View allAll Photos Tagged Disinformation
Niloofar Razi Howe, Senior Fellow, Cybersecurity Initiative, New America Foundation; Senior Operating Partner, Energy Impact Partners
Tim Sadler, Co-Founder and CEO, Tessian
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJUGUFEFYHY
"The boundless flavour
Of dominance on the starved tongue
Gives these kings a mental state
Of ambitious arousal
For corruption steadily trickles
From their fingertips
And showers into the pool
Of forged mental assurance at their feet
The sleeping masses live on
In their so called tranquil lifestyle,
Lifestyle!"
There was a lot of grumbling about the early season action ... of course that could have been disinformation for an out-of-towner.
The top disinformation / misinformation sources, as reported by the NY Times, from a report by Brookings Research, Feb. 10, 2023.
Moscow, WWII Miseum at Poklonnaya Gora. May 2009
The Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) assault gun was Germany's most produced armoured fighting vehicle during World War II. It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank. Initially intended as a mobile, armoured light gun for infantry support, the StuG was continually modified and was widely employed as a tank destroyer.
Development
The Sturmgeschütz III originated from German experiences in World War I when it was discovered that during the offensives on the western front the infantry lacked the means to effectively engage fortifications. The artillery of the time was heavy and not mobile enough to keep up with the advancing infantry to destroy bunkers, pillboxes, and other minor obstacles with direct-fire. Although the problem was well-known in the German army, it was General Erich von Manstein who is considered the father of the Sturmartillerie. This is because the initial proposal was from (then) Colonel Erich von Manstein and submitted to General Ludwig Beck in 1935, suggesting that Sturmartillerie ("assault artillery") units should be used in a direct-fire support role for infantry divisions. On June 15, 1936, Daimler-Benz AG received an order to develop an armoured infantry support vehicle capable of mounting a 75 mm (2.95 in) artillery piece. The gun was to have a limited traverse of a minimum of 25° and be mounted in an enclosed superstructure that provided overhead protection for the crew. The height of the vehicle was not to exceed that of the average man.
Daimler-Benz AG used the chassis and running gear of its recently designed Pz.Kpfw. III medium tank as a basis for the new vehicle. Prototype manufacture was passed over to Alkett, which produced five examples in 1937 of the experimental 0-series StuG based upon the Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. B. These prototypes featured a mild steel superstructure and Krupp’s short-barreled 75 mm StuK 37 L/24 cannon. This model was known as the Sturmgeschütz Ausführung A.
StuG III, Ausf. AWhile the StuG III was considered self-propelled artillery it was not initially clear which arm of the Wehrmacht would handle the new weapon. The Panzer arm, who was the natural user of tracked fighting vehicles, had no resources to spare for the formation of StuG units, and neither did the Infantry branch. It was therefore agreed, after a discussion, it would best be employed by becoming a part of the artillery arm.
The StuGs were organised into battalions (later renamed "brigades" for disinformation purposes) and followed their own specific doctrine. Infantry support using direct-fire was its intended role, and later there was also a strong emphasis on destroying enemy armour whenever encountered.
StuG III, Ausf. G, September 1944As the StuG III was designed to fill an infantry close support combat role, early models were fitted with a low-velocity 75 mm StuK 37 L/24 gun to destroy soft-skin targets and fortifications. After the Germans encountered the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 tanks, the StuG III was equipped with a high-velocity 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 main gun (Spring 1942) and later – the 75 mm StuK 40 L/48 (Autumn 1942) anti-tank gun. These versions were known as the Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F, Ausf. F/8 and Ausf. G.
When the StuG IV entered production in late 1943, early 1944, the "III" was added to the name to separate them from the Panzer IV-based assault guns. All previous and following models were thereafter known as Sturmgeschütz III.
Beginning with the StuG III Ausf. E a 7.92 mm MG34 was mounted on the hull for added anti-infantry protection while some StuG III Ausf. G models were equipped with an additional coaxial 7.92 mm MG34.
The vehicles of the Sturmgeschütz series were cheaper and faster to build than contemporary German tanks; at 82,500 RM, a StuG III Ausf G was cheaper than a Panzer III Ausf. M which cost 103,163 RM to build. By the end of the war, 10,619 StuG III and StuH 42 had been built.[1] This was due to the omission of the turret, which greatly simplified manufacture and allowed the chassis to carry a larger gun than it could otherwise.
Operational history
Stug III in Sofia, BulgariaOverall, Sturmgeschütz series assault guns proved very successful and served on all fronts as assault guns and tank destroyers. Although Tigers and Panthers have earned a greater notoriety, assault guns collectively destroyed more tanks. Because of their low silhouette, StuG IIIs were easy to camouflage and a difficult target. Sturmgeschütz crews were considered to be the elite of the artillery units. Sturmgeschütz units held a very impressive record of tank kills – some 20,000 enemy tanks by the spring of 1944.[2] As of April 10 1945, there were 1,053 StuG IIIs and 277 StuH 42s in service. Approximately 9,500 StuG IIIs of various types were produced until March 1945 by Alkett and a small number by MIAG.
In terms of the resources expended in their construction, the StuG assault guns were extremely cost-effective compared to the heavier German tanks, though in the anti-tank role, it was best used defensively, as the lack of a turret would be a severe disadvantage out in the open. As the German military situation deteriorated later in the war, more and more StuG guns were constructed in comparison to tanks, in an effort to replace losses and bolster defences against the encroaching Allied forces.
In 1944 the Finnish Army received 59 StuG III Ausf. Gs from Germany (30 Stu 40 Ausf.G and 29 StuG III Ausf. G) and used them against the Soviet Union. These destroyed at least 87 enemy tanks for a loss of only 8 StuGs[2] (some of these were destroyed by their crews when they abandoned the vehicle to prevent capture). After the war, they were the main combat vehicles of the Finnish Army until the early 1960s. These StuGs gained the nickname "Sturmi" which can be found in some plastic kit models.
StuG IIIs were also exported to other nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and Spain.
Many German Sturmgeschütz IIIs were captured by Yugoslav Partisans and after the war they were used by the Yugoslav Peoples Army until the 1950s.
After the Second World War, the Soviet Union donated some of their captured German vehicles to Syria, which continued to use them at least until the Six Days War (1967).
Wikipedia
Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) (Штурмгешутц III (Штуг III)— средняя по массе немецкая самоходно-артиллерийская установка класса штурмовых орудий времён Второй мировой войны на базе танка Pz Kpfw III. Серийно выпускалась в различных модификациях с 1940 по 1945 год и стала самым массовым по численности представителем бронетехники вермахта (выпущено 8636 самоходок с 75-мм орудиями).
StuG III — компоновка боевого подразделения и размещение в нем экипажаПолное официальное название машины — Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7,5 cm Kanone. По ведомственному рубрикатору министерства вооружений нацистской Германии самоходка обозначалась как Sd Kfz 142. StuG III также обозначается как StuG 40, в советской литературе эту машину именовали как Артштурм. StuG III активно использовались на всех фронтах Второй мировой войны и в целом получили хорошие отзывы немецкого командования: к началу 1944 на счету StuG III было около 20,000 танков противника Захваченные Красной Армией StuG III переделывались в самоходки СУ-76И, вооружённые той же пушкой Ф-34, что и у танка Т-34.
[править] История
В 1935 Эрих фон Манштейн в письме к генералу Беку описал идею машин «штурмовой артиллерии», главной задачей которых должна была бы быть непосредственная поддержка атакующих подразделений пехоты. После проработки подробных запросов, 15 июня 1936 г. фирма «Даймлер-Бенц АГ» получила заказ на проектирование бронированных машин поддержки пехоты, вооруженных 75 мм пушкой, со свободой движения ствола в горизонтальной плоскости по крайней мере в 25°. Машина должна была быть полностью бронирована, тем самым защищая экипаж от прямого огня неприятеля, а полная высота транспортного средства не должна была превышать высоту типичного солдата. Для разработки новой самоходки «Даймлер-Бенц» решил использовать шасси нового среднего танка Панцеркампфваген III . Первые пять прототипов были произведены в 1937 г. на шасси Панцеркампфваген III Аусф. Б. Они были вооружены короткоствольной 75 мм пушкой Штурмканоне 37 Л/24 (со стволом в 24 калибра) с низкой начальной скоростью снаряда. После столкновения в России с танками Т-34 было решено переоборудовать ШТУГ III длинноствольной пушкой, пригодной для поражения брони советских танков. С весны 1942 г. стали использовать пушки 75 мм Штурмканоне 40 Л/43, а осенью этого года ещё более длинноствольные версии этой пушки — Л/48. Более поздние модели ШТУГа III также были оснащены пулеметом Мг34 калибром 7,92 мм, установленным перед командирским люком (так как другого способа установки пулемета не имелось). Все машины из серии Штурмгешутс были дешевле в производстве, чем танки на тех же шасси. ШТУГ III стоил 82,5 тысяч марок, в то время как Панцеркампфваген III стоил более 103 тысяч марок. По сравнению с этим, например, буксируемый вариант той же 75 мм пушки, используемой в Штуге, стоил 12 тыс. марок. До конца войны было произведено свыше 10500 экземпляров в разных модификациях.
Electromagnetic Sound Art - “National Grid” by Disinformation + Strange Attractor [Joe Banks + Mark Pilkington]
Recorded live at New Corsica Studios - 19 Nov 2004
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_AP2LlN6E
“Pulsing sub-bass audio suggests associations with the most primal anthropomorphic element in music -- the rhythms of the human heart, with foetal and infant hypnagogic sense memories, with seismic activity, the rumble of thunder (Jimi Hendrix claimed that his earliest childhood memory was of a thunderstorm) and even with war. Disinformation's National Grid is a sub-bass installation sourced either from the ambient VLF field radiated by electricity pylons and mains circuits, or directly from the output cables of mains transformers. National Grid offers live physical evidence of environmental electromagnetic pollution, a demonstration of the intrinsic musical properties of alternating current, beat-frequency effects, the architectural acoustics of its own exhibition space, a formula for the realisation and suppression of Futurist sound art, a cathartic response to the pressures of urban life, a monolithic soundtrack for the genius of electrification and for the bitter conflicts between government and organised labour for control over the nation's electrical infrastructure.” - Disinformation “Stargate” + “National Grid” LP - Ash International, Ash 3.2, copyright © 1996
Disobey, Holloway, London, 10 Oct 1996
Royal College of Art, Kensington, 5 Dec 1996
Museum of Installation, Deptford, July 1997
South London Gallery, Camberwell, 15 Aug 1998
Nuclear Warfare Command Centre, Anstruther, 25 Sept 1998
Lux Cinema, Hoxton, 9 Dec 1998
Volksbühne, Berlin, 27 June 1999
ZKM, Karlsruhe, 16 July 1999
Arctic Corsair, Hull, Oct 1999
Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge, Jan to March 2000
Sonic Boom, Hayward Gallery, 2 June 2000
The Dom, Moscow, 26 Sept 2000
Fabrica, Brighton, Nov to Dec 2001
The Royal Institution, Mayfair, 22 May 2004
Corsica Studios, Elephant & Castle, 19 Nov 2004 *
The Guardian Science Writers Xmas Party, 13 Dec 2004 *
Hull Art Lab (Humber Street, Kingston-upon-Hull) 4 Feb 2005 *
Cargo Nightclub, Hoxton, 17 Feb 2005 *
The Foundry, Hoxton, Oct 2005
Westbourne Studios, Notting Hill, 18 Sept 2006 *
The Junction, Cambridge, 27 April 2007 *
Centre for Life, Newcastle, 5 March 2008 *
Gus Fisher Gallery, Auckland, NZ, Aug 2009
When the Dust Settles, Dalston Bunker, Oct 2010
Living Rooms, Auckland, NZ, April 2011
Frequency Festival, Lincoln, Oct 2011
Usurp Gallery, Harrow, 8 Nov 2011
GV Art, Marylebone, Nov to Dec 2013
Inspace, Edinburgh, 29 Nov 2013
Le Bon Accueil, Rennes, Oct to Nov 2014
The Auricle, Christchurch, NZ, Feb 2015
The Morgue, Chelsea College of Arts, 16 March 2017
Assembly of Disturbance, Shoreditch, 7 Oct 2017
Gallery 46, Whitechapel, 15 Feb 2018
Kino Siska, Ljubljana, 21 March 2018
CMK, Koper, 22 March 2018
Caponier Tunnel, Newhaven Fort, 22 Sept 2018
Listening Arts Channel (on-line) 19 March 2021
Antithesis, Schemata Art, Elephant & Castle, March 2022
Ealing Extranormal Volume 22, 16 Dec 2023
Farsight Collective, St. Giles, 11 + 12 Oct 2024
LungA Skólinn, Seyðisfjörður, 23-25 May 2025
LCB Depot, Leicester, Sept 2025
Wave Farm (WGXC 90.7FM, Acra, NY) 10 Oct 2025
* Disinformation + Strange Attractor
A man in a massive Mark Zuckerberg head and angry emoji greets Facebook’s CTO, calling on MPs to defend democracy from disinformation. London, 04/26/2018, photographer : Rob Pinney
Brian Stelter, Fellow, Media and Democracy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, USA, Vera Jourová, Vice-President for Values and Transparency, European Commission, Seth Wilbur Moulton, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Jeanne Bourgault, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internews, USA and Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher, New York Times, USA in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
Two journalists, Clément Di Roma and Carol Valade, have been awarded the 2022 Daphne Caruana Galizia Prize for their documentary “The Central African Republic under Russian influence”
This documentary is a Découpages/Arte G.E.I.E co-production, initially broadcast on Arte Reportage in French, German and English. It was also broadcast on France 24 and published in the French newspaper Le Monde.
Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, Pina Picierno, Vice-President responsible for the Prize, and Anthony Bellanger, Secretary General of the International Federation of Journalists and representative of the 29 members of the independent European-wide Jury, opened the award ceremony held in the Daphne Caruana Galizia Press Room of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
President Metsola said: "The Daphne Caruana Galizia Prize for Journalism sends a strong message. The European Parliament is on the side of truth and justice, of independent journalism.
A strong democracy needs a strong press. And there is no democracy without freedom of the press. In Europe, rights and liberties are goals we fight for, not obstacles."
Between the 3rd May and 1st August 2022, more than 200 journalists from the 27 EU countries submitted their stories for consideration. 11 of these submissions were shortlisted by the jury before the overall winner was decided.
About the winning story
This film is Clément Di Roma and Carol Valade’s first documentary and the culmination of their work as correspondents in the Central African Republic in 2020. The country was going through a wave of violence and abuses triggered by a new rebellion, partly fought by Wagner, a shadow army serving the Kremlin's interests. They investigated, filmed and continued their correspondence for several international media despite the surveillance of Russian mercenaries and the prevailing hostility against the French media. It was also a question of continuing the work of their three Russian colleagues, Orhan Djemal, Kirill Radchenko, and Alexander Rasstorguyev, murdered in the Central African Republic while investigating Wagner in 2018. Their main concern has been the protection of their sources, especially those who denounce the crimes of mercenaries, in a country where disappearances of opponents are common. After several months of investigation, they gained the trust of Russian propaganda actors in the Central African Republic. Their voices had never been heard before. Without bias, their documentary gives a voice to the victims of the mercenaries, but also to their supporters, to better understand the methods of this takeover, facilitated by a resentment towards France. They wanted to make all voices heard in this other front of the conflict with Russia that is now spreading to the Sahel on both military and disinformation fields.
Read more: www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221017IPR4370...
This photo is free to use under Creative Commons license CC-BY-4.0 and must be credited: "CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2022– Source: EP". (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) No model release form if applicable. For bigger HR files please contact: webcom-flickr(AT)europarl.europa.eu
There's a bit of what seems to be disinformation going around about whether NPP and ToonMe are Kremlin-sourced data harvesters.
Snopes.com has looked into this, and the answer appears to be, no actually. So for now, at any rate, our sites seem to be safe.
www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/11/new-profile-pic-app/
Aside from all that, any preferences with these?
There's a bit of what seems to be disinformation going around about whether NPP and ToonMe are Kremlin-sourced data harvesters.
Snopes.com has looked into this, and the answer appears to be, no actually. So for now, at any rate, our sites seem to be safe.
www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/11/new-profile-pic-app/
Aside from all that, any preferences with these?
“Rorschach Audio - Art & Illusion for Sound” by Joe Banks
ISBN 978-1-907222-20-7 • Psychoacoustics, Art Theory
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher, New York Times, USA speaking in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
Brian Stelter, Fellow, Media and Democracy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, USA, Vera Jourová, Vice-President for Values and Transparency, European Commission, Seth Wilbur Moulton, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Jeanne Bourgault, President and Chief Executive Officer, Internews, USA and Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher, New York Times, USA in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
This paper model is a Nebelwerfer (Smoke Mortar), a World War II German weapon, the papercraft is created by Model-Kom, and the scale is in 1:25.
The Nebelwerfer was given its name as a disinformation strategy designed to fool observers from the League of Nations, who were observing any possible ...
www.papercraftsquare.com/wwii-nebelwerfer-smoke-mortar-fr...
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher, New York Times, USA speaking in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
When Carl Sagan had famously said that “we’re made of star stuff,” he wasn’t joking because the facts are that the cosmos are hidden within all of us humans. We are the SO BELOW here on earth in which the cosmos and heavens are the AS ABOVE.
Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite said; “Lucifer the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendours intolerable blinds feeble sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not! ”
And one of Freemasonry’s greatest philosophers that has ever lived, 33rd Degree Freemason and master Rosicrucian Manly P. Hall said this about Lucifer in his book, All Seeing Eye; “Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”
Many people mistakenly think that Lucifer is Satan and vice versa, but the facts are that is simply not true. This misinformation, conspiracies and lies have been propagated to the people through many books and movies to the point today in this year 2013, that most people equate Lucifer with Satan or evil. Hopefully you have an open mind and will get past this propaganda like I did myself, in order for you to discover the truth. I AM sure this is the case or else most likely you wouldn’t be reading this website.
If you are asking the question, “Who is Lucifer?,” the answer that you will find often depends on who you ask or where you perform your search. But the facts are that if you were to research the true meaning of Lucifer that is somewhat hidden in secret societies such as Freemasonry, you would find that some of the world’s most prolific 33rd Degree Freemasons have already established the meaning of Lucifer, that they have written about in their books on the occult.
The word “occult” simply means hidden, which is the whole point of the misinformation that you will find on the true meaning of Lucifer. In addition, if you know where to look, the true definition of Lucifer along with corresponding information is now common knowledge on Wikipedia. However, due to countless publications of misinformation via articles, books and videos all over Youtube; the truth is still buried beneath a pile of ignorance.
Therefor, for us smart researchers, we have come to understand this simple fact: That in order to find the light, we have to uncover the truth which is buried at the bottom of these lies and hundreds of years of church, government and ignorant human propaganda. The real story of Lucifer is no different. We have to perform some fact checking of our own like you are doing right now, so that we all can get to the bottom of this disinformation in order to get to the light of the truth.
This article will do just that for you, by helping clear the lies in order for you to see the light of Lucifer for what he truly represents.
Jesus morning star
In the occult, Lucifer is often referred to as the ‘morning star.’ In the Bible, you will find this same exact reference to Jesus as well who says in Revelation 22:16 – “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
You see, just as Lucifer is known as the morning star, Jesus also calls himself ‘the bright morning star’ and as I stated above, Manly P. Hall had said, “Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.” Hence, rest assured that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same which will become clearly evident to those with an eye to see the true light amongst the darkness in which we live.
The reason that both Lucifer and Jesus can be considered one and the same is because of an often little understood chemical compound that is hidden within each of our own DNA called ‘Phosphorus.’ Phosphorus is essential for life and the phosphate is a component of DNA, RNA, ATP, and also the phospholipids that form all cell membranes.
Simply put, without phosphorus, we humans would simply not be human because consciousness and our spiritual energy would not exist. It is through our DNA which contains phosphorus, that we become conscious to the world and who we are in order to live in the light. Hence, Lucifer is really just an allegory to describe ‘Phosphorus’ which resides in our DNA.
The literal meaning of phosphorus (Phosp-Horus = Lucifer) is “Light-Bringer.”
Horus winged sun
Here is the definition that you will find on Wikipedia; Phosphorus (Greek Φωσφόρος Phōsphoros), a name meaning “Light-Bringer”, is the Morning Star, the planet Venus in its morning appearance. Another Greek name for the Morning Star is Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphoros), which means “Dawn-Bringer”.
The Latin word corresponding to Greek Phosphorus is “Lucifer”. It is used in its astronomical sense both in prose and poetry. The Latin word lucifer, corresponding to, was used as a name for the morning star and thus appeared in the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל (helel) – meaning Venus as the brilliant, bright or shining one – in Isaiah 14:12, where the Septuagint Greek version uses, not Φωσφόρος, but Ἑωσφόρος.
origins of freemasonry
Venus is the brightest morning “star” and is currently the focal point of the eastern dawn sky. This would be the reason why you will find that all Freemason Lodges face the north and south, but when you walk into the lodge room, you’re symbolically facing the East and all masonic rituals are performed while facing the East in preparation of the son of the morning via the dawn of a new day under the light of the morning star.
Manly P. Hall writes in his book, Initiates of the Flame: “It is said that in ancient times the Sphinx was the gateway of the Pyramid, and that there was an underground passage which led from the Sphinx to Cheops (Great Pyramid)” (Initiates of the Flame, p. 68).
The Sphinx symbolizes man. The Sphinx again symbolizes man, with the mind and spirit of the human rising out of the animal desires and emotions. It is the riddle of the ages, and man is once more the answer. The four fixed signs of which the Sphinx is a symbol are Taurus the Bull, Leo the Lion, Scorpio the Eagle, and Aquarius the Man, or the human head.
So, how can Lucifer be the the prince of darkness, when it has been established that Lucifer is really phosphorus, which a derived from a Greek name meaning “Light-Bringer?”
The facts are that is he is not the prince of darkness or Satan because Lucifer is really phosphorus that resides in our DNA. Once you understand this reality that is science based, you will then have one of the secret keys to the mysteries of the universe.
The light within each one of us humans is where we find Lucifer or Jesus, AKA the morning star.
sphynxeye
Hence, KNOW THYSELF and KNOW GOD. In ancient Egypt is was said; “The body is the house of God,” and one of the many proverbs is “Man, know thyself … and thou shalt know the gods,” and what Manly P. Hall called Aquarius the Man, or the human head represented by the Egyptian Sphinx.
When we KNOW THYSELF, we carry the water of Aquarius the Man and thus become Lion Kings of our own domain which the Egyptians had represented with the figure of a sphinx (Greek: Σφίγξ /sphinx, Bœotian: Φίξ /Phix) which is a mythical creature with, as a minimum, the body of a lion and the head of a human.
Unfortunately, with the advent of certain religions such as Christianity and Islam along with other government controls on the people, these ancient gnostic teachings were corrupted, modified or simply hidden from the multitudes of people because they are or were at one time very dangerous to the church and or government.
These authoritarian institutions operate primarily on the basis of having a master that is outside of you dictating your life, souls and spirit at every step, and they would rather “tell you who you are, where you come from and where you will be going,” rather than us humans being unique individuals who “know thyself … and thou shalt know the gods.”
The facts are that a person who KNOWS THYSELF and KNOWS GOD, is very hard to control by the powers that be because they loose their grip on this persons soul once they figure out “the game” which from day one has been an attempt to trick or steal us all out of our true beings, souls and spirits. Hence, the reason why there are all these lies and propaganda surrounding the name Lucifer.
lucifer 1
Lucifer represents the angel of light with individual intellect who ‘rebels’ against the outside ‘dark authority’. This is why he is called the ‘fallen angel.’ The dark and outside authority can be attributed to our flesh and fleshly desires coupled with the outside material world that attempts to take us away from the true light within each one of us.
This darkness tries to fool us into looking without when we should have always been looking within the whole time. Hence, this is the whole illusion of the matrix in which Satan, the true prince of darkness that represents the flesh and free will is looking to control you, so you do not look within yourself for the “prince of light” or “the morning star.”
The reference to the Venus is the AS ABOVE of which Lucifer, AKA Phosphorus is the AS BELOW.
The facts are that we are made of stardust” or star debris and are therefore “one with the universe.” This is where we get the AS ABOVE, in the SO BELOW and the AS WITHIN , of the AS WITHOUT. It is that star dust hidden inside you in the form of Phosphorus, which I have already stated is essential for life. The phosphate is a component of DNA, RNA, ATP, and also the phospholipids that form all cell membranes. This is the ‘spark’ in our DNA that makes us human. Lucifer is in all of us in the form of Phosphorus.
This may be where our souls access our divine consciousness and thus we become divine like Saint John or a Christ like Jesus. Or is this what the church calls evil in Lucifer because a conscious soul and spirit is a dangerous one and maybe that is why Jesus was crucified?
What is the fall of Lucifer?
fall of lucifer
It is an allegory of the light that resides in us and the fall is simply the fall away from this light. With the advent of most religions, this caused the fall of mankind. A fall away from the light within us that was then exchanged or forced by a false light that that was to be found outside of ourselves within a book or church.
Hence, the fall of Lucifer is the fall that each one of us takes when we look outside for answers as opposed to looking within for the true light, that which will guide us to the promise land or own own personal heavens.
As I stated above, Lucifer and the Morning Star are references to Phosphorus which is essential for life. Without phosphorus, consciousness, energy and the creation of this article would simply not be happening. When we turn away from this light within, we too fall away from grace. Hence, we fall for lies and truth in which we then become one of Satan’s tools that is represented by the planet Saturn. However, that will be a new article in itself.
Whether you choose to believe what I AM stating here and by confirming what I have written and quoted above, is entirely up to you because this is your path where you have to decide truth from fiction or light from dark on your own. However, if you have not done your own research and you have already reached an ignorant conclusion based on heresay or lies, then you are what Mr. Pike calls intolerable blinds feeble sensual, or selfish souls, in which you are one of the billions of Satan’s weak human tools. A soul who chooses darkness rather than light and an unawakened human who worships lies over truth, where ignorance rules your actions over that of true wisdom.
Hence, another brick in the wall…….
Here it is, the origin of Mike Power!
