https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel ... 93beb3b34d
Isn't it great that governments listen to medical staff rather than journalists?
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
. It would be useful to read this prior article for background:
China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?
By Larry Romanoff, March 04, 2020
***
As readers will recall from the earlier article (above), Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists have determined that the new coronavirus almost certainly originated in the US since that country is the only one known to have all five types – from which all others must have descended. Wuhan in China has only one of those types, rendering it in analogy as a kind of “branch” which cannot exist by itself but must have grown from a “tree”.
The Taiwanese physician noted that in August of 2019 the US had a flurry of lung pneumonias or similar, which the Americans blamed on ‘vaping’ from e-cigarettes, but which, according to the scientist, the symptoms and conditions could not be explained by e-cigarettes. He said he wrote to the US officials telling them he suspected those deaths were likely due to the coronavirus. He claims his warnings were ignored.
Immediately prior to that, the CDC totally shut down the US Military’s main bio-lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, due to an absence of safeguards against pathogen leakages, issuing a complete “cease and desist” order to the military. It was immediately after this event that the ‘e-cigarette’ epidemic arose.
Screenshot from The New York Times August 08, 2019
We also had the Japanese citizens infected in September of 2019, in Hawaii, people who had never been to China, these infections occurring on US soil long before the outbreak in Wuhan but only shortly after the locking down of Fort Detrick.
Then, on Chinese social media, another article appeared, aware of the above but presenting further details. It stated in part that five “foreign” athletes or other personnel visiting Wuhan for the World Military Games (October 18-27, 2019) were hospitalised in Wuhan for an undetermined infection.
The article explains more clearly that the Wuhan version of the virus could have come only from the US because it is what they call a “branch” which could not have been created first because it would have no ‘seed’. It would have to have been a new variety spun off the original ‘trunk’, and that trunk exists only in the US. (1)
There has been much public speculation that the coronavirus had been deliberately transmitted to China but, according to the Chinese article, a less sinister alternative is possible.
If some members of the US team at the World Military Games (18-27 October) had become infected by the virus from an accidental outbreak at Fort Detrick it is possible that, with a long initial incubation period, their symptoms might have been minor, and those individuals could easily have ‘toured’ the city of Wuhan during their stay, infecting potentially thousands of local residents in various locations, many of whom would later travel to the seafood market from which the virus would spread like wildfire (as it did).
That would account also for the practical impossibility of locating the legendary “patient zero” – which in this case has never been found since there would have been many of them.
Next, Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease expert at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an article in Science magazine that the first human infection has been confirmed as occurring in November 2019, (not in Wuhan), suggesting the virus originated elsewhere and then spread to the seafood markets. “One group put the origin of the outbreak as early as 18 September 2019.” (2) (3)
Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally.
Description of earliest cases suggests outbreak began elsewhere.
The article states:
“As confirmed cases of a novel virus surge around the world with worrisome speed, all eyes have so far focused on a seafood market in Wuhan, China, as the origin of the outbreak. But a description of the first clinical cases published in The Lancet on Friday challenges that hypothesis.” (4) (5)
The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers from several institutions, offers details about the first 41 hospitalized patients who had confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).
In the earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019 and had no reported link to the seafood market, the authors report. “No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases”, they state. Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. “That’s a big number, 13, with no link”, says Daniel Lucey . . . (6)
Earlier reports from Chinese health authorities and the World Health Organization had said the first patient had onset of symptoms on 8 December 2019 – and those reports simply said “most” cases had links to the seafood market, which was closed on 1 January. (7)
“Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019 – if not earlier – because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan – and perhaps elsewhere – before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace”, Lucey asserts.
“China must have realized the epidemic did not originate in that Wuhan Huanan seafood market”, Lucey told Science Insider. (8)
Kristian Andersen is an evolutionary biologist at the Scripps Research Institute who has analyzed sequences of 2019-nCoV to try to clarify its origin. He said the scenario was “entirely plausible” of infected persons bringing the virus into the seafood market from somewhere outside. According to the Science article,
“Andersen posted his analysis of 27 available genomes of 2019-nCoV on 25 January on a virology research website. It suggests they had a “most recent common ancestor” – meaning a common source – as early as 1 October 2019.” (9)
It was interesting that Lucey also noted that MERS was originally believed to have come from a patient in Saudi Arabia in June of 2012, but later and more thorough studies traced it back to an earlier hospital outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Jordan in April of that year. Lucey said that from stored samples from people who died in Jordan, medical authorities confirmed they had been infected with the MERS virus. (10)
This would provide impetus for caution among the public in accepting the “official standard narrative” that the Western media are always so eager to provide – as they did with SARS, MERS, and ZIKA, all of which ‘official narratives’ were later proven to have been entirely wrong.
