Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 350 posts

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#331

Post by kiterunner2346 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #72
TeMPOraL wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are powers definitely working on it. "Super" just doesn't mean "kills as much people as efficiently as possible". Ability to control the destruction is a crucial feature of any weapon. In the past, this perhaps meant viruses that fizzle out quickly, so they could be deployed on enemy territory. Today, with recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering, that likely means aiming for high selectivity - targeting eth…

Do you have a source about people working on it? Or is this a blacks op kind of thing so no one would admit to it publicly anyway, thus making it an unfalsifiable statement?

"Did China Steal Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponize It?"

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/did-china-steal-coron...

From the article:

"In March 2019 ... a shipment of exceptionally virulent viruses from Canada’s NML ended up in China. The event caused a major scandal with Bio-warfare experts questioning why Canada was sending lethal viruses to China. Scientists from NML said the highly lethal viruses were a potential bio-weapon.

Following investigation, the incident was traced to Chinese agents working at NML. Four months later in July 2019, a group of Chinese virologists were forcibly dispatched from the Canadian National Microbiology Laboratory (NML). The NML is Canada’s only level-4 facility and one of only a few in North America equipped to handle the world’s deadliest diseases, including Ebola, SARS, Coronavirus, etc."

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#333

Post by suifbwish »

simonswords82 wrote: post #306
suifbwish wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I see a much greater risk being around other humans. It’s why I don’t live near a major city and work from home. There is a chance that a virus from an animal might mutate to be human communicable but literally every virus from a human is already human communicable. People see it as somehow natural to live in a city of millions of people and then we are viewing animals as the greatest threat?

You genuinely chose where to live on the basis that living in remote proximity to other humans could perhaps lower your chance of catching an illness from them?

There are other reasons I’ve moved here but that did play into why I moved my family away from cities. I don’t think it’s safe living near too many people. I prefer to know everyone I interact with in my life. That and I cannot stand the sound of traffic constantly. Additionally, there is more chance of dying in a car accident or in some sort of crime. Plus if there is a war, major cities will be the first targets. People who cluster together tend to assume everything is just going to work out and don’t think about possibilities of what could happen.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#335

Post by koheripbal »

hatenberg wrote: post #214
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal (not official) reports suggest as many as 100,000 infections in Wuhan area. There are claims the virus may be spread through eyes as well as inhalation. Additional unsubstantiated claims suggest low to no fever during incubation period, making detection difficult. The most sensationalist claim making the rounds is that a known Wuhan area PLA biolab may have failed to contain this pathogen. In the end none o…

So what you are saying the mortality rate is comparable to the flu at those infection rates. Why the panic

No, because there are also many social media reports that patients dying of "viral pneumonia" are not being attributed to Coronavirus - simply due to the overwhelming of medical professionals and the inability to sequence everyone's samples.

They aren't spending time confirming that dead patients had coronavirus when they are in crisis mode.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#336

Post by bmn__ »

chx wrote: post #289
wsc981 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Asia people eat a lot of really weird stuff for us Westerners. I live in Thailand with my Thai girlfriend. I don't understand why my girlfriend likes to eat various kinds of insects and larva and why people in my village like to eat a pigs' brains. Yesterday my girlfriend showed me a YouTube movie of a Chinese girl eating a live octopus. I also know some people like to eat snakes around here. Different strokes for…

There's a ragout made from lungs (Beuschel) that is enjoyed in the former Austro-Hungarian empire area and absolutely nowhere else. If you want to try it, the best can be had at the Meierei, just don't forget to reserve a seat a few weeks ahead especially if your lunch aligns with the strudel time, the place is packed to the gills then.

> that is enjoyed in the former Austro-Hungarian empire area and absolutely nowhere else

Nonsense, that's Austrian exceptionalism at its worst. All across Europe the dish (English speaking locales: "calf's lights") can be had in a minority of restaurants and also is occasionally cooked at home.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#337

Post by Nasrudith »

zbjornson wrote: post #2

I'm amazed that there's not a movement to stop eating and being around animals as much world-wide, given that so much disease (and environmental damage) comes from consumption of and proximity to animals: - MERS-CoV: bats via dromedary camels - nCoV-2019: bats or snakes? - Influenza: pigs, birds - E. coli O157:H7: cows and other farm animals. ... (Edit: I mean along the lines of how safer sex is encouraged to prevent…

Well there hasn't been much of a choice historically and a zoophobic approach would carry way too many other side effects.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#338

Post by beaunative »

jamesblonde wrote: post #138
SubiculumCode wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That 3.8 may have since been revised downward....looking for the link again.

Different research groups are providing different estimates. But the estimates of estimates (model averaging) indicates that this epidemic has a good chance of sweeping the globe. Containment is needed to prevent it sweeping the globe, so we are at the mercy of the Chinese authorities...

More likely at the mercy of mother nature.

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#339

Post by beaunative »

Natsu wrote: post #309
sloppycee wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simple explanation is almost always right over complex ones. What's more likely? An amazing coincidence: - The origin of this novel disease is 20 miles from a research lab. - The research lab is actively studying zoonotic viruses. - The genome suggests a ~10 years lineage from the closest bat coronavirus (96% identical). This strain of Bat coronavirus has gone under the radar for that long? - Despite the numerous m…

To be fair, it might have been first identified there because there was a lab equipped to isolate it, but I don't really know. I mean, China has had a problem with things like fake eggs, so who knows? Its DNA seems to have been sequenced and made available online. If it's anything that has obviously been tampered with by a lab, I expect someone to point that out sooner or later. That said, I have no idea what sort of…

Fake eggs are known to cost more than real eggs. Much like fake meat today. Where do you get that information?

Re: New coronavirus can spread between humans, but started in a wildlife market

#340

Post by Fomite »

aaron695 wrote: post #308
Fomite wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay...a few notes on R0. 1) Neil Ferguson knows his business, but part of that is knowing that, like economists predicting recessions, there's little penalty for being wrong. I'm sure you can find a quote that's similar from him for any recent outbreak. Why? Because of course we need to plan for that possibility . It's a low risk statement to make. 2) R0 is not a biological constant . It's a combination of contact r…

I think the correct answer is Eric Ding is a typical Twitter user. Nutty. https://mobile.twitter.com/ferrisjabr/status/122096355391127... > Neil Ferguson knows his business, but part of that is knowing that, like economists predicting recessions, there's little penalty for being wrong No. Do you think Nate wasn't penalised for his take on the 2016 US election?

Yeah, Eric Ding is being dragged by epidemiology Twitter for good reason.

As for Nate Silver, I'd suggest there are some very different circumstances there than academic and policy forecasting.

Post reply on HN