Don't sneeze. Coronavirus is a threat to oil markets and global economies

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Almost 10Kg of Hg per crematorium per year.   10 Kg is a lot of Mercury (we measured down to 0.01 µg/L).

Try and find out how much their coal fired power plants put out annually and I am fairly certain 22 pounds or 10kg of Mercury is nothing by comparison. Should they pull the filled teeth before incineration? Hmmm points to ponder.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

58 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Should they pull the filled teeth before incineration? Hmmm points to ponder.

Obviously.  Heck, have a minor side-hustle in silver recovery.

You are right industrial sources dwarf this; I'm mostly being pedantic. 

However, funeral homes are much more likely to be within city limits versus a big coal plant; and there are probably many more crematoriums than power plants.  Air pollution created away from the city can deposit to land/water and be less harmful.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

We focused on persistent pollutants like Hg so of course that's what comes to my mind.  Mercury pollution is a well known issue with cremation.

Ironically all the cremation may make the virus more deadly from all the PM 2.5 in the air.  Lots of benzene too.

Emission characteristics of harmful air pollutants from cremators in Beijing, China.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29718907

[Amount of mercury from dental amalgam filling released into the atmosphere by cremation].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7919469

"The amount of mercury released from this crematorium was estimated to be approximately 9.4 kg per year." 

Almost 10Kg of Hg per crematorium per year.   10 Kg is a lot of Mercury (we measured down to 0.01 µg/L).

SOX emissions do not appear to dominate:

 

 

And mercury doesn't even show up. I'm also guessing Chinese dental care isn't quite the same as Western. 

Agreed about the particulates. Making a bad respiratory infection worse  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

And mercury doesn't even show up.

Unfortunately, mercury was not measured in that paper - hopefully they still have some of the old ashes to give a grad student to test.

"To better understand the emissions of flue gas from cremators after the implementation of the standards in China, we examined the emission levels and emission characteristics of PM (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) and air pollutants (SO2, NOx, CO and VOCs) from different types of cremators with and without flue gas post-treatment systems by practical monitoring of nine crematories in Beijing."

The graph was from the emissions characteristics paper - sorry from putting them out of order

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[frankfurter + 562]

18 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Enough already with tossing around the term bigot in this thread. 

The word "bigot" in this thread is so far being abused, and has been hurled in order to shut down disagreement.  As a moderator, this is not acceptable.

Yesterday I had posted a link to a ZeroHedge article, showing that the Chinese Ambassador was using the race card to stifle questioning of the "Official Narrative" from the Chinese government.

And I see a similar tactic being used in this thread with abusing the word "bigot".

Going forward, if I see the word "bigot" or other similar words being abused here to shut down debate, I will hide or delete that comment.

This is a discussion forum.  No matter what your views are on any topic, there will be others who disagree with your views.  Calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with you is ... absurd.

Considered opinion is respected.  Baseless accusations with intent to smear are not respected. 

In this thread: 

1/ A person accuses PR China of deliberately, repeatedly, and annually putting the world at risk for deadly diseases. This is a baseless accusation. The historical facts prove otherwise. 

2/ A person believes the WHO team is under the control of China, and disbelieves the WHO reports. This is a ludicrous assertion.

3/ A person believes the virus, in fact, came from a lab and was released accidentally or deliberately. As of today, world-leading institutes have researched and lab-duplicated this virus, and NONE have suggested this virus is lab-cultured. All are saying the virus is most likely from an animal and the reservoir is yet to be determined.  As of today, not one shred of evidence supports the notion this is lab-cultured. 

4/ A professor has created a model of sorts, and people here perceive the results to be reality. The professor has not visited the epicentre, thus is working blindly. A model is only as strong as its data and algorithms.  Anybody can create a model these days: it's easy when you know how. But the result is not reality; it is conjecture. IF people here watch the professor's video on youtube, they will note the professor admits he has insufficient data and knowledge of the situation to make a scientific assessment. Why such a learned man would put his neck out publicly to violate the scientific method and risk condemnation by peers is a mystery, but he did. 

