Coronavirus | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Coronavirus

How many cases have been traced to shopping centres (as opposed to retail workers)?

You're a long way away and need to accept that Andrews has *smile* it.
Lets hope that just like NSW have recovered well from the Ruby princess fiasco that Vic can have a similar recovery.

Yeh, just as it is clear the BLM protests have had little proven influence on case numbers it is pretty apparent shopping centres and schools are not big sources of transmission.
 
Any possibility that this thread talks about a virus and not inane political pointscoring and skyfalling anarchy?

WA and NSW use security guards at hotels for quarantining returning Australian residents.
QLD at least allows people to have a daily exercise/ fresh air break (super critical for mental health)
There are different protocols between the states, so there are some variants.

But do we think that Dan Andrews and Sutton personally hired the security guards?

My guess is that the protocols are fine, but some behavious were lax and the oversight insufficient. And that Vic was bl00dy unlucky that the returning citizens who were positive (less than 1%) coincided with the lax guards.

It has happened in every state. People is people, and security guards are not different north of the border.

Does this make it acceptable?
No, as there is zero point that most of the population gets protected and some dont (same as anti vaxxers,).
But lets drop the politics
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
So at least 10 which have then in turn been linked to the “Brimbank cluster”.

No transmission at the protests, Lee.

No matter how many times you ring this bell, the tune won't change.

Your issue is with the motivation of the protests. If it was with the behaviour itself, you would be just as angry about shoppers at shopping centres displaying more dangerous behaviour daily.

You are trying to politicise the virus to give yourself something to rail against.

Sometimes a situation just sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
No transmission at the protests, Lee.

No matter how many times you ring this bell, the tune won't change.

Your issue is with the motivation of the protests. If it was with the behaviour itself, you would be just as angry about shoppers at shopping centres displaying more dangerous behaviour daily.

You are trying to politicise the virus to give yourself something to rail against.

Sometimes a situation just sucks.

Nah you’re just trying to deflect. Shops have been open throughout. BLM June 6 gave us cancer.

Why do you think this weekend’s protests flopped?
 
Any possibility that this thread talks about a virus and not inane political pointscoring and skyfalling anarchy?

WA and NSW use security guards at hotels for quarantining returning Australian residents.
QLD at least allows people to have a daily exercise/ fresh air break (super critical for mental health)
There are different protocols between the states, so there are some variants.

But do we think that Dan Andrews and Sutton personally hired the security guards?

My guess is that the protocols are fine, but some behavious were lax and the oversight insufficient. And that Vic was bl00dy unlucky that the returning citizens who were positive (less than 1%) coincided with the lax guards.

It has happened in every state. People is people, and security guards are not different north of the border.

Does this make it acceptable?
No, as there is zero point that most of the population gets protected and some dont (same as anti vaxxers,).
But lets drop the politics

What actually amazed me about this was that I read in the paper that we have had 20,000 people fly in to Melbourne. That's insane given the virus is way out of control in many places overseas, especially the USA and not at all under control in Europe either.

No transmission at the protests, Lee.

No matter how many times you ring this bell, the tune won't change.

Your issue is with the motivation of the protests. If it was with the behaviour itself, you would be just as angry about shoppers at shopping centres displaying more dangerous behaviour daily.

You are trying to politicise the virus to give yourself something to rail against.

Sometimes a situation just sucks.

The whole argument about the BLM protests and some tenuous link with the rise in cases in Victoria is a strategy to distract from the message of the protests:
  • Too many aborigines dying in custory
  • Too many aborigines in custody
  • Too many aborigines living in poverty
Not to mention that if you attempt to argue correlation you will find more correlation with the BLM protests not leading to a rise in infections: there is a very tenuous correlation in Victoria (so 1 dodgy correlation for the argument that the BLM protests led to a rise in cases) and no correlation in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Townsville, Hobart (6 correlations for the argument the BLM demos did not lead to a rise in infections, and I am sure I have missed a few).

