News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: PROOF: "Novel Coronavirus" Infecting the World is MILITARY BIO - RightNation.US

Jump to content

PROOF: "Novel Coronavirus" Infecting the World is MILITARY BIO Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,699
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 03 February 2020 - 05:11 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 03 February 2020 - 02:58 PM, said:

Yeah, that.

Purely hypothetically, if I wanted to militarize something like this I wouldn't be putzing around with (only) a 6% mortality rate; not when there's already far more virulent things out there to use as a starting point. there's always Marburg, of course, with ~90% mortality rate. But perhaps TOO "Hot" for this sort of thing, it kills people faster than it can spread. Better would be something that incubates long enough that the carriers could pass it on before they show symptoms themselves, say 2 to 4 days which these days is just long enough for the carriers to get just about anywhere in the world.

Something like, for instance, H5N1 "Bird" flue. Mortality rate of ~60% in humans, but fortunately very rare in humans. As I understand it, the only known cases are in people who have come into direct contact with dead birds/chickens that have had it. It isn't yet known to travel human-to-human yet. Emphasis on the word "yet" and "known"; there may be much that gov't run labs know but aren't telling.

And a funny thing happened on the way to the forum: I stumbled across this article in Business Insider dated 2 days ago: A 'highly pathogenic strain' of H5N1 bird flu has been reported in China's Hunan province.

There sure seems to be a lot of remarkable coincidences in Hunan these days.

Here is the rub though. If you can develop something which only requires a hand full of people to be exposed, can transmit without showing symptoms or knowing they are carriers and it can be quickly spread to 10's of thousands, even with a 2 or 4 percent fatality rate that's still pretty damn effective. If you look at it from a perspective of resources required and distribution it's actually far more effective than any traditional chemical weapon. Two to four percent of nine thousand is still four hundred plus. AND, think of all the people and resources it takes to care for the sick.
From a total perspective this would be a pretty damn effective weapon.

Share this topic:

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users