SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

[AngelsLakersFan]

48 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

You get your answer in the very last sentence.

But apparently we can't take what scientists say seriously so idk.

It's important to consider first how science works. Science is about collecting data points and using those data points to come up with the most likely explanation for something. This is what they call 'scientific consensus.' That does not mean that it is 100% true or infallible. Scientists are always looking for new data points that can lead to new conclusions. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was the accepted scientific consensus up until Einstein came along.

There are a lot of data points that point to the virus escaping from a lab, but there are not enough to form a consensus. The simplest explanation is that it jumped from animals to humans at the wet market, and that is the consensus until new information arrises. There is no 'proof' of either one.

[AngelsLakersFan]

33 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

If they closed the lab in October, that might actually play into the it escaped from a lab.  All you need is one good infection that would infect a few more.  November is when they are saying that it started.  But with the stealthness of this virus, and people not showing any symptoms.  It could very well have been October for patient zero, and slowly worked it way out to become noticeable in November.

Also the tin foil hat in me is questioning why China businesses in Wuhan were suddenly banning Blacks, like they knew something.  I think they said mainly because a few Blacks got the Rona in Wuhan and they just targeted them.  But data is showing that Blacks are especially hit hard by the Rona.  And Asians hit the least.  Just the optics of a disease that started in an Asian country and doesn't hit Asians as hard as everyone else.  That's some sci fi Bond villain stuff there.

The article isn't very clear, except that they didn't find the evidence of the lab closing to be compelling enough to say that it happened. There are just a lot of oddities, and I think the main reason for that is simply that China has lied about and been secretive about much of this. They do not want the world to piece together the entire picture. 

[tdawg87]

20 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It's important to consider first how science works. Science is about collecting data points and using those data points to come up with the most likely explanation for something. This is what they call 'scientific consensus.' That does not mean that it is 100% true or infallible. Scientists are always looking for new data points that can lead to new conclusions. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was the accepted scientific consensus up until Einstein came along.

There are a lot of data points that point to the virus escaping from a lab, but there are not enough to form a consensus. The simplest explanation is that it jumped from animals to humans at the wet market, and that is the consensus until new information arrises. There is no 'proof' of either one.

Face!

I'm aware there is no proof of either scenario. In fact there may never be one. 

But my point is, I'm going to take the consensus from a bunch of scientists over a bunch of people on a message board every day. 

I'm not saying that science is infallible. You pretty much said yourself that the entire basis of science is about asking questions. Right now, there are plenty of questions. But acting like the side that goes against scientific consensus should be obvious to people who aren't "stupid" is, well, fucking stupid.

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I'm not saying that science is infallible. You pretty much said yourself that the entire basis of science is about asking questions. Right now, there are plenty of questions. But acting like the side that goes against scientific consensus should be obvious to people who aren't "stupid" is, well, fucking stupid.

I'm glad you didn't find my post too condescending... I remember hurting Flop's feels with a confidently written post once...

I think you are drawing conclusions that aren't there though - at least with regard to me. If I had to guess I would say it's more likely this originated in the wet market. That said, there is a lot of strong evidence that the consensus is wrong, something that has become common during this pandemic. I don't think we are at a point with this specific issue where we can confidently act like the consensus is truth and the alternative explanation is just a conspiracy theory.

Yes, dismissing the consensus is nuts, and we know which types are likely to do so, but dismissing a very possible theory is nuts as well. #bothSides 

[tdawg87]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I'm glad you didn't find my post too condescending... I remember hurting Flop's feels with a confidently written post once...

I think you are drawing conclusions that aren't there though - at least with regard to me. If I had to guess I would say it's more likely this originated in the wet market. That said, there is a lot of strong evidence that the consensus is wrong, something that has become common during this pandemic. I don't think we are at a point with this specific issue where we can confidently act like the consensus is truth and the alternative explanation is just a conspiracy theory.

Yes, dismissing the consensus is nuts, and we know which types are likely to do so, but dismissing a very possible theory is nuts as well. #bothSides 

Oh I wasn't referring to you.

But you're correct, dismissing a legitimate theory is also totally not chill af. 

The consensus isn't "truth" but like I said, it's the best we currently have. If you choose not to believe it that's your.... choice.

Also I like picking on Larry even though I love him and would buy him a beer and touch pee pees.

 

[UndertheHalo]

Flop!!

[mmc]

 

[tdawg87]

16 minutes ago, calscuf said:

You know what infallible? God.

And he made the virus and put it in a Chinese.   

Are you suggesting that God has a chink in his armor? Because he doesn't. 

His armor only fits one.

[tdawg87]

Just now, mymerlincat said:

 

Ok I was like wtf merlincat posted here

[UndertheHalo]

It’s pretty bad news.  They should of course continue to conduct these kinds of studies but this one contradicts the idea that the virus is super widespread.  Of course other studies have shown the opposite.  

