Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Infidel144]

Poor little Fasci Fauci, Dr. Do as you are Told is upset:
“So if you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci. You are attacking science.”

L'science c'est moi

[enoch]

Poor little Fasci Fauci, Dr. Do as you are Told is upset:
“So if you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci. You are attacking science.”

L'science c'est moi

Is this intentional gibberish?

L'science c'est de l'eau pas de la pierre

[Exarch]

It's clear by now that COVID-19 started off as an American funded and created bioweapon that backfired and started destroying the US and its allies.

[enoch]

You left out designed and released from a Chinese lab by the gross incompetence inherent in all Chinese Science. If only China wasn’t evil and had notified the world when it happened instead of repeatedly making up lies about the wet market and the disease being communicable. The problem with feudal totalitarian oligarchies controlled by a degenerate elite like China is at best they are incompetent and at worst malicious.

On top of that China still being too afraid to let researchers they can’t bribe or blackmail me means we can’t even know just how pathetic their understanding of how to run experiments is. We really shouldn’t be spending US dollars funding pity projects in sad countries like China whose people simply lack the understanding to carry out complex science.

[conon394]

It's clear by now that COVID-19 started off as an American funded and created bioweapon that backfired and started destroying the US and its allies.

And like always you have supporting material for this? Oh wait not.

[B. W.]

Another epidemiologist comes out against the vaccines; says the vaccines aren't safe:

https://michaelsavage.com/top-doctor...covid-vaccine/

[enoch]

He didn't say the vaccines aren't safe. He specifically says that people over 50 and those under 50 who are not healthy NEED vaccines. His main thrust there was that it is better to get real covid and develop natural immunity.

This news is old bud. And even the original was released by an anti vax org who was doing some slight of hand. Why fall for easily disprovable messaging?

If you want the anti vaccine stuff not for plebs I am down to share, my sister is anti vax and she is keyed in to the quality grifters. This low rent stuff for the commons is just sad.

[Exarch]

And like always you have supporting material for this? Oh wait not.

Fauci's being run up the flagpole because Biden and his people stupidly thought they could get one up on trade talks with the Chinese by coming up with this 'lab leak' investigation- only, it turns out WIV was being funded by Fauci and the USG- and now the Republicans have ammo to turn the screws on Biden.

Truly, i can see now how US elites consistently bring out the best and brightest to bear in governance.

What i want to know is why Trump, his people and indeed the rest of the West were so slow in stopping the spread and preventing the travel spread of COVID in 2020?

Given also, how easy it was for Trump to get cutting edge treatment as soon as he got COVID, it's clear the USG knew about COVID, its transmissibility, its danger, and thought they could release it in China during the Military Games just prior to the lunar holidays.

Families of dead americans really ought to be taking it up with the ruling elite in New England, Virginia, Connecticut and Los Angeles.

[enoch]

Families of dead americans really ought to be taking it up with the ruling elite in New England, Virginia, Connecticut and Los Angeles.

All of the simple mistakes are silly. Its either covid was released at the Military Games or it leaked from the lab, unless your argument is the China security apparatus is so weak that the US was able to infiltrate a highly guarded Chinese installation to steal the virus and even so in all of these scenarios Trump would be the one responsible for the virus not Biden because well, Biden wasn't President then. So the Republican ammo portion of your gibberish is particularly stupid.

As stupid as not knowing Connecticut is in New England... maybe.

Not that you will respond to me and if you do it won't be a counter rather just more gibberish. It is very sad that your posts are the best advocate for China on here. Embarrassing to the Chinese.

[Exarch]

The US military has biological research stations all across the globe, and the USG has been researching weaponised gain of function viruses for decades.

Secondly, the USG is not above using biological weapons as they did to Cuba with Ebola. It's much more plausible that COVID started as a Pentagon weaponised virus leaked from Fort Detrick and the infected soldiers attended the Military Games in Wuhan (btw, they performed in the Games) in 2019. Months later, the outbreak is reported and the Chinese government acted.