... and so on. 

You are right. The B- word should not be used in civilised discourse; neither should the words troll or operand; and neither should race or nationality. Censorship will not alter the reality.  Free speech means free speech, civilised or not. If anyone here shoots slings and arrows, s/he must expect the same in return. 

[Otis11 + 551]

43 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

Considered opinion is respected.  Baseless accusations with intent to smear are not respected. 

In this thread: 

1/ A person accuses PR China of deliberately, repeatedly, and annually putting the world at risk for deadly diseases. This is a baseless accusation. The historical facts prove otherwise. 

2/ A person believes the WHO team is under the control of China, and disbelieves the WHO reports. This is a ludicrous assertion.

3/ A person believes the virus, in fact, came from a lab and was released accidentally or deliberately. As of today, world-leading institutes have researched and lab-duplicated this virus, and NONE have suggested this virus is lab-cultured. All are saying the virus is most likely from an animal and the reservoir is yet to be determined.  As of today, not one shred of evidence supports the notion this is lab-cultured. 

4/ A professor has created a model of sorts, and people here perceive the results to be reality. The professor has not visited the epicentre, thus is working blindly. A model is only as strong as its data and algorithms.  Anybody can create a model these days: it's easy when you know how. But the result is not reality; it is conjecture. IF people here watch the professor's video on youtube, they will note the professor admits he has insufficient data and knowledge of the situation to make a scientific assessment. Why such a learned man would put his neck out publicly to violate the scientific method and risk condemnation by peers is a mystery, but he did. 

... and so on. 

You are right. The B- word should not be used in civilised discourse; neither should the words troll or operand; and neither should race or nationality. Censorship will not alter the reality.  Free speech means free speech, civilised or not. If anyone here shoots slings and arrows, s/he must expect the same in return. 

1) no one did anything of the sort. You are putting words in their mouth to make them seem unreasonable.

2) this isn't unrealistic. No one else it allowed in and the WHO lavishly praised Chinas response before allowing them in... they praised the situation before they had adequate information to asses... and no one else (including the CDC is being allowed in. Suspicious much? Seems likely they agreed not to release any data. 

3)MOST are saying this virus is suspicious given its proteins. Very few, in fact, are saying it's likely natural. Where are you getting your data?!?!?!

4) There's ample reason to doubt the official statistics. There are multiple professors and researchers making models that all have higher estimates, and these estimate all align with independently verifiable information better than the official statistics. (Why the heck would someone shut down 400 million people under house arrest for 1000 fatalities and only 40k infections?)

You are the one name calling. You are the one bringing up race and crying racist. You are the one not being civil. And above all that, you are the only one not providing data that hold up to scrutiny (and ignoring peoples successful rebuttals of your unsupported claims).

And no, you've been incredibly uncivil, yet I'm still responding quite civilly to you... 

So I believe ever sentence in your post is utterly false. Just like every post you've made on this thread.

[frankfurter + 562]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

1) no one did anything of the sort. You are putting words in their mouth to make them seem unreasonable.

2) this isn't unrealistic. No one else it allowed in and the WHO lavishly praised Chinas response before allowing them in... they praised the situation before they had adequate information to asses... and no one else (including the CDC is being allowed in. Suspicious much? Seems likely they agreed not to release any data. 

3)MOST are saying this virus is suspicious given its proteins. Very few, in fact, are saying it's likely natural. Where are you getting your data?!?!?!

4) There's ample reason to doubt the official statistics. There are multiple professors and researchers making models that all have higher estimates, and these estimate all align with independently verifiable information better than the official statistics. (Why the heck would someone shut down 400 million people under house arrest for 1000 fatalities and only 40k infections?)

You are the one name calling. You are the one bringing up race and crying racist. You are the one not being civil. And above all that, you are the only one not providing data that hold up to scrutiny (and ignoring peoples successful rebuttals of your unsupported claims).

And no, you've been incredibly uncivil, yet I'm still responding quite civilly to you... 

So I believe ever sentence in your post is utterly false. Just like every post you've made on this thread.

1/ false. the accusation is stated in black and white. 

2/ The WHO is one of the world's most respected, independent organisations. If you choose to doubt the WHO, that is your prerogative. But if you seek to question the WHO for the purpose to smear anybody, that is not your prerogative.

3/ Please show me your 'most'.  For an example of independent assessment, refer to the Pasteur Institute.

4/ The result of a model is conjecture. If you wish to run to your life upon someone else's conjecture, that is your business. If you seek to use conjecture to smear anybody, that is not your business. 

You are free to believe what you will.  But if you use your beliefs to smear others, you can expect strong responses.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Obviously.  Heck, have a minor side-hustle in silver recovery.

You are right industrial sources dwarf this; I'm mostly being pedantic. 

However, funeral homes are much more likely to be within city limits versus a big coal plant; and there are probably many more crematoriums than power plants.  Air pollution created away from the city can deposit to land/water and be less harmful.

Does China even do Amalgam dentistry???  I know dentistry practices varies by region of the world due to Aunt who does it all over the world, but I could not tell you if China does amalgam cavity filler or not.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Does China even do Amalgam dentistry???  I know dentistry practices varies by region of the world due to Aunt who does it all over the world, but I could not tell you if China does amalgam cavity filler or not.

I have little idea of their current practice. 

Quick search says amalgam density was invented in China:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_(dentistry)

Dental amalgams were first documented in a Tang Dynasty medical text written by Su Gong (苏恭) in 659, and appeared in Germany in 1528.[4][5]

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[frankfurter + 562]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I have little idea of their current practice. 

Quick search says amalgam density was invented in China:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_(dentistry)

Dental amalgams were first documented in a Tang Dynasty medical text written by Su Gong (苏恭) in 659, and appeared in Germany in 1528.[4][5]

Yes. Amalgam is used, even today. isn't that amazing? 

This is like a wee grandson asking: grandpa did you have phones when you were a kid?

Do I need any more proof when I say the vast majority of Westerners know nearly zero about China? 

 

[Otis11 + 551]

6 hours ago, frankfurter said:

1/ false. the accusation is stated in black and white. 

2/ The WHO is one of the world's most respected, independent organisations. If you choose to doubt the WHO, that is your prerogative. But if you seek to question the WHO for the purpose to smear anybody, that is not your prerogative.

3/ Please show me your 'most'.  For an example of independent assessment, refer to the Pasteur Institute.

4/ The result of a model is conjecture. If you wish to run to your life upon someone else's conjecture, that is your business. If you seek to use conjecture to smear anybody, that is not your business. 

You are free to believe what you will.  But if you use your beliefs to smear others, you can expect strong responses.  

1) Where? Quote it. You can't, because your claims go to far to be true. The claim of annual has been made, and when you questioned it, supported. But deliberate AND annually? Nope, nowhere in the thread unless I absolutely missed it.

2) The WHO hasn't had credibility in a while - they lost credibility in the eyes of the informed public years ago, well preceeding this incident. And for all the reasons I cited before, this looks extremely suspicious as well... making their reporting questionable at best. Trust, but verify - and their statements (as well as the official Chinese narative) don't fit the evidence that we can see. And here's where you go to far - prove that my purpose is to smear. You can't, because not only is it nearly impossible to prove intention, it's impossible to prove intention that isn't there!

3) I Can't find anything from the Pasteur Foundation claiming it's a natrual disease - all I can find is 'We don't know where it came from yet'. Would you like to provide a link to prove your point instead of sending people on a wild goose chase?

