Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak

Sdajii said:

Do you realise that viruses can only replicate inside a living host (even under laboratory conditions they need living host cells to replicate in), never inside a lifeless body, and no live bats of any species were at the market?

Click to expand...

Viruses can be spread by dead bodies, Just because an animal has died (or been slaughtered) and is no longer possible of having virus cells replicate inside its cells, doesn't mean that the dead body is not still carrying viable virus cells which can infect people if they come into contact with it directly or via contamination.

In fact a medical examiner caught corona virus from a dead body, So it would seem totally plausible that a dead body market could spread the virus, especially if people are eating those infected bodies, all it would take is one worker to become infected and then he/she would pass it along to other customers and workers.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-dead-body-spread-virus-1497674

The only way the virus could have propagated at the market would be by humans congregating, which would be exactly the same issue if they were at a vegetable market

Click to expand...

Vegetables are not likely to be carrying the virus where as dead bodies can.

So a market chopping up and selling dead bodies carries much more risk than a fruit and veg market.

Value Collector said:

Viruses can be spread by dead bodies, Just because an animal has died (or been slaughtered) and is no longer possible of having virus cells replicate inside its cells, doesn't mean that the dead body is not still carrying viable virus cells which can infect people if they come into contact with it directly or via contamination.

Click to expand...

This is entirely true, but if you go back and reread the relevant posts, he said "propagation" and I said they could only do this in living cells. There is no potential for dead animals to dramatically spread a virus, and unclean conditions don't contribute (this is entirely different from the case with other types of pathogens such as bacteria, but COVID-19 is a virus).

In fact a medical examiner caught corona virus from a dead body, So it would seem totally plausible that a dead body market could spread the virus, especially if people are eating those infected bodies, all it would take is one worker to become infected and then he/she would pass it along to other customers and workers.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-dead-body-spread-virus-1497674

Click to expand...

This was well publicised and yes, I read about it earlier today. It was big news because despite so many people being infected and the number of infected human corpses which other humans have had to deal with is well into six digits, this was the very first documented case (often publicised today as the actual first case, which is probably not true) of a human being infected from something dead. Clearly, if this is so rare and unusual that it is the first known case of a human being infected from something dead, it was never a common thing. Indeed, patient zero (the first known case was not infected at the market and had nothing to do with the market) didn't give it to dead animals and spread it around, patient zero, who as far as we know was the source of the entire pandemic, gave it to other people while alive and every single known infection route between patient zero and this one report you speak of, has been from one live human to another live human. We literally only know of two exceptions (patient zero and this case) out of all the millions of known human infections which have occurred so far!

So, it's far to say that blaming the proliferation on dead animals is completely and utterly out of the question. Even if you want to believe the conclusively debunked market origin story, only patient zero was infected from a bat/pangolin/snake/koala, and from there it was all human to human. Even if we buy China's own story wholesale, we have to believe that in Europe and the USA, we've seen it spread far more aggressively in the absense of wet markets, pangolins, horseshoe bats, koalas, etc, than it ever did in China.

Value Collector said:

In fact a medical examiner caught corona virus from a dead body, So it would seem totally plausible that a dead body market could spread the virus, especially if people are eating those infected bodies, all it would take is one worker to become infected and then he/she would pass it along to other customers and workers.

Click to expand...

Holy Heck VC I thought you were talking about cannibalism when I first read this.
Yes if you can 'catch' a virus off a tap handle or tin cans then I can imagine you can catch it from a dead body (handling it ...without eating it).

jbocker said:

Yes if you can 'catch' a virus off a tap handle or tin cans then I can imagine you can catch it from a dead body (handling it ...without eating it).

Click to expand...

And exactly as you would with a grocery item in our supermarkets when an infected person cough onor touch it
Being a virus means it only stay alive within a body or living cell, otherwise it dies very quickly
That market played a role as a concentration point of PEOPLE
It could have been an electronic fair and be the same
Good or bad hygiene there is irrelevant.
All this would be very different if we were talking about tuberculosis with bacillus/bacterial illness
Virus will be human to human transmission only except statistically insignificant first inter species jump.
Do people realise that following this wet market fairy story is just falling in with the CCP propaganda?and probably our own governments...

Sdajii said:

This is entirely true, but if you go back and reread the relevant posts, he said "propagation" and I said they could only do this in living cells. There is no potential for dead animals to dramatically spread a virus, and unclean conditions don't contribute (this is entirely different from the case with other types of pathogens such as bacteria, but COVID-19 is a virus).



This was well publicised and yes, I read about it earlier today. It was big news because despite so many people being infected and the number of infected human corpses which other humans have had to deal with is well into six digits, this was the very first documented case (often publicised today as the actual first case, which is probably not true) of a human being infected from something dead. Clearly, if this is so rare and unusual that it is the first known case of a human being infected from something dead, it was never a common thing. Indeed, patient zero (the first known case was not infected at the market and had nothing to do with the market) didn't give it to dead animals and spread it around, patient zero, who as far as we know was the source of the entire pandemic, gave it to other people while alive and every single known infection route between patient zero and this one report you speak of, has been from one live human to another live human. We literally only know of two exceptions (patient zero and this case) out of all the millions of known human infections which have occurred so far!

So, it's far to say that blaming the proliferation on dead animals is completely and utterly out of the question. Even if you want to believe the conclusively debunked market origin story, only patient zero was infected from a bat/pangolin/snake/koala, and from there it was all human to human. Even if we buy China's own story wholesale, we have to believe that in Europe and the USA, we've seen it spread far more aggressively in the absense of wet markets, pangolins, horseshoe bats, koalas, etc, than it ever did in China.

Click to expand...

So the Wet markets are not just as safe as a vegetable market, because obviously bringing in infected dead bodies, and chopping them up, and handing them out to people is dangerous.

jbocker said:

Holy Heck VC I thought you were talking about cannibalism when I first read this.
Yes if you can 'catch' a virus off a tap handle or tin cans then I can imagine you can catch it from a dead body (handling it ...without eating it).

Click to expand...

Well a wet market (or butcher shop) is a market selling dead bodies, I am just calling it what it is.

it would be silly to assume a dead body of an infected Bat or pangolin is safe because we call it meat, instead of a dead body.

qldfrog said:

And exactly as you would with a grocery item in our supermarkets when an infected person cough onor touch it
Being a virus means it only stay alive within a body or living cell, otherwise it dies very quickly
That market played a role as a concentration point of PEOPLE
It could have been an electronic fair and be the same
Good or bad hygiene there is irrelevant.
All this would be very different if we were talking about tuberculosis with bacillus/bacterial illness
Virus will be human to human transmission only except statistically insignificant first inter species jump.
Do people realise that following this wet market fairy story is just falling in with the CCP propaganda?and probably our own governments...

Click to expand...

That is not true, bodies infected with viruses can infect people who come into contract with the blood or other fluids long after the animal has been dead.

Look at the article I posted, A medical examiner caught corona virus from a dead body he was examining, and that was without eating it.

Ebola victims for example are sealed in an air tight body bag and cremated due to the risk of transmission, and autopsy or any preparation of Ebola victims is banned.

If you think doing an autopsy on a dead body is dangerous, but chopping up, bagging, selling and then eating the dead body is safe, you are crazy.

it’s quite possible as infected animal or animals were butchered and their body fluids passed the virus on to humans directly and well as through cross contamination.

then once a few people at the markets had it, they continued passing it on through the air and surfaces.

Isn't it why there's no hand sanitizer?

Value Collector said:

So the Wet markets are not just as safe as a vegetable market, because obviously bringing in infected dead bodies, and chopping them up, and handing them out to people is dangerous.

Click to expand...

Spread, propagate, pass on... semantics

Sdajii said:

You were the one saying that 'market surfaces being washed with water' was a bad thing, not me! You were the one completely unable to define what the problem you had was, and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding or familiarity with the imagined problem you were complaining about.

Click to expand...

Ah no maybe your lack of understanding and imagination of what I was writing. I was providing the context...

Wouldn't you say an eclectic mix of rodents, rabbits, dogs, wild animals, and so on in a tight area with humans would be conducive to the spread of a disease?

For your imagination...

hja said:

Spread, propagate, pass on... semantics

Click to expand...

Watch this short video, or even just the first 30 seconds of it to see that Ebola (another virus), has been passed on to humans via the bushmeat markets.

Where is the credible engine to drive economic activity out of the COVID 19 crisis ? Anyone else have a better plan ?

Green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery with $100tn boost
Speeding up investment could deliver huge gains to global GDP by 2050 while tackling climate emergency, says report

Renewable energy could power an economic recovery from Covid-19 by spurring global GDP gains of almost $100tn (£80tn) between now and 2050, according to a report.

The International Renewable Energy Agency found that accelerating investment in renewable energy could generate huge economic benefits while helping to tackle the global climate emergency.