[enoch]

much more plausible lel

in your scenario it doesn’t makes sense why China is still desperately afraid of investigations but good news about your take is it completely absolves Joe and lays it all on Trump so good ammo for the Dems against the GOP

an aside, we get it, your posts scream penis envy, it’s ok dude

[antaeus]

As an interesting aside...

Last year it was reported that the regular flu circulated in very low levels in Australia... this year it has virtually disappeared, and only seems to be spilling out irregularly from hotel quarantine.

In a regular flu year there is estimated to be up to a thousand flu deaths reported in Australia... this year there have been none. And as a side effect, obtaining samples for flu vaccines has become difficult. Certainly I usually have the seasonal flu vaccine and this year I haven't bothered...

Once Australia's borders open, I would expect a rebound flu year.

[enoch]

Yet fools still think lockdowns don't work even with the wildly damning flu data from last year after decades of data to compare against. So so silly.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As an interesting aside...

Last year it was reported that the regular flu circulated in very low levels in Australia... this year it has virtually disappeared, and only seems to be spilling out irregularly from hotel quarantine.

In a regular flu year there is estimated to be up to a thousand flu deaths reported in Australia... this year there have been none. And as a side effect, obtaining samples for flu vaccines has become difficult. Certainly I usually have the seasonal flu vaccine and this year I haven't bothered...

Once Australia's borders open, I would expect a rebound flu year.

It’s an interesting question. Travel restrictions are generally ineffective beyond the earliest phases of an outbreak, but the flu could have been on a completely different trajectory relative to Covid. You could be right in that removing restrictions may see some infections that were delayed, or perhaps Australia’s overall travel volume could make it an outlier. The good news is, current and historical evidence suggests the restrictions weren’t a major factor.

As countries gradually resume international travel, introduction of risk mitigation measures aiming to reduce travel- associated exportation, importation and onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2. should not unnecessarily interfere with international traffic and should be based on a thorough risk assessment that is conducted systematically and routinely.

International travellers should not be considered by nature as suspected COVID-19 cases or contacts. Therefore, WHO does not recommend travellers as a priority group for testing.

The use of “immunity certificates” for international travel in the context of COVID-19 is not currently supported by scientific evidence and is therefore not recommended by WHO.

https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitst...22899/retrieve

WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks.
In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.

Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.

Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. Since WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern in relation to COVID-19, and as of 27 February, 38 countries have reported to WHO additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic in relation to travel to and from China or other countries, ranging from denial of entry of passengers, visa restrictions or quarantine for returning travellers. Several countries that denied entry of travellers or who have suspended the flights to and from China or other affected countries, are now reporting cases of COVID-19.

https://www.who.int/news-room/articl...id-19-outbreak

Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that “screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.”

http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/webs...ndemicflu.html

[antaeus]

It’s an interesting question. Travel restrictions are generally ineffective beyond the earliest phases of an outbreak, but the flu could have been on a completely different trajectory relative to Covid. You could be right in that removing restrictions may see some infections that were delayed, or perhaps Australia’s overall travel volume could make it an outlier. The good news is, current and historical evidence suggests the restrictions weren’t a major factor.

The WHO advice on restrictions was developed in particular in response to the Ebola outbreak of 2014, where the response to the outbreak hampered by border closures. Travel restrictions aren't particularly effective as a solution for managing fast moving highly symptomatic diseases. In particular travel bans can be harmful to trade and humanitarian aid in poorer countries - thus even where they work for disease management, they may cause harm or exacerbate poverty - advice which has been borne out during the Covid 19 outbreak.

In particular the WHO advice is with regard to targeted restrictions on countries suffering outbreaks. On the other hand, Australia (and other countries with similar regimes such as New Zealand, Taiwan) restrict all international travel - and those who do enter have to live through a two week quarantine phase - where they are tested for Covid19 on entry and before exit. Unlike generalised bans or screening of travellers from specific countries which is ineffective, screening of all travellers has proven highly effective in limiting transmission of respiratory diseases.

