have a fighting chance in case something bad does happen.

But that's clearly a stupid idea and it's not scary enough so it'll never work as a conspiracy ?

Dude, I'm not claiming that there aren't very legitimate reasons for these labs and organizations to work together. I'm simply stating that taking the NIH at face value is accepting the account of a group with a direct conflict of interest regarding this particular lab. We don't let squadron COs run their own mishap investigations.

Where else is that an acceptable practice?

 

[Pags]

These are not good analogs to the crisis at hand. There is absolutely no doubt that fire is hot or that certain maneuvers at certain altitudes and power settings in certain airplanes will cause you to hit the ground. In the case of COVID, the experts have been all over the map, even flat out wrong, and could not be certain about anything, especially in the early weeks. Fire/hot, conclusive. COVID/millions dead, educated guess. Asystematic/contagious, who knew? This is why leaders need to make the judgment calls.

Agreed they aren't perfect analogies. But you have experts saying that what we have is a lot like fire and we know that fire burns so maybe we shouldn't just jam our face in there right away.

To the airplane analogy this a lot like a new airplane. We know how old airplanes handle and where the risks are. Now we have something new that the experts have never seen. In flight test you get from unknown to known by moving through test points that gradually open your envelope. Sure, the CTR made an airplane that they said can go up to FL80 and 4.0 Mach. On the first flight of that new aircraft you don't just go to FL80 and 4.0 Mach. You first do a bunch of ground runs. Then some taxi test to make sure the wheels don't shimmy off at V1-3kts. Then some flight with the gear down to make sure the wings work at low speed. Then you pull the gear and go a bit faster and a bit higher. All this time you're using models to compare observed performance to predicted performance. In many cases the models are wrong because you can't make a perfect mode (no matter what the modelers tell you). If an observation is off of the model then we need to update the models and likely update the flight test plan to add more flights for data collection and discovery to help the team understand why the behavior is different. This is a hugely frustrating exercise in reality even to leadership that works in the field of aircraft development because it can ruin schedules and decisions that were made before all the data was in.

Right now the entire world is going through a flight test. Pretending like it's not an issue or blaming some group for screwing up a model is just admiring the problem. Just like in flight test, things go best when people admit there's a problem, understand the problem, make a solution to the problem, and try it out. Yes, that can be a long time but it's always shorter and less painful then the "deny the issue and press" option.

 

[Pags]

Dude, I'm not claiming that there aren't very legitimate reasons for these labs and organizations to work together. I'm simply stating that taking the NIH at face value is accepting the account of a group with a direct conflict of interest regarding this particular lab. We don't let squadron COs run their own mishap investigations.

Where else is that an acceptable practice?

Right on. And agree wrt to mishap investigation.