Even though as a kid I owned a few Adventure Team toys ( Land Adventurer, Intruder Warrior, Combat Jeep, and Air Adventurer) I got all of them ( save the Air Adventurer, which I bought at a flea market at my elementary school when I was in 3rd grade) when I was scarcely more than a toddler. So for the longest time I had no knowledge of the backstory (such as it is) of the 12 inch GI Joe figures. All I knew was that Joe was some sort of a soldier and he fought against the Intruder, which was an alien invader ( I didn't even know there was more than one Intruder).
When I was about 8 or 9 years old, I came across this ad in an old comic book that was part of my cousin Jimmy's comic book collection that he kept at my Grandmother's house. This was the first time I'd ever heard of Mike Power or the "Adventure Team" . By this time, the smaller, "Real American Hero" Joes were out and I was a big fan of them. I was forever trying to figure out the connection, if any, between the big 12 inch Joes from my very early childhood and their smaller brethren. It was quite a surprise for me to find out that there had been some sort of an earlier incarnation of the GI Joe Team.
Mike's origin raises all sorts of intriguing questions for unrepentant geeks such as myself who spend far too much time analyzing things like this.
For one thing, I 've always felt that while it was probably meant to be inspirational (man overcomes handicaps, becomes super human), that Mike's origin is actually sort of insulting to disabled people in a way, and also raises all sorts of red flags about Mike's sanity. Let me explain: Mike refuses to "settle" for his disabled body parts and becomes obsessed with creating artificial limbs to replace them. To me this has always implied that other disabled people are (compared to Mike) wimps who just gave up and accepted their disability. However, in the real world, accepting your disability, adapting to your new reality and moving on with your life is actually the psychologically healthy thing to do when faced with a handicap. If anything, Mike's reaction, to "dedicate his entire life to creating fantastic new atomic parts " for his body is more like the actions of a dangerous and obsessed mad scientist type of character like Dr. Frankenstein, than a true hero.
Even more disturbing is the implication that Mike may've amputated a perfectly good arm (and scooped out one of his eyes) in his quest to obtain his ideal of physical perfection. In the comic, we see him welding and doing intricate work on electronics with the very same arm he later replaces with an atomic one. So that limb must've had some high degree of functionality to begin with. And he never says anything about there being anything wrong with his eyes ( he doesn't even wear glasses!). To me, all of this implies that Mike might be some sort of a nut case who is obsessed with perfection and strength. For all we know, maybe there was nothing really wrong with his body to begin with, other than it wasn't perfect or powerful enough to make him happy and the story he tells Joe is a bunch of B.S. ! The one test Joe forgets to give Mike may be the most important one of all - a thorough psychological examination!
Another disturbing idea is that he somehow managed to amputate his own limbs! Who did the operation to install his atomic parts? Logically, you would think that maybe he had some assistants - certainly in the real world this sort of research would be done by a whole team of scientists funded by grants. But Mike is portrayed as a lone genius, who somehow manages to not only fund his (probably very expensive) research, but he also gets a hold of radioactive materials to power his limbs (even Doc Brown had trouble doing that!) and to top it all off, he either magically does surgery on himself or convinces someone else to saw off his leg and remove an eye and arm that may've had nothing wrong with them to begin with. Can you spell "medical ethics" kids?
What I also want to know is how thoroughly he tested his cybernetic skills before going under the knife himself? Are there a whole bunch of atomic lab mice out there somewhere? An atomic chimp? Teenage Atomic Ninja Turtles?
If there are, i demand toys of them! NOW!!
Interestingly, from what I've read online, the new Adventure Team Chronicles comics show a perfectly healthy Mike Power being recruited into the AT, contradicting this account. The story recounted here may've been a cover story that was given to the public to mask whatever Mike's true origin turns out to be. It seems that the AT routinely gives out disinformation about itself to maintain a shroud of secrecy around their activities and team members.
Personally, I'd like to see it revealed that Mike Power is the same "Mike" that monitored Joe's missions from AT HQ in the old Peter Pan book and record sets www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLMZh7mf464. That he has some sort of a terrible accident and they have to cyborg him up to save his life.
Don't even get me started on the fact that Mike would rip his arm out of the socket ( atomic powered or not) if he tried to lift 10,000 pounds with one arm! Or that while I can accept that one leg may be able to run 200 MPH, the other one would not be able to keep up. What of the effect of all these atomic powered parts on his remaining organic bits ?Is it really a good idea to have an atomic powered eye so close to your brain? I hope the atomic fuel cells are REALLY well shielded or he's going to be "Mike Power, the Cancer Man" in a few years!
Oh well, Mike Power is still a fun toy and this stuff was meant to be read in two seconds by children and then mainly forgotten, so of course I'm not being very fair. But where's the fun in being fair?
“The central nervous system is nature’s Sistine Chapel, but we have to bear in mind that the world our senses present to us – this office, my lab, our awareness of time – is a ramshackle construct which our brains have devised to let us get on with the job of maintaining ourselves and reproducing our species. What we see is a highly conventionalised picture, a simple tourist guide to a very strange city. We need to dismantle this ramshackle construct in order to grasp what’s really going on.” - J.G. Ballard, 1992
This article was originally published by the Art X Neuroscience (AXNS) Collective in May 2016, and has now been re-published by Clot Magazine (in slightly up-dated form). This article summarises material featured in chapter 4 of the book “Rorschach Audio – Art & Illusion for Sound”, first published in June 2012, in an article printed on page 16 of “The Starry Rubric Set”, published by Wysing Arts Centre in Feb 2012, and on pages 17 and 18 of Shoppinghour Magazine, issue 10, Spring 2013.
Article [see link] copyright © Joe Banks – May 2016 + Oct 2022
Feature in Clot Magazine – tinyurl.com/mr7vxmtk
Video on the sound installation aspect of “The Analysis of Beauty” –
www.flickr.com/disinfo/47923588897/
“The Analysis of Beauty” by Disinformation has been exhibited at the Freud Museum (London) June 2015, the Georgian Gallery at Talbot Rice (Edinburgh) Nov 2014, at Saltburn Artists Projects, Jan 2007, the Wrexham Arts Centre, Oct 2006, at the Mac (Birmingham) July 2005, Orleans House Gallery (Twickenham) Nov 2004, the Quad (Derby) June 2004, South Hill Park (Bracknell) April 2004, Quay Arts (Isle of Wight) Feb 2004, the Ashcroft Arts Centre (Fareham) Sept 2003, Huddersfield Art Gallery, Jan 2003, the Royal Society of Sculptors (London) March 2001, and Kettle’s Yard (Cambridge) Jan 2000.
Kettle’s Yard (2000) - www.flickr.com/disinfo/32159928382/
Hamina. Finland. May 2009
The Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) assault gun was Germany's most produced armoured fighting vehicle during World War II. It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank. Initially intended as a mobile, armoured light gun for infantry support, the StuG was continually modified and was widely employed as a tank destroyer.
Development
The Sturmgeschütz III originated from German experiences in World War I when it was discovered that during the offensives on the western front the infantry lacked the means to effectively engage fortifications. The artillery of the time was heavy and not mobile enough to keep up with the advancing infantry to destroy bunkers, pillboxes, and other minor obstacles with direct-fire. Although the problem was well-known in the German army, it was General Erich von Manstein who is considered the father of the Sturmartillerie. This is because the initial proposal was from (then) Colonel Erich von Manstein and submitted to General Ludwig Beck in 1935, suggesting that Sturmartillerie ("assault artillery") units should be used in a direct-fire support role for infantry divisions. On June 15, 1936, Daimler-Benz AG received an order to develop an armoured infantry support vehicle capable of mounting a 75 mm (2.95 in) artillery piece. The gun was to have a limited traverse of a minimum of 25° and be mounted in an enclosed superstructure that provided overhead protection for the crew. The height of the vehicle was not to exceed that of the average man.
Daimler-Benz AG used the chassis and running gear of its recently designed Pz.Kpfw. III medium tank as a basis for the new vehicle. Prototype manufacture was passed over to Alkett, which produced five examples in 1937 of the experimental 0-series StuG based upon the Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. B. These prototypes featured a mild steel superstructure and Krupp’s short-barreled 75 mm StuK 37 L/24 cannon. This model was known as the Sturmgeschütz Ausführung A.
StuG III, Ausf. AWhile the StuG III was considered self-propelled artillery it was not initially clear which arm of the Wehrmacht would handle the new weapon. The Panzer arm, who was the natural user of tracked fighting vehicles, had no resources to spare for the formation of StuG units, and neither did the Infantry branch. It was therefore agreed, after a discussion, it would best be employed by becoming a part of the artillery arm.
The StuGs were organised into battalions (later renamed "brigades" for disinformation purposes) and followed their own specific doctrine. Infantry support using direct-fire was its intended role, and later there was also a strong emphasis on destroying enemy armour whenever encountered.
StuG III, Ausf. G, September 1944As the StuG III was designed to fill an infantry close support combat role, early models were fitted with a low-velocity 75 mm StuK 37 L/24 gun to destroy soft-skin targets and fortifications. After the Germans encountered the Soviet KV-1 and T-34 tanks, the StuG III was equipped with a high-velocity 75 mm StuK 40 L/43 main gun (Spring 1942) and later – the 75 mm StuK 40 L/48 (Autumn 1942) anti-tank gun. These versions were known as the Sturmgeschütz 40 Ausführung F, Ausf. F/8 and Ausf. G.
When the StuG IV entered production in late 1943, early 1944, the "III" was added to the name to separate them from the Panzer IV-based assault guns. All previous and following models were thereafter known as Sturmgeschütz III.
Beginning with the StuG III Ausf. E a 7.92 mm MG34 was mounted on the hull for added anti-infantry protection while some StuG III Ausf. G models were equipped with an additional coaxial 7.92 mm MG34.
The vehicles of the Sturmgeschütz series were cheaper and faster to build than contemporary German tanks; at 82,500 RM, a StuG III Ausf G was cheaper than a Panzer III Ausf. M which cost 103,163 RM to build. By the end of the war, 10,619 StuG III and StuH 42 had been built.[1] This was due to the omission of the turret, which greatly simplified manufacture and allowed the chassis to carry a larger gun than it could otherwise.
Operational history
Stug III in Sofia, BulgariaOverall, Sturmgeschütz series assault guns proved very successful and served on all fronts as assault guns and tank destroyers. Although Tigers and Panthers have earned a greater notoriety, assault guns collectively destroyed more tanks. Because of their low silhouette, StuG IIIs were easy to camouflage and a difficult target. Sturmgeschütz crews were considered to be the elite of the artillery units. Sturmgeschütz units held a very impressive record of tank kills – some 20,000 enemy tanks by the spring of 1944.[2] As of April 10 1945, there were 1,053 StuG IIIs and 277 StuH 42s in service. Approximately 9,500 StuG IIIs of various types were produced until March 1945 by Alkett and a small number by MIAG.
In terms of the resources expended in their construction, the StuG assault guns were extremely cost-effective compared to the heavier German tanks, though in the anti-tank role, it was best used defensively, as the lack of a turret would be a severe disadvantage out in the open. As the German military situation deteriorated later in the war, more and more StuG guns were constructed in comparison to tanks, in an effort to replace losses and bolster defences against the encroaching Allied forces.
In 1944 the Finnish Army received 59 StuG III Ausf. Gs from Germany (30 Stu 40 Ausf.G and 29 StuG III Ausf. G) and used them against the Soviet Union. These destroyed at least 87 enemy tanks for a loss of only 8 StuGs[2] (some of these were destroyed by their crews when they abandoned the vehicle to prevent capture). After the war, they were the main combat vehicles of the Finnish Army until the early 1960s. These StuGs gained the nickname "Sturmi" which can be found in some plastic kit models.
StuG IIIs were also exported to other nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and Spain.
Many German Sturmgeschütz IIIs were captured by Yugoslav Partisans and after the war they were used by the Yugoslav Peoples Army until the 1950s.
After the Second World War, the Soviet Union donated some of their captured German vehicles to Syria, which continued to use them at least until the Six Days War (1967).
Wikipedia
Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) (Штурмгешутц III (Штуг III)— средняя по массе немецкая самоходно-артиллерийская установка класса штурмовых орудий времён Второй мировой войны на базе танка Pz Kpfw III. Серийно выпускалась в различных модификациях с 1940 по 1945 год и стала самым массовым по численности представителем бронетехники вермахта (выпущено 8636 самоходок с 75-мм орудиями).
StuG III — компоновка боевого подразделения и размещение в нем экипажаПолное официальное название машины — Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette fur Sturmgeschütz 7,5 cm Kanone. По ведомственному рубрикатору министерства вооружений нацистской Германии самоходка обозначалась как Sd Kfz 142. StuG III также обозначается как StuG 40, в советской литературе эту машину именовали как Артштурм. StuG III активно использовались на всех фронтах Второй мировой войны и в целом получили хорошие отзывы немецкого командования: к началу 1944 на счету StuG III было около 20,000 танков противника Захваченные Красной Армией StuG III переделывались в самоходки СУ-76И, вооружённые той же пушкой Ф-34, что и у танка Т-34.