Edited May 10, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[tdawg87]

This virus is a c*nt.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It’s pretty bad news.  They should of course continue to conduct these kinds of studies but this one contradicts the idea that the virus is super widespread.  Of course other studies have shown the opposite.  

I wonder if there is a reason why MLB employees are less likely to have been exposed? They all use Instacart?

[UndertheHalo]

31 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I wonder if there is a reason why MLB employees are less likely to have been exposed? They all use Instacart?

Ya I mean like they point out in the article there’s surely a socioeconomic factor to this.  Not surprising that more affluent people have managed to remain safer from the virus.  That said, it’s still a very low number.  Also presumably these people are generally healthier due to their economic position.
 

I did find it interesting that of those who tested positive 70% were asymptomatic.  I’ll infer as well that none became seriously which also means that none died. 
 

it’s a weird study.  I know that we’ve been seeing studies that suggest a good number of asymptomatic cases but 70% is a big number. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

20 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya I mean like they point out in the article there’s surely a socioeconomic factor to this.  Not surprising that more affluent people have managed to remain safer from the virus.  That said, it’s still a very low number.  Also presumably these people are generally healthier due to their economic position.
 

I did find it interesting that of those who tested positive 70% were asymptomatic.  I’ll infer as well that none became seriously ill which also means that none died. 
 

it’s a weird study.  I know that we’ve been seeing studies that suggest a good number of asymptomatic cases but 70% is a big number. 

So I've been reading about the size of the 'viral load' being a big deal in terms of how sick you get. With the social distancing in place it makes sense that people who are exposed to the virus are exposed to far lesser amounts than at the start of the outbreak. So rather than having someone cough in your face you are breathing in that air three or four minutes after the fact and getting far less virus inhaled. It would seem that getting any amount of virus would trigger an immune response capable of creating antibodies. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

 

I would think that the issue with the small sample size is less about the 123 tests and more about the likely 2-4 positive results that lead to the team having the highest rate.

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I would think that the issue with the small sample size is less about the 123 tests and more about the likely 2-4 positive results that lead to the team having the highest rate.

I'll add that 1 positive test result in 123 samples is a rate of .8%... slightly higher than the positive rate of the population of the study. Two positive tests results would give the team a rate twice the mean.

[tdawg87]

If... someone...gets it, I'm killing gotbeer.

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

Face!

I'm aware there is no proof of either scenario. In fact there may never be one. 

But my point is, I'm going to take the consensus from a bunch of scientists over a bunch of people on a message board every day. 

I'm not saying that science is infallible. You pretty much said yourself that the entire basis of science is about asking questions. Right now, there are plenty of questions. But acting like the side that goes against scientific consensus should be obvious to people who aren't "stupid" is, well, fucking stupid.

That's the weird thing about this virus.  That they can't find where it came from.  Usually after genetically screening it, they can find the source.  Here is the CDC writeup on it.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/summary.html#emergence 

Quote

COVID-19 Background

COVID-19 is caused by a new coronavirus. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in people and many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and now with this new virus, named SARS-CoV-2.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a betacoronavirus, like MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. All three of these viruses have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir.

Early on, many of the patients at the epicenter of the outbreak in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread. 

You read it, and it still sounds like they are guessing.  Just because Mers and Sars came from bats, they are assuming Rona also came from bats.  It has links to a seafood and live animal market, but what if patient zero at that seafood and live animal market?  We have seen how easily it can be transmitted, with no symptoms.

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, calscuf said:

You know what infallible? God.

And he made the virus and put it in a Chinese.   

He put it in a Chinese that is killing every other race. 

Edge Buddha.

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I wonder if there is a reason why MLB employees are less likely to have been exposed? They all use Instacart?

They are white.  /ducks

[tdawg87]

So we're at 80,000 deaths. How many of those are not from Covid but something else that just gets labeled as Covid because?

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

If... someone...gets it, I'm killing gotbeer.

Hey, that would be a disqualification to winning the death pool.

[St1ck]

13 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

They are white.  /ducks

 

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

Ya I mean like they point out in the article there’s surely a socioeconomic factor to this.  Not surprising that more affluent people have managed to remain safer from the virus.  That said, it’s still a very low number.  Also presumably these people are generally healthier due to their economic position.
 

I did find it interesting that of those who tested positive 70% were asymptomatic.  I’ll infer as well that none became seriously which also means that none died. 
 

it’s a weird study.  I know that we’ve been seeing studies that suggest a good number of asymptomatic cases but 70% is a big number. 

First question.  Who they consider MLB employees?

Second.  The outbreak happened during Spring Training.  Could many of these employees have been in Florida or Arizona where there wasn't a big outbreak.  

Third.  Even if these employees were at their home training facility, only the two NY teams would be close to a huge outbreak.  

Fourth.  If they were working from the office, it would be a skeleton crew with many at Spring Training.  So they were social distancing inadvertently.

Fifth.  For the Angels, with the proximity, a greater percentage could have been shuttling back and forth to home or even work increasing their chances.