- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2665 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
gary larson predicts wuhan.png
205 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 33825
Thread #2 was over 1,700 posts long; thread #3 (>>27266) is now close to 2,800 replies and no longer loads on my phone at work. Let's have a new, hopefully final thread.
The current situation:
Everything is expected to reopen on the 21st of June 2021.
It might not, because cases are rising from the lesser reopenings and the dreaded Indian variant.
Vaccination is going well in rich countries. UK deaths are ~10/day.
Speculation is starting again that the virus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, because it's such an intriguing coincidence, but reasonable people do not currently believe it was a deliberate Chinese conspiracy.
India is currently the country with the worst COVID-19 horror stories.
Will Dominic Cummings give any more evidence about the ineptitude of government handling, or has he said everything he wanted to say now?
|>>|| No. 34173
>the outbreak probably could have been contained regionally, or at least kept from spreading around the globe
There's absolutely no chance of that with a virus as infectious as SARS-CoV-2 and a country as connected as China. Wuhan has a bigger population than London, a national railway hub and an international airport. The cat was out of the bag before anyone could have figured out what was going on.
|>>|| No. 34174
Chinese New Year, people travelling from all over the world to see family and celebrate with millions of other people.
It's almost comedic looking back at old videos going over the predicament and China's authoritarian regime influencing the flow of information because it represents a form of power in itself. We actually predicted this would all be over by spring 2020.
|>>|| No. 34175
I know it's a dangerous track to get going down, but I find it hard to imagine that our own government and structures of government (which fucked everything up very badly indeed) would've done any better. You say locking down cities was too little too late - but unless they're really lying about the numbers, it achieved a damn sight more to stop the spread than our approach did.
Sure, a more democratic system of government might've got the message out there earlier - but then you see how our government reacted when we got the message. Oh, it'll be nothing, we'll just have herd immunity, it'll all be over by Christmas. Are we somehow to imagine we'd have behaved more responsibly if the issue they had to deal with was "Some people in Wuhanshire have a new strain of illness" rather than the knowledge that a global pandemic was already in motion?
|>>|| No. 34176
>Are we somehow to imagine we'd have behaved more responsibly if the issue they had to deal with was "Some people in Wuhanshire have a new strain of illness" rather than the knowledge that a global pandemic was already in motion?
I think the two weeks or so during which China tried to suppress information about a new strain of virus running rampant were absolutely crucial. Governments worldwide could have bought themselves and their people some time by issuing travel bans and closing borders not after the first infected travellers arrived from abroad, but before.
It also would have helped if China had investigated Sars-CoV-2 right when it became clear that it was a new, fast-spreading respiratory virus capable of killing people, and relayed that information to other countries. Pretty much all the way into the first month or so, nobody really had any idea what we were actually dealing with.
|>>|| No. 34177
>I think the two weeks or so during which China tried to suppress information about a new strain of virus running rampant were absolutely crucial. Governments worldwide could have bought themselves and their people some time by issuing travel bans and closing borders not after the first infected travellers arrived from abroad, but before.
We took two months to do anything of substance. It's very clear that any delay by the Chinese made no difference whatsoever - the countries that responded promptly and effectively to the WHO announcement (Vietnam, Singapore, Australia etc) did fine, while those that waited until the disease arrived on their doorstep totally fucked it.
Hong Kong and Taiwan started screening and isolating arrivals from China at the end of December, immediately after a warning of an unidentified pneumonia outbreak was issued by the Wuhan Health Commission. By the second week of January, the SARS-CoV-2 genome had been sequenced and published by the Chinese authorities. We flew people back from Hubei at the end of January, then did absolutely fuck all until March.
In New Zealand, there have been 5 COVID deaths per million population. Singapore have had 6 per million. 21 per million in Thailand, 35 per million in Australia, 39 per million in South Korea. Our figure? 1,875 per million.
The warnings issued by China were more than sufficient for the countries that actually listened; for the countries that didn't, no amount of extra time would have made a jot of difference.
|>>|| No. 34178
Either way, you would hope that it will have consequences for global prevention and contingency plans in the future.
Maybe the assumption that it was "just a flu" caught too many people, including governments, on the wrong foot. And now that we've seen the worldwide upheaval that a virus like this can cause, maybe next time we'll be better prepared.
|>>|| No. 34179
That video is shit and shows none of the action.
The police have lifted the tattooed crusty, unfairly in my opinion. Presumably they knew who he was already. Man bun has my vote to take the fall for this.
|>>|| No. 34180
>Maybe the assumption that it was "just a flu" caught too many people, including governments, on the wrong foot.
If by caught on the wrong foot you mean 'actively pursuing a herd immunity strategy' before March. There's no excuse - I remember by February reading testimonies from British people living in China who had had the disease and described in horrific detail what it does to you. The other poster is absolutely right, the failure here is not China's, notwithstanding their attempt to cover it up in 2019.
|>>|| No. 34181
>If by caught on the wrong foot you mean 'actively pursuing a herd immunity strategy' before March.