Dr. Francis Boyle (The AUTHOR of the Biolotical Weapons Act) claims this is a biological Weapon. Link:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-02-04-dr-francis-boyle-confirms-coronavirus-an-offensive-biological-warfare-weapon.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/creator-bioweapons-act-says-coronavirus-biological-warfare-weapon

Quote:

Dr. Francis Boyle:

It does seem to me that the Wuhan BSL-4 is the source of the coronavirus, yes. My guess is that they were researching SARS, and they weaponized it further by giving it gain-of-function properties, which means it could be more lethal, and indeed the latest report now is it’s 15% fatality rate which is more than SARS, and 83% infection rate. So a typical gain-of-function is it travels in the air, so it could reach out maybe six feet or more from someone emitting a sneeze or a cough. Likewise, this is a specially designated WHO research lab, so the WHO is in on it, and they knew full well what was going on there.

Yes, it’s also reported the Chinese stole coronavirus materials from the Canadian lab at Winnipeg; Winnipeg is Canada’s foremost center for research developing and testing biological warfare weapons. It’s along the lines of Ft. Detrick in the USA, and yeah, I have three degrees from Harvard, it would not surprise me if something was being stolen out of Harvard to turn over to China… the bottom line is, …and I drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the biological weapons convention, that was approved unanimously by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bush, Senior, that it appears the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaked out of that Wuhan BSL-4 [lab]. I’m not saying it was done deliberately, but there have been previous reports of problems with that lab and things leaking out of it, and I’m afraid that is what we are dealing with today.

 

Virus was stolen from Canada and weaponized: https://greatgameindia.com/coronavirus-bioweapon/

Indian Authorities are investigating: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/india-probe-wuhan-institute-virology
https://greatgameindia.com/coronavirus-india-to-investigate-wuhan-institute-of-virology/

Canada launched an investigation: https://greatgameindia.com/canada-investigates-chinas-biological-espionage/

And one of their key scientists (Frank Plummer) on the investegation died under mysterious conditions out of the country after the investigation was announced: https://greatgameindia.com/frank-plummer-canadian-lab-scientist-key-to-coronavirus-investigation-assassinated/

In 2003 a Chinese General stated the need for China to produce Bioweapons and that was a driver for the Level 4 lab at Wuhan: https://greatgameindia.com/coronavirus-chinas-secret-plan-to-weaponize-viruses/

 This and other information was posted by Natural News, Zero Hedge, Great Game India, and a few other sites. All of these sites have been subject to cyber attacks after publishing this information. (Adding credence to the fact that it's true and someone doesn't want the news out).

Tom Cotton - US Senator from Arkansas: https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1222962874932453377

The US is also now investigating possible lab-created origins: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-asks-scientists-investigate-origins-coronavirus/story?id=68807304

So yes - while only a few sites are REPORTING this, numerous SOURCES are indicating it's lab made.

(See, that's how evidence is provided. Links to exact claim.)

4) Again, you're implying intent. You can't prove intent, especially if you're wrong!

So again - you're the only one 'smearing others' as you put it.

22 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

Yes. Amalgam is used, even today. isn't that amazing? 

This is like a wee grandson asking: grandpa did you have phones when you were a kid?

Do I need any more proof when I say the vast majority of Westerners know nearly zero about China? 

 

And that's no proof of anything. There are many different kinds of filling that could be used, openly admitting he didn't know what 'current practices' were only shows he's being forthcoming about his knowledge on one specific subject. A far cry from 'zero about China'. Further, it's incredibly ignorant to take one person's comment and extract to all of 'Westerners'.

 

[GunnysGhost + 157]

10 hours ago, frankfurter said:

A person accuses PR China of deliberately, repeatedly, and annually putting the world at risk for deadly diseases. This is a baseless accusation. The historical facts prove otherwise. 

You're refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that the Chinese GOVERNMENT (which does not = 'all Chinese persons')

is

a) incompetent

b) embarrassed

c) lying to cover incompetence and embarrassment, and thus

Negligent. 