The agency’s director general, Francesco La Camera, said the global crisis ignited by the coronavirus outbreak exposed “the deep vulnerabilities of the current system” and urged governments to invest in renewable energy to kickstart economic growth and help meet climate targets.

The agency’s landmark report found that accelerating investment in renewable energy would help tackle the climate crisis and would in effect pay for itself.

Investing in renewable energy would deliver global GDP gains of $98tn above a business-as-usual scenario by 2050 by returning between $3 and $8 on every dollar invested.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ecovery-international-renewable-energy-agency

Value Collector said:

So the Wet markets are not just as safe as a vegetable market, because obviously bringing in infected dead bodies, and chopping them up, and handing them out to people is dangerous.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The assertion, and what I was responding to, was that the virus could be taken to the market and then proliferate/multiply there.

Even according to the wetmarket narrative which some official sources are still trying to push, this isn't what happened. This is what one poster here suggested, which makes no sense.

Even according to the official narratives which involved the wet market, it was merely the source of the initial infection in a single freak event, and from there it has been exclusively live human to live human, except in the one single case where someone caught it from a human corpse.

hja said:

Spread, propagate, pass on... semantics

Click to expand...

Sure as long as , and i do not think you want to understand this , that you agree it would have been the very same in a busy clothing market
IF this had been the case, would you argue we should close all clothing shops because this is where the disease got shared?
Selling wild animal where you can to see them slaughtered on the spot might be shocking, we even have the vegan snowflakes tipping in etc fair as long it is not mixed with the issue on hand which is the coronavirus. Another problem, another combat if you want, but not related
What next? Greta arguing that it is caused by global warming as you know, germs like warm conditions?

you need to realise all this is playing hand in hand with the CPP; some do not even hide their masters here but I doubt you would consider yourself a Xi shrill @hja?
so try to step back and reread what has been explained probably badly by both @Sdajii , myself and others
If need be, read on viruses, inter species bridges and then get some more details on the labs in Wuhan playing with coronavirus or live bats in their research labs and make your own opinion.

hja said:

Ah no maybe your lack of understanding and imagination of what I was writing. I was providing the context...

Wouldn't you say an eclectic mix of rodents, rabbits, dogs, wild animals, and so on in a tight area with humans would be conducive to the spread of a disease?

For your imagination...

Click to expand...

I've been to many hundreds, perhaps over a thousand wet markets, in many different countries across Asia. I've never seen anything like that at a wet market, the closest to it I've seen is at pet markets and non wet markets (and Australia has cases where domestic animals are stacked atop each other too - go to rural markets in Australia and you'll see fowl in cages stacked atop each other). What you have there is two common domestic species (dogs and rabbits) in contact with each other. This doesn't pose a particularly significant disease risk, and is just some out of context picture from somewhere. I'm not exactly condoning this, it does look like an animal welfare issue (important as it may be, it's an entirely different issue).

Your own picture, with zero context, which is likely not even from China, doesn't even give any indication that it was at a wet market!

back to the economic side:
Got some potentially good news for exporters:
as long as you are australian based, pay your taxes here , in cases like mine (selling services O/S) you should be able to qualify due to some ATO rulings in 2018 in term of what is australian turnover.
Fair as otherwise, why should i pay taxes here? Anyway, all this coming from a decent accountant office
I will so apply and may survive the flight bans

Sdajii said:

Incorrect.

The assertion, and what I was responding to, was that the virus could be taken to the market and then proliferate/multiply there.

Even according to the wetmarket narrative which some official sources are still trying to push, this isn't what happened. This is what one poster here suggested, which makes no sense.

Even according to the official narratives which involved the wet market, it was merely the source of the initial infection in a single freak event, and from there it has been exclusively live human to live human, except in the one single case where someone caught it from a human corpse.

Click to expand...

You seemed to be implying that because viruses can’t replicate inside dead bodies, that a wet market would be no different in risk level to a vegetable market.

Now to me, this seems like a silly thing to say, given that if the dead bodies being cut up at the market being cut up and sold are infected, then it is obviously much riskier than cutting up fruit and veg.

Yes person to person transmission is the same risk at either market, but the dead animal market obviously has an extra layer of risk e.g The infected body parts being sold.

Value Collector said:

You seemed to be implying that because viruses can’t replicate inside dead bodies, that a wet market would be no different in risk level to a vegetable market.

Now to me, this seems like a silly thing to say, given that if the dead bodies being cut up at the market being cut up and sold are infected, then it is obviously much riskier than cutting up fruit and veg.

Yes person to person transmission is the same risk at either market, but the dead animal market obviously has an extra layer of risk e.g The infected body parts being sold.

