COVID-19's Hard Fail
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
The language police hate to see it:
All these miscreants will get what’s coming to them, lousy racists!
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Commenters to ignore (one per line)
Commenters to follow (one per line)
Trim Comments?
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
AE — Can you do me (and the world) a favor and look for yourself into the Coronavirus — dry air nexus and let me know what you think if you wouldn’t mind?
I don’t see any evidence that I am wrong, and an rationally skeptical view would be good for me to see if there is one.
If I am right, then it is a pretty f$cking important message.
Day by day my bitterness at the stupidity of the world grows. That people can greatly protect themselves by humidifying is so clear to me, empirically speaking, and yet it seems like America cannot climb over a one-foot-tall mental wall to save itself from a viral respiratory pandemic. As the Derb would helpfully point out, we are doomed.
Eventually, America will be saved as the good Lord supplies the humid air of spring. But will the obvious solution just never get through? I supposed everyone just say, gee, coronavirus all went away suddenly for no reason at all. Cool.
http://www.twitter.com/JeromeRoos/status/1236729011889418246Replies: @res, @res
I don't see any evidence that I am wrong, and an rationally skeptical view would be good for me to see if there is one.
If I am right, then it is a pretty f$cking important message.
Day by day my bitterness at the stupidity of the world grows. That people can greatly protect themselves by humidifying is so clear to me, empirically speaking, and yet it seems like America cannot climb over a one-foot-tall mental wall to save itself from a viral respiratory pandemic. As the Derb would helpfully point out, we are doomed.
Eventually, America will be saved as the good Lord supplies the humid air of spring. But will the obvious solution just never get through? I supposed everyone just say, gee, coronavirus all went away suddenly for no reason at all. Cool.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Sparkon, @dvorak, @Audacious Epigone
He made an entire post about it already. Did you not see?
I am thank AE for that, but also I'd love to see the correlations he finds between indoor humidity (which you would have to calculate) and spread, or non-spread, of COVID-19. To me, the correlations are very strong.
His powers of analysis are very strong, of course, and I figure this is an incredibly important bit of information. Right now, the US economy is being wrecked in real time (and Trump's reelection chances?) as people panic over this virus.
If there is an error in my reasoning, I want to find it but I don't see an error with it.Replies: @res
Wuhan Flu. Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Wuhan Flu…
Got to shame the Chinese in to ending wet markets?
Well I don't know where the bats fly to
But they sure do fly
I ain't eating 'em in any Chinese bat soup
And I don't know how the Chinese eat those bug eater bats
Our little bat pals use sonar when they do their loop de loop
The Chinese got bat soup fever
Bat soup fever
https://youtu.be/I47floRRAFsReplies: @SunBakedSuburb
Technically there are lots of other coronaviruses, but yes.
Of course it was supposed to replace ‘Wuhan virus’ or ‘Wuhan flu’ to avoid being anti-Chinese–run that one. Maybe it did its job there? (Arguably that would have happened anyway–damn thing’s way past Wuhan now.)
‘Coronavirus’ is just too catchy with the beer jokes.
Humorously, "Wuhan virus" spiked in late January, went down through February, and then started climbing at the beginning of this week as people defended against the PC mobs by going back and finding previous instances of it being referred to in that way. That phrase probably would've died out on its own had the witch hunters not made a virtue-signalling stunt out of it. Familiar pattern, that.Replies: @iffen
Of course I saw his post, and I commented extensively under that post.
I am thank AE for that, but also I’d love to see the correlations he finds between indoor humidity (which you would have to calculate) and spread, or non-spread, of COVID-19. To me, the correlations are very strong.
His powers of analysis are very strong, of course, and I figure this is an incredibly important bit of information. Right now, the US economy is being wrecked in real time (and Trump’s reelection chances?) as people panic over this virus.
If there is an error in my reasoning, I want to find it but I don’t see an error with it.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
I only looked at a few, but this one seemed very relevant.
Absolute Humidity and Pandemic Versus Epidemic Influenza
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/bin/amjepidkwq347f01_ht.jpg
Do you have a sense of how much this relates to individual susceptibility vs. transmission? Put another way, would an individual using a humidifier help much, or is it mostly a matter of the environmental humidity?
Info about converting specific to relative humidity (and concrete examples) after the MORE.
Thi pages has an R function for converting specific to relative humidity.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/how-do-i-convert-specific-humidity-to-relative-humidity
Some useful reference numbers (from table below) are at a room temperature of 20 C / 68 F
Easy transmission (SH 0.005) occurs at a RH of 35%
Decreased transmission (SH 0.01) occurs at a RH of 69%
Here is a little block of R code I wrote to give some example values to put the plot above in perspective. I would appreciate a quick double check to make sure I have not made any mistakes.The output:
| qair| temp| rh|
|------:|----:|---------:|
| 0.0025| 0| 0.6653093|
| 0.0050| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0100| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 10| 0.3313617|
| 0.0050| 10| 0.6617196|
| 0.0100| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 20| 0.1740035|
| 0.0050| 20| 0.3474799|
| 0.0100| 20| 0.6928609|
| 0.0150| 20| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 30| 0.0957790|
| 0.0050| 30| 0.1912679|
| 0.0100| 30| 0.3813804|
| 0.0150| 30| 0.5703480|Replies: @Audacious Epigone
I don’t see the big deal, coronaviruses are many, that’s why they call it “novel coronavirus” even if that is also not an accurate term, and COVID-19 is not very marketable. People like more dramatic names. This one could be “bat fever” or “Chinese flu”. Racist? I don’t know. Did people start hating the Spanish because of the “Spanish flu”? Actually, the so-called “Spanish flu” wasn’t Spanish and did not originate or was particularly fatal in Spain, actually it was one of the less affected countries. Names are like that. People call them “French fries” and they are from Belgium. Etc.
It only took a couple of weeks for the Iranian General to retreat into obscurity: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Soleimani
COVID-19 was never going to last. I mean, it’s so last year…
Got to shame the Chinese in to ending wet markets?Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Mr McKenna
BAT SOUP FEVER
Well I don’t know where the bats fly to
But they sure do fly
I ain’t eating ’em in any Chinese bat soup
And I don’t know how the Chinese eat those bug eater bats
Our little bat pals use sonar when they do their loop de loop
The Chinese got bat soup fever
Bat soup fever
It doesn’t exactly glide off the tip of the tongue, but even if most people aren’t using it, you need a more specific name for scientific papers, so it makes sense on that level (fairly short and specific, easy to search), even if the expressed motivation – not to stigmatize – seems overly PC.
I am thank AE for that, but also I'd love to see the correlations he finds between indoor humidity (which you would have to calculate) and spread, or non-spread, of COVID-19. To me, the correlations are very strong.
His powers of analysis are very strong, of course, and I figure this is an incredibly important bit of information. Right now, the US economy is being wrecked in real time (and Trump's reelection chances?) as people panic over this virus.
If there is an error in my reasoning, I want to find it but I don't see an error with it.Replies: @res
I’m not sure the necessary data is sufficiently available and reliable. You included a comprehensive list of references in this comment:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
I only looked at a few, but this one seemed very relevant.
Absolute Humidity and Pandemic Versus Epidemic Influenza
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/
Do you have a sense of how much this relates to individual susceptibility vs. transmission? Put another way, would an individual using a humidifier help much, or is it mostly a matter of the environmental humidity?
Info about converting specific to relative humidity (and concrete examples) after the MORE.
Thi pages has an R function for converting specific to relative humidity.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/how-do-i-convert-specific-humidity-to-relative-humidity
Some useful reference numbers (from table below) are at a room temperature of 20 C / 68 F
Easy transmission (SH 0.005) occurs at a RH of 35%
Decreased transmission (SH 0.01) occurs at a RH of 69%
Here is a little block of R code I wrote to give some example values to put the plot above in perspective. I would appreciate a quick double check to make sure I have not made any mistakes.
