Beer Virus V

[ghuns]

This article shows some of the bull**** in this bill. Including funding for genderless statues

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...wn-into-the-second-covid-relief-deal-n2581947

Seems like there's more than a "handful" of garbage in it.

 

[foszoe]

In the interests of clarity. The COVID bill was folded into an omnibus spending bill if I understand correctly. Some may consider that a technicality but I wouldn't consider all the waste part of Covid-19. For one it seems to let them make it appear as a one off. It's really part of business as usual. They do this every year even without a pandemic. EVERY time they pass a spending bill, they screw the American people to fund pet causes and it doesn't matter what political party follows their name.

 

[T.Lex]

I skipped a bunch of posts, so apologies if this was covered. Can someone explain to me how a mutation can be 70%/50%/xx% "more transmissible"?

Does that mean that it takes 50% less viral load to infect someone? Or that instead of 6 ft. away, we should be 12 ft. away? (Or is it 9 ft.?)

I understand the R-factor is probably where they're getting that calculation, but that signals how fast the virus is spreading overall. It doesn't speak to the changes in the virus itself.

To put it another way, there may be a correlation/causation problem. This mutated strain is being transmitted across the population at a higher rate (50% faster), but it may not actually be due to the mutation.

Last night on the news, they asked the in-house science-y guy about it and he basically gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug, along with something along the lines about how we need to do more research on it. Not helpful.

 

[qwerty]

I skipped a bunch of posts, so apologies if this was covered. Can someone explain to me how a mutation can be 70%/50%/xx% "more transmissible"?

Does that mean that it takes 50% less viral load to infect someone? Or that instead of 6 ft. away, we should be 12 ft. away? (Or is it 9 ft.?)

I understand the R-factor is probably where they're getting that calculation, but that signals how fast the virus is spreading overall. It doesn't speak to the changes in the virus itself.

To put it another way, there may be a correlation/causation problem. This mutated strain is being transmitted across the population at a higher rate (50% faster), but it may not actually be due to the mutation.

Last night on the news, they asked the in-house science-y guy about it and he basically gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug, along with something along the lines about how we need to do more research on it. Not helpful.

I believe this is why the UK recently went to Stage 4 on Yesterday to stop this dangerous mutation.

 

[smokingman]

I skipped a bunch of posts, so apologies if this was covered. Can someone explain to me how a mutation can be 70%/50%/xx% "more transmissible"?

Does that mean that it takes 50% less viral load to infect someone? Or that instead of 6 ft. away, we should be 12 ft. away? (Or is it 9 ft.?)

I understand the R-factor is probably where they're getting that calculation, but that signals how fast the virus is spreading overall. It doesn't speak to the changes in the virus itself.

To put it another way, there may be a correlation/causation problem. This mutated strain is being transmitted across the population at a higher rate (50% faster), but it may not actually be due to the mutation.

Last night on the news, they asked the in-house science-y guy about it and he basically gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug, along with something along the lines about how we need to do more research on it. Not helpful.

“They are fitting the data to the evidence. They see cases rising and they are looking for evidence to explain it,” [FONT=&quot]Heneghan declared.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care, has expressed skepticism over the 70 per cent figure. [/FONT]

“I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame,” Heneghan said.
​

 

[T.Lex]

I believe this is why the UK recently went to Stage 4 on Yesterday to stop this dangerous mutation.

Yeah, I saw a slightly different graph that showed this mutation taking a larger and larger portion of the overall cases until it - currently - is almost all of them. It pretty much eliminated any other strain.

But that doesn't really explain the link between the mutation and the quantification of transmission. At least not in a way that I can understand. Given the winter months and people congregating inside, a spike in cases was probably going to happen anyway.

 

[T.Lex]

“They are fitting the data to the evidence. They see cases rising and they are looking for evidence to explain it,” [FONT=&amp]Heneghan declared.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care, has expressed skepticism over the 70 per cent figure. [/FONT]

“I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame,” Heneghan said.
​

Ah, good. At least I'm not alone in my skepticism.

 

[T.Lex]

I guess I should clarify my point, though.

This mutation probably is "better" at being transmitted than other strains - that's how it is able to occupy more hosts to the exclusion of other strains. In essence, it may be contributing to the R-factor increasing.

But that estimate of how much "better" it is at infecting people is puffery.

 

[smokingman]

I guess I should clarify my point, though.

This mutation probably is "better" at being transmitted than other strains - that's how it is able to occupy more hosts to the exclusion of other strains. In essence, it may be contributing to the R-factor increasing.

But that estimate of how much "better" it is at infecting people is puffery.

They first detected this mutation in September, so it is not really "new".

What did change was parliament going on Christmas break. Curiously it was the first day they were gone when via press a conference of "new" science the new British lockdowns were declared.