Click to expand...

I specifically pointed out otherwise. Your desire to assume I said something I didn't, rather than read what I actually said, is your own fault, not mine.

The hypothetical single-case origin of a virus entering the human population is a separate issue than the proliferation of a virus. One is plausible at any place humans come into contact with animals, especially if alive but potentially if dead, but the scenario suggested, which is the one I was responding to, makes zero sense; you can not make a virus replicate in a dead body. You can not infect a dead body with a virus (this is unlike other pathogens such as many bacteria, which can proliferate in dead tissue).

If I had COVID-19 and I went to a market which exclusively sold dead bats of any species you like, or dead pangolins, or dead snakes, or dead whatever animal you like, it would be no more dangerous than a vegetable market or chess tournament.

No one, not China/CCP, not the WHO, not the American government, not any official source, is saying that anyone other than patient zero and one single person who caught the virus from a human corpse, has contracted COVID-19 from any source other than a living human. Even the wetmarket narrative says an initial person was infected at the market, and everyone after that that was infected from human to human transfer, including the single case of someone catching it from a human corpse.

Hypothetically, if the thing you describe was the big problem we should be worried about, that is, animals are a market catching a disease from humans and replicating it, then infecting humans with the same disease, the only relevant problem would be live animals of a single species coming into contact with humans, and then being infected while still alive, and then either while still alive or sufficiently fresh to still be contagious, coming into contact with more humans. In that scenario, different species coming into contact with each other would be irrelevant. Indeed, even in the wetmarket scenario, even according to the most plausible version of the narrative, different species of animals coming into contact with each other at the market is impossible to have been a factor.

It's probably worth saying, because you've already made the mistake, that you should read the context of what I'm saying and not misapply it to other contexts.

qldfrog said:

back to the economic side:

Got some potentially good news for exporters:
as long as you are australian based, pay your taxes here , in cases like mine (selling services O/S) you should be able to qualify due to some ATO rulings in 2018 in term of what is australian turnover.
s

Click to expand...

Denmark has become one of the first countries to ban companies that are registered in tax havens from accessing financial aid during the coronavirus pandemic.

The Nordic country, which has spent billions on aid for companies experiencing drastic drops in revenues due to a wide-ranging government lockdown, announced an extended aid package worth 100 billion Danish crowns ($22 billion) on Saturday.
.But in an amendment to the aid measures, which now total close to 400 billion crowns, companies registered in tax haven countries will no longer be eligible for aid.

Additionally, firms applying for an extension of Danish state aid must now promise not to pay dividends or make share buy-backs in 2020 and 2021, it said.

The new restriction applies to firms registered in countries on the European Union's list of "non-cooperative tax jurisdictions", according to Rune Lund, tax spokesman for the leftist Red-Green Alliance. The government said companies would be allowed to pay dividends again if they pay back aid.

Poland, one of Europe's most vocal opponents of tax havens, was the first to restrict large firms' access to state aid based on whether they pay taxes in Poland earlier this month.

Estimates of tax evasion vary widely, but tax havens collectively could cost governments between $US500 billion ($788 billion) and $US600 billion a year in lost revenue from corporates, according to some researchers
Reuters

I

Dona Ferentes said:

Denmark has become one of the first countries to ban companies that are registered in tax havens from accessing financial aid during the coronavirus pandemic.

The Nordic country, which has spent billions on aid for companies experiencing drastic drops in revenues due to a wide-ranging government lockdown, announced an extended aid package worth 100 billion Danish crowns ($22 billion) on Saturday.
.But in an amendment to the aid measures, which now total close to 400 billion crowns, companies registered in tax haven countries will no longer be eligible for aid.

Additionally, firms applying for an extension of Danish state aid must now promise not to pay dividends or make share buy-backs in 2020 and 2021, it said.

The new restriction applies to firms registered in countries on the European Union's list of "non-cooperative tax jurisdictions", according to Rune Lund, tax spokesman for the leftist Red-Green Alliance. The government said companies would be allowed to pay dividends again if they pay back aid.

Poland, one of Europe's most vocal opponents of tax havens, was the first to restrict large firms' access to state aid based on whether they pay taxes in Poland earlier this month.

Estimates of tax evasion vary widely, but tax havens collectively could cost governments between $US500 billion ($788 billion) and $US600 billion a year in lost revenue from corporates, according to some researchers
Reuters

Click to expand...

Hope you do not assume i am registered in a tax heaven?;-)
No just fair dinkum Australian asic pty ltd but most income from OS in the past few years.