In this case, the Western media flooded their pages for months about the COVID-19 virus originating in the Wuhan seafood market, caused by people eating bats and wild animals. All of this has been proven wrong.
Not only did the virus not originate at the seafood market, it did not originate in Wuhan at all, and it has now been proven that it did not originate in China but was brought to China from another country. Part of the proof of this assertion is that the genome varieties of the virus in Iran and Italy have been sequenced and declared to have no part of the variety that infected China and must, by definition, have originated elsewhere.
It would seem the only possibility for origination is the US because only that country has the “tree trunk” of all the varieties. And it may therefore be true that the original source of the COVID-19 virus was the US military bio-warfare lab at Fort Detrick. This would not be a surprise, given that the CDC completely shut down Fort Detrick, but also because, as I related in an earlier article, between 2005 and 2012 the US had experienced 1,059 events where pathogens had been either stolen or escaped from American bio-labs during the prior ten years – an average of one every three days.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Great post, Shep, thanks for running the numbers.MKSheppard wrote: ↑2020-03-12 09:16pm I did the numbers for my County, and not good:
Back on 26 February, the American Hospital Association had a meeting based off the initial
information coming out of South Korea (at the time); and they estimated the following data in
the "What healthcare leaders need to know: Preparing for the COVID-19 presentation"
This data was used for a briefing a few days ago (on 10 March) of Nebraska State Senators by
Dr. Chris Kratochvil of University of Nebraska Medical Center and Nebraska Public Health
Director Dr. Gary Anthone.
According to Dr. Anthone, the figure of 480,000 US deaths is a mathematical assumption
inherent in the modelling of the disease as a simple exponential function. It doesn’t take into
account any intervention to prevent spread of the disease such as quarantines.
My county has a population of about 1~ million and if we use the AHA estimates on their slide:
Population 1,000,000
Attack Rate 30% of population
Cases 300,000
Hospitalizations 15,000 -- 5% of all cases
ICU Care 6,000 -- 2% of all cases
Ventilation 3,000 -- 1% of all cases
Fatalities 1,500 -- 0.5% of all cases
A more realistic estimate based on quarantine/self-limiting measures lowering the attack rate
to about 3% of the population would be:
Population 1,000,000
Attack Rate 3% of population
Cases 30,000
Hospitalizations 1,500 -- 5% of all cases
ICU Care 600 -- 2% of all cases
Ventilation 300 -- 1% of all cases
Fatalities 150 -- 0.5% of all cases
This assumes that everyone gets prompt treatment.
According to the Maryland Health Care Commission’s Annual Report on Selected
Maryland Acute Care and Special Hospital Services - Fiscal Year 2018, Montgomery has the
following hospital bed count (approximately):
The amount of people needing ICU care in the 3% of population attack scenario would be moreCode: Select all
Hosp Acute ER ICU Total Beds SGMC 266 64 28 358 WAH 204 26 26 256 HC-G 72 14 8 94 HC 403 64 46 513 MGH 115 39 12 166 SH 230 41 24 295 Total 1,290 248 144 1,682
than four times the amount of ICU beds that exist in Montgomery.
There’s also the presence of large retirement communities such as Leisure World and The
Village in Montgomery County, where the population is extremely susceptible to COVID due to
advanced age and other co-morbidity factors (diabetes, obesity, etc).
Currently in Italy, they are triaging COVID patients – if you’re over 65 years or you have a
serious co-morbidity (diabetes, morbidly obese), you WILL NOT be mechanically ventilated. The
ventilators are reserved for younger (40-50 y/o) patients with no co-morbidities.
Oregon DOC cancelling all visits and events
https://www.oregon.gov/doc/Pages/default.aspx
This is huge for ODOC a big piece of the states corrections model is family interaction and humanization
380m pop.Broomstick wrote: ↑2020-03-13 06:32am, but could you extrapolate that to the entire US? The numbers for your county are daunting, but I expect the ones for the entire country to be even more so.
Apparently this is an anecdote he trots out regularly whenever he's forgotten to prepare a speech and has to make something up on the fly, as witnessed by Jeremy Vine at an awards ceremony (source), and goes something like this...The political hero who most inspired Boris Johnson is not his party leader or even a figure from history.
It is a fictional character from a Steven Spielberg film who put young children and their families at risk by allowing them to swim in shark-infested waters.
The London Mayor told journalists at the Press Gallery lunch today that his political hero is Mayor Larry Vaughn, who prevents Chief Martin Brody from closing the beach after the initial shark attack.
"He kept the beaches open," Mr Johnson explained.
"I don't know what happened to his political career thereafter, but he did the right thing."
The character of Mayor Vaughn acts as a symbol for irresponsible state behaviour in the Jaws film, putting holiday-makers' lives at risk in order to maintain tourism.
The film shows almost all of his decisions to be misguided, from opposing the closing of the beach to his conviction that the shark has been killed when hunters caught the wrong specimen.
Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Johnson appeared to suggest that George Osborne's tactics towards the eurocrisis were "crazy".
Dicussing Mr Osborne's view that intensified fiscal union would help alleviate the crisis, Mr Johnson said: "It's absolutely crazy to think that the solution of the eurocrisis is to intensify fiscal union. We're living in a fools paradise".
If the "develop herd immunity" approach is any indication, he was not taking the piss.“Which is why my political hero is the Mayor from JAWS.”
Laughter.
“Yes. Because he KEPT THE BEACHES OPEN.”
More guffawing around me. He spoke as if every sentence had only just occurred to him, and each new thought came as a surprise.
“Yes, he REPUDIATED, he FORESWORE and he ABROGATED all these silly regulations on health and safety and declared that the people should SWIM! SWIM!”
More uproar.
“Now, I accept,” he went on in an uncertain tone, “that as a result some small children were eaten by a shark. But how much more pleasure did the MAJORITY get from those beaches as a result of the boldness of the Mayor in Jaws?”
A leading Canadian toilet paper manufacturer says its factories are working overtime to meet a surge in demand caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and vows any shortages will be short-lived.
"What you're seeing in shortages on shelves with customers is the fact that we have not been able to supply quickly enough to meet the spike in demand," said Dino Bianco, the chief executive officer of Kruger Products.
The Mississauga, Ont.-based company produces about a third of all tissue products in Canada, under brands like Cashmere, Purex, Scotties, White Swan and SpongeTowels.
While the stockpiling to prepare for COVID-19 may leave some store shelves bare, Bianco said Canadians shouldn't panic over the possibility the country could run out of toilet paper.
"We're producing it, we've got people working overtime, we're expediting shipments to customers to make sure we continue to service the needs of consumers," he said.
Because things have spread to a worse extend than S. Korea. South Korea was able to contain cases to mostly one big cluster.Nicholas wrote: ↑2020-03-13 11:06am The numbers people have been giving for hospital beds are scary. Hopefully cases will spread out enough that it won't be as bad as the raw numbers sound. My big question though is what happens next?
Seriously, we can't do these shutdown things long term. Virus or no virus if factories and business shut down for more then a few weeks we are going to have problems way more serious then widespread COVID-19. With this thing having a fourteen day incubation period and doubtless being in slums around the world it isn't going away. So how are we going to control it without shutting whole countries down? South Korea seems to offer a far far better model then China for containing this. So why is everyone imitating China with mass shutdowns?
Nicholas
No Western country can do the number of tests China and South Korea are doing every day? Also your conception that businesses that need to be shut down for more than a few weeks is incorrect. China got factories humming again but with precautions. Even at the height of their outbreak, Wuhan factories manufacturing things of national security like microchips were still running but with infection control precautions.Nicholas wrote: ↑2020-03-13 11:06am The numbers people have been giving for hospital beds are scary. Hopefully cases will spread out enough that it won't be as bad as the raw numbers sound. My big question though is what happens next?
Seriously, we can't do these shutdown things long term. Virus or no virus if factories and business shut down for more then a few weeks we are going to have problems way more serious then widespread COVID-19. With this thing having a fourteen day incubation period and doubtless being in slums around the world it isn't going away. So how are we going to control it without shutting whole countries down? South Korea seems to offer a far far better model then China for containing this. So why is everyone imitating China with mass shutdowns?
Nicholas
The one element of that article that I can see as being unequivocally true is the temporal aspect; i.e. that the first cases of the coronavirus occurred before November 2019. We have substantial evidence that this is the case, though at this point it is impossible to actually determine precisely when, where, and how these first cases occurred.AniThyng wrote: ↑2020-03-13 04:13am So, help me affirm or debunk this
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19- ... us/5706078
With coronavirus panic sweeping the globe, supermarkets are selling out of hand santisier, toilet paper and other essential items. But it would seem it's not just survival people are thinking of.
Some people are making sure they will enjoy their time in quarantine, should it be enforced upon us.
New Zealand sex retailer Adult Toy Megastore has reported a surge of sales in lubricant, vibrators and batteries in the wake of the pandemic.
Owner and operator Nicola Relph says the spike can only be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We're hearing from our customers that they're stockpiling batteries and lubrication in case they're stuck inside due to self-isolation," Nicola says.
"Our customers have told us they're avoiding crowds and they want something to do while they’re stuck at home. They're also not on Tinder or going on dates because they're worried about COVID-19."
And as it turns out, these stockpilers have the right idea.
Studies show masturbation boosts your immune system and raises your white blood cell count. According to Dr Jennifer Landa, masturbation can be just what you need to ward off illness.
"Masturbation can produce the right environment for a strengthened immune system," she told Men's Health.
Her views are backed up by a study from the Department of Medical Psychology at the University Clinic of Essen which looked at the effects of orgasm through masturbation on the white blood cell count.
