COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (8 Viewers)

I keep reading conflicting reports on vitamin D effects
Vitamin D may help a bit.

The bigger deal is less UV light to kill the virus outside, It's starting to warm up out there though, but still some lows in the upper 30's
 
I'll put this here. Uber is offering Free rides to vaccine appointments.
 
I keep reading conflicting reports on vitamin D effects

Yeah, big pharma doesn't like when you can prevent illness with something like simple vitamins so they sponsor lots of articles and researchers to cast doubt on it. Kinda like when big tobacco was doing their own research into the harmful effects of smoking, or oil companies with paid scientists to dispute climate change.
 
The source of the coronavirus that has left more than 3 million people dead around the world remains a mystery. But in recent months the idea that it emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — once dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory — has gained new credence.
How and why did this happen?

For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. Second, early efforts to spotlight a lab leak often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon.

That made it easier for many scientists to dismiss the lab scenario as tin-hat nonsense. But a lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab’s location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right.

The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.


As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored.

But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds.

This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.


Early speculation


Dec. 30, 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issues an “urgent notice” to medical institutions in Wuhan, saying that cases of pneumonia of unknown cause have emerged from the city’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.

Jan. 5, 2020: Earliest known tweet suggesting China created the virus. @GarboHK tweeted: “18 years ago, #China killed nearly 300 #HongKongers by unreporting #SARS cases, letting Chinese tourists travel around the world, to Asia specifically to spread the virus with bad intention. Today the evil regime strikes again with a new virus.”


Jan. 23: A Daily Mail article appears, headlined: “China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan — and U.S. biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could ‘escape’ the facility that’s become key in fighting the outbreak.”.........

 
The source of the coronavirus that has left more than 3 million people dead around the world remains a mystery. But in recent months the idea that it emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — once dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory — has gained new credence.
How and why did this happen?

For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. Second, early efforts to spotlight a lab leak often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon.

That made it easier for many scientists to dismiss the lab scenario as tin-hat nonsense. But a lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab’s location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right.

The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.


As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored.

But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds.

This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.


Early speculation


Dec. 30, 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issues an “urgent notice” to medical institutions in Wuhan, saying that cases of pneumonia of unknown cause have emerged from the city’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.

Jan. 5, 2020: Earliest known tweet suggesting China created the virus. @GarboHK tweeted: “18 years ago, #China killed nearly 300 #HongKongers by unreporting #SARS cases, letting Chinese tourists travel around the world, to Asia specifically to spread the virus with bad intention. Today the evil regime strikes again with a new virus.”


Jan. 23: A Daily Mail article appears, headlined: “China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan — and U.S. biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could ‘escape’ the facility that’s become key in fighting the outbreak.”.........

I saw a brief report on the NBC Nightly News last night that right before everything started spreading in Wuhan, a few scientists from the virology lab there went to the hospital with flu-like symptoms. Seems like that whole "it came from nature" thing may not be entirely true. I've had a sneaking suspicion that it may have been found in nature, but was supercharged in a lab.
 
^ Everyone that doesn't wear their political agenda like a bad hat has been saying the lab in Wuhan was the most likely source / jump point for the outbreak since day 1... Not that it matters now, but yeah - Duh!
 
The source of the coronavirus that has left more than 3 million people dead around the world remains a mystery. But in recent months the idea that it emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — once dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory — has gained new credence.
How and why did this happen?

For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. Second, early efforts to spotlight a lab leak often got mixed up with speculation that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon.

That made it easier for many scientists to dismiss the lab scenario as tin-hat nonsense. But a lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.


Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab’s location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right.

The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration’s messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.


As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored.

But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds.

This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.


Early speculation


Dec. 30, 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issues an “urgent notice” to medical institutions in Wuhan, saying that cases of pneumonia of unknown cause have emerged from the city’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.

