CharonY

Ok that is clearly wrong. You may be confused by some studies who studied the characteristics of those hospitalized in the first place. Current data suggest that ca. 20% of patients have severe symptoms and are likely in need to be hospitalized. There are potentially more if they have added risk (e.g. other pulmonary issues). While the number are higher than for influenza it is way below 100%. Edit: perhaps I should add that the Chinese government implemented a strict quarantine system, where all infected people (I believe) are isolated either in hospitals and/or quarantine systems. In other words, even mild cases would be isolated, whereas the numbers for influenza are only looking at severe cases that need to be hospitalized. From there, we also see that the rate is similar when it comes to death rates- COVID-2019 is associated with a ~10-20 fold increase of severe cases and death. As shown by the data, the current outcome is still way below the annual effects of influenza, even if only looking at US numbers. It does not mean that it cannot reach or even surpass those numbers eventually, but we are certainly not there yet. As an interesting side note, the CDC numbers also clearly show how undervaccinated folks are when it comes to influenza. Up to half of the population are estimated to contract it with an estimated vaccination coverage of 40-odd percent. It should also be noted that there is often an inverse correlation between severity of a disease and its spread. The coronavirus is far more effective in spreading compared to MERS, for example, because its symptoms as a whole are mild for most folks. I.e. similar to flu there is a significant time period where folks can spread the disease without being aware of it.

A) we do not know the actual fatality rate yet. The ~2% are based on current estimates, but it is higher than influenza (0.2-0.3%) but lower than either earlier SARS or MERS; B) Influenza is worse as it affects more people each season (at least so far), the result are overall more deaths; C) Deaths alone are not necessarily a great indicator, one should also consider other health burdens' D) Quarantines are enacted to curb spread. If a similar number of folks are allowed to be infected as seasonal influenza, the results are potentially devastating. Think about that way, seasonal influenza deaths are estimated to be around 250-645k worldwide each year. If the same amount of folks are infected (and ignoring demographic differences in outcome) we may end with upward to 20 times the number of fatalities. No need for conspiracy theories to see the need for intervention. Edit: sorry forgot to address the point about hysteria: I guess social media and the internet.

That is true for all sterilizing procedures. While I doubt that there is a real sterilization going on other than wiping with disinfectants, it does not strike me as wrong as such.

Liquid nitrogen is mostly to prevent degradation after isolation of the tissue. If processed immediately, there is not need for it.

MigL, when it comes to the starvation, both Mao and Churchill enacted deliberate policies unintentionally resulting in the death of millions. If you count the leap forward you have to count Churchill, as well as the various other famines deliberately mismanaged by the British. There are also famines created or resulted in excess deaths due to foreign policy decisions. In other words, if your point was that only communist systems cause man-made famines, I still disagree (but agree on the point that it is going off-topic so perhaps we should discuss it elsewhere, if at all). For the Holodomor it is at least possible that it had intentional elements, likewise the Cultural revolution. But so were the fascist persecutions as well as those in other authoritarian but capitalist-oriented society. So again I do not see it as a unique feature of communist countries. Rather, the authoritarian elements are what enables this issues. And I think this distinction is crucial, as it is muddled up in the US discussions. There are authoritarian socialist countries and they do bad things. Instead of looking at the authoritarian axis, they blame the socialist element. You do sadly encounter claims by certain right-wing folks that implementing social democratic systems (such as in Canada and much of Europe) is going to lead the road all the way down to the above mentioned atrocities whilst ignoring the need for authoritarian mechanisms to enable it. In fact, and even strangely so, they appear to be more comfortable with more authoritarianism, than with socialism, which is the entirely wrong argument if one wanted to point the mechanisms related to deliberate atrocities. And this is why I see conflating these issues as highly problematic (not to mention the fact that even the US is a mixed model, luckily).