Its not that they necessarily wanted to infect the world, but the Communist Idiot Government of China has repeatedly shown that they don't know how to handle crises, or rather they 'handle' them in ruthless ways that cause far more death and destruction than is necessary or tolerable in more humanitarian governments with a free press. 

 CCP members are vile, cruel, and still yet flailing buffoons. 

The CCP treats their own citizens as commodities to further the goals of party members.  Even to the point of mass murder.  You don't get more vile than that. 

No, I'm not interested in 60 or 160 years ago anywhere else in the world.  Right NOW, the CCP is a holocaust hotbed.

 

Cheers!

Edited February 11, 2020 by GunnysGhost

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Dentists in Canada rarely use amalgam anymore.

White composite restorations are standard for cosmetic reasons and irrational fears over Hg poisoning.

FYI your Hg filling won't hurt you even if you swallow it. The mercury is locked into the silver and even then metallic mercury is of low toxicity.  The problem is when mercury mixes with organic material and settles into anaerobic conditions at the bottom of a lake and become methylmercury or worse.

Our lab had a small bottle of methylmercury just to prove one of our tests detected it properly.  Years later we decided to send it to hazardous waste after using maybe a quarter gram of it total. I don't want some curious summer student to find that in the chemical cabinet and kill us all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Bob D + 562]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I found it fascinating how the rates of infection follow the time honored tradition of MAKING SH!T UP as we progress through the Coronavirus life cycle.

https://www.epsilontheory.com/body-count/

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 minutes ago, Bob D said:

I don't know if this has been posted yet but I found it fascinating how the rates of infection follow the time honored tradition of MAKING SH!T UP as we progress through the Coronavirus life cycle.

https://www.epsilontheory.com/body-count/

Yes, I read this link earlier as well.  Some good points made there.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes, I read this link earlier as well.  Some good points made there.

I stopped reading when the author started using the term exponential growth.

If you want to pretend to know science at least know that e^x is different from x^C (better referred to as "algebraic growth" like his quadratic eq). Pedantic I know.

 

[Bob D + 562]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I stopped reading when the author started using the term exponential growth.

If you want to pretend to know science at least know that e^x is different from x^C (better referred to as "algebraic growth" like his quadratic eq). Pedantic I know.

 

Understandable based on your understanding of science.

But what about the author's ability to predetermine China's Coronavirus cases within a tiny margin of error?

Simple case of controlling the dissemination of data to control the message.  No??

  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

I stopped reading when the author started using the term exponential growth.

If you want to pretend to know science at least know that e^x is different from x^C (better referred to as "algebraic growth" like his quadratic eq). Pedantic I know.

 

You should start reading again so you can find out why he's calling out the quadratic equation. Or keep being pedantic and look foolish to boot. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You should start reading again so you can find out why he's calling out the quadratic equation. Or keep being pedantic and look foolish to boot. 

You should know that when you start doing real math on these equations (rate of change, area under the curve) using base e has many advantages.

I will finish the article.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Sorry can't finish it - guy has zero understanding of math.

The quadratic equation he hates has a second ordered term in it "123.31x^2."  Call that the "exponential growth" factor if you want.

High order polynomials can fit any model which is both an advantage and a weakness.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

We are not modelling a bacterium in a bath of unlimited food...

Using a polynomial is a good idea:

X^C1 + C2(x) + C3

x^C1 for "exponential spread"

C2x for "people who recovered"

C3 "people who died"

Constants can be negative numbers. Exponents need not be integers.

#HighSchoolMathInCanada

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Well, though I didn't care for the book Matterhorn, the guy was writing for a crowd of non-mathematicians. I thought he got the point across fairly well. At least he knew about Poisson regression. Epidemiology is sloppy science by definition.  

