Day of Chaos 2: a.Covid-19 thread.

[The Legendary Shark]

Coronavirus came to Italy almost 6 months before the first official case, new study shows.

Caveat: I have little trust in this source as the WEF is using the current situation to advance its own agenda. However, I cannot see how revealing that this ostensibly dangerous virus appeared (at least) six months before it was officially detected without setting off any alarm bells can help their cause. If it was in Italy so early, and with no global house arrests lockdowns or travel restrictions in place, how many other countries were "infected" months before "official" diagnoses?

[Funt Solo]

Why is "infected" in quotation marks?

[The Legendary Shark]

Because I used the word "countries" rather than "people." One suspects that if the word had not been in quotation marks, your question would have been, "how do you infect a country?"

[M.I.K.]

There's nothing "ostensible" about it. I've a cousin who's been left with an enlarged heart because of it. There was sod all wrong with him before.

[Funt Solo]

without setting off any alarm bells

The last paragraph goes some way to explaining that:

Italian researchers told Reuters in March that they reported a higher than usual number of cases of severe pneumonia and flu in Lombardy in the last quarter of 2019 in a sign that the new coronavirus might have circulated earlier than previously thought.

It took time to realize that what was killing people (mostly older and/or more vulnerable patients) was a new virus. The fact that the exact starting point of the virus remains unknown isn't terribly new news (or very surprising) - but it would seem like the study that's being reported on here sets the start date further back in time than was previously known.

I'm not sure there's an answer to your question, though. How many other countries? Uhm ... some? Many? A few? Maybe we'll know that later. Is it super-important?

M.I.K. makes a good point. If it weren't dangerous, why all the fuss? And the deaths. And the long-term illnesses? Etc.

[sheridan]

It took time to realize that what was killing people (mostly older and/or more vulnerable patients) was a new virus. The fact that the exact starting point of the virus remains unknown isn't terribly new news (or very surprising) - but it would seem like the study that's being reported on here sets the start date further back in time than was previously known.

True dat.

Reminds me of the origins of HIV/AIDS.  Quiz time - when do you think the first confirmed (from preserved blood samples) death from AIDS was?  [spoiler]1959[/spoiler]  And when would you guess HIV jumped across the species to humans (having come from SIV - Simian Immunodeficiency Virus)?  We don't have convenient blood samples, but it's believed to be [spoiler]1908[/spoiler].

[The Legendary Shark]

Can't resist the urge to expose the misinformation you presented...

originating in China or the US

Another example of false balance. It was China.

The fact that the exact starting point of the virus remains unknown isn't terribly new news (or very surprising)...

I know.

[Funt Solo]

It's still probably China, based on current evidence. No evidence whatsoever suggests the US as the origin point.

I'm willing to be proved wrong on new evidence. That's science, for you.

[Funt Solo]

Honestly, I'm pretty angry that you're still peddling the idea that it might be harmless by using phrases such as "ostensibly dangerous", then trying to throw me under the bus for pointing out that you were talking the same shite months ago.

You managed to pick the one quote that fit your narrative and ignore all the other things you were saying at the time like "natural or man-made", and "lethal or innocuous" and "overblown or under-reported".

I get it: you think the virus is a hoax and blah blah blah. I don't. Can't we move on?

[The Legendary Shark]

See? We do agree. The origin is uncertain, which is why it is "super important" to track its progress in as much detail as possible and to consider all the evidence rather than just pointing at Wikipedia.
(That's science, for you.)

***

Your emotions are not my responsibility.

The original post you picked apart, as I pointed out at the time, took no position on either side and was intended to point out the worrying statistic that around a third of the planet was under lockdown.

I never said the virus was a hoax (though I have to consider that it mightbe). My worry is that the situation is being magnified and capitalised upon by certain globalist factions to achieve goals they've been working towards for decades - such as global governance, the abolition of cash money, increased dependence on authority and so on.

And sure, maybe I'm wrong, but so much of this doesn't add up, so much doesn't seem to get reported very well or at all. And the evidence of my own eyes, looking at the real world I live in locally, sees that the majority of problems are arising from policy and not the virus. Which does not mean "blah, blah, blah," or that the virus is a hoax.

[Funt Solo]

Explain "ostensibly dangerous", please.

[Funt Solo]

Actually, forget it. I'm stupid for biting. There's nothing here but pointless conflict.

Sorry for derailing the thread into stupid territory.

I retire.

[TordelBack]

Let's say I wanted to kill the maximum number of elderly people.

What I'd probably do is shut hospitality and most of retail for 6 weeks, and stop all visits to nursing homes. Get everyone good and fed up, and oh so lonely.

Then, before new infections drop too much below 300 a day,  I'd open up all the shops on 1st December to ensure the maximum number of bored and frustrated festive shoppers pour into public transport and into town on the same day.

Bur here's the clever part of my plan: I'd restart visits to nursing homes, but I'd do it 1 week later. That extra week should amp up pure desperation for human contact, and be long enough to ensure maximum chance of visitors being infected but not long enough to guarantee symptoms.

If that didn't kill quite enough, I'd send all those shoppers, pub and restaurant goers home to their kids (who already account for 50% of new infections), who can then marinade in classrooms for 2 weeks before being decanted and sent round to their Nana's for a last Christmas hug.

For this kind of genius I expect a salary of not less than  €96,000, plus whatever kickbacks I'm getting from lobby groups.

[TordelBack]

Oh forgot to mention, R no.is hovering about 1, and 84% of Irish people polled thought current, (ie prior to today) restrictions were appropriate, or not strict enough.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I know it's a bit of a cliché, but never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.