Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[sg31]

This is an interesting article. It is a study of work done on a supercomputer which threw up some interesting observations.

https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercom ... cb8eba9d63

This is the paper itself. It doesn't really draw any definite conclusions but points a possible way forward and suggests existing drugs which may be worth proper studies.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/59177

[scotia]

has anybody on this board been attempting to extract Covid-19 data from the government source using the instructions contained in an on-line manual
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/developers-guide.
I find this manual opaque, and its suggestion that you need to develop an api to get at the data seems crazy.
It also is subject to changes which can trash an application - but there are no change lists in the updated guide to warn a developer
However I wanted to get at the data, and I set forth to carry it out, using curl on a Windows PC.
After a bit of a struggle, I got it working, then they changed "newDeathsByPublishDate" to "newDeaths28DaysByPublishDate" - and the application crashed. So I worked out from error messages what had happened, and got it back into action.
However a few days ago it ceased working - no error messages - and it simply returned zero data.
Is anyone out there using a similar app? Have you run into similar difficulties? Do you have a soluion?
I have emailed the address on the developers guide - but have had no response.

From the lack of feedback It looks like nobody on this board has been attempting to extract Covid-19 data from the government source using an application based on their developers' guide
But just in case anyone is thinking of trying it out, I can now report that it is back working - but I have received no response on why it stopped working.
When working, its an excellent source of up-to-date Covid-19 data, with selective granularity down from country to local authority level.

[johnhemming]

Here is a peer reviewed editorial in the BMJ essentially making the same point as I have made on a number of occasions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364

Current antibody tests fail to identify people who had mild infections

[servodude]

Here's a link to a meta analysis that looks to have quite wide and deep coverage
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.26326

this bit from the abstract struck me as interesting:

A total of 50 155 patients from 41 studies with confirmed COVID‐19 were included.
The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection is 15.6% (95% CI, 10.1%‐23.0%)

I hope you're all keeping well (this thread seems to grow too quickly to keep up with you all)

-sd

[johnhemming]

this bit from the abstract struck me as interesting:

A total of 50 155 patients from 41 studies with confirmed COVID‐19 were included.
The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection is 15.6% (95% CI, 10.1%‐23.0%)

I think the difficulty is one as to how one identifies all of the people with asymptomatic infection. Hence one would expect most studies based upon confirmed infection to identify a lower bound.

I had a good discussion yesterday with an A&E consultant who has been dealing with Covid cases. He agrees with my view that in England in the urban areas we are essentially at the HIT. It will take a while for this to seep through to government and so I expect them to continue doing the rain dance for a while longer.

[johnhemming]

Looking at the detailed chart as to asymptomatic cases the highest figure is about 89%. There are quite a few over 50%. The analysis itself is meaningless.

[scotia]

has anybody on this board been attempting to extract Covid-19 data from the government source using the instructions contained in an on-line manual
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/developers-guide.
I find this manual opaque, and its suggestion that you need to develop an api to get at the data seems crazy.
It also is subject to changes which can trash an application - but there are no change lists in the updated guide to warn a developer
However I wanted to get at the data, and I set forth to carry it out, using curl on a Windows PC.
After a bit of a struggle, I got it working, then they changed "newDeathsByPublishDate" to "newDeaths28DaysByPublishDate" - and the application crashed. So I worked out from error messages what had happened, and got it back into action.
However a few days ago it ceased working - no error messages - and it simply returned zero data.
Is anyone out there using a similar app? Have you run into similar difficulties? Do you have a soluion?
I have emailed the address on the developers guide - but have had no response.

From the lack of feedback It looks like nobody on this board has been attempting to extract Covid-19 data from the government source using an application based on their developers' guide
But just in case anyone is thinking of trying it out, I can now report that it is back working - but I have received no response on why it stopped working.
When working, its an excellent source of up-to-date Covid-19 data, with selective granularity down from country to local authority level.

I spoke too soon. The government site is now responding with data - for only for some of the areas. In these reporting areas the number of (Covid-19) Cases (new and cumulative) seems reasonably up to date - at least until until the end of August. But all of the (Covid-19) Deaths Data (new and cumulative) has disappeared. E.G. for London we have apparently zero (Covid-19) deaths (new and cumulative) from the end of January to the present. So we are left clueless as to what is actually happening.
And I'll modify an earlier statement from its an excellent source of up-to-date Covid-19 data to it should be an excellent source of up-to-date Covid-19 data
For those interested in what is currently shown for the number of new daily Cases in the London data - it peaked around 1000 at the beginning of April, then fell to around 30 towards the end of June, but is now back up around 130 in late August. The cumulative number of Cases in London is currently around 40,000.

