Has any trusted research organization, notable scientific organization, mainstream media with investigative capabilities, or country-state reported on bioengineering of 2019-nCoV? Wake me up when one of them does, until then, this is fake news,
Dr. Konermann of Stanford just checked their results. The similarity is spurious. Out of 4 inserts they identify between NCov and SARS, 2 are found in bat coronavirus. Of the remaining two, only one is most similar to HIV, and is so short (6 AA) that the similarity is not higher than chance given database
I am allowing discussion on this, not because its good science, but because its the definition of junk science. If things go off the rails I will moderate with a heavier hand, but for now it will stay.
FYI though 6mers of amino acids tend to have high similarity with many many many proteins. Blasting these sequences return dozens, scores and even hundreds of matching sequences.
You have no way to know that given the vast majority of people with it still have it...
I suspect you're referring to the graph that showed it was less VIRULENT than measles which isnt about deadly.
We know that 2% of people who we know have contracted it have died from it so far. That's what we know.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Current numbers suggest a lethality of around 0.1%. Why do you think this will change significantly? There have been thousands of cases in China since December, so enough have survived to support these numbers. I‘m not gonna post a reference because you can just google it.
There are 10,000 cases and 212 dead so far. Your maths could use work.
Yes, the first few cases were in December, but spread isnt linear.... and Many of the 1 in 5 serious cases are still in hospital....
[I'm posting a link because I'm not talking out my arse](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51048366)
Guestimate the many cases where the virus doesn’t surface or is very mild.
The 2% are for hard cases and lethality is especially high for the old or sick. So that number is skewed.
Why are you personally attacking me? I’m not saying you’re dumb for arguing with me, am I?
I mean, that article agrees with me, and I dont know why you find the WHO telling people that there isnt a way to know what you're suggesting (even if CNN literally guessed a figure that the WHO has said is daft to guess) is a personal attack.
I agree the WHO would be stupid to publish such a guess, but they admit there is a large unknown number of cases, so the 2% is just as figure they can publish with confidence. But the actual lethality is much lower. But I admit it doesn’t have to be 0.1% either. Only time will tell.
Still, the 2% just panic the populace and that’s not good.
No mate, they didnt publish ANY number, because they say it's too early to do that, because we DON'T KNOW YET. 2% is just the number of dead per cases, and yes, some will have but not die, but **others have it and will die later.**
The coronavirus has only one purpose, mass vaccination. They already have the so-called anti-virus and they will probably use the corona virus to push through new laws, Such as making all vaccinations mandatory. The vaccination degree per population has fallen extremely in recent years, So they will just make it compulsory. In some countries this is already the case, but in most countries there are still many vaccinations that are voluntary.
I think this is the first pandemic since pre-print has taken off and is really showing the cracks in the system. As a scientist, it has previously been great to be able to read, talk about and critique papers of interest to me at a pre-print stage. At the beginning of this epidemic, it was AMAZING seeing the genomic data come through so fast from China (props to China for the data sharing!) and having the creme de la creme of virology and phylogenetics put together the initial trees, infer intermediate species and start estimating epi stats. And then the really bad science papers started coming. And then the Twitter MDs started citing them. And then the media took them at face value as published science, which we as scientists have pounded into their heads that published science is peer reviewed.
I have absolutely no good idea to solve this, but I think our communities need to work out pre-print guidelines because this is only getting worse now that people are seeing these incredibly shitty "papers" get so much attention.
“Surprisingly, each of the four inserts aligned with short segments of the Human immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1) proteins.
The insert 1 (6 amino acid residues) and insert 2 (6 amino acid residues) in the spike glycoprotein of 2019-nCoV are 100% identical to the residues mapped to HIV-1 gp120.
This is startling as it is quite unlikely for a virus to have acquired such unique insertions naturally in a short duration of time.“
Comments below the article should be read for perspective. One specific objection to these findings is that the authors do not provide the p-value for their results, suggesting that the findings could indeed be explained as a natural phenomenon. Also, the inserts are 100% identical, allegedly, not just to HIV but to many other viruses.
The implications are rather ominous. It's difficult not to read "it's an engineered virus" into sentences like "similarity of novel inserts in the 2019- nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag is unlikely to be fortuitous" and "our findings suggest unconventional evolution of 2019-nCoV" - quoted directly from their conclusory paragraph.