This has been evidenced through genomic sequencing of those cases who do make it through quarantine (on someone's shoe, or through an accidental staff transmission for example). All small outbreaks have the potential to be traced to individual transmission events - some of which have literally been caught on camera. Through a combination of highly effective contact tracing and ring fencing of cases, to date, all previous outbreaks have been eliminated* - meaning following outbreaks are traced to new transmission events with different variants of the disease.

The evidence of the effectiveness in eliminating disease through isolation has become overwhelming. Not all transmission can be prevented - trade has continued at near record levels and people do move through borders. But it has been reduced to such low levels that effective ring fencing of cases is possible.

So while I agree that travel restrictions are in general ineffective and can be harmful, they can also be very effective depending on how they are implemented. Australia has virtually no Covid specifically because of the border closures and support measures. The question for me is whether the ongoing negatives (which WHO advice also takes into account) are worth the ongoing restrictions. We won't know that until later this year or early next year when the majority of Australians are vaccinated and borders are opened again.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The WHO advice on restrictions was developed in particular in response to the Ebola outbreak of 2014, where the response to the outbreak hampered by border closures. Travel restrictions aren't particularly effective as a solution for managing fast moving highly symptomatic diseases. In particular travel bans can be harmful to trade and humanitarian aid in poorer countries - thus even where they work for disease management, they may cause harm or exacerbate poverty - advice which has been borne out during the Covid 19 outbreak.

In particular the WHO advice is with regard to targeted restrictions on countries suffering outbreaks. On the other hand, Australia (and other countries with similar regimes such as New Zealand, Taiwan) restrict all international travel - and those who do enter have to live through a two week quarantine phase - where they are tested for Covid19 on entry and before exit. Unlike generalised bans or screening of travellers from specific countries which is ineffective, screening of all travellers has proven highly effective in limiting transmission of respiratory diseases.

This has been evidenced through genomic sequencing of those cases who do make it through quarantine (on someone's shoe, or through an accidental staff transmission for example). All small outbreaks have the potential to be traced to individual transmission events - some of which have literally been caught on camera. Through a combination of highly effective contact tracing and ring fencing of cases, to date, all previous outbreaks have been eliminated* - meaning following outbreaks are traced to new transmission events with different variants of the disease.

The evidence of the effectiveness in eliminating disease through isolation has become overwhelming. Not all transmission can be prevented - trade has continued at near record levels and people do move through borders. But it has been reduced to such low levels that effective ring fencing of cases is possible.

So while I agree that travel restrictions are in general ineffective and can be harmful, they can also be very effective depending on how they are implemented. Australia has virtually no Covid specifically because of the border closures and support measures. The question for me is whether the ongoing negatives (which WHO advice also takes into account) are worth the ongoing restrictions. We won't know that until later this year or early next year when the majority of Australians are vaccinated and borders are opened again.

I did say Australia could be an outlier, but it seems you’re parsing a question of implementation that’s largely rhetorical. The historical conclusions were made based on the flu, hence why I cited that particular source. Covid has thus far followed the trend, as was discussed briefly during the lockdown slog. All this to say, the good news is the lifting of restrictions could coincide with normal flu season, which I understand to be June-August in Australia. It’s possible the combination could result in a delayed peak, but I wager many people didn’t get flu vaccines because of Covid.

[antaeus]

I did say Australia could be an outlier, but it seems you’re parsing a question of implementation that’s largely rhetorical. The historical conclusions were made based on the flu, hence why I cited that particular source. Covid has thus far followed the trend, as was discussed briefly during the lockdown slog. All this to say, the good news is the lifting of restrictions could coincide with normal flu season, which I understand to be June-August in Australia. It’s possible the combination could result in a delayed peak, but I wager many people didn’t get flu vaccines because of Covid.

Australia won't be lifting it's border restrictions this year, so you won't get your June-August flu season (it didn't happen last year to any normal extent either - and two years suggests more than an outlier season). As for Australia being an outlier, once you factor in the similar responses and similar outcomes of other countries who have followed similar pathways, rather than outlier, the evidence suggests that the results from this pathway are clear and consistent.