Jan. 5, 2020: Earliest known tweet suggesting China created the virus. @GarboHK tweeted: “18 years ago, #China killed nearly 300 #HongKongers by unreporting #SARS cases, letting Chinese tourists travel around the world, to Asia specifically to spread the virus with bad intention. Today the evil regime strikes again with a new virus.”


Jan. 23: A Daily Mail article appears, headlined: “China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan — and U.S. biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could ‘escape’ the facility that’s become key in fighting the outbreak.”.........

(Not directed at you)

I'm, apparently, not smart enough to understand how applying blame helps.
 
(Not directed at you)

I'm, apparently, not smart enough to understand how applying blame helps.
It doesn't, but for once, it sure would be nice to get the truth. I guess all of the blame stuff is mostly political, so we'll never truly know. Would it make me feel better to know that such a deadly virus was made by humans rather than nature? I don't know. I know that nature is capable of such things, but a part of me wishes it wasn't.
 
If they determine it did come out of Wuhan lab, and NIH did help fund the lab as reported, maybe they should stop funding that lab or require more accountability.

It is true that a very small amount of NIH funding (about $799,000) ended up at the Wuhan lab, but the lab wasn't the grantee - it was broader bat-originated virus research awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, an NGO research group that has received a number of grants over the years and have produced valuable research. The grant in question was terminated but it's not likely that the US would have leverage through this kind of grant to impose full transparency on a Chinese lab. The lab just wouldn't cooperate with the grantee - and that would probably render the research far less effective (given how much of bat-originated virus research is based in China).

Here's the story of how some of the EcoHealth Alliance grant money ended up at the Wuhan lab:

In 2014, the NIH approved a grant to EcoHealth Alliance designated for research into “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” The project involved collaborating with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses in bats and the risk of potential transfer to humans.

The original five-year grant was reapproved by the Trump administration in July 2019. In total, $3,378,896 in NIH funding was directed from the government to the project.

The project, which was established “to understand what factors allow coronaviruses, including close relatives to SARS, to evolve and jump into the human population,” yielded 20 scientific reports on how zoonotic diseases may transfer from bats to humans.

Over the course of the two grants approved by the NIH for EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute received about $600,000 from the NIH, according to Robert Kessler, a spokesperson for EcoHealth Alliance. The funding was a fee for the collection and analysis of viral samples.

In the grant approved in 2014, about $133,000 was sent to the institute in the first four years and about $66,000 in the past year. In the second grant approved in 2019, about $76,000 was budgeted for the Wuhan Institute, though no money was sent before the grant's termination.

“It's hard to do this work in other countries. Very complicated. It requires a lot of traveling. It would be so convenient if we could do it in our own backyards,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, told USA TODAY. “The viruses that are a high risk to public health are not in the U.S., they are in China. If we want to know anything about the next pandemic, we need to be working in the countries where these viruses are.”

 
(Not directed at you)

I'm, apparently, not smart enough to understand how applying blame helps.
If it's natural, then animal surveillance, like they do for the flu and other diseases needs to have high support. If it was somehow partially done in a lab, that changes future surveillance, possibly. There may also be a giant bill due.

However, I'm highly skeptical of this being lab manufactured. We've had two earlier Coronavirus variants become deadly in the wild... MERS and SARS. it's not much of a leap to think another was coming.
 
Yeah, big pharma doesn't like when you can prevent illness with something like simple vitamins so they sponsor lots of articles and researchers to cast doubt on it. Kinda like when big tobacco was doing their own research into the harmful effects of smoking, or oil companies with paid scientists to dispute climate change.
No one cares about articles, it's actual research.

https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vitamin-d-covid-study

High Vit D seems to be a positive factor for Black people, but not for anyone else yet. However, I'm not sure they controlled for other variables. And it was likelyhood of infection. So, that might be a 'no duh' type of thing... if you're outside all day, you're less likely to contract it vs people indoors mostly.

That's the problem with Vitamin D studies of the general population. Vitamin D is also a factor of lifestyle.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom