Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Coronavirus

Options
13567…80

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    On the first page of this thread I mentioned someone who has information about the CIA officially declaring that China have a bioweapons lab in wuhan.
    I neglected to provide a source for this so I will now do so.
    Kermit.de.frog. wrote: »
    The CIA say it's the most advanced bio weapons facility in China.

    Why do you think China put such extreme measures in place so quick?
    Kermit.de.frog. wrote: »
    The source is from a committee of the US congress and I am not trawling through the hours of video or transcripts to find it.

    And I am certainly not doing it for someone intent on insulting me.

    The source of this info here on boards.ie is not prepared to cooperate with me. Which is his right.

    Can anyone point me in the direction of where I may find these videos from US congress?

    If China do indeed have a bioweapons lab and it has been proven by the CIA it would be the biggest story of the year. If I can find these videos I'm happy to spend the time going through them to get to this important information.


  • Options
    #63
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Pretty crappy offensive biological weapon: "Sir we've invented something that kills 1% of people and spreads all over the world screwing everyone up including ourselves."
    By implying this has only a 1% fatality rate, you are simply applying/pushing very dis-informed, dis-information.

    The common widely accepted rate is (at very least) 2%.

    However when that's placed within the context of any country, that can't whip up a handful of brand new hospitals within a couple of weeks, then impact rates could be easily multiplied under any significant escalation.


  • Options
    #64
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    By implying this has only a 1% fatality rate, you are simply applying/pushing very dis-informed, dis-information.

    The common widely accepted rate is (at very least) 2%.

    However when that's placed within the context of any country, that can't whip up a handful of brand new hospitals within a couple of weeks, then impact rates could be easily multiplied under any significant escalation.


    the fatality rate is actually 7% as of today, the 2% you are referring to includes unresolved cases, it's a skewed figure


  • Options
    #65
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    Someone else (The Nal) suggested he had something to do with the virus itself, which is very sinister and baseless. It's simply a circumstancal situation.

    No I did not.


  • Options
    #66
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    By implying this has only a 1% fatality rate, you are simply applying/pushing very dis-informed, dis-information.

    The common widely accepted rate is (at very least) 2%.

    It isn't disinformation. 1%, 2%, 3% - the mortality rate fluctuates depending on where you are from and when you were infected.
    Researchers currently think that between five and 40 coronavirus cases in 1,000 will result in death, with a best guess of nine in 1,000 or about 1%.

    But it depends on a range of factors: your age, sex and general health and the health system you are in.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743
    If borne out by further testing, this could mean that current estimates of a roughly 1% fatality rate are accurate.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/29/worse-than-flu-busting-coronavirus-myths

    Of course that's all splitting hairs, the point stands, the conspiracy that this is a leaked "bioweapon" that kills only 1% or 2% of the population and can easily spread to the host country is of course absurd.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    the fatality rate is actually 7% as of today, the 2% you are referring to includes unresolved cases, it's a skewed figure
    Could well be (potentially), as agree that it would be wrong to include anyone with the early stages of it, or that is currently in progress of treatment (the 2%).

    Only when each individual case has reached a final conclusion (either:resolved/fatality) could a final rate be calculated.


  • Options
    #68
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Of course that's all splitting hairs.
    Of course it's not splitting hairs, when the single largest data study available (of 72,314 patient records), shows an overall case fatality rate of 2.3%.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51540981

    http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51

    It will become more accurate with time, but this is currently the best figure available to work with, thus you suggesting only 1%, is simply outdated guesswork, or nonsense.


  • Options
    #69
    Mic 1972
    Registered Users Posts: 3,213 ✭✭✭Mic 1972


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    Could well be (potentially), as agree that it would be wrong to include anyone with the early stages of it, or that is currently in progress of treatment (the 2%).

    Only when each individual case has reached a final conclusion (either:resolved/fatality) could a final rate be calculated.


    The number of closed cases (45K) is higher than the number of open cases (42K) . Close Cases are now a very large sample to analyze. As of today the death rate is 6.57% rounded up to 7%, which is "somehow" encouraging because it's trending down as more cases reach resolution. I'd say ff the final rate is anything near 5% it's still a very concerning number


  • Options
    #70
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    Of course it's not splitting hairs

    It is.

    thus you suggesting only 1%, is simply outdated guesswork, or nonsense.