[править] История
В 1935 Эрих фон Манштейн в письме к генералу Беку описал идею машин «штурмовой артиллерии», главной задачей которых должна была бы быть непосредственная поддержка атакующих подразделений пехоты. После проработки подробных запросов, 15 июня 1936 г. фирма «Даймлер-Бенц АГ» получила заказ на проектирование бронированных машин поддержки пехоты, вооруженных 75 мм пушкой, со свободой движения ствола в горизонтальной плоскости по крайней мере в 25°. Машина должна была быть полностью бронирована, тем самым защищая экипаж от прямого огня неприятеля, а полная высота транспортного средства не должна была превышать высоту типичного солдата. Для разработки новой самоходки «Даймлер-Бенц» решил использовать шасси нового среднего танка Панцеркампфваген III . Первые пять прототипов были произведены в 1937 г. на шасси Панцеркампфваген III Аусф. Б. Они были вооружены короткоствольной 75 мм пушкой Штурмканоне 37 Л/24 (со стволом в 24 калибра) с низкой начальной скоростью снаряда. После столкновения в России с танками Т-34 было решено переоборудовать ШТУГ III длинноствольной пушкой, пригодной для поражения брони советских танков. С весны 1942 г. стали использовать пушки 75 мм Штурмканоне 40 Л/43, а осенью этого года ещё более длинноствольные версии этой пушки — Л/48. Более поздние модели ШТУГа III также были оснащены пулеметом Мг34 калибром 7,92 мм, установленным перед командирским люком (так как другого способа установки пулемета не имелось). Все машины из серии Штурмгешутс были дешевле в производстве, чем танки на тех же шасси. ШТУГ III стоил 82,5 тысяч марок, в то время как Панцеркампфваген III стоил более 103 тысяч марок. По сравнению с этим, например, буксируемый вариант той же 75 мм пушки, используемой в Штуге, стоил 12 тыс. марок. До конца войны было произведено свыше 10500 экземпляров в разных модификациях.
Isabel Oakeshott
Will BBC Verify call Labour out for their lies? Don’t hold your breath
The licence fee funded fact checkers seem much more interested in witch hunting in Nigeria than in Rachel Reeves’s Budget
In a blizzard of claim and counterclaim, thank goodness for brilliantly qualified, lavishly funded truth seekers. As voters try to make sense of a momentous Budget, where better to turn than BBC Verify, which employs some 60 specialist journalists to separate fact from fiction?
No privately funded UK media organisation can compete with these extraordinary resources, directed all day, every day, at establishing the facts about an impressive range of questions and controversies.
Want to know whether Hurricane Milton was “engineered”? BBC Verify is your go-to. It has examined the “basic ingredients of a hurricane” and spoken to a dizzying array of meteorologists and other experts to disprove a social media conspiracy about deliberate cloud seeding.
How about a nature reserve in the Philippines, which the BBC tells us has been “lauded by top climate activists and film stars,” but was hit by a “concerted disinformation attack?” A team of forensic journalists at BBC Verify spent ages poring over Facebook accounts to figure out who was behind claims of illegal logging and land grabbing on the site. There’s even something about witch-hunters in Nigeria.
But on today’s historic Budget? At the time of writing, absolutely nada post-Budget.
It is hard to imagine more fertile territory for forensic examination than Rachel Reeves’s historic statement. After all, her plans have sweeping implications for every business and every household – in other words, everyone who pays for the BBC.
Her £40 billion tax heist was announced with all sorts of murky justifications – providing BBC Verify’s experts with plenty to get stuck into. That infamous “£22bn black hole in the public finances” would be an obvious place to start.
Until now, the Treasury was unable to say precisely how she had reached that figure, prompting accusations that the figure was plucked from thin air. Finally, the Chancellor has published what she called a “line by line breakdown.” With its ample resources, BBC Verify should be crawling all of it. Yet the nation awaits.
No matter – at least there’s something on Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Walz’s military record!
If getting to the bottom of the alleged £22 billion black hole is too big an ask, perhaps they could look into something more general, like whether the Chancellor can justifiably claim to have kept Labour’s election promises, “no ifs or buts”? That should be easy. Run the red rule over the manifesto, and cross-check with the Budget’s announcements. A handful of reporters whizzing through the document and Reeves’s speech should do the trick. Yet so far BBC Verify has nothing to say.
Looking at the operation, what is striking is how heavily dominated it is by overseas controversies. Doubtless some BBC licence payers will be fascinated by an analysis of satellite images of newly laid tarmac on a key road to Gaza. Those with a very keen interest in the US election may also be interested in whether Kamala Harris’s “price gouging plan” will “really help US consumers.”
However, the Corporation appears to have forgotten one very important fact: its work is funded by British taxpayers.
Many would much rather hear what its finest investigative brains have to say about the impact of today’s announcements on British consumers.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/30/will-bbc-verify-call-...
Disinformation – “Closed Circuit” – architectural + immersive sound installation in “Sounds & Shapes” exhibition at Drawing Matter, Somerset, curated by Matchett & Page, July 2021, poster by Denman & Gould.
“If we sit and talk in a dark room, words suddenly acquire new meanings and different textures. They become richer, even, than architecture, which Le Corbusier rightly says can best be felt at night.” – Marshall McLuhan “Understanding Media” 1964
“Architecture is the simplest means of articulating time and space, of modulating reality and [of] engendering dreams” [1], and, perhaps paradoxically, in the silo at Shatwell, a familiar architectural form is re-purposed to create a kind of strange laboratory, within which, through the manipulation of architectural acoustics, of auditory and haptic sensations, the formal aesthetics and symbolism of pure geometry, interact with (equally primal) tactile resonances and symbolism, to evoke long-forgotten reflexes, sense memories, and (arguably, to some extent) even dreams. Extrapolating the assertion that “architecture in general is frozen music” [2], the installation at Shatwell is created not only within the building, but by the building, with the building itself functioning as a massive loudspeaker, as a kinetic artwork, and as a musical instrument, generating “sound” which is heard through the fingertips, drawing visitors into an amniotic sound world of gently pulsing vibration and breath-like rhythms.
In geometric terms, the curvilinear surface of a cylinder is effectively infinite, while in projective geometry, a cylinder can be defined as a cone whose apex rests at infinity [3] – a grain silo is in effect a giant tin of beans, and every child who’s built a tin-can-telephone is familiar with at least some of the acoustic properties of plate steel. “In every art it is the most elementary and primitive means that achieve the most profound and beautiful effects” [4], and “Closed Circuit” – the sound installation by artist project Disinformation – uses simple microtonal tuning techniques to create a rhythmically active and dynamic sound mass, which oscillates around a core frequency of 40Hz. This is, in neurological terms, the exact frequency of so-called Gamma waves which is most strongly associated with the integration of visual consciousness and dreams [5][6], and is the exact frequency most used in the field of vibro-acoustic therapy [7].
“We move within a closed landscape whose landmarks constantly draw us toward the past. Certain shifting angles, certain receding perspectives, allow us to glimpse original conceptions of space, but this vision remains fragmentary. It must be sought in the magical locales of fairy tales and Surrealist writings: castles, endless walls, little forgotten bars, mammoth caverns, casino mirrors…” [1]
“Arnold began telling Alan about his recurrent childhood dream, or nightmare rather, in which he felt himself suspended in absolutely empty space while a strange noise would start, growing ever louder, until he woke up in a sweat. Alan asked what kind of noise it was, but Arnold could not describe it… Alan imagined the old hangar on the RAF camp… and made up a science fiction story… in which the hangar was itself a brain.” [8]
[1] Ivan Chtcheglov “Formulary for a New Urbanism” October 1953
[2] Friedrich von Schelling “Philosophie der Kunst” 1802
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder
[4] Rudolf Arnheim “Radio” 1936
[5] Francis Crick and Christof Koch “Towards a Neurobiological Theory of Consciousness” Seminars in the Neurosciences, vol. 2, 1990
[6] Rodolfo Llinás and Urs Ribary “Coherent 40Hz Oscillation Characterizes Dream State in Humans” PNAS, vol. 90, 1993
[7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibroacoustic_therapy
[8] Andrew Hodges “Alan Turing, The Enigma” 1983
“Closed Circuit” by Disinformation is commissioned and installed at Shatwell Farm, Somerset as part of the exhibition “Sounds & Shapes”, curated by Matchett & Page. The installation is open by appointment at weekends, 11am to 5pm, Saturday 17th July to Sunday 1st August 2021.
drawingmatter.org/disinformation-closed-circuit/
matchett.page/sounds_and_shapes
Initial site visit 22 Feb 2020, installation date 29 May 2021
Text by Joe Banks, copyright © 2 June 2021
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Chairman and Publisher, New York Times, USA speaking in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
Frances Leviston's first collection, Public Dream, was one of the most acclaimed debuts of recent years, and praised for combining 'technical mastery with a lucidity that verges on the hypnotic' (Independent).
Leviston's keenly-anticipated second book sees both an intellectual and dramatic intensification of her project. We often credit poetry as a kind of truth-telling, but it can also be an agent and a vessel of disinformation; in the course of making its proofs and confessions, it also seeks to persuade and seduce by any means it can. Leviston uses both sides of poetry's tongue to address one of the key questions of the age: how have we come to know what we think we know?
In the title poem, a woman preparing for a child's birthday party suddenly glimpses the invisible screen of false data behind which she lives - and her own complicity in its power. Many of these poems are concerned with ruined or abandoned structures, dismembered and disappearing bodies, constructed and deconstructed identities; behind them lie the false gods who manipulate the streams of information with which we must navigate the contemporary world. In Leviston's inimitably vivid and vital language, Disinformation challenges us to rescue our idea of identity from that mass of glib truth and persistent falsehood - and proposes how we might begin to think of poetry itself as a means to that end.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.
Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, but often include fever, cough, fatigue, breathing difficulties, and loss of smell and taste. Symptoms begin one to fourteen days after exposure to the virus. Of those people who develop noticeable symptoms, most (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging), and 5% suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction). Older people are more likely to have severe symptoms. At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus remain asymptomatic and do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time, but they still can spread the disease.[ Around 20% of those people will remain asymptomatic throughout infection, and the rest will develop symptoms later on, becoming pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic and therefore having a higher risk of transmitting the virus to others. Some people continue to experience a range of effects—known as long COVID—for months after recovery, and damage to organs has been observed. Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the disease.
The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads mainly when an infected person is in close contact[a] with another person. Small droplets and aerosols containing the virus can spread from an infected person's nose and mouth as they breathe, cough, sneeze, sing, or speak. Other people are infected if the virus gets into their mouth, nose or eyes. The virus may also spread via contaminated surfaces, although this is not thought to be the main route of transmission. The exact route of transmission is rarely proven conclusively, but infection mainly happens when people are near each other for long enough. People who are infected can transmit the virus to another person up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, as can people who do not experience symptoms. People remain infectious for up to ten days after the onset of symptoms in moderate cases and up to 20 days in severe cases. Several testing methods have been developed to diagnose the disease. The standard diagnostic method is by detection of the virus' nucleic acid by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), or by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) from a nasopharyngeal swab.
Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face. The use of face masks or coverings has been recommended in public settings to minimise the risk of transmissions. Several vaccines have been developed and several countries have initiated mass vaccination campaigns.
Although work is underway to develop drugs that inhibit the virus, the primary treatment is currently symptomatic. Management involves the treatment of symptoms, supportive care, isolation, and experimental measures.
SIGNS AND SYSTOMS
Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Common symptoms include headache, loss of smell and taste, nasal congestion and rhinorrhea, cough, muscle pain, sore throat, fever, diarrhea, and breathing difficulties. People with the same infection may have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. In people without prior ear, nose, and throat disorders, loss of taste combined with loss of smell is associated with COVID-19.
Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging) and 5% of patients suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction). At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time. These asymptomatic carriers tend not to get tested and can spread the disease. Other infected people will develop symptoms later, called "pre-symptomatic", or have very mild symptoms and can also spread the virus.
As is common with infections, there is a delay between the moment a person first becomes infected and the appearance of the first symptoms. The median delay for COVID-19 is four to five days. Most symptomatic people experience symptoms within two to seven days after exposure, and almost all will experience at least one symptom within 12 days.
Most people recover from the acute phase of the disease. However, some people continue to experience a range of effects for months after recovery—named long COVID—and damage to organs has been observed. Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the disease.
CAUSE
TRANSMISSION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads from person to person mainly through the respiratory route after an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks or breathes. A new infection occurs when virus-containing particles exhaled by an infected person, either respiratory droplets or aerosols, get into the mouth, nose, or eyes of other people who are in close contact with the infected person. During human-to-human transmission, an average 1000 infectious SARS-CoV-2 virions are thought to initiate a new infection.
The closer people interact, and the longer they interact, the more likely they are to transmit COVID-19. Closer distances can involve larger droplets (which fall to the ground) and aerosols, whereas longer distances only involve aerosols. Larger droplets can also turn into aerosols (known as droplet nuclei) through evaporation. The relative importance of the larger droplets and the aerosols is not clear as of November 2020; however, the virus is not known to spread between rooms over long distances such as through air ducts. Airborne transmission is able to particularly occur indoors, in high risk locations such as restaurants, choirs, gyms, nightclubs, offices, and religious venues, often when they are crowded or less ventilated. It also occurs in healthcare settings, often when aerosol-generating medical procedures are performed on COVID-19 patients.
Although it is considered possible there is no direct evidence of the virus being transmitted by skin to skin contact. A person could get COVID-19 indirectly by touching a contaminated surface or object before touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes, though this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. The virus is not known to spread through feces, urine, breast milk, food, wastewater, drinking water, or via animal disease vectors (although some animals can contract the virus from humans). It very rarely transmits from mother to baby during pregnancy.