[Itsallaguess]

The numbers of people testing positive for coronavirus in England remain unchanged in the week to 25 August, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Its latest survey found there were about 2,000 new cases per day and an estimated 27,100 people in the community had the virus during that week.

This is similar to the previous week and several weeks before, which suggest that, despite outbreaks in some areas, overall cases continue to be stable and infections remained at a constant level during August.

Based on tests on people in households whether they have symptoms or not, the figures are thought to give one of the most accurate pictures of whether or not new infections are increasing.

It does not cover people in hospital or care homes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54025713

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[scotia]

London in August - extracted from the (partially working) government Covid-19 data site.
date name cases
31/08/2020 London {'daily': 135, 'cumulative': 39893}
30/08/2020 London {'daily': 128, 'cumulative': 39758}
29/08/2020 London {'daily': 126, 'cumulative': 39630}
28/08/2020 London {'daily': 214, 'cumulative': 39504}
27/08/2020 London {'daily': 226, 'cumulative': 39290}
26/08/2020 London {'daily': 165, 'cumulative': 39064}
25/08/2020 London {'daily': 168, 'cumulative': 38899}
24/08/2020 London {'daily': 195, 'cumulative': 38731}
23/08/2020 London {'daily': 143, 'cumulative': 38536}
22/08/2020 London {'daily': 117, 'cumulative': 38393}
21/08/2020 London {'daily': 166, 'cumulative': 38276}
20/08/2020 London {'daily': 203, 'cumulative': 38110}
19/08/2020 London {'daily': 152, 'cumulative': 37907}
18/08/2020 London {'daily': 181, 'cumulative': 37755}
17/08/2020 London {'daily': 190, 'cumulative': 37574}
16/08/2020 London {'daily': 87, 'cumulative': 37384}
15/08/2020 London {'daily': 105, 'cumulative': 37297}
14/08/2020 London {'daily': 127, 'cumulative': 37192}
13/08/2020 London {'daily': 124, 'cumulative': 37065}
12/08/2020 London {'daily': 150, 'cumulative': 36941}
11/08/2020 London {'daily': 149, 'cumulative': 36791}
10/08/2020 London {'daily': 142, 'cumulative': 36642}
09/08/2020 London {'daily': 67, 'cumulative': 36500}
08/08/2020 London {'daily': 55, 'cumulative': 36433}
07/08/2020 London {'daily': 119, 'cumulative': 36378}
06/08/2020 London {'daily': 105, 'cumulative': 36259}
05/08/2020 London {'daily': 115, 'cumulative': 36154}
04/08/2020 London {'daily': 103, 'cumulative': 36039}
03/08/2020 London {'daily': 87, 'cumulative': 35936}
02/08/2020 London {'daily': 72, 'cumulative': 35849}
01/08/2020 London {'daily': 58, 'cumulative': 35777}

[sg31]

https://phys.org/news/2020-09-nanobody- ... ction.html

"We hope our findings can contribute to the amelioration of the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging further examination of this nanobody as a therapeutic candidate against this viral infection," says Gerald McInerney, corresponding author and associate professor of virology at the Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology at Karolinska Institutet.

"Using cryo-electron microscopy, we were able to see how the nanobody binds to the viral spike at an epitope which overlaps with the cellular receptor ACE2-binding site, providing a structural understanding for the potent neutralization activity," says Leo Hanke, postdoc in the McInerney group and first author of the study.

Nanobodies offer several advantages over conventional antibodies as candidates for specific therapies. They span less than one-tenth the size of conventional antibodies and are typically easier to produce cost-effectively at scale. Critically, they can be adapted for humans with current protocols and have a proven record of inhibiting viral respiratory infections.

"Our results show that Ty1 can bind potently to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and neutralize the virus, with no detectable off-target activity," says Ben Murrell, assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology and co-senior author of the publication. "We are now embarking on preclinical animal studies to investigate the neutralizing activity and therapeutic potential of Ty1 in vivo."

[Itsallaguess]

Nanobodies offer several advantages over conventional antibodies as candidates for specific therapies. They span less than one-tenth the size of conventional antibodies and are typically easier to produce cost-effectively at scale. Critically, they can be adapted for humans with current protocols and have a proven record of inhibiting viral respiratory infections.

"Our results show that Ty1 can bind potently to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and neutralize the virus, with no detectable off-target activity," says Ben Murrell, assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology and co-senior author of the publication. "We are now embarking on preclinical animal studies to investigate the neutralizing activity and therapeutic potential of Ty1 in vivo."