A group of 11 volunteers were asked to participate in a study and the results confirmed that sexual arousal and orgasm increased the number of white blood cells.
"It has been known for a long time that orgasms help you relax your body and calm your mind, meaning a better sleep, which in turn means more time for your body to rest," says Relph.
"Rest is crucial in maintaining a high-functioning immune system. And when you climax your body gets that rush of dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin - all of those feel-good hormones."
This rush re-balances your levels of cortisol, also known as the stress hormone, which in turn helps boost your immune system to get it functioning well.
"We care about the safety of our clients so we're pleased they're doing everything they can to look after their immune systems," says Relph.
According to wiki, Globalresearch.ca is “a Canadian conspiracy theory website operated by Michel Chossudovsky's Centre for Research on Globalization.”
I wonder what expanded executive powers and authoritiarian xenophobic acts he'll use this excuse to implement?MKSheppard wrote: ↑2020-03-13 02:44pm Trump speaks at 3pm eastern. Expected to announce a state of national emergency
President Donald Trump just declared a national emergency, in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak the US is facing.
This act will free up federal funding for the states to use in response to the crisis, enabling them to tap into $42.6 billion that could be applied to tests, medical facilities, and other supplies.
“I am officially declaring a national emergency. Two very big words,” Trump said during remarks in the Rose Garden.
The emergency declaration falls under the Stafford Act, which governs the federal response to public health and natural disasters. It was previously used in a similar capacity by President Bill Clinton to address an outbreak of West Nile virus in New York and New Jersey in 2000.
Senate Democrats earlier this week urged Trump to consider this option as state and local governments scramble to address the influx of patients who need tests, and potential medical care. The number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the United States continues to climb, according to Johns Hopkins University.
We've been calling for President Trump to do this for days.
Americans will support an emergency declaration to extend assistance to Americans who need it.
But he must not overstep his authority or indulge his autocratic tendencies for purposes not truly related to this crisis. https://t.co/IqpHM1AvW1
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) March 13, 2020
Given how contagious the virus is — experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of people could contract it in the coming months — the strain on medical systems across the country is only expected to grow.
Trump’s decision to declare this emergency is significant: It will increase the resources that states can access as they grapple with the demand for medical care and assistance, and it highlights at least some acknowledgment from the president regarding the severity of the coronavirus outbreak — a stark turnaround from his past attempts to downplay it.
What the emergency declaration will do
The biggest impact of this declaration is that it will give states a boost in funding to address the need to pay more medical staff, bolster facilities, and treat patients. Under the Stafford Act, which was passed in 1988, once a president declares an emergency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is able to funnel money from its $42 billion disaster fund to various state governments.
“This federal funding could bolster states and localities that are impacted by novel coronavirus which the World Health Organization has proclaimed a pandemic,” Stetson University Law Professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy tells Vox.
According to the letter Senate Democrats sent the administration earlier this week, this declaration means that the federal government will cover 75 percent of cost sharing with states for specific resources related to coronavirus response including medical equipment and vaccines.
These emergency declarations have typically been prompted by requests by state governors — as outlined by the law, but the president can act sans this request “where necessary to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate severe damage,” according to The Brennan Center’s Liza Goitein.
This emergency declaration is expected to be different from the one that Trump made last year to obtain funding for a wall along the southern border. That action was taken under the National Emergencies Act, which also enables the president to do things like seize control of the internet.
The Stafford Act, meanwhile, is specifically designed to outline the government’s coordination with state and local governments in the instance of potential public health and natural disasters.
As Reuters points out, this declaration is also distinct from the one made by the Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year. The agency had previously deemed the rise in cases of coronavirus a public health emergency, which enabled the administration to impose travel restrictions on those who have visited China.
The Stafford Act was previously used to address West Nile
This declaration is not the first time that Trump has invoked the Stafford Act. He also used it in the case of wildfires in California and hurricane damage in Florida, in order to organize the federal response in both of those situations and provide states with extra financial support.
“These statutes are invoked quite often, several times a year,” Princeton University political science professor Keith Whittington tells Vox. “Just a few days ago, the president invoked this authority to assist Tennessee after a significant tornado.”
The Stafford Act has been used in the past to respond to a medical disaster, too: Clinton made an emergency declaration in 2000 to respond to the spread of the West Nile virus in two states. At the time, the federal government was able to send up to $5 million in federal money in order to support mosquito control efforts.
President Barack Obama also used the National Emergencies Act to declare a national emergency to address the swine flu outbreak in 2009. This decision enabled the federal government to help shape the medical response, and allowed hospitals to treat swine flu patients at separate sites, for example.
The decision to use the Stafford Act again is just one step the government can take in its coronavirus response. Congress is also weighing legislation to address paid sick leave and guarantee free tests for people regardless of whether they are insured.