Social distancing and the wearing of cloth face masks, surgical masks, respirators, or other face coverings are controls for droplet transmission. Transmission may be decreased indoors with well maintained heating and ventilation systems to maintain good air circulation and increase the use of outdoor air.
The number of people generally infected by one infected person varies. Coronavirus disease 2019 is more infectious than influenza, but less so than measles. It often spreads in clusters, where infections can be traced back to an index case or geographical location. There is a major role of "super-spreading events", where many people are infected by one person.
A person who is infected can transmit the virus to others up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, and even if symptoms never appear. People remain infectious in moderate cases for 7–12 days, and up to two weeks in severe cases. In October 2020, medical scientists reported evidence of reinfection in one person.
VIROLOGY
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. It was first isolated from three people with pneumonia connected to the cluster of acute respiratory illness cases in Wuhan. All structural features of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus particle occur in related coronaviruses in nature.
Outside the human body, the virus is destroyed by household soap, which bursts its protective bubble.
SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to the original SARS-CoV. It is thought to have an animal (zoonotic) origin. Genetic analysis has revealed that the coronavirus genetically clusters with the genus Betacoronavirus, in subgenus Sarbecovirus (lineage B) together with two bat-derived strains. It is 96% identical at the whole genome level to other bat coronavirus samples (BatCov RaTG13). The structural proteins of SARS-CoV-2 include membrane glycoprotein (M), envelope protein (E), nucleocapsid protein (N), and the spike protein (S). The M protein of SARS-CoV-2 is about 98% similar to the M protein of bat SARS-CoV, maintains around 98% homology with pangolin SARS-CoV, and has 90% homology with the M protein of SARS-CoV; whereas, the similarity is only around 38% with the M protein of MERS-CoV. The structure of the M protein resembles the sugar transporter SemiSWEET.
The many thousands of SARS-CoV-2 variants are grouped into clades. Several different clade nomenclatures have been proposed. Nextstrain divides the variants into five clades (19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, and 20C), while GISAID divides them into seven (L, O, V, S, G, GH, and GR).
Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2020. Cluster 5 emerged among minks and mink farmers in Denmark. After strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign, it is believed to have been eradicated. The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. The 501Y.V2 Variant, which has the same N501Y mutation, arose independently in South Africa.
SARS-CoV-2 VARIANTS
Three known variants of SARS-CoV-2 are currently spreading among global populations as of January 2021 including the UK Variant (referred to as B.1.1.7) first found in London and Kent, a variant discovered in South Africa (referred to as 1.351), and a variant discovered in Brazil (referred to as P.1).
Using Whole Genome Sequencing, epidemiology and modelling suggest the new UK variant ‘VUI – 202012/01’ (the first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020) transmits more easily than other strains.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
COVID-19 can affect the upper respiratory tract (sinuses, nose, and throat) and the lower respiratory tract (windpipe and lungs). The lungs are the organs most affected by COVID-19 because the virus accesses host cells via the enzyme angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is most abundant in type II alveolar cells of the lungs. The virus uses a special surface glycoprotein called a "spike" (peplomer) to connect to ACE2 and enter the host cell. The density of ACE2 in each tissue correlates with the severity of the disease in that tissue and decreasing ACE2 activity might be protective, though another view is that increasing ACE2 using angiotensin II receptor blocker medications could be protective. As the alveolar disease progresses, respiratory failure might develop and death may follow.
Whether SARS-CoV-2 is able to invade the nervous system remains unknown. The virus is not detected in the CNS of the majority of COVID-19 people with neurological issues. However, SARS-CoV-2 has been detected at low levels in the brains of those who have died from COVID-19, but these results need to be confirmed. SARS-CoV-2 could cause respiratory failure through affecting the brain stem as other coronaviruses have been found to invade the CNS. While virus has been detected in cerebrospinal fluid of autopsies, the exact mechanism by which it invades the CNS remains unclear and may first involve invasion of peripheral nerves given the low levels of ACE2 in the brain. The virus may also enter the bloodstream from the lungs and cross the blood-brain barrier to gain access to the CNS, possibly within an infected white blood cell.
The virus also affects gastrointestinal organs as ACE2 is abundantly expressed in the glandular cells of gastric, duodenal and rectal epithelium as well as endothelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine.
The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease. Rates of cardiovascular symptoms are high, owing to the systemic inflammatory response and immune system disorders during disease progression, but acute myocardial injuries may also be related to ACE2 receptors in the heart. ACE2 receptors are highly expressed in the heart and are involved in heart function. A high incidence of thrombosis and venous thromboembolism have been found people transferred to Intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 infections, and may be related to poor prognosis. Blood vessel dysfunction and clot formation (as suggested by high D-dimer levels caused by blood clots) are thought to play a significant role in mortality, incidences of clots leading to pulmonary embolisms, and ischaemic events within the brain have been noted as complications leading to death in people infected with SARS-CoV-2. Infection appears to set off a chain of vasoconstrictive responses within the body, constriction of blood vessels within the pulmonary circulation has also been posited as a mechanism in which oxygenation decreases alongside the presentation of viral pneumonia. Furthermore, microvascular blood vessel damage has been reported in a small number of tissue samples of the brains – without detected SARS-CoV-2 – and the olfactory bulbs from those who have died from COVID-19.
Another common cause of death is complications related to the kidneys. Early reports show that up to 30% of hospitalized patients both in China and in New York have experienced some injury to their kidneys, including some persons with no previous kidney problems.
Autopsies of people who died of COVID-19 have found diffuse alveolar damage, and lymphocyte-containing inflammatory infiltrates within the lung.
IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
Although SARS-CoV-2 has a tropism for ACE2-expressing epithelial cells of the respiratory tract, people with severe COVID-19 have symptoms of systemic hyperinflammation. Clinical laboratory findings of elevated IL-2, IL-7, IL-6, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interferon-γ inducible protein 10 (IP-10), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), macrophage inflammatory protein 1-α (MIP-1α), and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) indicative of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) suggest an underlying immunopathology.
Additionally, people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have classical serum biomarkers of CRS, including elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), D-dimer, and ferritin.
Systemic inflammation results in vasodilation, allowing inflammatory lymphocytic and monocytic infiltration of the lung and the heart. In particular, pathogenic GM-CSF-secreting T-cells were shown to correlate with the recruitment of inflammatory IL-6-secreting monocytes and severe lung pathology in people with COVID-19 . Lymphocytic infiltrates have also been reported at autopsy.
VIRAL AND HOST FACTORS
VIRUS PROTEINS
Multiple viral and host factors affect the pathogenesis of the virus. The S-protein, otherwise known as the spike protein, is the viral component that attaches to the host receptor via the ACE2 receptors. It includes two subunits: S1 and S2. S1 determines the virus host range and cellular tropism via the receptor binding domain. S2 mediates the membrane fusion of the virus to its potential cell host via the H1 and HR2, which are heptad repeat regions. Studies have shown that S1 domain induced IgG and IgA antibody levels at a much higher capacity. It is the focus spike proteins expression that are involved in many effective COVID-19 vaccines.
The M protein is the viral protein responsible for the transmembrane transport of nutrients. It is the cause of the bud release and the formation of the viral envelope. The N and E protein are accessory proteins that interfere with the host's immune response.
HOST FACTORS
Human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) is the host factor that SARS-COV2 virus targets causing COVID-19. Theoretically the usage of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and ACE inhibitors upregulating ACE2 expression might increase morbidity with COVID-19, though animal data suggest some potential protective effect of ARB. However no clinical studies have proven susceptibility or outcomes. Until further data is available, guidelines and recommendations for hypertensive patients remain.
The virus' effect on ACE2 cell surfaces leads to leukocytic infiltration, increased blood vessel permeability, alveolar wall permeability, as well as decreased secretion of lung surfactants. These effects cause the majority of the respiratory symptoms. However, the aggravation of local inflammation causes a cytokine storm eventually leading to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
HOST CYTOKINE RESPONSE
The severity of the inflammation can be attributed to the severity of what is known as the cytokine storm. Levels of interleukin 1B, interferon-gamma, interferon-inducible protein 10, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 were all associated with COVID-19 disease severity. Treatment has been proposed to combat the cytokine storm as it remains to be one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 disease.
A cytokine storm is due to an acute hyperinflammatory response that is responsible for clinical illness in an array of diseases but in COVID-19, it is related to worse prognosis and increased fatality. The storm causes the acute respiratory distress syndrome, blood clotting events such as strokes, myocardial infarction, encephalitis, acute kidney injury, and vasculitis. The production of IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, TNF-alpha, and interferon-gamma, all crucial components of normal immune responses, inadvertently become the causes of a cytokine storm. The cells of the central nervous system, the microglia, neurons, and astrocytes, are also be involved in the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines affecting the nervous system, and effects of cytokine storms toward the CNS are not uncommon.
DIAGNOSIS
COVID-19 can provisionally be diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and confirmed using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or other nucleic acid testing of infected secretions. Along with laboratory testing, chest CT scans may be helpful to diagnose COVID-19 in individuals with a high clinical suspicion of infection. Detection of a past infection is possible with serological tests, which detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the infection.
VIRAL TESTING
The standard methods of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 are nucleic acid tests, which detects the presence of viral RNA fragments. As these tests detect RNA but not infectious virus, its "ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited." The test is typically done on respiratory samples obtained by a nasopharyngeal swab; however, a nasal swab or sputum sample may also be used. Results are generally available within hours. The WHO has published several testing protocols for the disease.
A number of laboratories and companies have developed serological tests, which detect antibodies produced by the body in response to infection. Several have been evaluated by Public Health England and approved for use in the UK.
The University of Oxford's CEBM has pointed to mounting evidence that "a good proportion of 'new' mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with" and have called for "an international effort to standardize and periodically calibrate testing" On 7 September, the UK government issued "guidance for procedures to be implemented in laboratories to provide assurance of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA results during periods of low prevalence, when there is a reduction in the predictive value of positive test results."
IMAGING
Chest CT scans may be helpful to diagnose COVID-19 in individuals with a high clinical suspicion of infection but are not recommended for routine screening. Bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacities with a peripheral, asymmetric, and posterior distribution are common in early infection. Subpleural dominance, crazy paving (lobular septal thickening with variable alveolar filling), and consolidation may appear as the disease progresses. Characteristic imaging features on chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) of people who are symptomatic include asymmetric peripheral ground-glass opacities without pleural effusions.
Many groups have created COVID-19 datasets that include imagery such as the Italian Radiological Society which has compiled an international online database of imaging findings for confirmed cases. Due to overlap with other infections such as adenovirus, imaging without confirmation by rRT-PCR is of limited specificity in identifying COVID-19. A large study in China compared chest CT results to PCR and demonstrated that though imaging is less specific for the infection, it is faster and more sensitive.
Coding
In late 2019, the WHO assigned emergency ICD-10 disease codes U07.1 for deaths from lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and U07.2 for deaths from clinically or epidemiologically diagnosed COVID-19 without lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATHOLOGY
The main pathological findings at autopsy are:
Macroscopy: pericarditis, lung consolidation and pulmonary oedema
Lung findings:
minor serous exudation, minor fibrin exudation
pulmonary oedema, pneumocyte hyperplasia, large atypical pneumocytes, interstitial inflammation with lymphocytic infiltration and multinucleated giant cell formation
diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) with diffuse alveolar exudates. DAD is the cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe hypoxemia.
organisation of exudates in alveolar cavities and pulmonary interstitial fibrosis
plasmocytosis in BAL
Blood: disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); leukoerythroblastic reaction
Liver: microvesicular steatosis
PREVENTION
Preventive measures to reduce the chances of infection include staying at home, wearing a mask in public, avoiding crowded places, keeping distance from others, ventilating indoor spaces, washing hands with soap and water often and for at least 20 seconds, practising good respiratory hygiene, and avoiding touching the eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands.
Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to stay home except to get medical care, call ahead before visiting a healthcare provider, wear a face mask before entering the healthcare provider's office and when in any room or vehicle with another person, cover coughs and sneezes with a tissue, regularly wash hands with soap and water and avoid sharing personal household items.
The first COVID-19 vaccine was granted regulatory approval on 2 December by the UK medicines regulator MHRA. It was evaluated for emergency use authorization (EUA) status by the US FDA, and in several other countries. Initially, the US National Institutes of Health guidelines do not recommend any medication for prevention of COVID-19, before or after exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, outside the setting of a clinical trial. Without a vaccine, other prophylactic measures, or effective treatments, a key part of managing COVID-19 is trying to decrease and delay the epidemic peak, known as "flattening the curve". This is done by slowing the infection rate to decrease the risk of health services being overwhelmed, allowing for better treatment of current cases, and delaying additional cases until effective treatments or a vaccine become available.
VACCINE
A COVID‑19 vaccine is a vaccine intended to provide acquired immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19). Prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic, there was an established body of knowledge about the structure and function of coronaviruses causing diseases like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which enabled accelerated development of various vaccine technologies during early 2020. On 10 January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence data was shared through GISAID, and by 19 March, the global pharmaceutical industry announced a major commitment to address COVID-19.