We'll see over the next few months if there are flu seasons in other Southern Hemisphere countries who have self isolated similarly to Australia. In particular it is interesting what will happen as Australia makes free travel 'bubbles' with these other countries with their different cold and flu profiles (Singapore, New Zealand, the Pacific).

And either way... it's really fascinating to see both unexpected and unintended side effects of the various lockdown and isolation pathways for dealing with Covid. Even outlier events contain otherwise unobtainable and invaluable insights into the interactions of a host of different diseases with our species.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Australia won't be lifting it's border restrictions this year, so you won't get your June-August flu season (it didn't happen last year). As for Australia being an outlier, once you factor in the similar responses and similar outcomes of other countries who have followed similar pathways, rather than outlier, the evidence suggests that the results from this pathway are clear and consistent.

We'll see over the next few months if there are flu seasons in other Southern Hemisphere countries who have self isolated similarly to Australia.

As far as either the flu or Covid goes, I’m speaking from the position of consensus, so it doesn’t make sense to claim Australia wouldn’t be an outlier, especially since that’s your point of reference. I don’t know what you mean by “other countries following similar pathways,” but speculation doesn’t seem useful when Australia and the South Pacific have been studied as flu outliers before.

Screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics, except in some island countries, and will likely be even less effective in the modern era….. At the international level, experience in past influenza pandemics indicates that screening and quarantine of entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay introduction, except in some island countries. Similar policies, even if they could be implemented in time and regardless of expense, would doubtfully be more effective in the modern era of extensive international air travel.

From October 1918 through May 1919, a total of 79 "infected vessels" containing 2,795 patients, 48,072 passengers, and 10,456 crew and 149"uninfected vessels" containing 7,075 passengers and 7,941 crew arrived at Australian ports.[17,18] The first cases of pandemic influenza in Australia were reported in January 1919, suggesting that these measures delayed entry of the disease for ≈3 months. Although the national quarantine director believed that pandemic influenza had entered Australia before quarantine was established, this belief was not documented, and other reports indicate that some ships' officers and soldiers returning to Australia from Europe had concealed illness to avoid protracted quarantine.[18] When the infection did emerge in Australia, case-fatality rates were lower than those in many places affected earlier.

Exit screening in affected countries is a better use of global resources: fewer persons would need to be screened, the positive predictive value for ill persons detected would be higher, and transmission on conveyances, such as aircraft, would be reduced. Exit screening is disruptive and costly, however, and will not be fully efficient as influenza viruses can be carried by asymptomatic persons who will escape detection during screening.[2,3] As was true for SARS, the principal focus of WHO-recommended nonpharmaceutical interventions is not at international borders but at national and community levels.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/518516

[antaeus]

As far as either the flu or Covid goes, I’m speaking from the position of consensus, so it doesn’t make sense to claim Australia wouldn’t be an outlier, especially since that’s your point of reference. I don’t know what you mean by “other countries following similar pathways,” but speculation doesn’t seem useful when Australia and the South Pacific have been studied as flu outliers before.

Good to see that you're basing an argument on data collected before an infectious person could travel from Apia to London, stopping in 4 cities, within 24 hours. As cited in a paper written before the host of Covid responses - some of which are ad-hoc, were enacted. And assuming that the last two years won't add or alter this knowledge in any way.

I left my statement open. All you had to do was say "Yes, it will be interesting to see how things go". You don't need to be so oppositional to everything. All the time.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Good to see that you're basing an argument on data collected before an infectious person could travel from Apia to London, stopping in 4 cities, within 24 hours. As cited in a paper written before the host of Covid responses - some of which are ad-hoc, were enacted. And assuming that the last two years won't add or alter this knowledge in any way.

All you had to do was say "Yes, it will be interesting to see how things go". You don't need to be so oppositional to everything. All the time.

Bit of projection on your part. All I’ve done is state the facts as they are available as the basis for future outcomes based on the established trend. In case you missed it: “Similar policies, even if they could be implemented in time and regardless of expense, would doubtfully be more effective in the modern era of extensive international air travel.”