Some in parliament are calling total BS.
[FONT=&amp]“Parliament voted explicitly for a certain set of arrangements, it seems to be perfectly proper therefore that Parliament should be consulted when those are changed, irrespective of the Government acting in an emergency, nevertheless it’s perfectly proper to recall Parliament at the beginning of this week to at least ratify those changes,” the MP continued.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Swayne noted that MPs haven’t even been given any evidence to justify the heightened restrictions, and that a third of the country was effectively imprisoned via a press conference.[/FONT]

“Explain to us – we are after all a democracy, explain to the elected representatives the evidence that they have and why they’ve reached this decision,” Swayned emphasised.
​

[FONT=&amp]The MP charged that the government purposefully waited until parliament had started its break for Christmas before making the announcement, in order to avoid a rebellion.[/FONT]

“They’ve been looking at it since September and how convenient when Parliament went into recess on Thursday suddenly they were then able to produce this revelation,” Swayne noted.
“Let’s see the evidence then, let’s have Parliament back and show us and convince us, come clean,” he urged, adding “I want Parliament to be recalled so we can scrutinise properly in a democracy decisions that are being made which affect our economy radically and our liberty.”
​

 

[chipbennett]

I skipped a bunch of posts, so apologies if this was covered. Can someone explain to me how a mutation can be 70%/50%/xx% "more transmissible"?

Does that mean that it takes 50% less viral load to infect someone? Or that instead of 6 ft. away, we should be 12 ft. away? (Or is it 9 ft.?)

I understand the R-factor is probably where they're getting that calculation, but that signals how fast the virus is spreading overall. It doesn't speak to the changes in the virus itself.

To put it another way, there may be a correlation/causation problem. This mutated strain is being transmitted across the population at a higher rate (50% faster), but it may not actually be due to the mutation.

Last night on the news, they asked the in-house science-y guy about it and he basically gave the verbal equivalent of a shrug, along with something along the lines about how we need to do more research on it. Not helpful.

I'll take a stab at it: the virus can mutate to become "more transmissible" through a few means. One, it could mutate to survive environmental exposure longer (which would require less viral load to cause an infection and could allow an infection across greater time and distance from the host). Two, it could mutate to be more effective at infection (different/improved receptors where it attaches to cells/delivers its payload - which would require less viral load to cause an infection). Three, it could mutate to become less deadly, thereby allowing it to replicate itself more in a given host (which results in a greater viral load transmitted by a given host).

I'm sure there are other ways, but I think that's the gist of it.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll take a stab at it: the virus can mutate to become "more transmissible" through a few means. One, it could mutate to survive environmental exposure longer (which would require less viral load to cause an infection and could allow an infection across greater time and distance from the host). Two, it could mutate to be more effective at infection (different/improved receptors where it attaches to cells/delivers its payload - which would require less viral load to cause an infection). Three, it could mutate to become less deadly, thereby allowing it to replicate itself more in a given host (which results in a greater viral load transmitted by a given host).

I'm sure there are other ways, but I think that's the gist of it.

haha

Thanks, chip, but we're kinda not-connecting on this (as sometimes happens).

I was more interested in how they quantified the "transmissible" label for this specific mutation/set of mutations. I haven't been able to get a clear answer to that.

I understand (generally) the virus mutation mechanics.

 

[JettaKnight]

This article shows some of the bull**** in this bill. Including funding for genderless statues

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...wn-into-the-second-covid-relief-deal-n2581947

Wasn't this the funding bill for the govt., not just a another COVID-19 relief bill?

 

[JettaKnight]

She’s the only sane Democrat among them. And not that she’s not at least a little insane. But obviously not as crazy as her colleagues.

I actually listened - I really expected Tulsi to go a different direction with that, given her weird religion connections.

 

[JettaKnight]

Good lord, man. How fossilized are you?

More than you, and less than T.Lex, I guess.


I can't keep up with all the terms for adultery that the whippersnappers are using.

 

[drillsgt]

Yeah, I saw a slightly different graph that showed this mutation taking a larger and larger portion of the overall cases until it - currently - is almost all of them. It pretty much eliminated any other strain.

But that doesn't really explain the link between the mutation and the quantification of transmission. At least not in a way that I can understand. Given the winter months and people congregating inside, a spike in cases was probably going to happen anyway.

I looked at that graph and it didn't really look any different than most other places that saw that Fall spike?

 

[HoughMade]

In the interests of clarity. The COVID bill was folded into an omnibus spending bill if I understand correctly. Some may consider that a technicality but I wouldn't consider all the waste part of Covid-19. For one it seems to let them make it appear as a one off. It's really part of business as usual. They do this every year even without a pandemic. EVERY time they pass a spending bill, they screw the American people to fund pet causes and it doesn't matter what political party follows their name.

All I know is that I've never seen so many of my friends who describe themselves as "conservative" complaining about not getting a bigger check from the government.

 

[T.Lex]

All I know is that I've never seen so many of my friends who describe themselves as "conservative" complaining about not getting a bigger check from the government.

hehehe

My wife and I have observed that, too.

 

[jedi]

All I know is that I've never seen so many of my friends who describe themselves as "conservative" complaining about not getting a bigger check from the government.

funny right

 

[foszoe]

https://apnews.com/article/us-coronavirus-deaths-top-3-million-e2bc856b6ec45563b84ee2e87ae8d5e7

Leaving here for debunking

 

[drillsgt]

https://apnews.com/article/us-coronavirus-deaths-top-3-million-e2bc856b6ec45563b84ee2e87ae8d5e7

Leaving here for debunking

Nothing to debunk yet, right now it's all wishful preliminary democrat projections.