The output:
| qair| temp| rh|
|——:|—-:|———:|
| 0.0025| 0| 0.6653093|
| 0.0050| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0100| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 10| 0.3313617|
| 0.0050| 10| 0.6617196|
| 0.0100| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 20| 0.1740035|
| 0.0050| 20| 0.3474799|
| 0.0100| 20| 0.6928609|
| 0.0150| 20| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 30| 0.0957790|
| 0.0050| 30| 0.1912679|
| 0.0100| 30| 0.3813804|
| 0.0150| 30| 0.5703480|
Well I don't know where the bats fly to
But they sure do fly
I ain't eating 'em in any Chinese bat soup
And I don't know how the Chinese eat those bug eater bats
Our little bat pals use sonar when they do their loop de loop
The Chinese got bat soup fever
Bat soup fever
https://youtu.be/I47floRRAFsReplies: @SunBakedSuburb
Bat Soup Fever is good. In my circle of invisible friends, I refer to COVID-19 as Corvinusvirus or the FuManFlu (because the virus was probably invented by evil genius Fu Manchu).
I’ve been trying out ‘Wuhan Flu-Manchu‘, but since Fu Manchu isn’t in the Marvel or DC Comics universes, he may as well not exist.
Lung Flu
Got to shame the Chinese in to ending wet markets?Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Mr McKenna
Good luck with shaming the Chinese..
Oh dear. This pestilence is even more pernicious than we thought.
At least most commenters here have an acquired immunity.Replies: @dc.sunsets
Oh dear. This pestilence is even more pernicious than we thought.
At least most commenters here have an acquired immunity.
I think she's in love with me. I haven't the time to explain to her that (1) I'm happily married and (2) I didn't ever date fat chicks like her. She should go find a quart of Hagen Das and feed all her cats.
I've voted for Wu Flu. It's short and catchy (in a way.)
I also vote for the term Bondfire, for the time in some year ahead when people stop paying nearly $100k for a 30 year T-bond that promises to pay $100k thirty years from now. When the time comes that people awaken from their stupor and realize the world is awash in "wealth" that is nothing but Popeye's Wimpy promising $1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars next week if only they'll be given $500,000,000,000,000 today, most of the "wealth" will evaporate.
PS: If stock markets have lost $2 trillion, my bet is that as interest rates fell to near zero, the value of "wealth" in bonds rose by many times $2 trillion. The whole thing is a joke.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
I don't see any evidence that I am wrong, and an rationally skeptical view would be good for me to see if there is one.
If I am right, then it is a pretty f$cking important message.
Day by day my bitterness at the stupidity of the world grows. That people can greatly protect themselves by humidifying is so clear to me, empirically speaking, and yet it seems like America cannot climb over a one-foot-tall mental wall to save itself from a viral respiratory pandemic. As the Derb would helpfully point out, we are doomed.
Eventually, America will be saved as the good Lord supplies the humid air of spring. But will the obvious solution just never get through? I supposed everyone just say, gee, coronavirus all went away suddenly for no reason at all. Cool.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Sparkon, @dvorak, @Audacious Epigone
I‘m not convinced humidity is a major player in the spread of this (or any) virus, and there are studies backing up my instincts about the flu.
https://www.health24.com/Medical/Flu/News/humidity-doesnt-slow-down-spread-of-flu-virus-20180813
But I am certain that a dirty humidifier is likely to contribute to the spread of airborne disease, rather than inhibit it. Few people, I suggest, are going to exert the effort necessary to ensure their humidifier is clean because that means, in most cases, daily cleaning.
Please see my previous comment and the linked article about creepy humidifiers here:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/coronavirus-open-thread/#comment-3761940
As others have indicated, I suggest cigarette smoking is more likely a common denominator in the spread of this virus, because of impaired lung function, poor health, and also generally reduced immune response among smokers.
Smokers are also more likely to complain about dry throat, and also probably more likely to have a humidifier running.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
with one article from the popular press. Let's take a closer look.
Here is the paper underlying that article (which as far as I see they were not kind enough to link directly):
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/218/5/739/5025997
And the abstract:So basically they tested a hypothetical mechanism of transmission and found that it was unaffected by relative humidity. They did their experiment at 25 C so their lowest RH of 23% corresponds to a specific humidity of 4.48 kg/kg (using the converter I linked above) which is low enough (see the graphic I embedded above) for easy transmission in at least one study.
So we have a long list of papers (including observational studies) contending humidity is an issue versus a single paper (looking only at a hypothetical mechanism in the lab) concluding otherwise. I know which of those sets of evidence I am going to believe. And it is not the one you gave.
On the other hand, I do agree there are issues possible with poorly maintained humidifiers.Replies: @Sparkon
So you respond to someone who posted an extensive list of references to academic papers here:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
with one article from the popular press. Let’s take a closer look.
Here is the paper underlying that article (which as far as I see they were not kind enough to link directly):
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/218/5/739/5025997
And the abstract:
So basically they tested a hypothetical mechanism of transmission and found that it was unaffected by relative humidity. They did their experiment at 25 C so their lowest RH of 23% corresponds to a specific humidity of 4.48 kg/kg (using the converter I linked above) which is low enough (see the graphic I embedded above) for easy transmission in at least one study.
So we have a long list of papers (including observational studies) contending humidity is an issue versus a single paper (looking only at a hypothetical mechanism in the lab) concluding otherwise. I know which of those sets of evidence I am going to believe. And it is not the one you gave.
On the other hand, I do agree there are issues possible with poorly maintained humidifiers.
Anyway, I think for myself. If the humidity theory had any merit, the disease would have broken out in a dry part of China rather than a humid one, and Wuhan is about as damp as it gets.
In fact, the Yangtze River flows right through Wuhan, dividing the city in half. With that big river, several smaller ones, a big lake, 200 smaller ones, and numerous wetlands, it should be no surprise that Wuhan is a very wet and humid environment.I have done a spot-check on Wuhan's weather for December 2019, when the outbreak started, and January 2020. Consistently, the numbers for relative humidity are very high - 70-90% - only rarely dipping to even 29% for a few hours on a few days, and the temperature rarely dropping below freezing during those months.
Indeed, based on those data, the more logical argument would appear to be that Wuhan's very high winter humidity and relative warmth could have played a role in its rapid spread in that area during that time.
After all, the upper and lower respiratory tracts are moist environments. It is thought that the virus likes and settles the lungs, and is expelled during coughing and sneezing, and probably with every exhalation, which is comprised of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and various bacteria, viruses, and fungi that reside in the human airways, and hitch a ride on the outbound aerosol.
So perhaps the fact this virus broke out in the wettest urban environment in China does not deal a fatal blow to the high humidity is better conjecture, but wouldn't you concede that it puts at least a wee ding in it, and at worst, this niggling little fact shows they've got it entirely bass-ackwards?Replies: @res
IU am going to remain where I came in.
Thus far, the evidence suggests that we are not in track for a pandemic of anywhere near catastrophic consequence.
What is happening in the US is not reflective one any failing by the admin. Where is very few walls that can be built against airborne contagions. But as with HIV there are steps individuals can take to minimize the risks and impacts.
I am going to hazard a guess here ans suggest that this is more Never Trump behavior disguised as saving the country from the Russian Manchurian candidate syndrome. Like all flu’s, colds and other airborne illnesses that set upon human beings, we should exercis caution. —
But there is nothing prudent about the fear mongering that is taking place. And even this becomes a “ral” pandemic, the WH would still not be at fault. Should they be honest — I think so. Should they be informative and accurate, I think so.
But in the history of human beings no admin anywhere in the world is known for stopping a virus or bacteria of this nature. On can tackle the matter once it hits ground, there are measures that could dampen —
but no one really has a hands on knowledge of when or hoe to implement such measures against an unknown. I remember the liberal screams against the admin of Pres Reagan about HIV. And at the end of the day, what brought the matter under some relief — was individual behavior – not government action or inaction. The CDC was no less effective than the top epidemiologists on the globe who debated and researched and got the what’s, the where’s and the how’s initially wrong.
In fact, that debate still goes on as small cadre of intelligent men and women challenge the mainstream narratives about the origins of HIV. Some actually believe that it l;ay dormant in Kinshasa for barely a hundred years and suddenly sprouted wings again in the late 70’s or some strange similar coincidence.
Laugh —- if i actually bought into global warming and attended to the dry hot climate arguments pressed here, i would sounds like global warming will solve.