And even more died under Mao due to policy failures rather than deliberate starvation. So I am not quite sure what specifically your argument is here. In all systems policy failures can result in tragedies, though form and likelihood are going to be different. With regard to op, social democracy in many ways is based on the historic realization that a full on capitalist system, even if democratic, does not meet the needs of the citizens. In the modern iteration it is essentially a mixed market model. As noted by MigL and other posters, it allows a cost evaluation of essential needs as well as addressing inequalities (which, was identified by Marx as a consequence of unfettered capitalism). There is an argument that increase in productivity in capitalist systems can reduce unrest by providing cheap goods and thereby a higher standard of living. However even ignoring infrastructure there are essential needs that do not see productivity increases and therefore price reduction. These include (you probably guessed it) education and healthcare (but include most services).

Just to present a broader perspective; the comparison between coronavirus and influenza has been made earlier to contextualize the seriousness of the diseases. And I think it is somewhat apt. However, not because influenza is harmless, but rather because it is a serious disease that has a significant health burden even in highly industrialized nations. In the USA, for example, influenza results between 9-45 million symptomatic illnesses and between 12,000 to 60,000 deaths. And this is with the availability of vaccines. I.e. without vaccines spread and health impact are undoubtedly far worse. At the same time the new coronavirus is more lethal, more contagious (again, no vaccines or immunities), so how does the comparison make sense? First, it is to highlight that we have a deadly re-occurring disease and while tragic, we kind of cope, even if it is just by getting used to it. Second, it is about the spread. Despite the fact that each coronavirus case infects more folks than each influenza case, there are still much fewer overall infections so far. While the disease is far from being contained, we are still orders of magnitude away from the spread of seasonal influenza. One can think about it in terms of quantity vs quality in a way. That all being said, there are indications that we may look at an pandemic. That might sound scarier than it is, but there is a serious risk especially for countries with less developed health care systems. It is right for health care specialists to worry- there are quite a few unknowns and the more it spreads the harder it will be to contain. But on the other end regular folks should just protect themselves as for a regular (somewhat deadlier) flu and keep away from the elderly if one has any kind of respiratory syndromes (which should be normal behaviour, anyway).

I think you might mean authoritarianism. Facism has a set of additional characteristics. Crucially in this context is that the latter typically has a form of corporatism rather than exert total economical control. I do not think that follows. Throughout history there have been man-made starvations that were not created by communist (or even authoritarian) regimes. For a counterexample take Churchill's policies, which contributed to the starvation of about 3 million folks. As whole, it is true that in authoritarian regimes (regardless whether they are following free market ideals or not) are more likely to accept loss of human lives to further their goals. However, I think that is a bit of a different argument.

Water is the universal solvent in which all the biochemistry relevant to life happens.

! Moderator Note Locked. OP appears to have severe reading comprehension issues, which, in moderation is not an issue. But since most thread are exclusively based on them with no sign of improvement I am going to shut it down before more time is being wasted.

Well that is what I said for...years (including above)? So it seems we are in agreement as a whole. It is a useful categorization such as "species" that is useful but not necessarily a specific and consistent trait itself. See also String's post which eloquently makes the point. I would add usefulness on top of convenience, perhaps. With regards to OP we can ask what can we learn if we treat the Earth as an organism (like the Gaia hypothesis)?

The viral load us generated by replication inside the host. Whatever additional is obtained externally is usually negligible at that point. To put some rough numbers based on influenza, I believe the total exposure in presence of a patient for 8h was about 10E6 copies. The viral load of a patient was about 10E9 per ml, IIRC. Even if off by an order of magnitude, the difference is rather clear.

Yes and it is still ongoing, especially among evolutionary researchers and folks with nucleic acid heavy research (though the discussion has, well evolved, as we have more information about viruses than folks in the 60s- DNA structure was only resolved barely a decade earlier). However, for folks interested in physiology viruses are not considered to be alive. The reason being that they lack the critical elements required to have some sort of cellular physiology. The same reason why free DNA would not be considered alive for all intents and purposes (from this viewpoint). That is what I meant with usefulness. Perhaps a bit akin to folks exclusively using classical physics when describing macroscopic systems. Does that make sense to you? Or do you mean something else that I might be missing?