Given the monumental human focus on these types of ultra-modern scientific advances in relation to the COVID studies, it makes me wonder when we read articles telling us that 'We may always have to live with COVID', whether they might have the completely wrong end of the stick here, and I sometimes wonder if not only may we one day be in a position to neutralise this particular strain of SARS, but perhaps even many of the other types of similar ailments that we really have had to live with for some time now...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[sg31]

Given the monumental human focus on these types of ultra-modern scientific advances in relation to the COVID studies, it makes me wonder when we read articles telling us that 'We may always have to live with COVID', whether they might have the completely wrong end of the stick here, and I sometimes wonder if not only may we one day be in a position to neutralise this particular strain of SARS, but perhaps even many of the other types of similar ailments that we really have had to live with for some time now...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

I'm no expert but as I delve deeper into this and talk to friends involved in research for cancer treatments it is ovious that fantastic progress is being made. 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago I don't think we could have envisaged some of the things that are now being developed.

Given enough money I feel sure many current medical problems will be easily controlled but nature does seem to have a way of finding new challenges to throw at the human race. I don't think the battle will ever be won by humans. If nature comes up with the right virulent and deadly virus it could wipe out the vast majority of human life before we could find a cure.

We are our own worst enemy in many ways, we seem to organise society in away that encourages the worldwide spread of viruses as rapidly as possible and it seems a large percentage of the western population isn't prepared to take even modest precautions to avoid infection. One day, hopefully far into the future, a challenge will arise and we won't do what is required to survive until medical researchers can find the answer.

I doubt I will be around to see it happen.

[Mike4]

I'm no expert but as I delve deeper into this and talk to friends involved in research for cancer treatments it is ovious that fantastic progress is being made. 20 years ago, maybe even 10 years ago I don't think we could have envisaged some of the things that are now being developed.

Given enough money I feel sure many current medical problems will be easily controlled but nature does seem to have a way of finding new challenges to throw at the human race. I don't think the battle will ever be won by humans. If nature comes up with the right virulent and deadly virus it could wipe out the vast majority of human life before we could find a cure.

We are our own worst enemy in many ways, we seem to organise society in away that encourages the worldwide spread of viruses as rapidly as possible and it seems a large percentage of the western population isn't prepared to take even modest precautions to avoid infection. One day, hopefully far into the future, a challenge will arise and we won't do what is required to survive until medical researchers can find the answer.

I doubt I will be around to see it happen.

I think the virulent and deadly virus you describe is more likely to originate in a laboratory than come from nature.

And as Dr Chris Martenson intriguingly points out in response to those who say there is no evidence to say SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, there is no evidence it originated in nature either.

[sg31]

I think the virulent and deadly virus you describe is more likely to originate in a laboratory than come from nature.

And as Dr Chris Martenson intriguingly points out in response to those who say there is no evidence to say SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, there is no evidence it originated in nature either.

I agree that a lab produced virus could in theory wipe out vast numbers of human beings but it would be a very stupid entity that released it without already having an antidote prepared to protect themselves and those they approve of. Some mad religious group or terrorist maybe daft enough. Not something I want to get into at present. Covid is enough to think about.

There was knowledge of SAR-SCoV-2 in bats and maybe pangolins in research papers from a few years ago. I did read a paper on it in the early days of the pandemic. I really can't be bothered to find it at the moment. I suppose it would always be possible to put the paper out years in advance if this was planned long enough in advance and one had a devious enough mind.

I personally don't believe this virus was man made. I've seen several reports from respected authors that there are certain parts of viruses that lend themselves to adaptation for biological warfare. This virus doesn't have any of those signitures. Again the devious enough plotter could take that into account if determined enough.

[UncleEbenezer]

If you want the conspiracy theory ...

Why are the Asians coping better than the West? It's widely attributed to their recent (this century) experiences with similar diseases, that were successfully contained without going global.

Some demented nutter who hates China and wants to damage it, and whose predecessor withdrew his country from the international bio-weapons treaty around two decades ago, might expect this one to have been contained too, and never reach the West.

[johnhemming]

Why are the Asians coping better than the West?

One hypothesis is that there have been more other coronaviruses spreading in certain communities and as a result they have less susceptibility.

[zico]

I think the virulent and deadly virus you describe is more likely to originate in a laboratory than come from nature.

And as Dr Chris Martenson intriguingly points out in response to those who say there is no evidence to say SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, there is no evidence it originated in nature either.

This looks like a logical error, not an intriguing point.
We know that in nature, living organisms do evolve, mutate and develop - so that is surely the default assumption, and not one that needs to be proved with evidence. It's the unusual explanation that requires evidence before it can be have any degree of credibility.