Oy.
The Earth is alive and I have no doubt that along with the diversity and abundance of life there is to some illness for which our effectiveness will be as that of our ability to prevent volcanoes, tornados, floods and earthquakes . . . and unless the matter was man made as I belive is the case with HIV, and even then —-
humans are always facing near catastrophe — as part of life on our unique planet.
Peter Duesberg was right all along. HIV ain't the cause of anything.
But in this case I agree that the panic is largely a case of mass hysteria.
At least most commenters here have an acquired immunity.Replies: @dc.sunsets
Corry followed me to another site.
I think she’s in love with me. I haven’t the time to explain to her that (1) I’m happily married and (2) I didn’t ever date fat chicks like her. She should go find a quart of Hagen Das and feed all her cats.
I’ve voted for Wu Flu. It’s short and catchy (in a way.)
I also vote for the term Bondfire, for the time in some year ahead when people stop paying nearly $100k for a 30 year T-bond that promises to pay $100k thirty years from now. When the time comes that people awaken from their stupor and realize the world is awash in “wealth” that is nothing but Popeye’s Wimpy promising $1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars next week if only they’ll be given $500,000,000,000,000 today, most of the “wealth” will evaporate.
PS: If stock markets have lost $2 trillion, my bet is that as interest rates fell to near zero, the value of “wealth” in bonds rose by many times $2 trillion. The whole thing is a joke.
Thus far, the evidence suggests that we are not in track for a pandemic of anywhere near catastrophic consequence.
What is happening in the US is not reflective one any failing by the admin. Where is very few walls that can be built against airborne contagions. But as with HIV there are steps individuals can take to minimize the risks and impacts.
I am going to hazard a guess here ans suggest that this is more Never Trump behavior disguised as saving the country from the Russian Manchurian candidate syndrome. Like all flu's, colds and other airborne illnesses that set upon human beings, we should exercis caution. ---
But there is nothing prudent about the fear mongering that is taking place. And even this becomes a "ral" pandemic, the WH would still not be at fault. Should they be honest -- I think so. Should they be informative and accurate, I think so.
But in the history of human beings no admin anywhere in the world is known for stopping a virus or bacteria of this nature. On can tackle the matter once it hits ground, there are measures that could dampen ---
but no one really has a hands on knowledge of when or hoe to implement such measures against an unknown. I remember the liberal screams against the admin of Pres Reagan about HIV. And at the end of the day, what brought the matter under some relief -- was individual behavior - not government action or inaction. The CDC was no less effective than the top epidemiologists on the globe who debated and researched and got the what's, the where's and the how's initially wrong.
In fact, that debate still goes on as small cadre of intelligent men and women challenge the mainstream narratives about the origins of HIV. Some actually believe that it l;ay dormant in Kinshasa for barely a hundred years and suddenly sprouted wings again in the late 70's or some strange similar coincidence.
Laugh ---- if i actually bought into global warming and attended to the dry hot climate arguments pressed here, i would sounds like global warming will solve.
Oy.
The Earth is alive and I have no doubt that along with the diversity and abundance of life there is to some illness for which our effectiveness will be as that of our ability to prevent volcanoes, tornados, floods and earthquakes . . . and unless the matter was man made as I belive is the case with HIV, and even then ----
humans are always facing near catastrophe -- as part of life on our unique planet.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @dfordoom
It’s the only retrovirus supposedly to cause an entire sydrome of multiple, discrete illnesses (and the list was massaged when not enough people with Kaposi’s Sarcoma lit up on a Western Blot, where such massaging is a hallmark of junk science.)
Peter Duesberg was right all along. HIV ain’t the cause of anything.
Hardly wet cold climates
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18063-timeline-the-secret-history-of-swine-flu/
“March 2009
The first cases of a new type of swine flu are reported in California and Texas in late March. Subsequent genetic analysis suggests that it may have started circulating in humans in January.
April 2009
On 27 April, with 900 cases of suspected swine flu reported in Mexico, the World Health Organization (WHO) upgrades the pandemic warning level from 3 to 4 on a six-point scale. Intensive efforts to understand the virus and develop a vaccine begin immediately.”
—————————————-
“It’s the only retrovirus supposedly to cause an entire sydrome of multiple, discrete illnesses (and the list was massaged when not enough people with Kaposi’s Sarcoma lit up on a Western Blot, where such massaging is a hallmark of junk science.)
Peter Duesberg was right all along. HIV ain’t the cause of anything.”
I have not looked at the claims that HIV is a nonissue, though, I have heard them. The problem is that people with AIDS have a multiplicity of heath issues.
Tangentially, I laugh at the term, "homophobe." People who are utterly disgusted by the throw-up-in-mouth actions of most homosexual men are not afraid of such people.
And from my perspective, it's beyond obvious that the movement to "normalize" homosexuality (esp. among men) is all about growing the opportunity for adults who want to prey on adolescent boys by reducing the outrage/gag-on-gross factor society-wide, which moves more young people into position to be socially-engineered into letting some parasite groom them into a same-sex sex act, after which the victim then concludes, "Oh, I guess I must be 'gay.'"
Normalizing homosexuality is all about enabling the most demonic among us to hunt those who are not yet adult enough to recognize manipulation when they see it.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
with one article from the popular press. Let's take a closer look.
Here is the paper underlying that article (which as far as I see they were not kind enough to link directly):
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/218/5/739/5025997
And the abstract:So basically they tested a hypothetical mechanism of transmission and found that it was unaffected by relative humidity. They did their experiment at 25 C so their lowest RH of 23% corresponds to a specific humidity of 4.48 kg/kg (using the converter I linked above) which is low enough (see the graphic I embedded above) for easy transmission in at least one study.
So we have a long list of papers (including observational studies) contending humidity is an issue versus a single paper (looking only at a hypothetical mechanism in the lab) concluding otherwise. I know which of those sets of evidence I am going to believe. And it is not the one you gave.
On the other hand, I do agree there are issues possible with poorly maintained humidifiers.Replies: @Sparkon
No, I responded to the guy who said
with two citations, not one.
Anyway, I think for myself. If the humidity theory had any merit, the disease would have broken out in a dry part of China rather than a humid one, and Wuhan is about as damp as it gets.
In fact, the Yangtze River flows right through Wuhan, dividing the city in half. With that big river, several smaller ones, a big lake, 200 smaller ones, and numerous wetlands, it should be no surprise that Wuhan is a very wet and humid environment.
I have done a spot-check on Wuhan’s weather for December 2019, when the outbreak started, and January 2020. Consistently, the numbers for relative humidity are very high – 70-90% – only rarely dipping to even 29% for a few hours on a few days, and the temperature rarely dropping below freezing during those months.
Indeed, based on those data, the more logical argument would appear to be that Wuhan’s very high winter humidity and relative warmth could have played a role in its rapid spread in that area during that time.
After all, the upper and lower respiratory tracts are moist environments. It is thought that the virus likes and settles the lungs, and is expelled during coughing and sneezing, and probably with every exhalation, which is comprised of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and various bacteria, viruses, and fungi that reside in the human airways, and hitch a ride on the outbound aerosol.
So perhaps the fact this virus broke out in the wettest urban environment in China does not deal a fatal blow to the high humidity is better conjecture, but wouldn’t you concede that it puts at least a wee ding in it, and at worst, this niggling little fact shows they’ve got it entirely bass-ackwards?
A good proxy for absolute humidity is dew point. Current weather in Wuhan has a dew point of 43 F (and a relative humidity of 82%). That gives a specific humidity a little under 6 g/kg which is on the dry side, but not especially so.
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/cn/wuhan/ZHHH
Back on January 11 (chosen because it was easy to just change the month on the web page) the dew point ranged between 34-37 F.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/cn/wuhan/ZHHH/date/2020-1-11
A 2 C dew point corresponds to an SH of 4.5 g/kg. Which is dry for these purposes. See the chart I included in comment 10.See above. And perhaps try to be a bit less smug in your next comment. Though it does it make it more entertaining when you are both smug and wrong.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Sparkon
Anyway, I think for myself. If the humidity theory had any merit, the disease would have broken out in a dry part of China rather than a humid one, and Wuhan is about as damp as it gets.