The main risk is getting infected in the first place, and being in close proximity to infected folks is a huge risk factor. However, overcoming an infection usually provides a level of immunity against the same pathogen a cycle of re-infection is rather unlikely. However, folks could be more susceptible to other infections.

I am not sure what you mean here, but one prominent view is to view viruses more as mobile genetic elements (somewhat closer to e.g. plasmids) due to the lack of metabolic activities. There is good reason to that as well, depending on what specifics you want to study. I want to restate that categorizations that we do ultimately are about usefulness as nature really does not care about boundaries that we want to impose. Simply put, we can make a unified categorization of organisms that we unequivocally recognize as living which would exclude the likes of viruses and fire. And certainly, it would be sufficient and useful for life as we know it.

Actually the virus does that, it reproduces (or rather, makes its host reproduce) its genetic material. It is really the metabolism part as it does not have any functions to this end.

There is no perfect definition of life and I have argued at various points that these are effectively a posteriori definitions which could for example exclude unknown life forms. What I provided are the most general (and hence, least specific ones) as MigLs definition included one that would exclude a sizable group of organisms. I should also add that I think that fire might be a better example as a volcano, as I would think of it as a structure created by some external forces rather something that actually actively sustains itself via chemical processes (i.e. metabolism). That being said, the more specific definitions of life include the ability of certain levels of homeostasis, or define them as self sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution to including specific structures such as cells or DNA. It is typically the inclusion of homeostasis and cellularity that provides a distinction. But as mentioned, they are all imperfect and limited by our knowledge of life on Earth. Another nitpick, the most microbial activity relevant to digestion is found in the gut, not the stomach. Also, you would be able to digest without bacteria, though there one could miss out on certain bacterial byproducts that are helpful to us. A better example would be animals that feed on cellulose (i.e. many herbivores), for which they typically need eukaryotic symbionts (which typically work in association with bacterial symbionts).

Actually the typical definitions include growth (biomass generation), metabolism, reaction to stimuli (or broader inclusion of adaptation). There are also more specific ones, but feeding usually refers to heterotrophic metabolism, which excludes autotrophs.

I meant relative to whenever the judgement was made. After taking over power the initial coup attempt was seen as heroic for example, but nowadays we would judge it differently, of course.

Indeed. It is also largely self-defeating as folks assume what others may assume and adjust their votes/polls according to the assumption which creates a feedback of bad assumptions, er so to say. Electability often is connected to identity first and political orientation second which creates complicated situations as outlined by this article (among others).

That is almost by design, civil disobedience is conducted in the context of some governmental elements (including laws). These were obviously constructed because sufficient (or powerful) folks thought that they should be in place. So in any given context, civil disobedience is bound to be contentious. However, from a historic perspective one could judge them as appropriate, typically when they lead to different laws (and generally accepted value system) that are now considered to be right and just (until someone else overturns it further down the road). An example could be the civil rights movement in the US, where nowadays probably only a small margin think that it was not justified. Or going further back civil disobedience related to slavery, considering that slavery is outlawed now.

