COVID-19 - Thoughts and Observations

- Weaponized, Not a Virus, and Considerably More Dangerous Than Previously Thought?

Fruitbowl Spread: one mouldy fruit causes others to become likewise infected, and one fruit in the bowl will usually not succumb, or to much less an extent, until much later on than the original onset; hence areas with low infection rates developing into hotspots much later on. If valid, this is likely to manifest itself following the easing of lockdowns, as areas that have, so far, remained with low figures suddenly developing bad clusters or becoming new hotspots and is likely to include counties like Ceredigion (Cymru) and countries like Greece as they open their borders and welcome visitors into a 'safe' country with, to date, few COVID cases and a very low level of deaths.

Majority Asymtomatic? - Countries with high incidence, or cluster incidencies, developing more asymtomatic carriers, thereby becoming 'unsafe' regardless of how low case figures drop? - This could explain how countries who believe their situation to be under control, eg: Spain, are becoming major hotspots again: their initial outbreak was considerable, giving rise to a much higher level of asymtomatics, thereby ensuring almost certain transmissions following the removal of travel restrictions and subsequent influx of visitors and tourists. If true, this could mean that a true return of tourism, possibly other sectors too, could be impossible to maintain until such time as asymtomatics can be properly identified, isolated, and treated, especially if the virus is capable of indefinite, and indeterminate, lifespan within a suitable asymtomatic host.

Hot or cold? inconclusive, yet assumptions still being made that the 'virus' has a preference for cooler conditions, even though it clearly thrives in warm environments (UK, France, Spain, and Italy during recent heatwaves).

DNA modifications: current and ongoing research indicates that COVID-19 is not a virus; also, whilst not openly stated, weaponized.

Spreading or resisting? if the 'virus' is weaponized, then is the spread or illness due to COVID-19 encountering those whose systems fight or reject the DNA modifications? - My thoughts on the matter are that COVID-19 is massively prevalent and that it has been for quite some time. Also of note are a whole series of related coronaviruses, including SARS, MERS, Swine and Bird flu, and that the areas being most adversely affected by the current COVID-19 include areas where those COVID variants have previously had a noticeable impact.
If valid, this would mean that there is no real concern over catching COVID-19 because the odds are heavily in favour of a person already having it, with people only becoming ill, exhibiting symptoms, and sometimes dying, if their system attempts to fight or resist it, or if their system no longer has the capacity to accommodate the modifications (eg: the elderly or those who are suffering from certain illnesses). The extensive range of symptoms exhibited by various people also supports this (ie: the symptoms are not standard - they vary widely and from person to person, such as would be expected were that person's system under attack from something with the potential to cause widepread systemic changes or, in this case, DNA modifications).
In children, their immune systems usually being more resilient, could such resistance potentially be creating a backlash sufficient to be the cause of the Toxic Death Syndrome fatalities, even in cases exhibiting no recognized COVID symptoms? Could this, attempts at resisting the DNA modification, also explain BAME and other countries with adverse / disproportionate spread / distribution patterns and rare genetic illnesses in some patients who have succumbed but who have also managed to survive? Will this also result in increased cases of unavoidable TDS in children, as social restrictions are lifted, especially if travelling?

Inability to become re-infected? Given the scenario in this article, it makes perfect sense that people should become re-infected, as anyone who manages to fend-off the infection, regardless of personal conditions, is liable to be re-infected following any new contact with the 'virus' until the point where either they die or their system is successfully compromised.

Previous COVID illnesses (MERS / Bird Flu / Swine Flu): appears to be no full public disclosure on either. Any indications of similar impacts on a DNA level? Situation with those who have previously caught either of these? Any of these cases with new COVID? Observations?

Spread within self-isolation? Biting insects most likely culprit? Lockdown with pets / working with animals, - fleas, ticks, horseflies, midges, gnats, mosquitoes all physically transfer blood from host to host and could, thus, most certainly be responsible for hospitalization of people who have been rigourously observing lockdown precautions, even if using PPE; also major potential for multiple infections and death within family units and other group arrangements.

Animals? - Cases have been noted in several species, most notably cats, with livestock a distinct possibility. - To date infections appear to be one-way: transferable to the animal but not the other way, and having minimal observable effect on the animal. Could this be a case of carrier, not payload, transfer and could this create a situation of reverse contagion with illnesses not usually transfered, or transferable, to humans becoming a new TB?

Farmers vs. outdoor persuits enthusiasts? Nothing to date to suggest that farmers are succumbing to the illness more than anyone else, which suggests that most farmers, if thoughts on this valid, have already had the illness. Bearing in mind that there are clear indications that COVID-19 was active long before it was officially recognised as a pandemic, this would not be surprising if it were so. It would also mean that outdoor persuits enthusiasts potentially have a lot more to worry about by way of what they may catch from the farmers, than the other way round.

Antibody treatment? - If previous arguments valid, then it would be expected that anibodies may work in the sense of over-riding a victim's resistance to the 'virus' but, ultimately, will not be responsible for any recovery. Definite potential for actually exacerbating the illness, but this is unlikely to be seen because, on the one hand, more patients would potentially 'recover', having finally successfully succumbed to the 'virus', and, on the other, those who died would not have been expected to have good chances of surviving anyway.

Anticipating some 'success' level of antibody treatment above usual baseline survival, but successful in which respect? - That such treatments, to date, lack the "active component" means very little unless you truly understand what you are dealing with: removing a train from an electrified line does not mean that the overhead wires or live rail can no longer kill you.


If I Sneeze...

Don't mind me if I sneeze:
I'll stand down-wind of you -
Hope there's no breeze!

...but it is non-transmissable from animals, at least,
'Though no mention of those who on such hosts do
So self-isolate, if you please,
But you had better hope you don't have fleas!

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, my panegyric on da pandemic...

'e coughed,
'e spluttered,
"I'm dead!" he muttered, -
"Don't make no difference which way yer bread
is buttered!"

- ©JB "That Damned Treehugger", July 2020

- @: Ex5NY27U

- secure email address as detailed above -

IPv6 Ready
Valid CSS!