In fact, the Yangtze River flows right through Wuhan, dividing the city in half. With that big river, several smaller ones, a big lake, 200 smaller ones, and numerous wetlands, it should be no surprise that Wuhan is a very wet and humid environment.I have done a spot-check on Wuhan's weather for December 2019, when the outbreak started, and January 2020. Consistently, the numbers for relative humidity are very high - 70-90% - only rarely dipping to even 29% for a few hours on a few days, and the temperature rarely dropping below freezing during those months.
Indeed, based on those data, the more logical argument would appear to be that Wuhan's very high winter humidity and relative warmth could have played a role in its rapid spread in that area during that time.
After all, the upper and lower respiratory tracts are moist environments. It is thought that the virus likes and settles the lungs, and is expelled during coughing and sneezing, and probably with every exhalation, which is comprised of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and various bacteria, viruses, and fungi that reside in the human airways, and hitch a ride on the outbound aerosol.
So perhaps the fact this virus broke out in the wettest urban environment in China does not deal a fatal blow to the high humidity is better conjecture, but wouldn't you concede that it puts at least a wee ding in it, and at worst, this niggling little fact shows they've got it entirely bass-ackwards?Replies: @res
Look at the absolute humidity instead then come back and talk about the Wuhan conditions.
A good proxy for absolute humidity is dew point. Current weather in Wuhan has a dew point of 43 F (and a relative humidity of 82%). That gives a specific humidity a little under 6 g/kg which is on the dry side, but not especially so.
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/cn/wuhan/ZHHH
Back on January 11 (chosen because it was easy to just change the month on the web page) the dew point ranged between 34-37 F.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/cn/wuhan/ZHHH/date/2020-1-11
A 2 C dew point corresponds to an SH of 4.5 g/kg. Which is dry for these purposes. See the chart I included in comment 10.
See above. And perhaps try to be a bit less smug in your next comment. Though it does it make it more entertaining when you are both smug and wrong.
I think the view you and DanHessinMD are promoting is interesting, but please recognize that the papers you guys are using are available to anyone, and if humidity was a realistic solution, it seems likely that other public health officials would have picked up on this too. It's possible, if not highly probable, that increasing humidity is not effective for practical reasons having nothing to do with the science of humidity-virus interactions. We don't know what public health officials have considered and rejected.
If you're able, maybe you could play Devil's Advocate and apply your big brain to proving why humidifying is going to be an ineffective strategy.Replies: @res
Yes, colder winter air can hold less total moisture than warmer, summer air, that's a given, but flu outbreaks occur in winter, and not in summer, so the wintertime relative humidity numbers during flu season should be what interest us in this context.
The initial coronavirus outbreak occurred in a relatively humid city, and not a dry one. However you want to measure it, Wuhan is very wet and humid when compared with all other large Chinese cities, as was noted.
My source shows very high RH for Wuhan on Jan. 11, 2020:
12 am - 94%, 6 am - 91%, 12 pm - 79%, 6 pm - 88%
Sun peeking through fog, Temperature 34° - 43°F
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/china/wuhan/historic?month=1&year=2020
Those quite high numbers for RH in Wuhan on 1/11, and for much of the month, attest to very damp wintertime conditions, as I've stated. Relative humidity means just what it says, and is a valuable index despite your fixation on absolute humidity. Cold or hot, high RH adds significantly to the discomfort index.
I note that microorganisms can hitch a ride on aerosols. Additionally, some viruses are more likely to be viable and infectous in a humid environment, while others do better in lower RH.https://aem.asm.org/content/78/19/6781
Since COVID-19 initially broke out in a city with high relative humidity during humid wintertime conditions, odds are this virus likes it damp.Replies: @res
A good proxy for absolute humidity is dew point. Current weather in Wuhan has a dew point of 43 F (and a relative humidity of 82%). That gives a specific humidity a little under 6 g/kg which is on the dry side, but not especially so.
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/cn/wuhan/ZHHH
Back on January 11 (chosen because it was easy to just change the month on the web page) the dew point ranged between 34-37 F.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/cn/wuhan/ZHHH/date/2020-1-11
A 2 C dew point corresponds to an SH of 4.5 g/kg. Which is dry for these purposes. See the chart I included in comment 10.See above. And perhaps try to be a bit less smug in your next comment. Though it does it make it more entertaining when you are both smug and wrong.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Sparkon
I think you and Sparkon are having an interesting back-and-forth, but please don’t spoil it by getting nasty (that goes for him too).
I think the view you and DanHessinMD are promoting is interesting, but please recognize that the papers you guys are using are available to anyone, and if humidity was a realistic solution, it seems likely that other public health officials would have picked up on this too. It’s possible, if not highly probable, that increasing humidity is not effective for practical reasons having nothing to do with the science of humidity-virus interactions. We don’t know what public health officials have considered and rejected.
If you’re able, maybe you could play Devil’s Advocate and apply your big brain to proving why humidifying is going to be an ineffective strategy.
You might consider reading about the COVID-19 vitamin C studies going on and the responses from the "experts" viewed through your lens as well.I've mostly been playing Devil's Advocate by questioning the idea that humidifiers will help (I think the evidence is less convincing for that). But I think the connection of absolute humidity and severity of outbreak is surprisingly consistent with the COVID-19 data we have for different locations.
EliteCommInc –
“But there is nothing prudent about the fear mongering that is taking place.”
Why did the Italians shut down their whole country?
20 days ago they had 20 cases. Now they have 9000 specifically identified ones and their hospitals are swamped, all with cases of the exact same type of pneumonia. I don’t know how many of the “pneumonia” cases are included in the official C19 numbers, it wouldn’t surprise me if many haven’t been explicitly tested, but the hospital staff all know what’s what. So the ~9000 number may or may not be accurate.
In the meantime the entire country is shut down with criminal penalties for travel.
Please point out the NeverTrump fear mongering on Italy’s part?
A good proxy for absolute humidity is dew point. Current weather in Wuhan has a dew point of 43 F (and a relative humidity of 82%). That gives a specific humidity a little under 6 g/kg which is on the dry side, but not especially so.
https://www.wunderground.com/weather/cn/wuhan/ZHHH
Back on January 11 (chosen because it was easy to just change the month on the web page) the dew point ranged between 34-37 F.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/cn/wuhan/ZHHH/date/2020-1-11
A 2 C dew point corresponds to an SH of 4.5 g/kg. Which is dry for these purposes. See the chart I included in comment 10.See above. And perhaps try to be a bit less smug in your next comment. Though it does it make it more entertaining when you are both smug and wrong.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Sparkon
What purposes are those, if not to compare apples and oranges, winter and summer? They call it relative humidity for a reason.
Yes, colder winter air can hold less total moisture than warmer, summer air, that’s a given, but flu outbreaks occur in winter, and not in summer, so the wintertime relative humidity numbers during flu season should be what interest us in this context.
The initial coronavirus outbreak occurred in a relatively humid city, and not a dry one. However you want to measure it, Wuhan is very wet and humid when compared with all other large Chinese cities, as was noted.
My source shows very high RH for Wuhan on Jan. 11, 2020:
12 am – 94%, 6 am – 91%, 12 pm – 79%, 6 pm – 88%
Sun peeking through fog, Temperature 34° – 43°F
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/china/wuhan/historic?month=1&year=2020
Those quite high numbers for RH in Wuhan on 1/11, and for much of the month, attest to very damp wintertime conditions, as I’ve stated. Relative humidity means just what it says, and is a valuable index despite your fixation on absolute humidity. Cold or hot, high RH adds significantly to the discomfort index.
I note that microorganisms can hitch a ride on aerosols. Additionally, some viruses are more likely to be viable and infectous in a humid environment, while others do better in lower RH.
https://aem.asm.org/content/78/19/6781
Since COVID-19 initially broke out in a city with high relative humidity during humid wintertime conditions, odds are this virus likes it damp.
Just for the record, I don’t believe this humidity theory is going to pan out any more than Lance Welton’s absurd racial theory; but unlike that one, it at least has some prime facie believability, some theoretical justification, and some practical application. Keep discussing good ideas!