When the right don't like something talked about, they deflect, this is a classic example.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The whole argument about the BLM protests and some tenuous link with the rise in cases in Victoria is a strategy to distract from the message of the protests:
  • Too many aborigines dying in custory
  • Too many aborigines in custody
  • Too many aborigines living in poverty

That is garbage.

jb
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
China’s deadly maze (paywalled)
George Arbuthnott, Jonathan Calvert, Philip Sherwell
The Australian

July 5, 2020

In the monsoon season of August 2012 a small team of scientists travelled to southwest China to investigate a new and mysteriously lethal illness. After driving through terraced tea plantations, the scientists reached their destination: an abandoned copper mine, where — in white hazmat suits and respirator masks — they ventured into the darkness.

Instantly, they were struck by the stench. Overhead, bats roosted. Underfoot, rats and shrews scurried through thick layers of their droppings. It was a breeding ground for mutated microorganisms and pathogens deadly to human beings. There was a reason to take extra care. Weeks earlier, six men who had entered the mine had been struck down by an illness that caused an uncontrollable pneumonia. Three of them died.

Today, as deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic exceed half a million and economies totter, the bats’ repellent lair has taken on global significance.

Evidence seen by The Sunday Times suggests that a virus found in its depths — part of a faecal sample that was frozen and sent to a Chinese laboratory for analysis and storage — is the closest known match to the virus that causes COVID-19.

It came from one of the last droppings collected in the year-long quest, during which the six researchers sent hundreds of samples back to their home city of Wuhan. There, experts on bat viruses were trying to identify the source of the SARS — severe acute respiratory syndrome — pandemic 10 years earlier.

The virus was a huge discovery. It was a “new strain” of a SARS-type coronavirus that, surprisingly, received only a passing mention in an academic paper. The six sick men were not referred to at all.

What happened to the virus in the years between its discovery and the eruption of COVID-19? Why was its existence tucked away in obscure records, and its link to three deaths not mentioned? Nobody can deny the bravery of scientists who risked their lives harvesting the highly infectious virus. But did their courageous detective work lead inadvertently to a global disaster?

At the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming, doctors were confounded by a mystery illness. The six men who had been working in the bat-infested mine had raging fevers above 39C, coughs and aching limbs. All but one had severe difficulty in breathing.

After the first two men died, the remaining four underwent a barrage of tests for haemorrhagic fever, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis and influenza, but all came back negative. They were also tested for SARS, the outbreak that erupted in southern China in 2002, but also proved negative.

Mysterious new virus
The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a renowned centre of coronavirus expertise, was called in to test the four survivors. These produced a remarkable finding: while none had tested positive for SARS, all four had antibodies against another, unknown SARS-like coronavirus.

Furthermore, two patients who recovered and went home showed greater levels of antibodies than two still in hospital, one of whom later died.

Researchers in China have been unable to find any news reports of this new SARS-like coronavirus and the three deaths. There appears to have been a media blackout. It is, however, possible to piece together what happened in the Kunming hospital from a master’s thesis by a young medic named Li Xu.

Li’s thesis was unable to say what exactly killed the three miners, but indicated the most likely cause was a SARS-like coronavirus from a bat. “This makes the research of the bats in the mine where the six miners worked and later suffered from severe pneumonia caused by unknown virus a significant research topic,” Li concluded. That research was already under way — led by the Wuhan virologist, Shi Zhengli, who became known as “Bat Woman” — and it adds to the mystery.

Coronaviruses are a group of pathogens that sometimes have the potential to leap species from animals to humans and appear to have a crown — or corona — of spikes when viewed under a microscope. Before COVID-19, six types of coronavirus were known to infect humans but mostly they caused mild respiratory symptoms such as the common cold.

The first outbreak of SARS — now known as Sars-Cov-1 to distinguish it from Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 — is one of the deadly exceptions. It emerged in Guangdong, southern China, in November 2002 and infected 8096 people in 29 countries. It caused severe pneumonia in some and killed 774 people before petering out eight months later.

A race began to find out how a coronavirus had mutated into something so deadly and jumped from animals to humans. Shi and her team from the WIV began hunting among bat colonies in caves in southern China in 2004. In 2012 they were in the midst of a five-year research project when the call came to investigate the incident in the copper mine.



Out of the bat cave
Over the next year, the scientists took faecal samples from 276 bats. The samples were stored at minus-80C in a special solution and dispatched to the Wuhan institute, where molecular studies and analysis were conducted.

These showed that exactly half the bats carried coronaviruses and several were carrying more than one virus at a time, with the potential to cause a dangerous new mix of pathogens.

The results were reported in a scientific paper, “Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft”, co-authored by Shi and her fellow scientists in 2016.

Notably, the paper makes no mention of why the study had been carried out: the miners, their pneumonia and the deaths of three of them. The paper does state, however, that of the 152 genetic sequences of coronavirus found in the six species of bats in the mineshaft, two were of the type that had caused SARS.

One is classified as a “new strain” of SARS and labelled RaBtCoV/4991. It was found in a Rhinolophus affinis, commonly known as a horseshoe bat. The towering significance of RaBtCov/4991 would not be fully understood for seven years.

On December 31 last year, the Chinese authorities decided it was time to tell the world there was potentially a problem.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) was notified that a number of people had been struck down with pneumonia but the cause was not stated. On the same day, the Wuhan health authority put out a bland public statement reporting 27 cases of flu-like infection and urged people to seek medical attention if they fell ill. Neither statement indicated the new illness could be transmitted between humans or that the likely source was already known: a coronavirus.

By the second week in January, desperate scenes were unfolding at Wuhan hospitals. Hopelessly ill-prepared and ill-equipped staff were forced to make life-and-death calls about who they could treat. Within a few days, the lack of beds, equipment and staff made the decisions for them.

Shi’s team managed to identify five cases of the coronavirus from samples taken from patients at Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital. The samples were sent to another lab, which completed the whole genomic sequence.

However, the sequence would not be passed to the WHO until January 12 and China would not admit there had been human-to-human transmission until January 20, despite sitting on evidence the virus had been passed to medics.

One of Shi’s other urgent tasks was to check through her laboratory’s records to see if any errors, particularly with disposal of hazardous materials, could have caused a leak from the premises.

She spoke of her relief to discover the sequences for the new virus were not an exact match with the samples her team had brought back from the bat caves. “That really took a load off my mind,” she told the Scientific American. “I had not slept a wink for days.”

She then set about writing a paper describing the new coronavirus to the world for the first time. Published in Nature on February 3 and entitled “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin”, the document was groundbreaking.

It set out a full genomic description of the COVID-19 virus and revealed that the WIV had in storage the closest known relative of the virus, which it had taken from a bat. The sample was named RaTG13. According to the paper, it is a 96.2 per cent match to the COVID-19 virus and they share a common lineage distinct from other SARS-type coronaviruses. The paper concludes this close likeness “provides evidence” that COVID-19 “may have originated in bats”. In other words, RaTG13 was the biggest lead available as to the origin of COVID-19. It was therefore surprising that the paper gave only scant detail about the history of the virus sample, stating merely that it was taken from a Rhinolophus affinis bat in Yunnan province in 2013, hence the “Ra” and the 13.

Inquiries have established, however, that RaTG13 is almost certainly the coronavirus discovered in the abandoned mine in 2013, which had been named RaBtCoV/4991 in the institute’s earlier scientific paper. For some reason, Shi and her team appear to have renamed it.

The clearest evidence is in a database of bat viruses published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences — the parent body of the WIV — which lists RaTG13 and the mine sample as the same entity. It says it was discovered on July 24, 2013, as part of a collection of coronaviruses that were described in the 2016 paper on the abandoned mine.

(continued...)
 
(...continued)

Covid’s close cousin
In fact, researchers in India and Austria have compared the partial genome of the mine sample that was published in the 2016 paper and found it is a 100 per cent match with the same sequence for RaTG13. The same partial sequence for the mine sample is a 98.7 per cent match with the COVID-19 virus.

Peter Daszak, a close collaborator with the Wuhan institute, who has worked with Shi’s team hunting down viruses for 15 years, has confirmed to The Sunday Times that RaTG13 was the sample found in the mine. He said there was no significance in the renaming, due to changes in the coding system. He recalled: “It was just one of the 16,000 bats we sampled. It was a faecal sample, we put it in a tube, put it in liquid nitrogen, took it back to the lab. We sequenced a short fragment.”

In 2013 the Wuhan team had run the sample through a polymerase chain reaction process to amplify the amount of genetic material so it could be studied, Daszak said. But it did no more work on it until the COVID-19 outbreak because it had not been a close match to SARS.

Other scientists find the initial indifference about a new strain of the coronavirus hard to understand. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of medicine at Flinders University in Adelaide, said it was “simply not credible” that the WIV would have failed to carry out any further analysis on RaBtCoV/4991, especially as it had been linked to the deaths of three miners. “If you really thought you had a novel virus that had caused an outbreak that killed humans, there is nothing you wouldn’t do — given that was their whole reason for being [there] — to get to the bottom of that, even if that meant exhausting the sample and then going back to get more,” he said.

In recent weeks, academics are said to have written to Nature asking for the WIV to write an erratum clarifying the sample’s provenance, but the Chinese lab has maintained a stony silence.

The origin of COVID-19 is one of the most pressing questions facing humanity. Scientists worldwide are trying to understand how it evolved, which could help stop such a crisis happening again.

The suggestion that well-intentioned scientists may have introduced COVID-19 to their own city is vehemently denied by the WIV, and its work on the origin of the virus has become an X-rated topic in China. Its leadership has taken strict control of new studies and information about where the virus may have come from.

The investigation
Over the next few days, WHO scientists will be allowed to fly into China to begin an investigation into the origins of the virus after two months of negotiations.

Many experts, such as Daszak, believe the source of the virus will be found in a bat in the south of China. “It didn’t emerge in the market, it emerged somewhere else,” said Daszak. He said the “best guess right now” is that the virus started within a “cluster” on the Chinese border that includes the area where RaTG13 was found and an area just south of the mineshaft, where another bat pathogen with a 93 per cent likeness to COVID-19 was discovered recently.

As for how the virus travelled to Wuhan, Daszak said: “Fair assumption is that it spilt into animals in southern China and was then shipped in, via infected people, or animals associated with trade, to Wuhan.”

The final, trickiest question for WHO inspectors is whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan.

Is it possible, for example, RaTG13 or a similar virus turned into COVID-19 and leaked into the population after infecting one of the scientists at the Wuhan institute?

This seriously divides the experts. Australian virologist Edward Holmes has estimated that RaTG13 would take up to 50 years to evolve the extra 4 per cent that would make it a 100 per cent match with the COVID-19 virus. Martin Hibberd, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, believes it might take less than 20 years to morph naturally into the virus driving the current pandemic.

But others say such arguments are based on the assumption the virus develops at a constant rate. “That is not a valid assumption,” said Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology. “When a virus changes hosts and adapts to a new host, the rate of evolutionary change is much higher. And so it is possible that RaTG13, particularly if it entered humans prior to November 2019, may have undergone adaptation in humans at a rate that would allow it to give rise to Sars-Cov-2. I think that is a distinct possibility.”

Ebright believes an even more controversial theory should not be ruled out. “It also, of course, is a distinct possibility that work done in the laboratory on RaTG13 may have resulted in artificial in-laboratory adaptation that erased those three to five decades of evolutionary distance.”

It is a view Hibberd does not believe is possible. “Sars-Cov-2 and RaTG13 are not the same virus and I don’t think you can easily manipulate one into the other. It seems exceptionally difficult.”

Ebright alleges, however, that the type of work required to create COVID-19 from RaTG13 was “identical” to work the laboratory had done in the past. “The very same techniques, the very same experimental strategies using RaTG13 as the starting point, would yield a virus essentially identical to Sars-Cov-2.”

The Sunday Times put a series of questions to the WIV, including why it had failed for months to acknowledge the closest match to the COVID-19 virus was found in a mine where people had died from a coronavirus-like illness. The questions were met with silence.
 
Any possibility that this thread talks about a virus and not inane political pointscoring and skyfalling anarchy?

WA and NSW use security guards at hotels for quarantining returning Australian residents.
QLD at least allows people to have a daily exercise/ fresh air break (super critical for mental health)
There are different protocols between the states, so there are some variants.

But do we think that Dan Andrews and Sutton personally hired the security guards?

My guess is that the protocols are fine, but some behavious were lax and the oversight insufficient. And that Vic was bl00dy unlucky that the returning citizens who were positive (less than 1%) coincided with the lax guards.

It has happened in every state. People is people, and security guards are not different north of the border.

Does this make it acceptable?
No, as there is zero point that most of the population gets protected and some dont (same as anti vaxxers,).
But lets drop the politics
You make some good points but the difference between the states hotel quarantine system is the obvious lack of control and oversight in Victoria. Other states such as NSW may use security guards but the program has been controlled by the police with input from the military. In Victoria it appears to have been controlled by the security industry which is known for rorting and other dodgy practices. No one can ignore the difference in results between Victoria and other states. The virus has exploded in certain areas of Melbourne due to the failure of the hotel quarantine program. If there were greater controls in place such as in NSW then this would not have happened.

For me personally it is not a political stance. Ultimately it is the government's role to protect its citizens in a situation like this. The initial response to the pandemic was very good; the hotel quarantine debacle has undone much of the good work. I would be just as critical if it was a Liberal Government in charge; makes no difference. I do find it surprising that so many leap to the defence of Andrews; I can just imagine the uproar on this issue if it was a Lib Govt in charge of this mess. It's not that long ago that everyone was howling down Scomo at the height of the bushfires and much of that criticism was very justified; the decision to go to Hawaii and lie about it was an abominable mistake from a PM. But IMO Scomo has as much control over bushfires as Andrews has over a coronavirus pandemic. It's how they handle the crises that requires judgement and people were very happy to hang Scomo but seem inclined to make excuses for Andrews and let him off the hook.

It cuts both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nah you’re just trying to deflect. Shops have been open throughout. BLM June 6 gave us cancer.

Why do you think this weekend’s protests flopped?


Oh my God. You cannot be this thick.

I'll make this as simple as possible.

What about the protests do you think was the problem?



A) They were a large gathering.
-Yes, bad idea in a pandemic. But these sized gatherings are happening all the time. 10,000 people gathered in the city for the BLM protest. Double that number walk down Bourke St every day for retail purposes, and 40,000 people have gathered at highpoint both days of every weekend since May. So why are the protests singled out?

B) They caused more transmission of the virus.
- Nobody who went caught it there. End of story. There is absolutely zero evidence to the contrary. The closest you can get, if you fiddle with numbers enough, is some *smile* correlation that some component of increased cases happened some arbitrary number of days after the day of the protest. Which you can also do with a correlation to the easing of restrictions. Or to Dusty's rib injury. Because if you look for correlation you will find it.

C) They set a bad precedent.
- They were discouraged and organisers fined. We were told not to gather like that. Yet again, we then turn around and say, but it's okay to gather like that if you're spending money on the economy, or you are sending your kids off to school so you can make money for the economy. The precedent was set once restrictions were eased.

It honestly blows my mind that some people are still trying to shoehorn their own agenda against the BLM movement into this, when it is clearly irrelevant. Obviously this spike has been caused by returned travellers (a failure of our state government to put proper quarantine measures in place), and an easing of restrictions leading to more large family gatherings, which have increased transmission from those returned travellers (a push from our federal government, and subsequent failure of strength from our state government).

The protests were a non event in the scheme of human movement and behaviour, as well as virus transmission in our state.

There are lots of other things that you can get all hot and bothered about. Anyone who is still angry about the protests simply has an axe to grind about their purpose. And when you keep grinding that axe you just sound like an idiot with a sharp axe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
There are lots of other things that you can get all hot and bothered about. Anyone who is still angry about the protests simply has an axe to grind about their purpose. And when you keep grinding that axe you just sound like an idiot with a sharp axe.

Yeah I have an axe to grind about BLM.

My attitude towards the protest would be exactly the same no matter the cause. It was batshit insane.

At least I'm an honest idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Plenty of people chose not to march because it was a dumb idea to do so in a pandemic. If that means they have an agenda, it's to protect public health.

Also as has been said many times these people were warned by health officials NOT to march in a large gathering. To compare it with people shopping for essentials is just being provocative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users