How do you explain SARS CoV 2 is more lethal and easier to spread?

It is fitter than SARS CoV 1 (which went extinct very quickly), MERS (which only has a handful of cases from animals rather than from human to human transmission), OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1. According to the Canadian respiratory report, OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1 combined have a positivity rate of about 1.8% in Ontario. By comparison, SARS CoV 2 has positivity rate of about 3% in Ontario.

Positive human coronavirus (HCoV) tests

Ontario reports more than 800 new COVID-19 cases for third straight day

But according to scientists, those that are less lethal spread more. So how can SARS CoV 2 spread more if it is more lethal? It does not make sense.

originally posted by: munchinschorn
It is fitter than SARS CoV 1 (which went extinct very quickly), MERS (which only has a handful of cases from animals rather than from human to human transmission), OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1. According to the Canadian respiratory report, OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1 combined have a positivity rate of about 1.8% in Ontario. By comparison, SARS CoV 2 has positivity rate of about 3% in Ontario.

Positive human coronavirus (HCoV) tests

Ontario reports more than 800 new COVID-19 cases for third straight day

But according to scientists, those that are less lethal spread more. So how can SARS CoV 2 spread more if it is more lethal? It does not make sense.

Transmission. Sars Cov 2 was designed to be highly infectious to humans.

The others were easy to catch and burn out because you were symptomatic.

This gain of research Cov 2 virus is most transmittable before symptom onset. Also, it was made to be infectious to humans while the other 2 were actual animal to human crossovers and not DESIGNED to be superbugs to humans.


The first ones, set up stations to catch fever, isolate those with fever... eventual burnout.

Not this one.

a reply to: infolurker

So you are saying SARS CoV 2 is man made, not natural?

a reply to: munchinschorn

So are you saying it's not?

originally posted by: munchinschorn
a reply to: infolurker

So you are saying SARS CoV 2 is man made, not natural?

Of course!

Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can easily deduce that from given evidence.


There is NOTHING in nature even close to it.

With Sars 1 and MERS, they quickly found the similar animal precursors. Sars Cov 2 does not have an animal precursor. Noting in nature is even close!

Do you know they tried to infect Bats with Covid 19?

COVID-19 doesn't infect key US bat species, Madison researchers find

madison.com/wsj/news/local/health-med-fit/covid-19-doesnt-infect-key-us-bat-species-madison-researchers-find/article_1b0b75c8-4b3e-59d3-a7fd-0acdcf352 34c.html

No one can find the animal that gave people covid-19
www.technologyreview.com...

Bats cannot directly infect humans with Covid-19

www.hindustantimes.com...

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
a reply to: munchinschorn

So are you saying it's not?

There is no animal host of SARS CoV 2, is there?

a reply to: munchinschorn

You said:
"There is no animal host of SARS CoV 2, is there? "


"Evidence for SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses circulating in bats and pangolins in Southeast Asia"
www.nature.com...

a reply to: Zitterbewegung

Add in some gain of function and that's why we are here now.

originally posted by: munchinschorn

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
a reply to: munchinschorn

So are you saying it's not?

There is no animal host of SARS CoV 2, is there?

There is now. Ferrets, cats, dogs, deer.

Of course there wasn't until they got it from us.

a reply to: munchinschorn

What is your goal. Either you are an idiot or you are a paid idiot to help keep populations stupid and unaware.

Which is it?

You could be just an idiot working for free.

a reply to: munchinschorn

You are dangerous and pass on bad information.