Jump to content

RenaissanceMan

Full Members
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

264 Excellent

About RenaissanceMan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Germany
  • EUC
    KS16S

Recent Profile Visitors

1,372 profile views
  1. Hey Folks! when AVAS became available I also spontaneously had the idea of playing horse sounds through EUC speakers. I did have my own horse for over 16 years and during that time gathered a few movie recordings that provide the audio material for these files. Usage as follows: Engine On sound: Wally_Hello_TurnOn_Turbo_Amp_dependent.wav Idling sound: Wally_Idle.wav Speed dependent sound: Wally_Trott_Vel_dep.wav Current dependent sound: Wally_Hello_TurnOn_Turbo_Amp_dependent.wav (same sound as for "Engine On") Temperature dependent sound: (not used) Engine Off sound: Wally_Goodbye_TurnOff.wav Since the speed/frequency characteristics of a horse differs from that of a combustion engine, I tuned the speed dependent sound DOWN one octave. What you then can do is to set the lowest pitch speed to the speed where you want the speed dependent sound to start and the highest pitch speed setting just 1km/h higher. This then has the effect that as soon as you hit the lower bound the speed dependent sound is triggered two octaves lower than normal (one octave from the sample and one octave from AVAS). But since you are still accelerating you surpass the high pitch speed limit shortly after. For speeds higher than the high pitch speed the sound will then come out with the normal pitch (one octave down from the sample and one octave up from AVAS). And although Wally's call has become silent for good her memory lives on in these samples. Wally.7z
  2. At the cost of many more people dying in a short time because of an overburdened health care system, yes. - See Italy.
  3. Brand new modelling study on the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the effectiveness of lock-downs and with some good news on case mortality rates: Estimating the number of infections and the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in 11 European countries 30 March 2020, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, Report in: Epidemiology, Public Health and Primary Care "We estimate that, across all 11 countries between 7 and 43 million individuals have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 28th March, representing between 1.88% and 11.43% of the population. With current interventions remaining in place to at least the end of March, we estimate that interventions across all 11 countries will have averted 59,000 deaths up to 31 March [95% credible interval 21,000-120,000]. Many more deaths will be averted through ensuring that interventions remain in place until transmission drops to low levels." If that many people are actually already infected (compared with Johns Hopkins figures), that would decrease the overall mortality rate substantially. They share all their data and promise to update their results once a week. https://doi.org/10.25561/77731
  4. I never said or implied China to be the aggressor.
  5. I cannot come up with a sensible explanation for an intentional outbreak, except that some cynics might smell a chance to get rid of the problem of over-aging demographics, drained state pension funds and bankrupt health insurance systems. For such a Darwinian, inescapable purge of society (people and businesses) to work one could not have the epidemic stopped too early (UK and US were actively delaying the spread, just to name two of them). But all that seems too farfetched, like in a bad movie or Sci-Fi thriller. Although, I cannot think of anybody else benefiting more from this crisis on a larger, world wide scale. On a different note, I noticed with alarm there are younger folks on youtube who advocate a world without old and sick people (eg. documented in: The Morons Of Coronavirus, E. Klein, at 5:15 and 6:15).
  6. Well, the authors suggest everybody to believe in that SARS-CoV-2 escaped out of one of these labs, without any evidence that it really happened; even worse they pretend to present a scientific fact where it is not, that's the essence of fake news, sorry.
  7. First of all, from what I am looking at this does not seem to be a peer reviewed article, ie. there has not been an independent, scientific evaluation on the validity of its contents. Which means it is by no means verified and so far it is just the authors telling a story. Second, there is no original data in this draft, eg. "Two descriptions of the virus published on Nature this week indicated that the genome sequences from patients were almost identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus." - What were the samples? What was the sequence similarity? They have not measured, they do not know. Thirdly: "It was critical to study where the pathogen came from and how it passed onto human. An article published on The Lancet reported that 27 of 41 infected patients were found to have contact with the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. We noted two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus in Wuhan, one of which was only 280 meters from the seafood market. We briefly examined the histories of the laboratories and proposed that the coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory. Our proposal provided an alternative origin of the coronavirus in addition to natural recombination and intermediate host." All the authors say is that there are two microbiological laboratories in the vicinity of Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan (might be true) and they then speculate that somehow the SARS-CoV-2 might have escaped from one of those, just because the labs are located nearby. There is no shred of evidence offered for when and how, it is mere speculation about the possibility of a leak without any scientific proof, or in nowadays terminology, fake news. As I said before, even in China, - no - particularly China in 2020, and even more so in and around a class 4 bio hazard lab you are being so closely monitored that any suspicious or out of the ordinary behavior would be immediately followed on by the authorities. Did @esaj really advocate this draft?