In Phase III trials, several COVID‑19 vaccines have demonstrated efficacy as high as 95% in preventing symptomatic COVID‑19 infections. As of March 2021, 12 vaccines were authorized by at least one national regulatory authority for public use: two RNA vaccines (the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine), four conventional inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, CoronaVac, Covaxin, and CoviVac), four viral vector vaccines (Sputnik V, the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, Convidicea, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), and two protein subunit vaccines (EpiVacCorona and RBD-Dimer). In total, as of March 2021, 308 vaccine candidates were in various stages of development, with 73 in clinical research, including 24 in Phase I trials, 33 in Phase I–II trials, and 16 in Phase III development.
Many countries have implemented phased distribution plans that prioritize those at highest risk of complications, such as the elderly, and those at high risk of exposure and transmission, such as healthcare workers. As of 17 March 2021, 400.22 million doses of COVID‑19 vaccine have been administered worldwide based on official reports from national health agencies. AstraZeneca-Oxford anticipates producing 3 billion doses in 2021, Pfizer-BioNTech 1.3 billion doses, and Sputnik V, Sinopharm, Sinovac, and Johnson & Johnson 1 billion doses each. Moderna targets producing 600 million doses and Convidicea 500 million doses in 2021. By December 2020, more than 10 billion vaccine doses had been preordered by countries, with about half of the doses purchased by high-income countries comprising 14% of the world's population.
SOCIAL DISTANCING
Social distancing (also known as physical distancing) includes infection control actions intended to slow the spread of the disease by minimising close contact between individuals. Methods include quarantines; travel restrictions; and the closing of schools, workplaces, stadiums, theatres, or shopping centres. Individuals may apply social distancing methods by staying at home, limiting travel, avoiding crowded areas, using no-contact greetings, and physically distancing themselves from others. Many governments are now mandating or recommending social distancing in regions affected by the outbreak.
Outbreaks have occurred in prisons due to crowding and an inability to enforce adequate social distancing. In the United States, the prisoner population is aging and many of them are at high risk for poor outcomes from COVID-19 due to high rates of coexisting heart and lung disease, and poor access to high-quality healthcare.
SELF-ISOLATION
Self-isolation at home has been recommended for those diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who suspect they have been infected. Health agencies have issued detailed instructions for proper self-isolation. Many governments have mandated or recommended self-quarantine for entire populations. The strongest self-quarantine instructions have been issued to those in high-risk groups. Those who may have been exposed to someone with COVID-19 and those who have recently travelled to a country or region with the widespread transmission have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days from the time of last possible exposure.
Face masks and respiratory hygiene
The WHO and the US CDC recommend individuals wear non-medical face coverings in public settings where there is an increased risk of transmission and where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. This recommendation is meant to reduce the spread of the disease by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals and is complementary to established preventive measures such as social distancing. Face coverings limit the volume and travel distance of expiratory droplets dispersed when talking, breathing, and coughing. A face covering without vents or holes will also filter out particles containing the virus from inhaled and exhaled air, reducing the chances of infection. But, if the mask include an exhalation valve, a wearer that is infected (maybe without having noticed that, and asymptomatic) would transmit the virus outwards through it, despite any certification they can have. So the masks with exhalation valve are not for the infected wearers, and are not reliable to stop the pandemic in a large scale. Many countries and local jurisdictions encourage or mandate the use of face masks or cloth face coverings by members of the public to limit the spread of the virus.
Masks are also strongly recommended for those who may have been infected and those taking care of someone who may have the disease. When not wearing a mask, the CDC recommends covering the mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing and recommends using the inside of the elbow if no tissue is available. Proper hand hygiene after any cough or sneeze is encouraged. Healthcare professionals interacting directly with people who have COVID-19 are advised to use respirators at least as protective as NIOSH-certified N95 or equivalent, in addition to other personal protective equipment.
HAND-WASHING AND HYGIENE
Thorough hand hygiene after any cough or sneeze is required. The WHO also recommends that individuals wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the toilet or when hands are visibly dirty, before eating and after blowing one's nose. The CDC recommends using an alcohol-based hand sanitiser with at least 60% alcohol, but only when soap and water are not readily available. For areas where commercial hand sanitisers are not readily available, the WHO provides two formulations for local production. In these formulations, the antimicrobial activity arises from ethanol or isopropanol. Hydrogen peroxide is used to help eliminate bacterial spores in the alcohol; it is "not an active substance for hand antisepsis". Glycerol is added as a humectant.
SURFACE CLEANING
After being expelled from the body, coronaviruses can survive on surfaces for hours to days. If a person touches the dirty surface, they may deposit the virus at the eyes, nose, or mouth where it can enter the body cause infection. Current evidence indicates that contact with infected surfaces is not the main driver of Covid-19, leading to recommendations for optimised disinfection procedures to avoid issues such as the increase of antimicrobial resistance through the use of inappropriate cleaning products and processes. Deep cleaning and other surface sanitation has been criticized as hygiene theater, giving a false sense of security against something primarily spread through the air.
The amount of time that the virus can survive depends significantly on the type of surface, the temperature, and the humidity. Coronaviruses die very quickly when exposed to the UV light in sunlight. Like other enveloped viruses, SARS-CoV-2 survives longest when the temperature is at room temperature or lower, and when the relative humidity is low (<50%).
On many surfaces, including as glass, some types of plastic, stainless steel, and skin, the virus can remain infective for several days indoors at room temperature, or even about a week under ideal conditions. On some surfaces, including cotton fabric and copper, the virus usually dies after a few hours. As a general rule of thumb, the virus dies faster on porous surfaces than on non-porous surfaces.
However, this rule is not absolute, and of the many surfaces tested, two with the longest survival times are N95 respirator masks and surgical masks, both of which are considered porous surfaces.
Surfaces may be decontaminated with 62–71 percent ethanol, 50–100 percent isopropanol, 0.1 percent sodium hypochlorite, 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide, and 0.2–7.5 percent povidone-iodine. Other solutions, such as benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine gluconate, are less effective. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation may also be used. The CDC recommends that if a COVID-19 case is suspected or confirmed at a facility such as an office or day care, all areas such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, shared electronic equipment like tablets, touch screens, keyboards, remote controls, and ATM machines used by the ill persons should be disinfected. A datasheet comprising the authorised substances to disinfection in the food industry (including suspension or surface tested, kind of surface, use dilution, disinfectant and inocuylum volumes) can be seen in the supplementary material of.
VENTILATION AND AIR FILTRATION
The WHO recommends ventilation and air filtration in public spaces to help clear out infectious aerosols.
HEALTHY DIET AND LIFESTYLE
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends a healthy diet, being physically active, managing psychological stress, and getting enough sleep.
While there is no evidence that vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19, there is limited evidence that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms. This has led to recommendations for individuals with vitamin D deficiency to take vitamin D supplements as a way of mitigating the risk of COVID-19 and other health issues associated with a possible increase in deficiency due to social distancing.
TREATMENT
There is no specific, effective treatment or cure for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, the cornerstone of management of COVID-19 is supportive care, which includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning as needed, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs.
Most cases of COVID-19 are mild. In these, supportive care includes medication such as paracetamol or NSAIDs to relieve symptoms (fever, body aches, cough), proper intake of fluids, rest, and nasal breathing. Good personal hygiene and a healthy diet are also recommended. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that those who suspect they are carrying the virus isolate themselves at home and wear a face mask.
People with more severe cases may need treatment in hospital. In those with low oxygen levels, use of the glucocorticoid dexamethasone is strongly recommended, as it can reduce the risk of death. Noninvasive ventilation and, ultimately, admission to an intensive care unit for mechanical ventilation may be required to support breathing. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to address the issue of respiratory failure, but its benefits are still under consideration.
Several experimental treatments are being actively studied in clinical trials. Others were thought to be promising early in the pandemic, such as hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir, but later research found them to be ineffective or even harmful. Despite ongoing research, there is still not enough high-quality evidence to recommend so-called early treatment. Nevertheless, in the United States, two monoclonal antibody-based therapies are available for early use in cases thought to be at high risk of progression to severe disease. The antiviral remdesivir is available in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and several other countries, with varying restrictions; however, it is not recommended for people needing mechanical ventilation, and is discouraged altogether by the World Health Organization (WHO), due to limited evidence of its efficacy.
PROGNOSIS
The severity of COVID-19 varies. The disease may take a mild course with few or no symptoms, resembling other common upper respiratory diseases such as the common cold. In 3–4% of cases (7.4% for those over age 65) symptoms are severe enough to cause hospitalization. Mild cases typically recover within two weeks, while those with severe or critical diseases may take three to six weeks to recover. Among those who have died, the time from symptom onset to death has ranged from two to eight weeks. The Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità reported that the median time between the onset of symptoms and death was twelve days, with seven being hospitalised. However, people transferred to an ICU had a median time of ten days between hospitalisation and death. Prolonged prothrombin time and elevated C-reactive protein levels on admission to the hospital are associated with severe course of COVID-19 and with a transfer to ICU.
Some early studies suggest 10% to 20% of people with COVID-19 will experience symptoms lasting longer than a month.[191][192] A majority of those who were admitted to hospital with severe disease report long-term problems including fatigue and shortness of breath. On 30 October 2020 WHO chief Tedros Adhanom warned that "to a significant number of people, the COVID virus poses a range of serious long-term effects". He has described the vast spectrum of COVID-19 symptoms that fluctuate over time as "really concerning." They range from fatigue, a cough and shortness of breath, to inflammation and injury of major organs – including the lungs and heart, and also neurological and psychologic effects. Symptoms often overlap and can affect any system in the body. Infected people have reported cyclical bouts of fatigue, headaches, months of complete exhaustion, mood swings, and other symptoms. Tedros has concluded that therefore herd immunity is "morally unconscionable and unfeasible".
In terms of hospital readmissions about 9% of 106,000 individuals had to return for hospital treatment within 2 months of discharge. The average to readmit was 8 days since first hospital visit. There are several risk factors that have been identified as being a cause of multiple admissions to a hospital facility. Among these are advanced age (above 65 years of age) and presence of a chronic condition such as diabetes, COPD, heart failure or chronic kidney disease.
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers, air pollution is similarly associated with risk factors, and pre-existing heart and lung diseases and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.
It is also assumed that those that are immunocompromised are at higher risk of getting severely sick from SARS-CoV-2. One research that looked into the COVID-19 infections in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients found a mortality rate of 11%.
See also: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children
Children make up a small proportion of reported cases, with about 1% of cases being under 10 years and 4% aged 10–19 years. They are likely to have milder symptoms and a lower chance of severe disease than adults. A European multinational study of hospitalized children published in The Lancet on 25 June 2020 found that about 8% of children admitted to a hospital needed intensive care. Four of those 582 children (0.7%) died, but the actual mortality rate could be "substantially lower" since milder cases that did not seek medical help were not included in the study.
Genetics also plays an important role in the ability to fight off the disease. For instance, those that do not produce detectable type I interferons or produce auto-antibodies against these may get much sicker from COVID-19. Genetic screening is able to detect interferon effector genes.
Pregnant women may be at higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection based on data from other similar viruses, like SARS and MERS, but data for COVID-19 is lacking.
COMPLICATIONS
Complications may include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ failure, septic shock, and death. Cardiovascular complications may include heart failure, arrhythmias, heart inflammation, and blood clots. Approximately 20–30% of people who present with COVID-19 have elevated liver enzymes, reflecting liver injury.
Neurologic manifestations include seizure, stroke, encephalitis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome (which includes loss of motor functions). Following the infection, children may develop paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, which has symptoms similar to Kawasaki disease, which can be fatal. In very rare cases, acute encephalopathy can occur, and it can be considered in those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and have an altered mental status.
LONGER-TERM EFFECTS
Some early studies suggest that that 10 to 20% of people with COVID-19 will experience symptoms lasting longer than a month. A majority of those who were admitted to hospital with severe disease report long-term problems, including fatigue and shortness of breath. About 5-10% of patients admitted to hospital progress to severe or critical disease, including pneumonia and acute respiratory failure.
By a variety of mechanisms, the lungs are the organs most affected in COVID-19.[228] The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
People with advanced age, severe disease, prolonged ICU stays, or who smoke are more likely to have long lasting effects, including pulmonary fibrosis. Overall, approximately one third of those investigated after 4 weeks will have findings of pulmonary fibrosis or reduced lung function as measured by DLCO, even in people who are asymptomatic, but with the suggestion of continuing improvement with the passing of more time.
IMMUNITY
The immune response by humans to CoV-2 virus occurs as a combination of the cell-mediated immunity and antibody production, just as with most other infections. Since SARS-CoV-2 has been in the human population only since December 2019, it remains unknown if the immunity is long-lasting in people who recover from the disease. The presence of neutralizing antibodies in blood strongly correlates with protection from infection, but the level of neutralizing antibody declines with time. Those with asymptomatic or mild disease had undetectable levels of neutralizing antibody two months after infection. In another study, the level of neutralizing antibody fell 4-fold 1 to 4 months after the onset of symptoms. However, the lack of antibody in the blood does not mean antibody will not be rapidly produced upon reexposure to SARS-CoV-2. Memory B cells specific for the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2 last for at least 6 months after appearance of symptoms. Nevertheless, 15 cases of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported using stringent CDC criteria requiring identification of a different variant from the second infection. There are likely to be many more people who have been reinfected with the virus. Herd immunity will not eliminate the virus if reinfection is common. Some other coronaviruses circulating in people are capable of reinfection after roughly a year. Nonetheless, on 3 March 2021, scientists reported that a much more contagious Covid-19 variant, Lineage P.1, first detected in Japan, and subsequently found in Brazil, as well as in several places in the United States, may be associated with Covid-19 disease reinfection after recovery from an earlier Covid-19 infection.
