new deadly human-to-human-transmissible coronavirus emerges out of China
POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 22:21
VIEWED: 203741
PAGE 230 of 283
I forget if this has been brought up. I was told that having A+ blood type makes one immune to Covid. Is this true?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have wondered if the CA wildfires have contributed to spread.
The fires caused premature temp drop and cloud cover clocking the sun. Has [the] temp drop and UV reduction [given] rise to Covid spread?
Was the summer our opportunity to subdue, and squandered by superspreader events from Antifag and BLM?
Quote:Well, if you're going to believe that some fire smoke affected COVID-19 spread some, then you should agree that more fire smoke affected COVID-19 spread even more. And there was no effect immediately downwind of the fires. Other than that ... weather changes all the time. It would be hard to distinguish smoke effects far downwind from other changes in weather that were also happening.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I meant for the rest of America. I'm in WI, and the smoke blocked the sun and dropped temps suddenly in early Sept.
I don't know how Canada was affected. I assume Utah was.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No blood type is 'immune' from COVID-19. I hope you reevaluate the person's expertise who told you that. That said, 2 studies indicate people with type O may be less prone (not immune, but less likely) to go on to develop SEVERE COVID-19 once they're infected.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200618/blood-type-could-impact-odds-
for-severe-covid-19#1
Now a team of European researchers have found that people with blood type A had a 45% higher risk of catching coronavirus and developing "COVID-19 with respiratory failure," compared to people with other blood types. On the other hand, people with type O blood had a 35% lower risk for this more serious form of COVID-19.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have wondered if the CA wildfires have contributed to spread.
The fires caused premature temp drop and cloud cover clocking the sun. Has [the] temp drop and UV reduction [given] rise to Covid spread?
Was the summer our opportunity to subdue, and squandered by superspreader events from Antifag and BLM?
Quote:Well, if you're going to believe that some fire smoke affected COVID-19 spread some, then you should agree that more fire smoke affected COVID-19 spread even more. And there was no effect immediately downwind of the fires. Other than that ... weather changes all the time. It would be hard to distinguish smoke effects far downwind from other changes in weather that were also happening.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I meant for the rest of America. I'm in WI, and the smoke blocked the sun and dropped temps suddenly in early Sept.
I don't know how Canada was affected. I assume Utah was.
Yes. The weatherguessers were saying that the temp drop was caused by the smoke from CA fires, so they probably had no clue what they were talking about. Rumor has it that meteorologists get indoctrinated in places like college and stuff, so they probably don't know anything.
They demonstrated the smoke effects from satellite imaging, which was likely Faked.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF - if you think some smoke WAYYYYY up in the atmosphere affects COVID-19 transmission indirectly through weather, don't you think 100X more smoke that affects transmission indirectly through weather 100X more; and that people are actually breathing; would affect it more?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have heard of news reports of Obiden election thieves cheering on the Dem team, in rallies without masks or social distancing.
Seems Obiden is in a rush to create Covid Task Force, to respond to the increase of Covid from his rally superspreader events.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I was looking at 91-DIVOC to see which way things were going - especially, to see if/ where new cases => new deaths, either increasing or decreasing. Overall, the link between new cases and news deaths is evident, even for new cases that occurred recently and in a less vulnerable population. What that did was delay new deaths, and attenuate the connection, while young people secondarily transmitted COVID-19 to vulnerable people. But it's clear new cases still result in new deaths.
In looking at the graphs there are some things I needed to decide to interpret them.
At low numbers (per 100,000, which is the graph I used) the 'signal' is extremely noisy, I think just by happenstance. Real life doesn't happen continuously and smoothly, it happens in spatters. And on top of that, it looks like there are many instances where data entry is the deciding factor in the peaks and valleys in the graphs over time. So I discounted any total signal less than 0.2 (per 100,000). There were some states where the numbers both dipped below and rose above 0.2, so I looked at how much of the more recent data was above 0.2. That was often the difference between what looked like a clear association, and an association.
And for some other graphs, the only way to make sense of them is to have a very long timespan that can be "smoothed".
And - I feel I need to point this out even though it seems ridiculous - there's the timegap between new cases and new deaths, since after getting infected, people need time to get sicker and sicker and then pass away.
Just briefly diverging from that, according to WorldOMeter numbers, there've been 10,534,260 cases and 245,557 deaths, for a case fatality rate of 2.3% as of November 10, 2020, 22:29 GMT. So one would expect the new deaths signal to be the new cases signal attenuated by a factor of 50. If new deaths less than 0.2 is too noisy to be reliable, that means that news cases less than 10 is uninterpretable because there's no valid new deaths number to compare it to.
That said ...
Wyoming ..............clear association
Wisconsin .............clear association
W Virginia .............(less than 0.2)
Washington ...........(less than 0.2)
Virginia ..................(less than 0.2)
Vermont ................(less than 0.2)
Utah ......................(less than 0.2)
Texas ....................clear association
Tennessee ............association
S Dakota ...............clear association
S Carolina .............clear association
Rhode Island ........association
Pennsylvania ........(less than 0.2)
Oregon ..................(less than 0.2)
Oklahoma .............(less than 0.2)
Ohio ......................(less than 0.2)
N Dakota ...............clear association
N Carolina .............association
New York ...............(less than 0.2)
New Mexico ...........clear association
New Jersey ............(less than 0.2)
New Hampshire
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thinking ...
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mysterious 'gene within a gene' found in the coronavirus
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-mysterious-gene-inside-gene-di
scovered.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Just briefly diverging from that, according to WorldOMeter numbers, there've been 10,534,260 cases and 245,557 deaths, for a case fatality rate of 2.3% as of November 10, 2020, 22:29 GMT. So one would expect the new deaths signal to be the new cases signal attenuated by a factor of 50. If new deaths less than 0.2 is too noisy to be reliable, that means that news cases less than 10 is uninterpretable because there's no valid new deaths number to compare it to.
I would like to see some data on how many asymptomatic people don't get tested because they feel fine. That would change the total case numbers of infected and the fatality rate %, as well as the danger of spreading the virus. But of course, we can't find that number. What we can absolutely know is this virus is extremely contagious and more deadly than the worst flu we've ever seen. Perhaps, even more deadly than Ebola:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/07/31/why-is-c
ovid-19-more-deadly-than-ebola-an-infectious-disease-doctor-explains/?sh=7c7144f2f734
"The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 illness surpassed a grim milestone in early July. The number of deaths from Covid-19 in Africa—more than 11,950—exceeded the total number of people who died during the largest-ever Ebola outbreak in West Africa, according to the World Health Organization.
How could this be? How could a disease that usually kills greater than 60% of its victims be outgunned by Covid-19, which “only” kills about approximately 4% of its victims, by the latest numbers.
The answer relates to one fundamental aspect of most viruses. They don’t really like to kill their hosts. They can have a much wider impact if their hosts don’t die. This allows them to circulate in the community much longer and spread far and wide across the world for far greater impact.
When someone becomes ill with Ebola virus, they become bedridden very quickly. It’s really hard to be out in the community spreading disease if you are vomiting or having massive diarrhea. The people who are at greatest risk for Ebola infection are those who have very close contact taking care of the sick, bedridden victims—whether they are in the home or the hospital. Add to that, Ebola virus doesn’t spread until the victim has symptoms. This makes determining who is infected with Ebola and deciding who to isolate and quarantine much simpler than with Covid-19."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME