12 Coronavirus myths busted by science

Feb 28, 2020
4
0
10
Regarding #2 "
Myth: You're waaaay less likely to get this than the flu

Not necessarily. "

I disagree with the way this is said. At least in most places, you ARE way more likely to get the flu. Although the coronavirus has a higher R0, it is not circulating widely in the United States and most countries. And not only is the flu potentially deadly, illness can last a very long time and cause disability and interruption of your life/career. So people should be taking the flu seriously and get a flu shot. Especially since it could be devastating to get both viruses at the same time.
 
Dec 10, 2019
1
1
15
Regarding #2 "
Myth: You're waaaay less likely to get this than the flu

Not necessarily. "

I disagree with the way this is said. At least in most places, you ARE way more likely to get the flu. Although the coronavirus has a higher R0, it is not circulating widely in the United States and most countries. And not only is the flu potentially deadly, illness can last a very long time and cause disability and interruption of your life/career. So people should be taking the flu seriously and get a flu shot. Especially since it could be devastating to get both viruses at the same time.
How would anyone know ? They have tested 14,000 people in S Korea in one day, and yet to date the US has only 450 testing kits.By the time they do get enough kits how far will it have spread ?? Ridiculous statement !!
 
Feb 28, 2020
6
1
30
How would anyone know ? They have tested 14,000 people in S Korea in one day, and yet to date the US has only 450 testing kits.By the time they do get enough kits how far will it have spread ?? Ridiculous statement !!
Fun Fact the Flu and Coronavirus can be confused for each other as they have almost identical symptoms the only true distinguishing factor is the horrendous forms viral pneumonia that they both cause but by then you are already hospitalized. GG China won.
 
Feb 28, 2020
6
1
30
How would anyone know ? They have tested 14,000 people in S Korea in one day, and yet to date the US has only 450 testing kits.By the time they do get enough kits how far will it have spread ?? Ridiculous statement !!
Where did you get this lovely 450 testing kits btw? Do you even know how the medical field tests this virus? Lmao it's more about how many they have processed as testing is easy just long as to the way they do it which has about a 3 day turn around even in a rush with RNA testing. That's a saliva or blood test send off to CDC. The viral pneumonia it causes is so unique that the can actually diagnose you faster if it's at that stage with a simple x-ray.
 
Feb 29, 2020
2
0
10
The article says: ”Previous research has found that coronaviruses don't survive long on objects such as letters and packages.”

But viruses, according to many scholarly definitions, are non-living organisms that replicate inside living cells. A non-living organism can’t be killed., though they can be stopped from replicating. That’s part of the problem with viruses and why the diseases they cause can’t easily be treated.. It’s a completey different process from killing a bacterial infection. Bacteria are living organisms that can be killed.. As example, tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria. Small pox, measles, mumps, chicken pox, herpes, AIDS, and shingles are some diseases that are caused by [non-living] viruses. Viral diseases are difficult or impossible to treat effectively. They can be prevented, however, by a vaccine.

Viruses are not made out of cells, they can't keep themselves in a stable state, they don't grow, and they can't make their own energy. Even though they definitely replicate and adapt to their environment, viruses are more like androids than real living organisms.”
 
Feb 28, 2020
6
1
30
The article says: ”Previous research has found that coronaviruses don't survive long on objects such as letters and packages.”

But viruses, according to many scholarly definitions, are non-living organisms that replicate inside living cells. A non-living organism can’t be killed., though they can be stopped from replicating. That’s part of the problem with viruses and why the diseases they cause can’t easily be treated.. It’s a completey different process from killing a bacterial infection. Bacteria are living organisms that can be killed.. As example, tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria. Small pox, measles, mumps, chicken pox, herpes, AIDS, and shingles are some diseases that are caused by [non-living] viruses. Viral diseases are difficult or impossible to treat effectively. They can be prevented, however, by a vaccine.

Viruses are not made out of cells, they can't keep themselves in a stable state, they don't grow, and they can't make their own energy. Even though they definitely replicate and adapt to their environment, viruses are more like androids than real living organisms.”
Firstly, 9 days is still a hell of a long time. Secondly, if you know of bacteriophages then you know viruses can survive longer on inanimate objects if bacteria is on them. Considering the wide range of bacteria in the very air around us at any given time good and bad they could feed and live a lot longer in the right conditions. There are viral robots that eat bacteria. But again they are biological machines. Therefore they are very much alive. Until they aren't. Khanacademy is okay but I wouldn't put that much stock in a link from them as my proof.
 
Jan 27, 2020
3
0
10
If this report is correct, then why is there under 3,00 deaths from SARS2 and over 79,000 from flu world wide figures?
The infection RO is still holding at 2.2 that means around 1 - 4 people can be infected from each person with the virus.
The main reason for all this hype and news about SARS 2 is, it has an incubation period of up to 14 days, where the flu shows within 24 hours.
Why no "Warnings" about the way the flu has killed and infected many more people that this virus?
Even with a vaccine for flu, no vaccine for SARS 2 Yet, as testing has only just started earlier this week?
 
Feb 29, 2020
2
0
10
Firstly, 9 days is still a hell of a long time. Secondly, if you know of bacteriophages then you know viruses can survive longer on inanimate objects if bacteria is on them. Considering the wide range of bacteria in the very air around us at any given time good and bad they could feed and live a lot longer in the right conditions. There are viral robots that eat bacteria. But again they are biological machines. Therefore they are very much alive. Until they aren't. Khanacademy is okay but I wouldn't put that much stock in a link from them as my proof.
How about this from https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

“No, viruses are not alive.”

or this from http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/:

“Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.”
 
Feb 28, 2020
6
1
30
How about this from https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

“No, viruses are not alive.”

or this from http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/:

“Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.”
You used something from 2004 and a duality argument paper in which scientists argue both sides. Bacteriophages exist in the air and water around the world, in your body and on all organic surfaces. These papers only prove the point they are alive and without a host they would die. Much like a bacterial seed or a parasite. Just because it is parasitic in nature doesn't mean it's not alive. There is a spark of life once certain conditions are met. When a sperm and egg meet life starts. Much like organics and a virus. To say a sperm or an egg would also be incorrect. I love wherever you got your degree. I will assume it is stamped by Google. Or better yet Khan Academy.


Here is something more recent stay woke my friend.

😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
Last edited:
Feb 29, 2020
1
0
10
Regarding #2 "
Myth: You're waaaay less likely to get this than the flu

Not necessarily. "

I disagree with the way this is said. At least in most places, you ARE way more likely to get the flu. Although the coronavirus has a higher R0, it is not circulating widely in the United States and most countries. And not only is the flu potentially deadly, illness can last a very long time and cause disability and interruption of your life/career. So people should be taking the flu seriously and get a flu shot. Especially since it could be devastating to get both viruses at the same time.
You are more likely to get a flu so far because this new virus has not yet become widespread.
However, the R0 of the Coronavirus is almost twice as high as of the seasonal flu (plus there are no vaccines for it), so it definitely has a higher transmissibility rate.
If it becomes as widespread as a seasonal flu, it will be twice “easier” to catch it than to catch a seasonal flu.
 
Feb 29, 2020
1
1
10
Kudos to the editors for this well-balanced, fact-based article, which seeks to put the COVID-19 outbreak in perspective and blunt the growing hysteria.

I live in Asia, where the panic is even greater, fueled by nonstop coverage of the budding "plague" on television and online.

While, of course, precautions are certainly necessary, people should remember, as this article states, that even in the unlikely event that a person contracts the virus, it's far from a death sentence.

What strikes me is that people who think nothing of driving recklessly or otherwise putting their health at risk from a poor diet, smoking or drugs, nonetheless are panicking over this virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCarlson
Dec 11, 2019
24
13
35
But viruses, according to many scholarly definitions, are non-living organisms that replicate inside living cells. A non-living organism can’t be killed., though they can be stopped from replicating. That’s part of the problem with viruses and why the diseases they cause can’t easily be treated.. It’s a completey different process from killing a bacterial infection. Bacteria are living organisms that can be killed.. As example, tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria. Small pox, measles, mumps, chicken pox, herpes, AIDS, and shingles are some diseases that are caused by [non-living] viruses. Viral diseases are difficult or impossible to treat effectively. They can be prevented, however, by a vaccine.
[/QUOTE]

This is a case where biologists are incorrect. The main criterion for a living organism ought to be that it shows an autonomous purposeful behavior. Since orthodox science rules out teleology from the start, it can't accurately distinguish living organisms from non-living entities. But the behavior of viruses only makes sense if they're regarded as living organisms. They are parasitic, true, but they do reproduce after their own fashion. For that matter, human beings are not self reproducing but required a cooperate effort. All of which just points up one of the great shortcomings of contemporary science....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACD421
Feb 28, 2020
6
1
30
But viruses, according to many scholarly definitions, are non-living organisms that replicate inside living cells. A non-living organism can’t be killed., though they can be stopped from replicating. That’s part of the problem with viruses and why the diseases they cause can’t easily be treated.. It’s a completey different process from killing a bacterial infection. Bacteria are living organisms that can be killed.. As example, tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria. Small pox, measles, mumps, chicken pox, herpes, AIDS, and shingles are some diseases that are caused by [non-living] viruses. Viral diseases are difficult or impossible to treat effectively. They can be prevented, however, by a vaccine.
This is a case where biologists are incorrect. The main criterion for a living organism ought to be that it shows an autonomous purposeful behavior. Since orthodox science rules out teleology from the start, it can't accurately distinguish living organisms from non-living entities. But the behavior of viruses only makes sense if they're regarded as living organisms. They are parasitic, true, but they do reproduce after their own fashion. For that matter, human beings are not self reproducing but required a cooperate effort. All of which just points up one of the great shortcomings of contemporary science....
[/QUOTE]
I like this backup Haha
I find it hilarious in under a decade we now have some studies revealing and admitting they are living organisms while some of the less informed or who learned back when them just being not alive was true for that was as far as our science understood.
I mean just look at vaccines you have live virus and dead virus bases. Misleading but true. If something can live by replicating it simply is alive. It's like saying when a non alive thing goes active it is a zombie. A dead thing that came alive. If a virus can die it had to have lived. Very pinnacle of life and death and how one must always have the other as a codependent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCarlson
Mar 1, 2020
1
0
10
How would anyone know ? They have tested 14,000 people in S Korea in one day, and yet to date the US has only 450 testing kits.By the time they do get enough kits how far will it have spread ?? Ridiculous statement !!
Her statement is currently correct. We have estimates on how many people are infected with influenza based on past seasons. COVID-19 may be under reported, but there's sufficient information to know there are not 10s of millions of americans running around with it (yet).
 
Mar 1, 2020
1
1
10
Article says: "No evidence suggests that the virus is man-made."

Actually, yes, there is evidence to suggest the virus is man made. The evidence is conviniently placed on page two of Google's search list. It is a cheap trick to use the term "science" as rhetoric to convey 'authority' and manipulate people's thinking. Consider the statement, "there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution--evolution debunked by science!" Obviously, there definitely is evidence to support the theory of evolution. But to take a negative position on the subject requires absolutely no work on the writers part, whereas the positive position demands production of evidence that you deny--evidence that may be hidden on page two of Googles search results.


"At a seminar on the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) hosted by the Taiwan Public Health Association at NTU, Fang Chi-tai , a professor at NTU's College of Public Health, addressed the many theories circulating that the virus somehow leaked... The professor said that viruses normally only have small mutations in the form of singular changes in natural conditions. He asserted that in nature, it is 'unlikely to have four amino acids added at once.'
Fang concluded, "Therefore, from an academic point of view, it is indeed possible that the amino acids were added to COVID-19 in the lab by humans." He said that it is also still possible that this occurred in nature but that "the chances are very slim."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LCarlson
Mar 1, 2020
1
0
10
Regarding #2 "
Myth: You're waaaay less likely to get this than the flu

Not necessarily. "

I disagree with the way this is said. At least in most places, you ARE way more likely to get the flu. Although the coronavirus has a higher R0, it is not circulating widely in the United States and most countries. And not only is the flu potentially deadly, illness can last a very long time and cause disability and interruption of your life/career. So people should be taking the flu seriously and get a flu shot. Especially since it could be devastating to get both viruses at the same time.
PLEASE stfu, wtf are u even talking about. It doesnt matter if you get a flu or COVID-19, you will be in critial if not severe condition if not treated properly - comparison is just bs. Don't just state that you should get a flu jab instead. We are talking about the likeliness of getting this virus. People should/already have taking flu jabs if they are travelling and/or during some point in their lives; if not, they will be in the same situation as getting COVID-19. You cannot say "it is not circulating widely in the United States and most countries" - how would YOU know that? Are you travelling all across the world to to find out? news? ridiculous. There are many unconfirmed cases that even the WHO organisation realises. Even though many countries "contain" and "screen" travellers incoming from foreign land, it does not mean people cannot bypass checks and hide them. Moreover, some cases are hard to distingush if they are infected or not. This is because the COVID-19 has similar characteristics to the SARS and MERS (they can live on surfaces and has better survival in cold temperatures). People might get pass screen by blood and fluids tests BUT since the virus can live for more than 24hrs (according the similar characteristics), it is likely to linger on the clothes and travelling necessities and luggage - MAYBE (i hope not but its likely) that people, when unpacking, come in contact with the surfaces and become infected. Although coming in contact with hands are not likely to truly become infected, the activities afterwards might - e.g. eating, touching face, etc.

Do YOU get my point now? It's not easy hearing these news and also knowing these kinds of things happening around the world. But please PLEASE THINK before stating something that is so unthoughtful.
 
Mar 2, 2020
1
1
10
My late mother in law was a world pioneer in the "orign of life" One of the things she noted routinely was that there was no universally accepted definition of life. as one example , what is a frozen embryo? or a sperm cell? Life is a complex matrix of functionality. what matters is which function you are looking at.

Second the endless comparisons to influenza are simply irrelevant to this problem. The average incubation period for flu is two days, which makes it a totally different (but real) public health problem . Aysympotaomatic transmission has never been shown "Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission "

Asymptomatic transmission is what makes a low transmission disease into a pandemic in a modern trave environment. That is why this disease is so scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCarlson
Mar 3, 2020
2
0
10
The part about not catching it at a Chinese restaurant is very misleading and makes out that such a claim is racist. A few weeks ago virtually all the known cases were in China and this was also the Chinese New Year when many Chinese living outside China will have visited friends and family in China. It was therefore statistically more likely that a person of Chinese apearance in the USA (or anywhere) would have the virus and indeed the first cases outside China were people who had been there. My own view is the risk was still so small it simply wasn't worth worrying about and I had two Chinese takeaways in that period here in the UK. That doesn't stop the risk being slightly higher though. Things have clearly changed now and the virus believes in equality so it is increasingly less valid to avoid Chinese restaurants.
 
Mar 3, 2020
2
0
10
Regarding #2 "
Myth: You're waaaay less likely to get this than the flu

Not necessarily. "

When I read things like this I have little faith in the person who wrote it. The words "less likely" refers to probability. If I have 1% chance of catching flu in March then I have less than 1% of catching the virus. Using the term "not necessarily" as a reply is completely nonsensical since it too is a probability. So it's like saying I have a 25% chance of having less than 1% chance of catching it.
 
Feb 4, 2020
9
0
30
There's plenty of nonsense about the coronavirus online. Here are some of the biggest COVID-19 myths out there and the science to explain why they aren't true.

12 Coronavirus myths busted by science : Read more
Scientists Discover HIV-Like 'Mutation' Which Makes Coronavirus Extremely Infectious
Posted by EU Times on Feb 27th, 2020

https://eutimes.net/2020/02/scientists-discover-hiv-like-mutation-which-makes-coronavirus-extremely-infectious/comment-page-1/#comment-103204

While mainstream scientists continue to perform mental gymnastics to insist that the new coronavirus wasn’t man-made, new research from scientists in China and Europe reveal that the disease happens to have an ‘HIV-like mutation’.

This allows it to bind with human cells up to 1,000 times stronger than the Sars virus, according to SCMP.

Recall that at the end of January, a team of Indian scientists wrote in a now-retracted, scandalous paper claiming that the coronavirus may have been genetically engineered to incorporate parts of the HIV genome.

They wrote “This uncanny similarity of novel inserts in the 2019- nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature,” meaning – it was unlikely to have occurred naturally.

Fast forward to new research by a team from Nankai University, which writes that COV-19 has an ‘HIV-like mutation’ that allows it to quickly enter the human body by binding with a receptor called ACE2 on a cell membrane.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2020
9
0
30
An earlier warning.

A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence
Published: 09 November 2015

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Although public health measures were able to stop the SARS-CoV outbreak4, recent metagenomics studies have identified sequences of closely related SARS-like viruses circulating in Chinese bat populations that may pose a future threat
 
Mar 4, 2020
1
1
10
Puzzled by the statement that face masks do not help prevent one catching the virus. If they catch droplets from a carrier then they are preventing the droplets from reaching other people. That the masks do not filter out virus sized particles is not relevant - there is no evidence that carriers exhale free virus particles, but plenty that the are contained in droplets and that these droplets may be inhaled by others as well as landing on surfaces. Close proximity is a big problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monsieurpooh

ASK THE COMMUNITY