MORTALITY
Several measures are commonly used to quantify mortality. These numbers vary by region and over time and are influenced by the volume of testing, healthcare system quality, treatment options, time since the initial outbreak, and population characteristics such as age, sex, and overall health. The mortality rate reflects the number of deaths within a specific demographic group divided by the population of that demographic group. Consequently, the mortality rate reflects the prevalence as well as the severity of the disease within a given population. Mortality rates are highly correlated to age, with relatively low rates for young people and relatively high rates among the elderly.
The case fatality rate (CFR) reflects the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases within a given time interval. Based on Johns Hopkins University statistics, the global death-to-case ratio is 2.2% (2,685,770/121,585,388) as of 18 March 2021. The number varies by region. The CFR may not reflect the true severity of the disease, because some infected individuals remain asymptomatic or experience only mild symptoms, and hence such infections may not be included in official case reports. Moreover, the CFR may vary markedly over time and across locations due to the availability of live virus tests.
INFECTION FATALITY RATE
A key metric in gauging the severity of COVID-19 is the infection fatality rate (IFR), also referred to as the infection fatality ratio or infection fatality risk. This metric is calculated by dividing the total number of deaths from the disease by the total number of infected individuals; hence, in contrast to the CFR, the IFR incorporates asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections as well as reported cases.
CURRENT ESTIMATES
A December 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis estimated that population IFR during the first wave of the pandemic was about 0.5% to 1% in many locations (including France, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Portugal), 1% to 2% in other locations (Australia, England, Lithuania, and Spain), and exceeded 2% in Italy. That study also found that most of these differences in IFR reflected corresponding differences in the age composition of the population and age-specific infection rates; in particular, the metaregression estimate of IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. These results were also highlighted in a December 2020 report issued by the WHO.
EARLIER ESTIMATES OF IFR
At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.[ On 2 July, The WHO's chief scientist reported that the average IFR estimate presented at a two-day WHO expert forum was about 0.6%. In August, the WHO found that studies incorporating data from broad serology testing in Europe showed IFR estimates converging at approximately 0.5–1%. Firm lower limits of IFRs have been established in a number of locations such as New York City and Bergamo in Italy since the IFR cannot be less than the population fatality rate. As of 10 July, in New York City, with a population of 8.4 million, 23,377 individuals (18,758 confirmed and 4,619 probable) have died with COVID-19 (0.3% of the population).Antibody testing in New York City suggested an IFR of ~0.9%,[258] and ~1.4%. In Bergamo province, 0.6% of the population has died. In September 2020 the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported preliminary estimates of age-specific IFRs for public health planning purposes.
SEX DIFFERENCES
Early reviews of epidemiologic data showed gendered impact of the pandemic and a higher mortality rate in men in China and Italy. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported the death rate was 2.8% for men and 1.7% for women. Later reviews in June 2020 indicated that there is no significant difference in susceptibility or in CFR between genders. One review acknowledges the different mortality rates in Chinese men, suggesting that it may be attributable to lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol rather than genetic factors. Sex-based immunological differences, lesser prevalence of smoking in women and men developing co-morbid conditions such as hypertension at a younger age than women could have contributed to the higher mortality in men. In Europe, 57% of the infected people were men and 72% of those died with COVID-19 were men. As of April 2020, the US government is not tracking sex-related data of COVID-19 infections. Research has shown that viral illnesses like Ebola, HIV, influenza and SARS affect men and women differently.
ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
In the US, a greater proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred among African Americans and other minority groups. Structural factors that prevent them from practicing social distancing include their concentration in crowded substandard housing and in "essential" occupations such as retail grocery workers, public transit employees, health-care workers and custodial staff. Greater prevalence of lacking health insurance and care and of underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease also increase their risk of death. Similar issues affect Native American and Latino communities. According to a US health policy non-profit, 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native People (AIAN) non-elderly adults are at risk of serious illness compared to 21% of white non-elderly adults. The source attributes it to disproportionately high rates of many health conditions that may put them at higher risk as well as living conditions like lack of access to clean water. Leaders have called for efforts to research and address the disparities. In the U.K., a greater proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred in those of a Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority background. More severe impacts upon victims including the relative incidence of the necessity of hospitalization requirements, and vulnerability to the disease has been associated via DNA analysis to be expressed in genetic variants at chromosomal region 3, features that are associated with European Neanderthal heritage. That structure imposes greater risks that those affected will develop a more severe form of the disease. The findings are from Professor Svante Pääbo and researchers he leads at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Karolinska Institutet. This admixture of modern human and Neanderthal genes is estimated to have occurred roughly between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago in Southern Europe.
COMORBIDITIES
Most of those who die of COVID-19 have pre-existing (underlying) conditions, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. According to March data from the United States, 89% of those hospitalised had preexisting conditions. The Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità reported that out of 8.8% of deaths where medical charts were available, 96.1% of people had at least one comorbidity with the average person having 3.4 diseases. According to this report the most common comorbidities are hypertension (66% of deaths), type 2 diabetes (29.8% of deaths), Ischemic Heart Disease (27.6% of deaths), atrial fibrillation (23.1% of deaths) and chronic renal failure (20.2% of deaths).
Most critical respiratory comorbidities according to the CDC, are: moderate or severe asthma, pre-existing COPD, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis. Evidence stemming from meta-analysis of several smaller research papers also suggests that smoking can be associated with worse outcomes. When someone with existing respiratory problems is infected with COVID-19, they might be at greater risk for severe symptoms. COVID-19 also poses a greater risk to people who misuse opioids and methamphetamines, insofar as their drug use may have caused lung damage.
In August 2020 the CDC issued a caution that tuberculosis infections could increase the risk of severe illness or death. The WHO recommended that people with respiratory symptoms be screened for both diseases, as testing positive for COVID-19 couldn't rule out co-infections. Some projections have estimated that reduced TB detection due to the pandemic could result in 6.3 million additional TB cases and 1.4 million TB related deaths by 2025.
NAME
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus and disease were commonly referred to as "coronavirus" and "Wuhan coronavirus", with the disease sometimes called "Wuhan pneumonia". In the past, many diseases have been named after geographical locations, such as the Spanish flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Zika virus. In January 2020, the WHO recommended 2019-nCov and 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease as interim names for the virus and disease per 2015 guidance and international guidelines against using geographical locations (e.g. Wuhan, China), animal species, or groups of people in disease and virus names in part to prevent social stigma. The official names COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 were issued by the WHO on 11 February 2020. Tedros Adhanom explained: CO for corona, VI for virus, D for disease and 19 for when the outbreak was first identified (31 December 2019). The WHO additionally uses "the COVID-19 virus" and "the virus responsible for COVID-19" in public communications.
HISTORY
The virus is thought to be natural and of an animal origin, through spillover infection. There are several theories about where the first case (the so-called patient zero) originated. Phylogenetics estimates that SARS-CoV-2 arose in October or November 2019. Evidence suggests that it descends from a coronavirus that infects wild bats, and spread to humans through an intermediary wildlife host.
The first known human infections were in Wuhan, Hubei, China. A study of the first 41 cases of confirmed COVID-19, published in January 2020 in The Lancet, reported the earliest date of onset of symptoms as 1 December 2019.Official publications from the WHO reported the earliest onset of symptoms as 8 December 2019. Human-to-human transmission was confirmed by the WHO and Chinese authorities by 20 January 2020. According to official Chinese sources, these were mostly linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals. In May 2020 George Gao, the director of the CDC, said animal samples collected from the seafood market had tested negative for the virus, indicating that the market was the site of an early superspreading event, but that it was not the site of the initial outbreak.[ Traces of the virus have been found in wastewater samples that were collected in Milan and Turin, Italy, on 18 December 2019.
By December 2019, the spread of infection was almost entirely driven by human-to-human transmission. The number of coronavirus cases in Hubei gradually increased, reaching 60 by 20 December, and at least 266 by 31 December. On 24 December, Wuhan Central Hospital sent a bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) sample from an unresolved clinical case to sequencing company Vision Medicals. On 27 and 28 December, Vision Medicals informed the Wuhan Central Hospital and the Chinese CDC of the results of the test, showing a new coronavirus. A pneumonia cluster of unknown cause was observed on 26 December and treated by the doctor Zhang Jixian in Hubei Provincial Hospital, who informed the Wuhan Jianghan CDC on 27 December. On 30 December, a test report addressed to Wuhan Central Hospital, from company CapitalBio Medlab, stated an erroneous positive result for SARS, causing a group of doctors at Wuhan Central Hospital to alert their colleagues and relevant hospital authorities of the result. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued a notice to various medical institutions on "the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause" that same evening. Eight of these doctors, including Li Wenliang (punished on 3 January), were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours and another, Ai Fen, was reprimanded by her superiors for raising the alarm.
The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission made the first public announcement of a pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause on 31 December, confirming 27 cases—enough to trigger an investigation.
During the early stages of the outbreak, the number of cases doubled approximately every seven and a half days. In early and mid-January 2020, the virus spread to other Chinese provinces, helped by the Chinese New Year migration and Wuhan being a transport hub and major rail interchange. On 20 January, China reported nearly 140 new cases in one day, including two people in Beijing and one in Shenzhen. Later official data shows 6,174 people had already developed symptoms by then, and more may have been infected. A report in The Lancet on 24 January indicated human transmission, strongly recommended personal protective equipment for health workers, and said testing for the virus was essential due to its "pandemic potential". On 30 January, the WHO declared the coronavirus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. By this time, the outbreak spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times.
Italy had its first confirmed cases on 31 January 2020, two tourists from China. As of 13 March 2020 the WHO considered Europe the active centre of the pandemic. Italy overtook China as the country with the most deaths on 19 March 2020. By 26 March the United States had overtaken China and Italy with the highest number of confirmed cases in the world. Research on coronavirus genomes indicates the majority of COVID-19 cases in New York came from European travellers, rather than directly from China or any other Asian country. Retesting of prior samples found a person in France who had the virus on 27 December 2019, and a person in the United States who died from the disease on 6 February 2020.
After 55 days without a locally transmitted case, Beijing reported a new COVID-19 case on 11 June 2020 which was followed by two more cases on 12 June. By 15 June there were 79 cases officially confirmed, most of them were people that went to Xinfadi Wholesale Market.
RT-PCR testing of untreated wastewater samples from Brazil and Italy have suggested detection of SARS-CoV-2 as early as November and December 2019, respectively, but the methods of such sewage studies have not been optimised, many have not been peer reviewed, details are often missing, and there is a risk of false positives due to contamination or if only one gene target is detected. A September 2020 review journal article said, "The possibility that the COVID-19 infection had already spread to Europe at the end of last year is now indicated by abundant, even if partially circumstantial, evidence", including pneumonia case numbers and radiology in France and Italy in November and December.
MISINFORMATION
After the initial outbreak of COVID-19, misinformation and disinformation regarding the origin, scale, prevention, treatment, and other aspects of the disease rapidly spread online.
In September 2020, the U.S. CDC published preliminary estimates of the risk of death by age groups in the United States, but those estimates were widely misreported and misunderstood.
OTHER ANIMALS
Humans appear to be capable of spreading the virus to some other animals, a type of disease transmission referred to as zooanthroponosis.
Some pets, especially cats and ferrets, can catch this virus from infected humans. Symptoms in cats include respiratory (such as a cough) and digestive symptoms. Cats can spread the virus to other cats, and may be able to spread the virus to humans, but cat-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven. Compared to cats, dogs are less susceptible to this infection. Behaviors which increase the risk of transmission include kissing, licking, and petting the animal.
The virus does not appear to be able to infect pigs, ducks, or chickens at all.[ Mice, rats, and rabbits, if they can be infected at all, are unlikely to be involved in spreading the virus.
Tigers and lions in zoos have become infected as a result of contact with infected humans. As expected, monkeys and great ape species such as orangutans can also be infected with the COVID-19 virus.
Minks, which are in the same family as ferrets, have been infected. Minks may be asymptomatic, and can also spread the virus to humans. Multiple countries have identified infected animals in mink farms. Denmark, a major producer of mink pelts, ordered the slaughter of all minks over fears of viral mutations. A vaccine for mink and other animals is being researched.
RESEARCH
International research on vaccines and medicines in COVID-19 is underway by government organisations, academic groups, and industry researchers. The CDC has classified it to require a BSL3 grade laboratory. There has been a great deal of COVID-19 research, involving accelerated research processes and publishing shortcuts to meet the global demand.
As of December 2020, hundreds of clinical trials have been undertaken, with research happening on every continent except Antarctica. As of November 2020, more than 200 possible treatments had been studied in humans so far.