It stands to argue that that was done exactly because BoJo thought it was little more than "just a flu".
|>>|| No. 34182
I just talked to a friend who has an autoimmune disorder and is on permanent immune suppressants. He was in one of the highest priority groups, but a good few weeks after his second jab, he did an antibody test on the advice of his GP, and it came back negative today, i.e. his immune system did not respond to the vaccine at all.
Which is really bad news for somebody like him, because in addition to not having antibodies now, it means that he'll be much more vulnerable to serious symptoms to begin with from an actual covid infection.
|>>|| No. 34183
Again, whataboutism, China made a hash of thing and Britain made a hash of things. It's not either or, stop trying to deflect from the fact that the Chinese government is a fuck up.
>the countries that responded promptly and effectively to the WHO announcement (Vietnam, Singapore, Australia etc) did fine, while those that waited until the disease arrived on their doorstep totally fucked it.
Vietnam had outbreaks prior to the WHO announcement of a pandemic and even before the WHO had announced Covid as a cause for international concern. So no, people still died because the international response and monitoring wasn't good enough.
|>>|| No. 34185
I can't help but like Cummings for reasons like this. I don't like him, I think he'll sell out his own mother to get out of trouble, and of course he's full of spin, but he was clearly working at this with some pride. Would like to see some less cherrypicked screenshots.
|>>|| No. 34186
The length of that twitter thread leads me to believe that he is a Britfa poster...
|>>|| No. 34188
Whataboutism is one of the most irritating charges there is. If you can't compare a scenario to a set of alternatives, what's the point in even having a discussion? "The Chinese government fucked up" "Yes, very true" "Great thanks, really enjoyed our chat today."
Just one of those awful little terms that originally started with a nice, clear case of obviously pointing out silly buggery ("The IRA did X" "Yeah, but what about the UDA doing Y?") but which can now be leveled at the basic conventions of writing itself.
I find it hard to even see this as even being a case of whataboutism. I read >>34177 not as "China fucked up, but what about our own fuckups?" but "Even if China did fuck up, the warning given was more than sufficient for other countries. You can't blame insufficient warning for our problems. If they'd warned us 2 weeks earlier, we'd have spent 2 more weeks dawdling." - Call that deflection from China's fuckups ("Yes, very true") if you want, but there's a big difference between deflecting by arguing for the irrelevance of their error to real world outcomes, and deflecting by just going "but what about these errors on our part?"
|>>|| No. 34189
>You can't blame insufficient warning for our problems.
Precisely. Worldwide there have been 3.8 million COVID deaths so far, of which approximately 3.8 million could have been prevented by people other than the Chinese government. We don't need hypotheticals and we don't need to speculate on how things might have played out differently if China had been more forthcoming.
If you crash when you're doing twice the speed limit, it's just silly to complain that you wouldn't have crashed if the speed limit had been lower - it's your own fault for ignoring the speed limit in the first place. We (like a lot of other countries) took months to act on the warnings given by China, so it's silly to argue that China should have warned us a couple of weeks earlier.
There's a legitimate argument that China engaged in a cover-up, there's a legitimate argument that China weren't sure how to respond to an uncertain and rapidly-developing situation, but it doesn't make a jot of difference either way. Arguments about the culpability of China are nothing more than a distraction.
|>>|| No. 34190
>We flew people back from Hubei at the end of January, then did absolutely fuck all until March.
Correction: We flew people back in January from Hubei in January, then let them walk straight out of the airport without even offering them tests or giving them advice to self isolate.
|>>|| No. 34192
We're specifically talking about whether we should investigate China's part in the pandemic. So yes, yes it is whataboutism.
|>>|| No. 34193
I find it hard to see the "whatabout" in an argument that runs: "Who cares? It would not have made a major difference to have had additional warning."
I suppose you could phrase it "What about the fact it wouldn't have made any difference", but you get into a very funny place when you start going "Well who cares that it wouldn't make any difference? they still messed up!" and having that ultimately meaningless error be your main focus in the midst of a global pandemic. (Now that is whataboutism - who cares about the structural flaws of Chinese government, whatabout the pandemic?)
Of course, while we're making whataboutism stop looking like a real word we're avoiding the potentially interesting point of contention: Would it have made a difference?
|>>|| No. 34194
>Now that is whataboutism - who cares about the structural flaws of Chinese government, whatabout the pandemic?
You'll never be the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union with that kind of limp-wristed accusation. You have to look at the speakers country and pull out the adjectives file for that nation.
>Would it have made a difference?
