Officials said the two Santa Clara County patients died at home — a 57-year-old woman on Feb. 6 and a 69-year-old man on Feb. 17 — and that neither had traveled out of the country to a coronavirus outbreak area.

“Where did this come from if it wasn’t her traveling?” Macias said. “Patricia may not be the first. It’s just the earliest we have found so far.”

Do you think that the world heath officials would admit that they were wrong about the death rate if they were? 

Following new CDC guidelines: "As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths. This change was made to reflect an interim COVID-19 position statement issued by the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists on April 5, 2020. The position statement included a case definition and made COVID-19 a nationally notifiable disease.

A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19" [source]

I would rather they post the daily total deaths from everything,then you could compare it to the average total daily deaths in past years which is just a little over 6,000

The sun light is known to be good to activate vitamin D creation or something. Surely it is not the very late day time sun light. The very good sun light is only stand at the period of an hour in around 9 or 10 am. More than that it could disturb the health.

Well, what happen with that short period is i don't know.

Perhaps you should search the information about the benefit of the morning sun light. 

She lost her 32-year-old husband to Covid-19. Their story brings Cooper to tears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSxxwrFQBhI

You never said how you were going to make a capsule...okay, let's assume you create a UV-LED small enough to swallow and has some trigger to turn it on at the right time...maybe it has a tiny amount of a detectable element and a microchip trigger, then a doctor tracks it and activates it when it is exactly...where?

Viruses invade living cells and those host cells become their home.  So, you release this UV burst where?  How are you planning to release a burst that kills the virus and not the host cells?  Say you release this burst in the large intestine (I mean let's get closest to the center of all the vital organs so we can cure those, right?). 

Human skin produces melanin when exposed to UV light.  It absorbs 99% of UV light radiation, and yet human beings still get skin cancer.  Know how much melanin we produce *inside* our body?  That doesn't mean that there isn't any melanin inside our bodies, though.  Various pathogenic microbes do produce melanin "shells" to protect themselves from our immune systems the same way we produce melanin to protect us from UV radiation.

So.  You set off your capsule...it kills all the nearby host cells, the virus, and hopefully all the other melanin protected microbes you may have in your body, because you made sure the UV burst was strong enough to do that .  And, this being an infectious virus, there's no point in killing off the virus in 25% of the body if re-infection from other areas will just recur, so you do whatever it takes to make your burst strong enough to cover the whole body (never mind whether this is possible with our capsule UV-LED, let's just say we can do it).

The UV burst also kills all the non-infected cells in the same area, that being, as we discussed, the whole body...

Oops.

Well, dang.  So...that won't work.  Maybe we could localize it to the lungs, that being the most dangerous area the virus can inhabit.  The capsule is out, because we can't leave an LED sitting in someone's lungs the rest of their life, so let's use a fiber-optic cable and just stick it down there and blast the lungs with UV in a controlled burst...

So, let's say you've killed the virus in the lungs only, because somehow you pinpoint the burst with 100% accuracy and magnitude.  And you've now killed the living cells there, too.  But that's okay, I mean dead cells in bronchial tubes will still work, right?  It's still a tube, just a "dead" tube, so oxygen comes in

Carbon dioxide has to go out, though.  Hmmm, that's an annoying detail.  How does that even happen? 

Oh, cool, there are these things called alveoli at the terminus if our bronchioles that do the oxygen/carbon dioxide gas exchange so we can breathe.

Wait, we killed all the alveoli.

Oops.  

Maybe they'll grow back real fast (maybe injecting some disinfectant would help? ).  Maybe we can just regenerate them somehow.  Okay, good, we're all set.

Wait, we only killed the virus in the lungs with our pinpoint accuracy.  Now the virus is just re-infecting the lungs!  Crap...we better shove that fiber optic cable back in there and blast again.  And again.  And again.

Oops.

Well, it still works, sort of.  All we need now is to have the entire world's population receive periodic UV blast lung procedures and apply our miracle alveoli regenerator after each procedure, and then just keep doing that, forever.  Maybe we can make that better for people by surgically inserting a valve in their chests that goes directly into the lungs, and then this procedure can become a seamless part of everyday life...

There must be a preliminary observation regarding the virus behavior when it was exposed to UV light. As i suggest above that what a factor could kill the virus, whether it is the heat or the frequency.

The melanin creation or the chemical reaction is usually need the certain period of time to make an effect. While the UV burst from the capsule could be happening in very short time period. We could set the timing for the series of  UV burst.

And may be there is a difference behavior between host and the virus when it is exposed to a certain period of UV burst. This is the key to shot the only virus without affecting the host. 

Really?  Okay.

- The virus is inside the host cell. 

- UV light is not something we can change/re-formulate.  Unless you also have some theories about Einstein's work...

What you are suggesting is like trying to kill a tapeworm by shooting the patient with a shotgun and then hoping the tapeworm dies and they live.

Scientists have known for decades that broad-spectrum UVC light, which has a wavelength of between 200 to 400 nanometers (nm), is highly effective at killing bacteria and viruses by destroying the molecular bonds that hold their DNA together. This conventional UV light is routinely used to decontaminate surgical equipment.

“Unfortunately, conventional germicidal UV light is also a human health hazard and can lead to skin cancer and cataracts, which prevents its use in public spaces,” explained senior study investigator David Brenner, Ph.D., director of the Center for Radiological Research and professor at CUIMC.

“Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases.”

...and it's even more dangerous internally, where human beings have had no reason to evolve any defenses.

Very few peoples know the size of a virus or even what is a wavelenght  or how complex is a cell.....

They don't even know what a mol is? 

And they want to cure the covid-19 with lysol p

Hey, I've been watching this guy waste scam artist's time, but he has a video about coronavirus scam. It might help some people avoid losing money and it's on topic so I thought I'd post it... and for others it may just be entertaining to watch him waste the scammer's time.

This thread is morphing into Elroch's Biological Evolution. ....and we have trouble in Germany.   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN2270RD

We've had another mod visit, so I wanted to remind people about posting here:

Okay: 

"[Somebody] did [something], and I think it is crazy/dangerous/irresponsible"

Getting edgier:

"[Somebody] did [something], and this is just another example of how they are [calling out a trend]"

On the line:

"[Somebody] did [something], and this proves they are [semi-restrained opinion statement]" 

Over the line:

"[Somebody] is an [insult/expletive]."

...and in terms of politics:

Okay:

"[Some leader] did [something factual]"

Getting edgier:

"[Some leader] did [something opinion based]"

On the line:

"[Some leader] and their [political cohorts] are doing [something opinion based]"

Over the line:

"[Some leader] with [political leanings] and all the [expletive] other [people with the same political leanings] are doing [something opinion based]"

When I say "on the line" in these examples, I don't mean "you can go this far a get away with it"...I mean that "on the line" is going to actionable by a mod at their discretion based on context, repeat behavior/attitude, etc.  Saying possibly actionable stuff that is not even directly related to the thread topic is definitely going to be worse.  That even applies to a simple "yeah, that guy just flat out sucks" following a bunch of people saying they take issue with something that guy has done.  If a poster keeps doing "on the line" kind of stuff, then a mod is even going to start giving the "getting edgier" stuff a closer look.

"Over the line" is going to be something that a mod will almost assuredly take action on if it is seen by them.

The best policy is to try to post without the edgier stuff, but if something slips through and then you notice other people reacting to it and amplifying it, stop feeding it. 

I'll use myself as an example.  After the bleach thing came out, I posted about the briefing video.  I could have said "It's dangerous for a president to say stuff like this, because it's not scientifically sound, and it might not give people confidence in his leadership".  But I didn't.  I said (paraphrasing) that any elementary school student would know that this isn't scientifically sound, because watching that video was frustrating and disappointing.  I'd hoped for much better.

When people replied, it got amplified.  Now if I had not said what I did, the very next poster might have started that ball rolling anyway...but every poster can examine their posts before hitting the Post button and decide:

- Am I saying something that is more volatile than it needs to be?

- Am I saying something new and different, or am I just piling onto something?    

Well presented facts and events speak for themselves, and oftentimes the more volatile add-ons aren't really necessary to show something for what it is.  I'm not saying that everyone can or should police themselves to the point where nothing edgy ever comes out.  I'm just saying to keep on eye on it, especially in the context of something already heavily laden with it's own volatility, like this outbreak .

In this case, I mean up to 8 weeks...i.e. an amount of weeks that is less than multiple months, or I would have said months .

I am still waiting for something more definitive on the patient zero search in general...as I have mentioned it is hard and sometimes impossible to ascertain.  South China Morning Post was owned by Rupert Murdoch (ala Fox News), then sold to Alibaba.  Given that and the fact that they will only say they have seen data but not anything about the data...I will keep waiting.

In other words people are never stupid in actuality, because being stupid is a matter of opinion.

For example when [leader] did [something factual]

Oh I'm sorry, I mean when Trump said:

"I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection . . .  it'd be interesting to check that"

That wasn't stupid. And if I think so it's just my opinion, and opinions like that are sometimes censored.

I'm glad responsible adults are making sure to censor the harmful speech while letting the harmless stuff go.

I'm glad we're being so diligent about removing hurtful speech. Now we can move on to a serious and civil discussion about intravenous injection of household bleach.

Here's some evidence that it causes "no serious complications"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1416339

"We report the case of a 31-year-old man who injected less than 1 mL of bleach and then experienced transient left-sided chest pain and vomiting. The patient did not have any serious complications."

The virus doesn't enter the cell at first think of it as a corn dog. The stick part merely attaches to the cell wall. The coating on the corn dog would be the protein shell protecting the DNA  of the virus which equates to to the weenie inside the protein shell, The virus then causes the cells endoplasmic reticulum to synthesize new viruses inside the cell until enough are replicated to over fill the cell and the cell wall ruptures releasing newly synthesized viruses to attack other cells.

Your corn dog analogy kinda fell apart half way through. Lets try to rewrite it a little.

 "The virus then causes the cells endoplasmic reticulum to synthesize"

Whoa there buddy. That's a lot of big words. How about:

"The weenie then sets up a corn dog production plant, that makes corndogs until it explodes, showing the surroundings with an unholy rain of corndogs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRfwZcLeOm4

COVID-19 | Coronavirus: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology 

llama44 I did my best to really make the process as simple as I could from a cell biology course and a biochemistry course I took in 1972 some things have changed of course in our understanding of viruses since then. The video Marie-AnneLiz referred to is actually very similar to what I learned then about viruses in general and I really recommend the video for those wanting more accuracy in their understanding of this specific virus. It was a very good video. Thank you both for your inputs.