    It isn't. Those who became ill before Jan 10th had a mortality rate of up to 15%, after February it's closer to 1%. You are quoting the average, I am quoting the current. Both are correct. And as treatment continues to improve and develop, the current fatality rate should fall even further, which will decrease the average.


  • Options
    #71
    Titclamp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭Titclamp


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    By implying this has only a 1% fatality rate, you are simply applying/pushing very dis-informed, dis-information.

    The common widely accepted rate is (at very least) 2%.

    However when that's placed within the context of any country, that can't whip up a handful of brand new hospitals within a couple of weeks, then impact rates could be easily multiplied under any significant escalation.

    I doubt the goal is just a precise mortality rate dufus .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It is.
    NOT.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Both are correct.
    Incorrect.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And as treatment continues to improve
    If you're hoping to see a vaccine anytime before 2021, I've some very bad news for you. Even the FDA recently warned against any rush (12-18mth) to vax, which is really saying something.

    A novel virus like this, by it's nature won't have any quick fix. Treatment for those at risk will likely depend largely on oxygen-based breathing assitance support machines, which frankly there isn't a whole shed full of ready to roll out.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    ..the current fatality rate should fall even further, which will decrease the average.
    'Should'? based on what exactly, magic beans?

    Or other clinical source only you know of?

    Again you seem to be implying some sort of magic cure is in the (near) horizon. This thing will be around for a while, and likely re-appear in waves.

    Again folks shouldn't also ignore contextual factors, e.g. Ireland not long ago (perhaps still) had around 700 folks on trolleys waiting to be seen. A strike is on going with cleaners currently, and last week a baby received treatment on the floor of an A&E floor as no trolley was available.

    Now throw an aul epidemic/pandemic in the mix, and the (overall) averages and consequences will not be rocket science to figure out.


  • Options
    #73
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    So the conspiracy here is...?


  • Options
    #74
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    'Should'? based on what exactly, magic beans?

    The fatality rate is dropping because they are getting better at treating the virus. You seem to be misunderstanding what treatment means, it's not a cure (or a vaccine): if you contract Covid 19 now you generally have a higher chance of survival than if you got it back in Jan due to improved treatment and knowledge of the virus

    That's why medical professionals are putting the fatality rate closer to 1% now, keyword: now. The average is higher because it takes into account January rates.

    Moving on, no one has presented a credible conspiracy yet..


  • Options
    #75
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    So the conspiracy here is...?
    Well the two latest (by DoeJoe) are that:

    i) 1% is the fatality rate (DohnJoe)
    This isn't widely supported, nor largely quoted. Also unrealistic when considering so many global cases are still open, and undergoing treatment (many serious, or critical).

    ii) And as treatment continues to improve (DohnJoe) fatality rates will {soon} reduce (DohnJoe)
    This ignores the context (demands) of any worsening situation, which is highly ignorant. Again: there is no 'direct treatment' readily, or likely shortly to be available.

    Might suggest that if any sort of (complex, expensive or slightly complementary treatment) does become available, it won't be soon, won't be cheap, may only be 'somewhat' useful. Again the demands on the health services will outweigh this, and thus overall rate will not drop anytime soon.



    Moving on, it now appears there is new conspiracy, to downplay this ever-escalating event.


  • Options
    #76
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    Well the two latest (by DoeJoe) are that:
    I think you are misrepresenting him.
    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    Moving on, it now appears there is new conspiracy, to downplay this ever-escalating event.
    Ok. Why do you think this?

    What was the previous conspiracy you were suggesting?


  • Options
    #77
    Tired Gardener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Moving on, no one has presented a credible conspiracy yet..

    That's like trying to get blood out of a stone.

    China isn't well know for having great animal welfare, so is isn't too hard to accept that the virus is of animal origin. It has just crossed over the species gap and as it is new, it is spreading like wildfire.

    More than likely it will die down in a few months, like SARS, Swine Flu, etc.