  8. Vou've got any hard evidence or references on that? (Because, you are probably aware that nowadays even in an university lab it is technological perfectly feasible to synthesize any 30k base RNA strand eg. by ligating shorter fragments.)
  9. Yes, but did you check their analyses? - From that paper: "Theories of SARS-CoV-2 origins. It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus." That's speculation, far from proof. "Instead, we propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of SARS-CoV-2:..." that's one scenario too many, i.e. they are not sure what the real origin was and just list some plausible scenarios. "However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone." They actually say SARS-CoV-2 cannot be derived from ONLY ONE previously known virus, but it very well could be spliced together from parts of two or more other viruses. Those hypothetical splice sites are actually well known by now. "Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." Again that's not evidence, that is mere speculation. The current discussion about the origin of the new corona virus is very well summarized here: "SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: The most important research questions" "The eighth question relates to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. To make a long story short, two parental viruses of SARS-CoV-2 have now been identified. The first one is bat coronavirus RaTG13 found in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan Province and it shares 96.2% overall genome sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 [3]. However, RaTG13 might not be the immediate ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 because it is not predicted to use the same ACE2 receptor used by SARS-CoV-2 due to sequence divergence in the receptor-binding domain sharing 89% identity in amino acid sequence with that of SARS-CoV-2. The second one is a group of betacoronaviruses found in the endangered species of small mammals known as pangolins [4], which are often consumed as a source of meat in southern China. They share about 90% overall nucleotide sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 but carries a receptor-binding domain predicted to interact with ACE2 and sharing 97.4% identity in amino acid sequence with that of SARS-CoV-2. They are closely related to both SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, but apparently they are unlikely the immediate ancestor of SARS-CoV- 2 in view of the sequence divergence over the whole genome. Many hypotheses involving recombination, convergence and adaptation have been put forward to suggest a probable evolutionary pathway for SARS-CoV-2, but none is supported by direct evidence. The jury is still out as to what animals might serve as reservoir and intermediate hosts of SARS-CoV-2. Although Huanan seafood wholesale market was suggested as the original source of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, there is evidence for the involvement of other wild animal markets in Wuhan. In addition, the possibility for a human superspreader in the Huanan market has not been excluded. Further investigations are required to shed light on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19." Yuen et al. Cell Biosci (2020) 10:40 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-020-00404-4
  10. Where we are at today (25-03-2020): Data from Johns Hopkins https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19
  11. True. From the article: "SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 10^3.5 to 10^2.7 TCID50 per liter of air." SRAS-CoV-2 does both, aerosol and droplets. These or similar experiments would have to be conducted in the early stages of the epidemic by every biotechnologically equipped nation. I have no explanation why this has not been communicated at an earlier point in time to the greater public, especially since it conveys the necessity and outcome of physical distancing much better than the general appeal to abstract needs of high risk groups or the elderly. - Well, that and the sheer number of casualties (1% of 65 million is still 650.000 people).
  12. Yes. Edit: ... that's the motivation for social/physical distancing.
  13. I'm afraid you are right. I just didn't want to exaggerate. For all practical purposes 3h is already bad enough. Edit: being noticeable is not the same as being infectious.
  14. More bad news. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that SARS-CoV-2 remains viable and infectious as an aerosol (exhaling) in the air for up to 3 hours and on plastic and stainless steel surfaces for about 24 hours. This explains the high basic reproduction number of 3 to 4, i.e. the expected number of new cases triggered on average by a single infected individual and the consequential sharp exponential rise in infections we are currently witnessing in many countries. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 Wash your hands (maybe also use gloves) and avoid indoor places where crowds gather regularly (like super markets), if you seriously want to avoid the virus. FFP1 and FFP2 masks don't offer protection. - I know, one cannot and does not want to hide perpetually ... but what else could you do now if you are in a high risk group? Your life could be over in a matter of weeks once infected.
  15. This one: "The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus"? Mere speculation without any evidence. Even in China, - no - particularly China in 2020, and even more so in and around a class 4 bio hazard lab you are being so closely monitored that any suspicious or out of the ordinary behavior would be immediately followed on by the authorities.
×
×
  • Create New...