Yes. We're not just talking about Britain but the whole world, countries on China's periphery that could've avoided deaths. This is why the WHO goes on about improving international monitoring, not just to make themselves feel better.
|>>|| No. 34196
Picking the one country that immediately went Madagascar because it knows it can't trust China isn't such a good argument m7.
|>>|| No. 34197
Fact I leaned the other day, the US has threatened to Nuke china if it invaded Taiwan. That is serious no fuck around diplomacy
|>>|| No. 34205
Ah, so you're deliberately being thick on how an infectious disease in a population can kill over time and even remain undetected. I don't even get what you're trying to prove at this point - we know that China fucked up hard and that authorities utterly failed to limit the spread of the virus (instead choosing to turn against the whistle-blowers). There's not even a debate to be had.
|>>|| No. 34206
If you don't know what he's trying to prove "at this point" you don't know what he's been trying to say all along: Earlier warning from China would not have made much difference. We can see this from the fact that all countries had about the same amount of warning and yet their outcomes vary wildly depending on the nature of their domestic response. Some, like Britain, did nothing with the warning they were given. Others, like New Zealand, responded early on. This isn't a function of geographical distance either: plenty of countries directly bordering China, which will have been infected before they were warned, nevertheless lead a far more competent response than other countries further away.
Now of course if China had caught the virus right away and there wasn't a global Coronavirus pandemic at all, that would be the ideal situation, but now you're substituting "China should have warned the world earlier instead of trying to cover it up" with "China should've locked down Wuhan the second the whistleblowers whistleblew."
|>>|| No. 34214
Doesn't furlough continue until September? I didn't realise there was additional help on top.
|>>|| No. 34216
Good. Shit overpriced venues playing loud, shit music, designed to make you feel uncomfortable and then offer the solution in the form of an alcoholic solution.
|>>|| No. 34217
Not everyone is burdoned with crippling self-doubt only kept at bay by an impenetrable shield of misanthropy. I mean, I am, but not everyone else is.
|>>|| No. 34218
I don't know about you but I'm fucking dying for one of those nights out where you start off with halloumi bites in Spoons and end up doing lines in the bogs at a Reflex and spend an hour talking at length about the state of Labour to someone you are only mates of mates of mates with.
It's not something I make a habit of but the length of abstinence this situation has forced on us has sent me a bit loopy. I badly need a blowout.
|>>|| No. 34221
I always wonder how you lot find these weird little YouTube channels that upload clips of their favourite MPs with flattering video titles. Safe to say I've figured it out now.
|>>|| No. 34224
The Delta variant has to be the last one of note, right? How much can a virus mutate?
|>>|| No. 34225
>How much can a virus mutate?
Pretty much indefinitely. You need a flu jab every year because the virus mutates, not because the vaccine wears off. The relatively low effectiveness of the flu vaccine (40%-60%) is because there are multiple strains in circulation and we have to guess in advance which will be most prevalent.
We would eventually expect SARS-CoV-2 to mutate to become more infectious but less deadly, because that's an optimal evolutionary strategy for a virus. We'll also start to develop more durable immunity as people undergo several rounds of infection and/or vaccination. The problem is that we don't know how long it'll take to reach that level of equilibrium. The current vaccination program might be enough to keep hospitalisations at an acceptable level, but I think it's likely that we'll have some level of social restrictions re-imposed over the next several years as new variants emerge and seasonal outbreaks wax and wane.
Her hair always looks carefully styled but slightly tousled, like she has been interrupted mid-shag and had to get dressed in a hurry. She reminds me of Mrs Purchase off of Toast of London.
|>>|| No. 34227
As brief an answer as possible, basically there are a vast number of ways in which a virus can mutate, but any particular coronavirus only has a narrow window of possible mutations that are functionally useful. The delta variant is mostly just a cumulation of the same mutations we've already seen occurring separately. Other types of virus like HIV or the flu have much wider avenues of possible mutations due to their form.
>we can easily identify candidate mutations from the genome sequence data, because they have emerged over and over again during the course of the pandemic.
>These dozen or so mutations, in various combinations, are the defining feature of all variants
>Despite the increased caseload and death resulting from these mutations, can we at least take cold comfort from the fact that the total number of such mutations appears to be limited?
>But the properties of the virus are probably not determined by single mutations in isolation, but in how several mutations interact. This combinatorial perspective suddenly opens up new zones of potentially fruitful mutational space for the virus.
|>>|| No. 34228
Older people and anyone who works in healthcare is encouraged to do so. It's often not thought of as a deadly disease, but somewhere around 400-600,000 people die of flu worldwide every year. The thing with flu is nearly every cunt gets it at some stage.
You can partially see why comparisons to flu were made early on with covid. There's a lot of hindsight going on in the discourse but, frankly, it wasn't all that irrational of an assessment back then, when we had so little information to go on. I think the biggest misapprehension at the time was that when saying it's "just a flu", most people didn't realise that just the flu still isn't actually something to be taken lightly. The health service goes to considerable lengths to prepare for and mitigate it every year.
Over time the evidence we are seeing with the new variants is that it is taking a similar path. In a few years time covid likely will be "just a flu", and we will deal with it similarly. People will still die like they do from flu, but it will be a smaller number we can tolerate and mitigate without the same level of disruption.
What's really fascinating is the way our actions in response to the virus have shaped the mutations.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]