  • Options
    #78
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    More than likely it will die down in a few months, like SARS, Swine Flu, etc.
    Seem to have forgot (to likely downplay) the Spanish Flu, err....

    There were 3 different waves of illness during the pandemic, starting in March 1918 and subsiding by summer of 1919. The pandemic peaked in the U.S. during the second wave, in the fall of 1918. This highly fatal second wave was responsible for most of the U.S. deaths attributed to the pandemic.


  • Options
    #79
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The two articles I linked quote the 1% figure, if someone doesn't understand or is determined not to understand the difference between average and current, or how treatment can improve survivability, no one can help them with that (it's really quite basic stuff but hey)

    All of this is just extreme nitpicking and silliness of course, my original point was that the internet conspiracy about this being a "bioweapon" is pretty absurd because it has a low fatality rate, and it spreads everywhere

    If it's Bill Gates trying to "make money" from a vaccine, that's the usual appeal to motive fallacy, with no evidence. Again of course it's pretty absurd, the guy is determined to give away vast chunks of his wealth, why is he suddenly interested in monetary gain?

    The best one so far is linking last month's conspiracy hot topic (the downing of the Iranian airlines flight) with the virus by suggesting the people on board were part of Corona virus research because some of them were academics


  • Options
    #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    If it's Bill Gates trying to "make money" from a vaccine, that's the usual appeal to motive fallacy, with no evidence.
    It's weird, cause if this was the case, then surely the conspiracy would be that the media and medical industry are trying to overplay the seriousness of the virus. That way they'd be increasing the demand for Bill's vaccine and earning him yet more money.

    But now we're told the conspiracy is to downplay the virus, which doesn't make sense for Bill to be involved.

    I really wish conspiracy theorists would be more clear and direct about their theories.


  • Options
    #81
    Titclamp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭Titclamp


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's weird, cause if this was the case, then surely the conspiracy would be that the media and medical industry are trying to overplay the seriousness of the virus. That way they'd be increasing the demand for Bill's vaccine and earning him yet more money.

    But now we're told the conspiracy is to downplay the virus, which doesn't make sense for Bill to be involved.

    I really wish conspiracy theorists would be more clear and direct about their theories.

    Clear and direct? Awww can't understand most people are walking contradictions?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's weird, cause if this was the case, then surely the conspiracy would be that the media and medical industry are trying to overplay the seriousness of the virus. That way they'd be increasing the demand for Bill's vaccine and earning him yet more money.

    But now we're told the conspiracy is to downplay the virus, which doesn't make sense for Bill to be involved.

    I really wish conspiracy theorists would be more clear and direct about their theories.

    Yes, it's the usual, it's both hyped and underplayed by the media for nefarious reasons

    Even come across a few "it's the Jews" CTs


  • Options
    #83
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's weird, cause if this was the case, then surely the conspiracy would be that the media and medical industry are trying to overplay the seriousness of the virus.
    That's weird? The media have plenty of suggestion the virus will be very significant indeed.

    Even many state governments have issued alerts/warnings (by very gradual drip-feed), as to the potential (likely) impacts of it, so populations can get prepared. Slow and orderly gradual preparedness is key.
    Improvement isn't suggested to be on the cards however, anytime soon.

    The only single place it's being clearly downplayed, appears to be right here. By just a few of the same old folks, weirdly.

    Anyhoe, sure a few random folks calling it only 1% risk and a 'soon to improve' situtaiton (using some magic flu beans, or something), on the interweb is largely meaningless, but also slightly dark-humoured, irresponsible and flippant.

    Constant downplaying of it however, is somewhat of a conspiracy in itself.


  • Options
    #84
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    hyped and underplayed by the media for nefarious reasons

    Even come across a few "it's the Jews" CTs

    So now it's both: 'hyped and also underplayed', make your mind up (or cover all bases).

    The Jews, say what? Who said that? Why would 'you' even bring up some religion that no one has mentioned before in regards to this?
    - Maybe you have any particular view on that, you wish to share with everyone, a conspiracy, so to speak?