Thus far, the evidence suggests that we are not in track for a pandemic of anywhere near catastrophic consequence.
What is happening in the US is not reflective one any failing by the admin. Where is very few walls that can be built against airborne contagions. But as with HIV there are steps individuals can take to minimize the risks and impacts.
I am going to hazard a guess here ans suggest that this is more Never Trump behavior disguised as saving the country from the Russian Manchurian candidate syndrome. Like all flu's, colds and other airborne illnesses that set upon human beings, we should exercis caution. ---
But there is nothing prudent about the fear mongering that is taking place. And even this becomes a "ral" pandemic, the WH would still not be at fault. Should they be honest -- I think so. Should they be informative and accurate, I think so.
But in the history of human beings no admin anywhere in the world is known for stopping a virus or bacteria of this nature. On can tackle the matter once it hits ground, there are measures that could dampen ---
but no one really has a hands on knowledge of when or hoe to implement such measures against an unknown. I remember the liberal screams against the admin of Pres Reagan about HIV. And at the end of the day, what brought the matter under some relief -- was individual behavior - not government action or inaction. The CDC was no less effective than the top epidemiologists on the globe who debated and researched and got the what's, the where's and the how's initially wrong.
In fact, that debate still goes on as small cadre of intelligent men and women challenge the mainstream narratives about the origins of HIV. Some actually believe that it l;ay dormant in Kinshasa for barely a hundred years and suddenly sprouted wings again in the late 70's or some strange similar coincidence.
Laugh ---- if i actually bought into global warming and attended to the dry hot climate arguments pressed here, i would sounds like global warming will solve.
Oy.
The Earth is alive and I have no doubt that along with the diversity and abundance of life there is to some illness for which our effectiveness will be as that of our ability to prevent volcanoes, tornados, floods and earthquakes . . . and unless the matter was man made as I belive is the case with HIV, and even then ----
humans are always facing near catastrophe -- as part of life on our unique planet.Replies: @dc.sunsets, @dfordoom
It could be done, but it won’t be done. It won’t be done because it might cause corporations and small businesses to lose some money and money is far more important than human lives. It certainly won’t be done in any democracy because there would be political costs and political costs matter more than human lives.
But in this case I agree that the panic is largely a case of mass hysteria.
Yes, colder winter air can hold less total moisture than warmer, summer air, that's a given, but flu outbreaks occur in winter, and not in summer, so the wintertime relative humidity numbers during flu season should be what interest us in this context.
The initial coronavirus outbreak occurred in a relatively humid city, and not a dry one. However you want to measure it, Wuhan is very wet and humid when compared with all other large Chinese cities, as was noted.
My source shows very high RH for Wuhan on Jan. 11, 2020:
12 am - 94%, 6 am - 91%, 12 pm - 79%, 6 pm - 88%
Sun peeking through fog, Temperature 34° - 43°F
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/china/wuhan/historic?month=1&year=2020
Those quite high numbers for RH in Wuhan on 1/11, and for much of the month, attest to very damp wintertime conditions, as I've stated. Relative humidity means just what it says, and is a valuable index despite your fixation on absolute humidity. Cold or hot, high RH adds significantly to the discomfort index.
I note that microorganisms can hitch a ride on aerosols. Additionally, some viruses are more likely to be viable and infectous in a humid environment, while others do better in lower RH.https://aem.asm.org/content/78/19/6781
Since COVID-19 initially broke out in a city with high relative humidity during humid wintertime conditions, odds are this virus likes it damp.Replies: @res
The graphic which I mentioned in my comment. Which covers transmission and survival of a virus.
Absolute humidity appears to be what is important. Read the papers DanHessinMD referenced.
If you looked at my link you would have seen similar RH numbers. But absolute humidity is what appears to be important. And those numbers are not high for 1/11.
Just keep doubling down. It really does make this more entertaining when you finally figure out you are wrong. Most people just run away at that point so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I think the view you and DanHessinMD are promoting is interesting, but please recognize that the papers you guys are using are available to anyone, and if humidity was a realistic solution, it seems likely that other public health officials would have picked up on this too. It's possible, if not highly probable, that increasing humidity is not effective for practical reasons having nothing to do with the science of humidity-virus interactions. We don't know what public health officials have considered and rejected.
If you're able, maybe you could play Devil's Advocate and apply your big brain to proving why humidifying is going to be an ineffective strategy.Replies: @res
I think it is fair to say he started it. Please reread the final paragraph of his I quoted in my comment. I try not to start back and forths like that, but I rather enjoy finishing them once someone starts with me.
Interesting philosophy from someone who reads the Unz Review. Maybe you are right, but isn’t this site full of things the “experts” have missed?
You might consider reading about the COVID-19 vitamin C studies going on and the responses from the “experts” viewed through your lens as well.
I’ve mostly been playing Devil’s Advocate by questioning the idea that humidifiers will help (I think the evidence is less convincing for that). But I think the connection of absolute humidity and severity of outbreak is surprisingly consistent with the COVID-19 data we have for different locations.
Explain then why flu season occurs in winter.
The reason I keep talking about dew point is it maps directly (but not linearly!) into specific humidity. Using the chart you can see the relationship and read off the specific humidity for a given dew point:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/0FUog.jpg
You can relate those specific humidity values to virus transmission using the other chart I linked above (that is what I am basing my wet vs. dry judgments on). Note that they use different units (g/kg vs. kg/kg) so you have to divide/multiply the specific humidity numbers by 1000 to equate values in the graphs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/bin/amjepidkwq347f01_ht.jpg
This page has typical monthly dew points (by time of day) in Wichita, KS: https://www.weather.gov/ict/dewclimo
If you look at the Russell, KS plots you see that the typical dew point is around 18.5 F (it varies +/- 2.5 F over the course of a day) in January and 63.5 +/- 0.5 F in July.
Those dew points correspond (from the plot above) to a specific humidity of a little over 2 g/kg in January and about 13.5 g/kg in July. That is a factor of 6 difference! Then notice where those points fall on the virus transmission plot!
It appears you don't understand what absolute humidity is. Please read this comment from Achmed E Newman:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/do-humidifiers-help-what-temperature-should-you-set-your-thermostat-to/#comment-3762362
Also see this wikipedia section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Types
Note that I am being a bit sloppy about distinguishing absolute and specific humidity (they are almost the same, see wiki as well as discussion in AEN's comment above and my reply).
P.S. And why did you leave out the sentence immediately following the one you quoted: "Read the papers DanHessinMD referenced."? Those papers would have helped you answer your own question.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18063-timeline-the-secret-history-of-swine-flu/"March 2009
The first cases of a new type of swine flu are reported in California and Texas in late March. Subsequent genetic analysis suggests that it may have started circulating in humans in January.April 2009
On 27 April, with 900 cases of suspected swine flu reported in Mexico, the World Health Organization (WHO) upgrades the pandemic warning level from 3 to 4 on a six-point scale. Intensive efforts to understand the virus and develop a vaccine begin immediately."
----------------------------------------
"It’s the only retrovirus supposedly to cause an entire sydrome of multiple, discrete illnesses (and the list was massaged when not enough people with Kaposi’s Sarcoma lit up on a Western Blot, where such massaging is a hallmark of junk science.)Peter Duesberg was right all along. HIV ain’t the cause of anything."I have not looked at the claims that HIV is a nonissue, though, I have heard them. The problem is that people with AIDS have a multiplicity of heath issues.Replies: @dc.sunsets
What passes for perfectly normal behavior of homosexual men is (from a microbiological standpoint) utterly suicidal. There is ONE and only ONE explanation for why sexually-transmitted diseases are epidemic among homos. My bet is that street prostitutes have fewer sex partners than most homosexual men, and the rates of STD’s among both subpopulations are probably similar. [So, too, are rates of psychosis.]
Tangentially, I laugh at the term, “homophobe.” People who are utterly disgusted by the throw-up-in-mouth actions of most homosexual men are not afraid of such people.
And from my perspective, it’s beyond obvious that the movement to “normalize” homosexuality (esp. among men) is all about growing the opportunity for adults who want to prey on adolescent boys by reducing the outrage/gag-on-gross factor society-wide, which moves more young people into position to be socially-engineered into letting some parasite groom them into a same-sex sex act, after which the victim then concludes, “Oh, I guess I must be ‘gay.’”