That R Naught probably should be done in. It has always been used to define the reproductive quotient. In the case of a lot of viruses, that's a moving target due to mutation during the passage through merely one person's DNA. So it's possible to enter a host with an R(0) of 2.2--like this coronavirus started at--and have an R(0) of 4 within 24 hours. That's only one reason why epidemiology is sloppy science and math. 

Anyway, I'm not defending the guy but he reviewed quadratic progression as a nonstarter for biological reproduction and did a pretty good job of pointing out the "exponential" curve that is drawn as an epidemic gets under way . . . which I think was his goal. I imagine he would get laughed out of an advanced math program but he was teaching Everyman (like me), not trying to win the Fields Medal. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

11 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Well, though I didn't care for the book Matterhorn, the guy was writing for a crowd of non-mathematicians. I thought he got the point across fairly well. At least he knew about Poisson regression. Epidemiology is sloppy science by definition.  

That R Naught probably should be done in. It has always been used to define the reproductive quotient. In the case of a lot of viruses, that's a moving target due to mutation during the passage through merely one person's DNA. So it's possible to enter a host with an R(0) of 2.2--like this coronavirus started at--and have an R(0) of 4 within 24 hours. That's only one reason why epidemiology is sloppy science and math. 

Anyway, I'm not defending the guy but he reviewed quadratic progression as a nonstarter for biological reproduction and did a pretty good job of pointing out the "exponential" curve that is drawn as an epidemic gets under way . . . which I think was his goal. I imagine he would get laughed out of an advanced math program but he was teaching Everyman (like me), not trying to win the Fields Medal. 

I failed Intermediate Calculus II (my forth university level calculus course) the first try. I'm no math pro. I just got high marks in organic chem to offset my poor math grades.

I passed it on the second try (a requirement for the fancier specialization chem degree).

The prof sat next to me at my convocation breakfast (alumni association contribution pitch) not sure if that was his idea, God, or coincidence.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Enthalpic

[wrs + 893]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Sorry can't finish it - guy has zero understanding of math.

The quadratic equation he hates has a second ordered term in it "123.31x^2."  Call that the "exponential growth" factor if you want.

High order polynomials can fit any model which is both an advantage and a weakness.

Producing an approximation function doesn't mean you have a model of the actual mechanism that is producing the data.  This is what people who don't have experience with modeling and approximation don't get.  I also don't know what your example of the quadratic is supposed to sum to.  In the article it was body count.  I don't see where your proposed coefficients relate to a sum of dead bodies.

Either way, just taking some data and using basic curve fitting techniques to model the data doesn't tell you anything, it's just an exercise in curve fitting.  The lancet article was more to the point but still, trying to model the spread of a disease with so many unknowns is futile.  I would say that to dismiss the goal seeked data on the basis of whether or not a best fit curve is polynomial or exponential is not convincing to me.  I can accept that the data is goal seeked without mathematics of dubious applicability.

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

On 2/7/2020 at 11:50 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

With 35,000 new cases in two months, and 720 deaths reported by the Chinese, I'd have to surmise that this virus--no matter the polemic--has found a fairly effective gene pool in which to replicate and maintain itself. 

There have always been viruses that jump genus and species lines. Some (rabies, for example) do this routinely--back and forth--living in squirrels without harm, but causing hydrophobia in dogs and humans. Others run amok for awhile and then disappear, as you say, like the SARS virus. I'm not at all sure that there's a good way to determine which category this particular coronavirus falls into.

I began doing virus research in 1966. Even then, we were petrified at so-called zoonotic viruses coming from the DNA replication machinery of say bats, spending some interim time in a different host, say rabbits, with this intermediate host experience conferring the ability to cozy into humans' DNA. Since we had bats, rabbits and humans all living together in our research wing, sharing the same air, this was no idle concern. Put dozens of exotic wildlife--all harboring viruses--in a wet market and the odds go up that something bizarre will happen. 