  • Options
    #85
    Titclamp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭Titclamp


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    That's weird? The media have plenty of suggestion the virus will be very significant indeed.

    Even many state governments have issued alerts/warnings (by very gradual drip-feed), as to the potential (likely) impacts of it, so populations can get prepared. Slow and orderly gradual preparedness is key.
    Improvement isn't suggested to be on the cards however, anytime soon.

    The only single place it's being clearly downplayed, appears to be right here. By just a few of the same old folks, weirdly.

    Anyhoe, sure a few random folks calling it only 1% risk and a 'soon to improve' situtaiton (using some magic flu beans, or something), on the interweb is largely meaningless, but also slightly dark-humoured, irresponsible and flippant.

    Constant downplaying of it however, is somewhat of a conspiracy in itself.

    Cognitive dissonance is in action as we speak.

    Some say underplayed and some say its hyperbolic.

    Keeps everyone sure their guesswork is fact as a mode of reassured conviction.


  • Options
    #86
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    So now it's both: 'hyped and also underplayed', make your mind up (or cover all bases).

    It's both. Various conspiracy threads are claiming a) it's over-hyped and b) it's being "covered up".

    The Jews, say what? Who said that? Why would 'you' even bring up some religion that no one has mentioned before in regards to this?
    - Maybe you have any particular view on that, you wish to share with everyone, a conspiracy, so to speak?

    Conspiracy theorists are suggesting "the Jews" are behind it in various conspiracy threads (it's a common theme in most conspiracy theories)


  • Options
    #87
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's both. Various conspiracy threads are claiming a) it's over-hyped and b) it's being "covered up".
    The only place have seen it underplayed is right here.
    Everyone else is taking it fairly seriously.

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Conspiracy theorists are suggesting "the Jews" are behind it in various conspiracy threads (it's a common theme in most conspiracy theories)
    'Some, various, most'

    You're sounding a bit vague, and you're the 1st person to bring up "the jews".

    Do you have a view of your own on "the jews" as you refer to, in relation to COVID19 feel free to explain.

    What about the Buddists, are they "involved" somehow.?

    This is getting a bit strange now, some folks (DohnJoe) are bringing up religions into this coronavirus situation, while at the same time, not even explaining why.
    Weirdly we only get: 'Some, various, most' (vague or what!).


  • Options
    #88
    Lord Fairlord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Lord Fairlord


    Ipso wrote: »
    I miss the George Soros conspiracies.

    Neither conspiracy nor theory that the Open Society Foundation is subverting nations:
    https://eclj.org/ngos-and-the-judges-of-the-echr
    Part of this report goes highlights that there are multiple judges linked to the OSF and shows that there is a conflict of interest.

    Also, for anyone who wants to learn a bit about George Soros generally:
    https://listverse.com/2016/10/21/10-dark-secrets-of-george-soros/
    This is not a conspiracy site although it does occasionally cover them.


  • Options
    #89
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alena Tangy Someone wrote: »
    That's weird? The media have plenty of suggestion the virus will be very significant indeed.

    Even many state governments have issued alerts/warnings (by very gradual drip-feed), as to the potential (likely) impacts of it, so populations can get prepared.

    ...

    Constant downplaying of it however, is somewhat of a conspiracy in itself.
    :confused:
    So you are saying it's being downplayed. But you know it's being downplayed because the media and government are warning about it?

    I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense and is self contradictory.


    Could you perhaps explain it more directly and plainly?
    What exactly is being downplayed?
    How do you know it's being downplayed?
    Why is it being downplayed?


  • Options
    #90
    Titclamp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭Titclamp


    King Mob wrote: »
    :confused:
    So you are saying it's being downplayed. But you know it's being downplayed because the media and government are warning about it?

    I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense and is self contradictory.


    Could you perhaps explain it more directly and plainly?
    What exactly is being downplayed?
    How do you know it's being downplayed?
    Why is it being downplayed?

    Why ask so many questions when you don't want answers that suit you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Lord Fairlord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Lord Fairlord


    Re Bill Gates and vaccines; there are clips of him seemingly linking vaccines and a reduction in population growth.


Advertisement