Normalizing homosexuality is all about enabling the most demonic among us to hunt those who are not yet adult enough to recognize manipulation when they see it.
Because absolute humidity is lowest then! Simply put, cold air does not hold much water–even if the relative humidity is high. That is why the air becomes so dry indoors in winter when it is heated.
The reason I keep talking about dew point is it maps directly (but not linearly!) into specific humidity. Using the chart you can see the relationship and read off the specific humidity for a given dew point:
You can relate those specific humidity values to virus transmission using the other chart I linked above (that is what I am basing my wet vs. dry judgments on). Note that they use different units (g/kg vs. kg/kg) so you have to divide/multiply the specific humidity numbers by 1000 to equate values in the graphs.
This page has typical monthly dew points (by time of day) in Wichita, KS: https://www.weather.gov/ict/dewclimo
If you look at the Russell, KS plots you see that the typical dew point is around 18.5 F (it varies +/- 2.5 F over the course of a day) in January and 63.5 +/- 0.5 F in July.
Those dew points correspond (from the plot above) to a specific humidity of a little over 2 g/kg in January and about 13.5 g/kg in July. That is a factor of 6 difference! Then notice where those points fall on the virus transmission plot!
It appears you don’t understand what absolute humidity is. Please read this comment from Achmed E Newman:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/do-humidifiers-help-what-temperature-should-you-set-your-thermostat-to/#comment-3762362
Also see this wikipedia section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Types
Note that I am being a bit sloppy about distinguishing absolute and specific humidity (they are almost the same, see wiki as well as discussion in AEN’s comment above and my reply).
P.S. And why did you leave out the sentence immediately following the one you quoted: “Read the papers DanHessinMD referenced.”? Those papers would have helped you answer your own question.
I don't see any evidence that I am wrong, and an rationally skeptical view would be good for me to see if there is one.
If I am right, then it is a pretty f$cking important message.
Day by day my bitterness at the stupidity of the world grows. That people can greatly protect themselves by humidifying is so clear to me, empirically speaking, and yet it seems like America cannot climb over a one-foot-tall mental wall to save itself from a viral respiratory pandemic. As the Derb would helpfully point out, we are doomed.
Eventually, America will be saved as the good Lord supplies the humid air of spring. But will the obvious solution just never get through? I supposed everyone just say, gee, coronavirus all went away suddenly for no reason at all. Cool.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Sparkon, @dvorak, @Audacious Epigone
Correlation found for moderate-to-high out-of-doors humidity and cool temps as being dangerous, the opposite of your theory:
http://www.twitter.com/JeromeRoos/status/1236729011889418246
This interactive graphic let's you enter temperature and relative humidity then see various related values (e.g. humidity ratio being discussed here, or dew point which I think is the easiest way to get a quick idea of the absolute humidity) as well as a visualization of the point on a psychrometric chart.
http://www.flycarpet.net/en/PsyOnline
To put things in perspective a bit, here is a look at population by latitude (and longitude).
https://www.themarysue.com/world-population-latitude-longitude/
https://am24.mediaite.com/tms/cnt/uploads/2010/08/world-pop-latitude.png
Looking at that graphic, what is interesting (and suggestive!) is the lack of cases south of 30 N given how much population there is between 30 N and the equator.
For even more perspective, this site recommends 45% indoor RH during the winter:
https://www.lennox.com/lennox-life/comfort-matters/air-quality-issues/six-problems-caused-by-dry-air
At 72 F (22.2 C) 45% RH gives a humidity ratio of 7.5 g/kg.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550308
More useful information in that paper. I suspect their northern limit is more due to things like population density than temperature and humidity, but would be interested in a data driven look at that.
From the paper.
http://www.twitter.com/JeromeRoos/status/1236729011889418246Replies: @res, @res
What’s with all of the people here who don’t understand absolute humidity and insist on “correcting” DanHessinMD’s theory? If you look at the comment immediately before yours you can see that the saturation specific humidity at 5 C is about 6 g/kg and at 11 C it is about 8 g/kg. At those temperatures the 47-79% RHs range from rather dry (about 3 g/kg) to a bit dry (about 6 g/kg). Notice where those values fall on the x-axis of the transmission plot in the same comment.
This interactive graphic let’s you enter temperature and relative humidity then see various related values (e.g. humidity ratio being discussed here, or dew point which I think is the easiest way to get a quick idea of the absolute humidity) as well as a visualization of the point on a psychrometric chart.
http://www.flycarpet.net/en/PsyOnline
To put things in perspective a bit, here is a look at population by latitude (and longitude).
https://www.themarysue.com/world-population-latitude-longitude/
Looking at that graphic, what is interesting (and suggestive!) is the lack of cases south of 30 N given how much population there is between 30 N and the equator.
For even more perspective, this site recommends 45% indoor RH during the winter:
https://www.lennox.com/lennox-life/comfort-matters/air-quality-issues/six-problems-caused-by-dry-air
At 72 F (22.2 C) 45% RH gives a humidity ratio of 7.5 g/kg.
At least in the Northern Hemisphere, declining vitamin D3 levels are a nice hypothesis. This is also a nice explanation for why dark-skinned people who live further from Equatorial areas exhibit shorter life expectancies. Vitamin D3 isn’t really a vitamin at all. Most vitamins are cofactors for metabolic processes, but Vitamin D3 is a steroid hormone involved in all sorts of homeostatic processes.
Low levels of Vitamin D3 correlate nicely with higher rates of infectious disease as well as lower survival of cancers. But I recall as recently as 15 years ago a physician arguing with me as he claimed that taking more than the RDA of vitamin D3 would likely result in pathology. The RDA for Vitamin D3 is so low that it’s laughable. By about 5 years later the “current thinking” on Vitamin D3 among clinicians had changed.
On a related note, you still don’t see “official” notice of it, but by 5 years ago it was known that cancer patients should avoid sugar like it’s poison. The people who knew this and demonstrated it? Clinicians who had received their own cancer diagnosis.
Notice: Still today when the Press talks about prevention of influenza, all they talk about is getting vaccinated and washing your hands. Not One Mention of making sure your Vitamin D3 levels are adequate. Funny thing is, the vaccine is demonstrably near-useless. Can we imagine what would occur if there was a large trial comparing the vaccine to a control arm that didn’t get vaccinated, but did supplement Vit D3 to achieve the highest recommended serum concentrations?
https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-covid-19-go-away-on-its-own-in-warmer-weather/
P.S. Here is a recent study (meta-analysis) looking at vitamin D supplementation vs. the flu shot.
https://spinalresearch.com.au/vitamin-d-effective-flu-shot/
I suggest the best defense against COVID-19, and any virus, first and foremost, is to be in good health.Replies: @res
“the lack of cases south of 30 N ”
If you never test anybody for Kung Flu, nobody’s GOT Kung Flu.
That’s big brain thinking, see!
Speaking of which, it appears Sparkon has finally realized he was wrong after doubling down repeatedly. And as is usual in such cases, has disappeared.
Good points. This page linked by eugypplus over in iSteve does mention vitamin D levels (among other factors). It is short and straightforward. Well worth a read.
https://ccdd.hsph.harvard.edu/will-covid-19-go-away-on-its-own-in-warmer-weather/
P.S. Here is a recent study (meta-analysis) looking at vitamin D supplementation vs. the flu shot.
https://spinalresearch.com.au/vitamin-d-effective-flu-shot/
If you never test anybody for Kung Flu, nobody's GOT Kung Flu.
That's big brain thinking, see!Replies: @res
Although the wording leaves something to be desired, that is a worthwhile point. By no means am I saying there are or will be no cases south of 30 N. Just that we should expect fewer (if any) big (and hard to miss, with or without testing) blowups there.
It is always interesting to see how people react to their ideas being shot down. Not sure if that is what motivated that comment, but seems like a reasonable guess.
Speaking of which, it appears Sparkon has finally realized he was wrong after doubling down repeatedly. And as is usual in such cases, has disappeared.
