Is The Coronavirus In Response To The One Child Law?

As we know China has a one child per couple law.... and in a country that favors male children over females this has led to a surplus of males, a 38 million men surplus.
And from what I've read, the coronavirus uses the ACE 2 receptors to replicate itself and men apparently have more ACE 2 receptors than women do.
So, if you wanted to cull out a few surplus men while also ridding yourself of a few useless old people at the same time....this new virus would seem to be tailor made.

China hasn't had the one child law since 2016.

Is The Coronavirus In Response To The One Child Law?

Short answer :No.
Long answer : No . Why would their government basically rescind a longstanding law and then do this ?

a reply to: MissSmartypants

It would not be very effective, women have those receptors as well. They do increase in number in patients with chronic underlying disease, the study with a male with 4x or whatever the number of ACE2 receptors had significant underlying chronic conditions that increased chances of the illness killing him. The chronic diseases also increased the number of ACE2 receptors to help his body deal with those diseases.

If this is a Chinese govt thing.....Maybe China released the virus for two reasons.
1. Blame the outbreak for the bad economy.
2. Take out as many people over 55 they can

It is true that some of those viruses do target the ace 2 receptor, I just verified that. I don't think that would make a difference in men getting more sick though, in fact, you would think if they had more ace 2 receptors they would have less chance of dying because they could last longer than a woman would. I studied the ace receptors a few years ago for a different reason than viruses but did not actually try to apply it to viral activity, so basically I do not know. I never even considered them to be a specific virus target. although I knew that some receptors were targeted by viruses.

Some of the experts on this stuff know their stuff, I just know some of what they write. I may know quite a bit about things but am not well learned on some things yet. Now is the virus actually inhibiting ace or is it actually promoting ace by it's action? Or does it destroy the receptor and consequently the cell by blocking all action at that receptor. The articles I could find talked about effecting the receptor but not how it effects it.

I once had a dream that I was the only Male Human left on the planet..wasn't such a bad thing though

Seriously though any sane civil society that knows there are too many Humans on the planet would start with the most populous Country in China..watch India your next! then Africa.

This IS Chinas Big grab for any one who speaks out against them.
they will grab them and um! they die in hospital....
who can blame china if they got the Flu?

good idea to see how many who speak against china died.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

No. They could have been far more efficient. It needed to start about two weeks later to really take advantage of Chinese New Year... remember Chinese New Year was canceled... Then operatives would have identified someone from the fish market and contacted them to persuade them in some manner to go to say Shanghai (hello you have won a lottery , please pick up in Shanghai by Tuesday) for example. Then they could have released the virus in Shanghai. They would have done this to several people identified at the fish market so the start of the virus would have started all over China. By tagging people to other city’s it would look like a normal spread.

Just releasing in one city from Wuhan would be sloppy and ridiculous if the goal was to kill as many as possible.

This was just something engineered and clung to a scientists bio suit creases when they were putting away a vial. It went through decontamination on accident and fell and burst somewhere. I’ve worked in labs and this is crazy easy to do. I’ve done it.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
As we know...

Apparently we don't.

a reply to: Blueracer

Right. Some of us know better.
www.theguardian.com...

a 38 million men surplus.

That's what? About 2%? I think the majority of them are quite old. So, maybe it's a plan to kill boomers.

In the US it's the females who have the advantage, by about 2%.

If you ask me, allowing people to have one child is already being too generous in a country that has that many people and no real reason to have any more.

No. Just no.

One Child Policy as stated previously rescinded in 2016 and replaced with 2 child policy. Which has failed. Turns out to too expensive to have 2 kids AND support wife or husbands parents. Turns out central planning didn't plan so well. No surprise.

Chinese families value males to highly for the govt to simply eradicate them wholesale. That would create instant social instability which the govt most especially does not want.

The last ratio I read was 94.5 women to 100 men but that mostly likely as with any number from China is skewed towards what the govt wants it to show.

During my decade+ there I noticed more and more singles choosing not to marry for a plethora of reasons. I think the most important is that they simply don't view it their duty to marry and have kids like their parents do. They are more interested in their careers, phones, social media and building wealth.