For example, modern humans could either have evolved naturally from earlier humanoids, or aliens from the planet Zog could have interfered with neanderthal DNA to create modern humans. There's no hard evidence either way, but the first explanation is consistent with everything else we see in the natural world, so is generally accepted as being the correct answer.

A more humdrum example is that I believe the letter that dropped through my letterbox yesterday was sent by Saga Insurance through the postal system, but my next-door neighbour may well have decided to create a fake Saga letter using technology in his basement, and hand-deliver it through my letterbox. I simply have no hard evidence either way, but am confident about my belief on this one.

[Mike4]

I think the virulent and deadly virus you describe is more likely to originate in a laboratory than come from nature.

And as Dr Chris Martenson intriguingly points out in response to those who say there is no evidence to say SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, there is no evidence it originated in nature either.

This looks like a logical error, not an intriguing point.
We know that in nature, living organisms do evolve, mutate and develop - so that is surely the default assumption, and not one that needs to be proved with evidence. It's the unusual explanation that requires evidence before it can be have any degree of credibility.

For example, modern humans could either have evolved naturally from earlier humanoids, or aliens from the planet Zog could have interfered with neanderthal DNA to create modern humans. There's no hard evidence either way, but the first explanation is consistent with everything else we see in the natural world, so is generally accepted as being the correct answer.

A more humdrum example is that I believe the letter that dropped through my letterbox yesterday was sent by Saga Insurance through the postal system, but my next-door neighbour may well have decided to create a fake Saga letter using technology in his basement, and hand-deliver it through my letterbox. I simply have no hard evidence either way, but am confident about my belief on this one.

Even so, there seems to be a remarkable lack of interest in tracking down the origin of the virus. In pandemics there is usually mahoosive effort applied to identifying the source, but not this one. Or perhaps more accurately, a lack of interest in reporting on efforts made to track down the origin.

I'm quite happy to believe it occurred naturally as you assert, if someone comes up with some research on it. but I'm very taken aback by your astoundingly complacent acceptance that nature must the source simply because this is the "default assumption". My point is that EVERYONE seems to be assuming this, and demonstrating no interest at all in checking. Why not? Every other avenue to deal with this virus seems to be having every resource available thrown at it.

[zico]

I'm quite happy to believe it occurred naturally as you assert, if someone comes up with some research on it. but I'm very taken aback by your astoundingly complacent acceptance that nature must the source simply because this is the "default assumption". My point is that EVERYONE seems to be assuming this, and demonstrating no interest at all in checking. Why not? Every other avenue to deal with this virus seems to be having every resource available thrown at it.

But there have literally hundreds of articles claiming the virus was developed by China and escaped (or was deliberately released) from one of their labs (including of course, Dr. Chris Martenson that you're referring to, whose doctorate seems to be in economics). The Chinese scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab, known as the "bat-woman", feared the virus might have escaped from her lab, but says that when she checked, the Covid-19 virus was not consistent with the viruses stored at the Wuhan lab. I thought it was very well known that the first cases of the virus were in Wuhan. Of course it's possible the Chinese scientists are lying and the virus escaped from a Chinese lab, but even if that was the case, I really don't see how that helps anyone to deal with the virus now.

[Mike4]

But there have literally hundreds of articles claiming the virus was developed by China and escaped (or was deliberately released) from one of their labs (including of course, Dr. Chris Martenson that you're referring to, whose doctorate seems to be in economics). The Chinese scientist who worked at the Wuhan lab, known as the "bat-woman", feared the virus might have escaped from her lab, but says that when she checked, the Covid-19 virus was not consistent with the viruses stored at the Wuhan lab. I thought it was very well known that the first cases of the virus were in Wuhan. Of course it's possible the Chinese scientists are lying and the virus escaped from a Chinese lab, but even if that was the case, I really don't see how that helps anyone to deal with the virus now.

Debunking your points one at a time:

1) Well yes agreed, there are plenty or articles claiming all manner of things. No exhaustive research though, which is what I'm whining about.

2) Dr Martenson has two doctorates? I'm impressed! His other doctorate is in pathology.

3) Oh "Bat Woman" has checked it was nothing to do with her lab? That's ok then. One lab definitively ruled out.

4) Well known that the first cases of virus can from Wuhan? Really? Where is your evidence? What about the virus found in Barcelona drains in March 2019?

5) YOU don't see how it helps to know the source? Ok, best we don't investigate then. The WHO, Oxford Centre for evidence Based Medicine, the CDC all seem to agree with you which I find fishy as heck.

I on the other hand, have an enquiring mind and would like to know, but you don't. So we are quits on that then!