What motivated the comment is that I do not believe it is possible to make any statements with any accuracy whatsoever about the current prevalence of COVID-19 in, for example, equatorial Africa.
Ebola is highly visible and shocking and people notice it and talk about it. This is pretty nearly exactly the opposite, until it’s widely spread and everyone’s getting pneumonia at once.
As for the specific humidity issue, I did read your link, and the definition of R2, and I get it now. It certainly will not be clearly visible or intuitively obvious to most people. And “it depends 28% on [specific] humidity” is still a fairly moderate effect.
Are you claiming that you expect equatorial Africa to have the same chance of being hit hard as more temperate areas? That would be the null hypothesis which I consider equivalent to making no statement.For reference that is a response to this comment in the more recent thread:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-coronavirus-hoax/#comment-3766830
The non-obviousness of specific/absolute humidity is why uninformed observers might want to refrain from making strong pronouncements about a theory using it.
Let's repeat the respective R^2 for each variable here for context.
Temperature 0.2657
Relative Humidity 0.0041
Specific Humidity 0.2849
I don't think anyone is arguing about the lack of importance of temperature. What we see there is that specific humidity has more explanatory power than temperature for that data. What makes it fun is (I believe) that the data was presented as a rebuttal of the absolute humidity theory.
Yes, good comment. I too think sunlight is a major factor in the flu equation, and I also agree that sugar is bad, and suggest that artificial sweeteners are even worse. For vitamin D, even 10-15 minutes of sunshine daily works wonders, but in some parts of the N. temperate zone in winter, good luck with that.
I suggest the best defense against COVID-19, and any virus, first and foremost, is to be in good health.
Ebola is highly visible and shocking and people notice it and talk about it. This is pretty nearly exactly the opposite, until it's widely spread and everyone's getting pneumonia at once.
As for the specific humidity issue, I did read your link, and the definition of R2, and I get it now. It certainly will not be clearly visible or intuitively obvious to most people. And "it depends 28% on [specific] humidity" is still a fairly moderate effect.Replies: @res
Perhaps. I suspect the prevalence is low there right now. We will see if COVID-19 gains any traction later.
Are you claiming that you expect equatorial Africa to have the same chance of being hit hard as more temperate areas? That would be the null hypothesis which I consider equivalent to making no statement.
For reference that is a response to this comment in the more recent thread:
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-coronavirus-hoax/#comment-3766830
The non-obviousness of specific/absolute humidity is why uninformed observers might want to refrain from making strong pronouncements about a theory using it.
Let’s repeat the respective R^2 for each variable here for context.
Temperature 0.2657
Relative Humidity 0.0041
Specific Humidity 0.2849
I don’t think anyone is arguing about the lack of importance of temperature. What we see there is that specific humidity has more explanatory power than temperature for that data. What makes it fun is (I believe) that the data was presented as a rebuttal of the absolute humidity theory.
I suggest the best defense against COVID-19, and any virus, first and foremost, is to be in good health.Replies: @res
Now that you have reappeared, any comment on the absolute humidity conversation? Are you prepared to admit you were wrong yet?
http://www.twitter.com/JeromeRoos/status/1236729011889418246Replies: @res, @res
For reference, that graphic is from this paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550308
More useful information in that paper. I suspect their northern limit is more due to things like population density than temperature and humidity, but would be interested in a data driven look at that.
From the paper.
I‘m sorry to disappoint you res, but I work on my timetable, not yours.
I know you are eager to see your theory proven right, but that day, if it ever arrives, remains in the future, and I remain skeptical, just as I said in my very first post in this discussion, where I posted a link to a study refuting humidity as the major factor, but you have dodged that recent study entirely, and have made no comment about it, but here you are trying to chide me.
Is that hypocrisy, or just chutzpah?
Nevertheless, I’ve been reading some of the cited studies. It does take time.
By the way, did you explain yet why flu season in California occurs during the state’s rainy season, as it does also in the Tropics, where it rains a lot?
But now that I look back, if you are talking about your comment 17 I already replied about that study in comment 18. Are you really this dumb? Stop digging already.
So this statement of yours: "but you have dodged that recent study entirely, and have made no comment about it" is a blatant lie. It is handy that we have a transcript of our exchange just above.Because the rainy season in California is winter when temperature (and absolute humidity) is lower. To repeat, the easiest way to see that is to look at the dew point. Lower dew point means lower absolute humidity.
The tropics are different (and one of the few worthwhile points you have made about humidity). Here is one take on that (notice the reference to absolute humidity):
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/03/08/173816815/flu-risk-and-weather-its-not-the-heat-its-the-humidityThat is not to say there aren't other factors in play as well. As dc.sunsets noted and I reinforced by linking a page discussing some of those factors.
You still don't understand what absolute humidity is. Sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#TypesReplies: @Sparkon, @Audacious Epigone
Sorry, you did address that in your 18.
Perhaps, but the timing seemed a little bit too good to be true that you reappeared two hours after my comment about your disappearance. Over a day after your last comment before that. Sure looks like working on my timetable.
Please be more specific. I would be happy to have more of your stupidity to refute. Just keep on doubling down.
But now that I look back, if you are talking about your comment 17 I already replied about that study in comment 18. Are you really this dumb? Stop digging already.
So this statement of yours: “but you have dodged that recent study entirely, and have made no comment about it” is a blatant lie. It is handy that we have a transcript of our exchange just above.
Because the rainy season in California is winter when temperature (and absolute humidity) is lower. To repeat, the easiest way to see that is to look at the dew point. Lower dew point means lower absolute humidity.
The tropics are different (and one of the few worthwhile points you have made about humidity). Here is one take on that (notice the reference to absolute humidity):
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/03/08/173816815/flu-risk-and-weather-its-not-the-heat-its-the-humidity
That is not to say there aren’t other factors in play as well. As dc.sunsets noted and I reinforced by linking a page discussing some of those factors.
You still don’t understand what absolute humidity is. Sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#Types
See that hiding in plain sight in my comment 47?
So your contention is there is more total moisture in summer air in California than during the winter when it is raining? Can you show me your numbers for that?Replies: @res
But now that I look back, if you are talking about your comment 17 I already replied about that study in comment 18. Are you really this dumb? Stop digging already.
So this statement of yours: "but you have dodged that recent study entirely, and have made no comment about it" is a blatant lie. It is handy that we have a transcript of our exchange just above.Because the rainy season in California is winter when temperature (and absolute humidity) is lower. To repeat, the easiest way to see that is to look at the dew point. Lower dew point means lower absolute humidity.
The tropics are different (and one of the few worthwhile points you have made about humidity). Here is one take on that (notice the reference to absolute humidity):
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/03/08/173816815/flu-risk-and-weather-its-not-the-heat-its-the-humidityThat is not to say there aren't other factors in play as well. As dc.sunsets noted and I reinforced by linking a page discussing some of those factors.
You still don't understand what absolute humidity is. Sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#TypesReplies: @Sparkon, @Audacious Epigone
You claimed:
I said, back in my 27:
But maybe you missed it. You also claimed:
Apparently you failed to notice I reposted with that part crossed out, as it was simply an inadvertent, uncorrected post, published instead of previewed while I was still reviewing the entire conversation. I got up to fix a snack, and when I returned, expecting to see the preview window, I saw instead that the comment had published, whereupon I immediately reposted with that part crossed out, and acknowledged that you did address the point, sort of, in your 18. Actually, the final sentence was crossed out too, but something ate it, probably the paragraph break.
See that hiding in plain sight in my comment 47?
So your contention is there is more total moisture in summer air in California than during the winter when it is raining? Can you show me your numbers for that?
First, California is a big state. It would help if you picked a particular place for us to discuss. As I have mentioned multiple times, I focus on dew point because it can be easily mapped to saturation specific humidity (the maximum amount of water air can hold at a given temperature) using the graphic I included in comment 34.
This page gives current dew points for various locations in CA:
http://www.usairnet.com/weather/maps/current/california/dew-points/
Right now the low/average/high dew points there are 12/43/57 F. Those correspond to specific humidities of roughly (reading from the chart) 2/7/13 g/kg.