You said: Which heavily implies that it is a common occurrence to have families wiped out and that in at least one case someone only escaped death because they were abroad. Yet you provide one example in which all the folks (perhaps except wife, not sure) were above fifty. It is silly to extrapolate from this one case, while WHO and involved researchers provide different numbers. Of course that is true. And of course the death rate especially in Hubei are likely to be higher than elsewhere since the medical situation is worse. But how does it lend credibility to your claim that the disease is far more lethal than reported? If anything the rate will be higher specifically for Wuhan and Hubei than elsewhere due to the critical situation which are also exacerbated by the quarantine. There was at least one report that a disabled person died due to lack of care. So you are conflating the severity of the disease with what you believe the infrastructure issues are. Whether it will ultimately break (further) or hold (to some degree) remains to be seen, but so far you have not provided any data one way or another as far as I can see. So far in Hubei 62031 cases were reported in total. Of these 2029 have died and 10521 have been reported as cured. These are among the highest mortality rates (with decent N) reported, no doubt confounded by the bad situation there. AFAIK that are the numbers that are available. What data sources do you have that apparently are in direct contradiction to claims made by health professionals? Other numbers are available and have been reported in various threads here, but I would like to highlight again that currently we have ~56 ongoing cases worldwide (most being in Wuhan) compared to ~19k cases with outcomes. Of the latter 16.9k were recoveries and 2.1k were deaths. So there is still a while until actual mortality and other information can be calculated accurately. While the numbers especially in Hubei could become worse , it should be noted that from all collected data about 79% only have mild conditions, who therefore should be fairly unaffected from overcrowded hospitals, unless they get sick otherwise, of course. Is it ideal or even good? Certainly not. Just to re-iterate, it is a serious disease, especially for the elderly. It created a lot of local strain (exacerbated by the unprecedented quarantine enacted) and folks suffer, we should not forget that. But that is different from running wild with speculations of what could be. Right now those at the sidelines can only wait for the actual development. The internet has been running hot with misinformation which at best is annoying for the professionals and worst can seriously put people at risk. This is especially true if that panic does not lend to any beneficial actions. Remember the knee-jerk reaction from an US lawmaker who suggested euthanasia of folks coming into contact with Ebola?

I agree with you here. While I maintain that it is a serious disease and needs monitoring (such as other contagious diseases). However, the assumptions that some folks make are in itself harmful. There are reports of people avoiding or even acting out against Chinese looking folks because for fear of getting infected. Meanwhile, as you noted, it is far more likely to get seasonal flu from your fellow citizen (regardless how they look like). To me that looks like one of those exaggerated reports. Based on latest available data the fatality rate of folks below 50 is <0.4%. It is rather deadly for folks above 80 years old (~15%). While it is not impossible that a family has been wiped out but unless the families mostly consist of old folks, it is highly unlikely to have happened on a larger scale. And of course the consistent assumption that somehow there are far more deaths than reported based on the fact that the Chinese government might fudge numbers. Yet looking at closely monitored cases outside Chine, we still see no evidence of a higher death rate. The cruise ship alone is a test case where one can observe the rumored deadliness of the disease, with no way to fudge numbers. While tragic, the two persons who died on the ship were over 80 and the overall age is like skewed upward. I sincerely doubt that you will see those numbers go beyond the projections based on current numbers. Sure, accurate numbers will only be obtained once it is over, but assuming that things are far worse based on rumors is in fact harmful, especially if it gets to the point where folks actually act on it rather than on available data.

Well, this may be a problem, but since there is no other way to gather primary data what else would you go on then? I mean, I do not think that in presence of potentially unreliable data the alternative should be go all out conspiracy. I mean, just because models on how pyramids were built were disputed for some time, it does not mean that aliens suddenly become a viable alternative explanation. From what I remember there is some lack of clarity whether there was a knowing suppression of knowledge regarding the new disease (there were some reports regarding mysterious illness as ear as December) but it is not clear whether things were actually reported through the highly bureaucratic channels (e.g. local governments ignoring/misreporting the issue) or whether someone in the chain deliberately ignored/obfuscated it. After public acknowledgement the reported numbers were obviously limited to available testing capacities.

Also note that this value is probably not helpful as recovered cases refer to folks that have been hospitalized or otherwise tracked. Folks with mild conditions (ca80%) won't be reported in that group. It is a bit difficult to figure out specifically what proportion of the cases fall under this group (certainly severe ones, but what about mild ones in high-risk groups). The only thing that is certain is that the group with outcomes reported contains the death to recovery ratio, which is about 12% of the cases, which is similar to what has been reported earlier this year on a small patient cohort. Edit: the first reported case numbers were 41 admitted patients by Jan 2; 6 (15%) died.