Theoretically, any virus that has a DNA or RNA sequence that will fit into the stoichiometry of the host DNA can replicate using host machinery and render the host sick or dead. That reproductive ability has forever been called R Naught. Polio has an R Naught of 4. This new virus had one of 2.2 at the beginning. That's not to be sneezed at.

After three years of research on viruses, I went in a different direction, so I am not the last word on this. For example, I must confess that I am not familiar with the term, "polemic virus." I have no idea how someone could possibly predict whether a new rogue virus will "learn" to fit in, like the rabies virus, the Herpes viruses, or the HIV viruses. Or whether, when they try to wedge back into their original host genome, they find that they no longer "fit. It would seem that this latter encounter was the way of the SARS virus.

Maybe I've gotten so out of touch that I no longer know the lingo, much less the mechanism. However, I do know that this particular zoonotic virus is one mean sucker. If it was tinkered with, making its glycoprotein spicules more malevolent, then it may be around for a very long time. If it jumped, from a bat or a snake or even a pangolin (which apparently houses a virus with a 99% genetic match), then it could potentially just put itself out of commission via replication and/or mutation, never to be seen again. 

Having acquired a strong respect for the poliovirus, which causes a sore throat in some, but paralyzes others (and killed my brother of bulbar polio) I would be slow to dismiss this current specimen as a harmless traveler in the genes of man. The stakes are a bit too high.

What a great response. Thanks. Luckily no one counts on me to do anything.  I just like discussing. 10 years ago I would have been neck deep in thinking that this is some terrible harbinger of a worldwide pandemic. Since I have learned more about reality and it has calmed me quite a bit.  One is that we have a global pandemic that kills up to 60,000  people. It's called the seasonal flu. It kills up to 650,000 people worldwide every year. EVERY year. Over half a million people... but it's acceptable.  The Flu is not "polemic" - single source. The flu is generalized and endemic in humans. I have to say it again ... over half a million people every year... nobody even blinks an eye. 35,000 - 70,000 Americans every year... "where are we going for lunch?" 

The flu only lasts for about 6 months.  So 50,000 people in 6 months means 275 people every single day go into the hospital upright and come out the basement in a body bag. Because of the flu. The highest number of deaths in Vietnam in a single day was 248. Every day during the flu season more Americans die than died in the worst day in Vietnam.  Yet our flu virus is 10% effective, 20% effective?  Not much more than that! 

So, I've learned over the past 10 years how insignificant global pandemics are in REALITY, not rhetorically. In reality half a million people die from the flu and it makes absolutely no difference. 30,000 - 70,000 Americans die in 6 months and it just doesn't matter. 

So that's the basis for my indifference to the Coronavirus. 1000 deaths in what 2 months?  If we multiply that by 3 to get us to a 6 month virility period we get to 3,000 deaths?  I would gladly take 3,000 deaths from a virus instead of 600,000. 200 times fewer than the flu. But it's news 6 hours a day. 

The topic is how it affects oil.

What does that mean for the world’s 2020 oil demand?

Assessing the impact of the virus, Rystad Energy is heavily revising its annual global oil demand growth forecast down by 25% to 820,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2020.

Our previous growth forecast, published in December, before the coronavirus outbreak, stood at 1.1 million bpd. The coronavirus’ impact on demand growth could be even wider, however, slashing growth to as low as 650,000 bpd year on year (y/y) in our worst case scenario.

-----

So oil demand is still going to GROW by 650,000 bpd even With the Coronavirus.  Anyone blaming this virus for the demise of oil prices is just delusional. The destruction of oil prices is caused by the oversupply of oil. Pure and simple.  It's the old farmer logic that if I make $10 per bushel for this much grain, then let's make 10x more grain.  Commodities don't work that way. Oil production is destroying oil prices even in the face of rising demand.  So, enjoy $40 a barrel for a while coronavirus or not. 

Don't worry, once the banking system completes its abandonment of tight oil the price will go back up in a big way!  Just work as a substitute chemistry teacher in the meantime.