Here is a page with a graphic showing humidity comfort levels for San Jose year round. This is based on dew point. You might note the dew points they use for the different categories as well (hint: they call all dew points below 55 F dry, compare that to the current values above).
https://weatherspark.com/y/1098/Average-Weather-in-San-Jose-California-United-States-Year-Round#Sections-Humidity
If you don't find that convincing, how about you pick a city we can discuss in detail?
I have to admire your persistence. If only you used it to learn more about all of this rather than just posting your incorrect assumptions over and over.
See that hiding in plain sight in my comment 47?
So your contention is there is more total moisture in summer air in California than during the winter when it is raining? Can you show me your numbers for that?Replies: @res
Look at the time stamps (my comment was only 8 minutes after your correction). I was composing my comment when you posted your correction. Hardly my fault that you published something so blatantly wrong, but thanks for catching it yourself. It would have saved both of us some trouble if you had just gotten it right the first time. I guess I shouldn’t have been so quick to call it a lie given that incompetence was a possibility.
This after you noted you said “Yes, colder winter air can hold less total moisture than warmer, summer air, that’s a given…” Hopefully this makes clear why I said: “You still don’t understand what absolute humidity is. Sad.” And validates my correctness.
First, California is a big state. It would help if you picked a particular place for us to discuss. As I have mentioned multiple times, I focus on dew point because it can be easily mapped to saturation specific humidity (the maximum amount of water air can hold at a given temperature) using the graphic I included in comment 34.
This page gives current dew points for various locations in CA:
http://www.usairnet.com/weather/maps/current/california/dew-points/
Right now the low/average/high dew points there are 12/43/57 F. Those correspond to specific humidities of roughly (reading from the chart) 2/7/13 g/kg.
Here is a page with a graphic showing humidity comfort levels for San Jose year round. This is based on dew point. You might note the dew points they use for the different categories as well (hint: they call all dew points below 55 F dry, compare that to the current values above).
https://weatherspark.com/y/1098/Average-Weather-in-San-Jose-California-United-States-Year-Round#Sections-Humidity
If you don’t find that convincing, how about you pick a city we can discuss in detail?
I have to admire your persistence. If only you used it to learn more about all of this rather than just posting your incorrect assumptions over and over.
I don't see any evidence that I am wrong, and an rationally skeptical view would be good for me to see if there is one.
If I am right, then it is a pretty f$cking important message.
Day by day my bitterness at the stupidity of the world grows. That people can greatly protect themselves by humidifying is so clear to me, empirically speaking, and yet it seems like America cannot climb over a one-foot-tall mental wall to save itself from a viral respiratory pandemic. As the Derb would helpfully point out, we are doomed.
Eventually, America will be saved as the good Lord supplies the humid air of spring. But will the obvious solution just never get through? I supposed everyone just say, gee, coronavirus all went away suddenly for no reason at all. Cool.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Sparkon, @dvorak, @Audacious Epigone
The comparative information isn’t reliable. It’s a tedious task that may be as obfuscating as it is clarifying. There should be a practical way to test it. In a place where there is no more bed space, put humidifiers in patient rooms without much air circulating in from anywhere else and see what the consequences are. Wouldn’t that be a better way to test it? I can’t imagine solutions like that haven’t been tried.
Of course it was supposed to replace 'Wuhan virus' or 'Wuhan flu' to avoid being anti-Chinese--run that one. Maybe it did its job there? (Arguably that would have happened anyway--damn thing's way past Wuhan now.)
'Coronavirus' is just too catchy with the beer jokes.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Coronavirus dominated from the beginning and the dominance has only continued to increase over the last several weeks. That’s what it was mostly referred to internationally right out of the gate and it never looked back.
Humorously, “Wuhan virus” spiked in late January, went down through February, and then started climbing at the beginning of this week as people defended against the PC mobs by going back and finding previous instances of it being referred to in that way. That phrase probably would’ve died out on its own had the witch hunters not made a virtue-signalling stunt out of it. Familiar pattern, that.
Meanwhile, approved talking heads go on and on about the '"Wuhan model" for dealing with the virus. It's scary out here sometimes.
https://www.unz.com/anepigone/danking-on-coronavirus/#comment-3760008
I only looked at a few, but this one seemed very relevant.
Absolute Humidity and Pandemic Versus Epidemic Influenza
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3011950/bin/amjepidkwq347f01_ht.jpg
Do you have a sense of how much this relates to individual susceptibility vs. transmission? Put another way, would an individual using a humidifier help much, or is it mostly a matter of the environmental humidity?
Info about converting specific to relative humidity (and concrete examples) after the MORE.
Thi pages has an R function for converting specific to relative humidity.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2360/how-do-i-convert-specific-humidity-to-relative-humidity
Some useful reference numbers (from table below) are at a room temperature of 20 C / 68 F
Easy transmission (SH 0.005) occurs at a RH of 35%
Decreased transmission (SH 0.01) occurs at a RH of 69%
Here is a little block of R code I wrote to give some example values to put the plot above in perspective. I would appreciate a quick double check to make sure I have not made any mistakes.The output:
| qair| temp| rh|
|------:|----:|---------:|
| 0.0025| 0| 0.6653093|
| 0.0050| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0100| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 0| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 10| 0.3313617|
| 0.0050| 10| 0.6617196|
| 0.0100| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0150| 10| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 20| 0.1740035|
| 0.0050| 20| 0.3474799|
| 0.0100| 20| 0.6928609|
| 0.0150| 20| 1.0000000|
| 0.0025| 30| 0.0957790|
| 0.0050| 30| 0.1912679|
| 0.0100| 30| 0.3813804|
| 0.0150| 30| 0.5703480|Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Exactly. That’d be the crux. If it’s environmental humidity, what can be done?
I think she's in love with me. I haven't the time to explain to her that (1) I'm happily married and (2) I didn't ever date fat chicks like her. She should go find a quart of Hagen Das and feed all her cats.
I've voted for Wu Flu. It's short and catchy (in a way.)
I also vote for the term Bondfire, for the time in some year ahead when people stop paying nearly $100k for a 30 year T-bond that promises to pay $100k thirty years from now. When the time comes that people awaken from their stupor and realize the world is awash in "wealth" that is nothing but Popeye's Wimpy promising $1,000,000,000,000,000 dollars next week if only they'll be given $500,000,000,000,000 today, most of the "wealth" will evaporate.
PS: If stock markets have lost $2 trillion, my bet is that as interest rates fell to near zero, the value of "wealth" in bonds rose by many times $2 trillion. The whole thing is a joke.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
“Bondfire of the Insanities” is a post title I’ll create an actual post for at some point!
But now that I look back, if you are talking about your comment 17 I already replied about that study in comment 18. Are you really this dumb? Stop digging already.
So this statement of yours: "but you have dodged that recent study entirely, and have made no comment about it" is a blatant lie. It is handy that we have a transcript of our exchange just above.Because the rainy season in California is winter when temperature (and absolute humidity) is lower. To repeat, the easiest way to see that is to look at the dew point. Lower dew point means lower absolute humidity.
The tropics are different (and one of the few worthwhile points you have made about humidity). Here is one take on that (notice the reference to absolute humidity):
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/03/08/173816815/flu-risk-and-weather-its-not-the-heat-its-the-humidityThat is not to say there aren't other factors in play as well. As dc.sunsets noted and I reinforced by linking a page discussing some of those factors.
You still don't understand what absolute humidity is. Sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity#TypesReplies: @Sparkon, @Audacious Epigone
Lower dew point means lower absolute humidity.
Thanks. These sorts of heuristics are quite helpful for someone for whom most of the relevant information surrounding the topic has not only not been much personally studied but not even much thought about before.
Humorously, "Wuhan virus" spiked in late January, went down through February, and then started climbing at the beginning of this week as people defended against the PC mobs by going back and finding previous instances of it being referred to in that way. That phrase probably would've died out on its own had the witch hunters not made a virtue-signalling stunt out of it. Familiar pattern, that.Replies: @iffen
Familiar pattern, that.
Meanwhile, approved talking heads go on and on about the ‘”Wuhan model” for dealing with the virus. It’s scary out here sometimes.
Thanks. What is especially notable is how nonlinear the absolute (perhaps better to say specific) humidity vs. dew point curve is (graph in comment 34).