Transmission and prevention research
Modelling research has been conducted with several objectives, including predictions of the dynamics of transmission, diagnosis and prognosis of infection, estimation of the impact of interventions, or allocation of resources. Modelling studies are mostly based on epidemiological models, estimating the number of infected people over time under given conditions. Several other types of models have been developed and used during the COVID-19 including computational fluid dynamics models to study the flow physics of COVID-19, retrofits of crowd movement models to study occupant exposure, mobility-data based models to investigate transmission, or the use of macroeconomic models to assess the economic impact of the pandemic. Further, conceptual frameworks from crisis management research have been applied to better understand the effects of COVID-19 on organizations worldwide.
TREATMENT-RELATED RESEARCH
Repurposed antiviral drugs make up most of the research into COVID-19 treatments. Other candidates in trials include vasodilators, corticosteroids, immune therapies, lipoic acid, bevacizumab, and recombinant angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.
In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated the Solidarity trial to assess the treatment effects of some promising drugs: an experimental drug called remdesivir; anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine; two anti-HIV drugs, lopinavir/ritonavir; and interferon-beta. More than 300 active clinical trials were underway as of April 2020.
Research on the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine showed that they were ineffective at best, and that they may reduce the antiviral activity of remdesivir. By May 2020, France, Italy, and Belgium had banned the use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.
In June, initial results from the randomised RECOVERY Trial in the United Kingdom showed that dexamethasone reduced mortality by one third for people who are critically ill on ventilators and one fifth for those receiving supplemental oxygen. Because this is a well-tested and widely available treatment, it was welcomed by the WHO, which is in the process of updating treatment guidelines to include dexamethasone and other steroids. Based on those preliminary results, dexamethasone treatment has been recommended by the NIH for patients with COVID-19 who are mechanically ventilated or who require supplemental oxygen but not in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen.
In September 2020, the WHO released updated guidance on using corticosteroids for COVID-19. The WHO recommends systemic corticosteroids rather than no systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of people with severe and critical COVID-19 (strong recommendation, based on moderate certainty evidence). The WHO suggests not to use corticosteroids in the treatment of people with non-severe COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, based on low certainty evidence). The updated guidance was based on a meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill COVID-19 patients.
WIKIPEDIA
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.
Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, but often include fever, cough, fatigue, breathing difficulties, and loss of smell and taste. Symptoms begin one to fourteen days after exposure to the virus. Of those people who develop noticeable symptoms, most (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging), and 5% suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction). Older people are more likely to have severe symptoms. At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus remain asymptomatic and do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time, but they still can spread the disease.[ Around 20% of those people will remain asymptomatic throughout infection, and the rest will develop symptoms later on, becoming pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic and therefore having a higher risk of transmitting the virus to others. Some people continue to experience a range of effects—known as long COVID—for months after recovery, and damage to organs has been observed. Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the disease.
The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads mainly when an infected person is in close contact[a] with another person. Small droplets and aerosols containing the virus can spread from an infected person's nose and mouth as they breathe, cough, sneeze, sing, or speak. Other people are infected if the virus gets into their mouth, nose or eyes. The virus may also spread via contaminated surfaces, although this is not thought to be the main route of transmission. The exact route of transmission is rarely proven conclusively, but infection mainly happens when people are near each other for long enough. People who are infected can transmit the virus to another person up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, as can people who do not experience symptoms. People remain infectious for up to ten days after the onset of symptoms in moderate cases and up to 20 days in severe cases. Several testing methods have been developed to diagnose the disease. The standard diagnostic method is by detection of the virus' nucleic acid by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), or by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) from a nasopharyngeal swab.
Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face. The use of face masks or coverings has been recommended in public settings to minimise the risk of transmissions. Several vaccines have been developed and several countries have initiated mass vaccination campaigns.
Although work is underway to develop drugs that inhibit the virus, the primary treatment is currently symptomatic. Management involves the treatment of symptoms, supportive care, isolation, and experimental measures.
SIGNS AND SYSTOMS
Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Common symptoms include headache, loss of smell and taste, nasal congestion and rhinorrhea, cough, muscle pain, sore throat, fever, diarrhea, and breathing difficulties. People with the same infection may have different symptoms, and their symptoms may change over time. Three common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. In people without prior ear, nose, and throat disorders, loss of taste combined with loss of smell is associated with COVID-19.
Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging) and 5% of patients suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction). At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time. These asymptomatic carriers tend not to get tested and can spread the disease. Other infected people will develop symptoms later, called "pre-symptomatic", or have very mild symptoms and can also spread the virus.
As is common with infections, there is a delay between the moment a person first becomes infected and the appearance of the first symptoms. The median delay for COVID-19 is four to five days. Most symptomatic people experience symptoms within two to seven days after exposure, and almost all will experience at least one symptom within 12 days.
Most people recover from the acute phase of the disease. However, some people continue to experience a range of effects for months after recovery—named long COVID—and damage to organs has been observed. Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the disease.
CAUSE
TRANSMISSION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads from person to person mainly through the respiratory route after an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks or breathes. A new infection occurs when virus-containing particles exhaled by an infected person, either respiratory droplets or aerosols, get into the mouth, nose, or eyes of other people who are in close contact with the infected person. During human-to-human transmission, an average 1000 infectious SARS-CoV-2 virions are thought to initiate a new infection.
The closer people interact, and the longer they interact, the more likely they are to transmit COVID-19. Closer distances can involve larger droplets (which fall to the ground) and aerosols, whereas longer distances only involve aerosols. Larger droplets can also turn into aerosols (known as droplet nuclei) through evaporation. The relative importance of the larger droplets and the aerosols is not clear as of November 2020; however, the virus is not known to spread between rooms over long distances such as through air ducts. Airborne transmission is able to particularly occur indoors, in high risk locations such as restaurants, choirs, gyms, nightclubs, offices, and religious venues, often when they are crowded or less ventilated. It also occurs in healthcare settings, often when aerosol-generating medical procedures are performed on COVID-19 patients.
Although it is considered possible there is no direct evidence of the virus being transmitted by skin to skin contact. A person could get COVID-19 indirectly by touching a contaminated surface or object before touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes, though this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. The virus is not known to spread through feces, urine, breast milk, food, wastewater, drinking water, or via animal disease vectors (although some animals can contract the virus from humans). It very rarely transmits from mother to baby during pregnancy.
Social distancing and the wearing of cloth face masks, surgical masks, respirators, or other face coverings are controls for droplet transmission. Transmission may be decreased indoors with well maintained heating and ventilation systems to maintain good air circulation and increase the use of outdoor air.
The number of people generally infected by one infected person varies. Coronavirus disease 2019 is more infectious than influenza, but less so than measles. It often spreads in clusters, where infections can be traced back to an index case or geographical location. There is a major role of "super-spreading events", where many people are infected by one person.
A person who is infected can transmit the virus to others up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, and even if symptoms never appear. People remain infectious in moderate cases for 7–12 days, and up to two weeks in severe cases. In October 2020, medical scientists reported evidence of reinfection in one person.
VIROLOGY
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. It was first isolated from three people with pneumonia connected to the cluster of acute respiratory illness cases in Wuhan. All structural features of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus particle occur in related coronaviruses in nature.
Outside the human body, the virus is destroyed by household soap, which bursts its protective bubble.
SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to the original SARS-CoV. It is thought to have an animal (zoonotic) origin. Genetic analysis has revealed that the coronavirus genetically clusters with the genus Betacoronavirus, in subgenus Sarbecovirus (lineage B) together with two bat-derived strains. It is 96% identical at the whole genome level to other bat coronavirus samples (BatCov RaTG13). The structural proteins of SARS-CoV-2 include membrane glycoprotein (M), envelope protein (E), nucleocapsid protein (N), and the spike protein (S). The M protein of SARS-CoV-2 is about 98% similar to the M protein of bat SARS-CoV, maintains around 98% homology with pangolin SARS-CoV, and has 90% homology with the M protein of SARS-CoV; whereas, the similarity is only around 38% with the M protein of MERS-CoV. The structure of the M protein resembles the sugar transporter SemiSWEET.
The many thousands of SARS-CoV-2 variants are grouped into clades. Several different clade nomenclatures have been proposed. Nextstrain divides the variants into five clades (19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, and 20C), while GISAID divides them into seven (L, O, V, S, G, GH, and GR).
Several notable variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2020. Cluster 5 emerged among minks and mink farmers in Denmark. After strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign, it is believed to have been eradicated. The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. The 501Y.V2 Variant, which has the same N501Y mutation, arose independently in South Africa.
SARS-CoV-2 VARIANTS
Three known variants of SARS-CoV-2 are currently spreading among global populations as of January 2021 including the UK Variant (referred to as B.1.1.7) first found in London and Kent, a variant discovered in South Africa (referred to as 1.351), and a variant discovered in Brazil (referred to as P.1).
Using Whole Genome Sequencing, epidemiology and modelling suggest the new UK variant ‘VUI – 202012/01’ (the first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020) transmits more easily than other strains.
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
COVID-19 can affect the upper respiratory tract (sinuses, nose, and throat) and the lower respiratory tract (windpipe and lungs). The lungs are the organs most affected by COVID-19 because the virus accesses host cells via the enzyme angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is most abundant in type II alveolar cells of the lungs. The virus uses a special surface glycoprotein called a "spike" (peplomer) to connect to ACE2 and enter the host cell. The density of ACE2 in each tissue correlates with the severity of the disease in that tissue and decreasing ACE2 activity might be protective, though another view is that increasing ACE2 using angiotensin II receptor blocker medications could be protective. As the alveolar disease progresses, respiratory failure might develop and death may follow.
Whether SARS-CoV-2 is able to invade the nervous system remains unknown. The virus is not detected in the CNS of the majority of COVID-19 people with neurological issues. However, SARS-CoV-2 has been detected at low levels in the brains of those who have died from COVID-19, but these results need to be confirmed. SARS-CoV-2 could cause respiratory failure through affecting the brain stem as other coronaviruses have been found to invade the CNS. While virus has been detected in cerebrospinal fluid of autopsies, the exact mechanism by which it invades the CNS remains unclear and may first involve invasion of peripheral nerves given the low levels of ACE2 in the brain. The virus may also enter the bloodstream from the lungs and cross the blood-brain barrier to gain access to the CNS, possibly within an infected white blood cell.
The virus also affects gastrointestinal organs as ACE2 is abundantly expressed in the glandular cells of gastric, duodenal and rectal epithelium as well as endothelial cells and enterocytes of the small intestine.
The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease. Rates of cardiovascular symptoms are high, owing to the systemic inflammatory response and immune system disorders during disease progression, but acute myocardial injuries may also be related to ACE2 receptors in the heart. ACE2 receptors are highly expressed in the heart and are involved in heart function. A high incidence of thrombosis and venous thromboembolism have been found people transferred to Intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 infections, and may be related to poor prognosis. Blood vessel dysfunction and clot formation (as suggested by high D-dimer levels caused by blood clots) are thought to play a significant role in mortality, incidences of clots leading to pulmonary embolisms, and ischaemic events within the brain have been noted as complications leading to death in people infected with SARS-CoV-2. Infection appears to set off a chain of vasoconstrictive responses within the body, constriction of blood vessels within the pulmonary circulation has also been posited as a mechanism in which oxygenation decreases alongside the presentation of viral pneumonia. Furthermore, microvascular blood vessel damage has been reported in a small number of tissue samples of the brains – without detected SARS-CoV-2 – and the olfactory bulbs from those who have died from COVID-19.
Another common cause of death is complications related to the kidneys. Early reports show that up to 30% of hospitalized patients both in China and in New York have experienced some injury to their kidneys, including some persons with no previous kidney problems.
Autopsies of people who died of COVID-19 have found diffuse alveolar damage, and lymphocyte-containing inflammatory infiltrates within the lung.
IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
Although SARS-CoV-2 has a tropism for ACE2-expressing epithelial cells of the respiratory tract, people with severe COVID-19 have symptoms of systemic hyperinflammation. Clinical laboratory findings of elevated IL-2, IL-7, IL-6, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interferon-γ inducible protein 10 (IP-10), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), macrophage inflammatory protein 1-α (MIP-1α), and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) indicative of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) suggest an underlying immunopathology.
Additionally, people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have classical serum biomarkers of CRS, including elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), D-dimer, and ferritin.
Systemic inflammation results in vasodilation, allowing inflammatory lymphocytic and monocytic infiltration of the lung and the heart. In particular, pathogenic GM-CSF-secreting T-cells were shown to correlate with the recruitment of inflammatory IL-6-secreting monocytes and severe lung pathology in people with COVID-19 . Lymphocytic infiltrates have also been reported at autopsy.
VIRAL AND HOST FACTORS
VIRUS PROTEINS
Multiple viral and host factors affect the pathogenesis of the virus. The S-protein, otherwise known as the spike protein, is the viral component that attaches to the host receptor via the ACE2 receptors. It includes two subunits: S1 and S2. S1 determines the virus host range and cellular tropism via the receptor binding domain. S2 mediates the membrane fusion of the virus to its potential cell host via the H1 and HR2, which are heptad repeat regions. Studies have shown that S1 domain induced IgG and IgA antibody levels at a much higher capacity. It is the focus spike proteins expression that are involved in many effective COVID-19 vaccines.
The M protein is the viral protein responsible for the transmembrane transport of nutrients. It is the cause of the bud release and the formation of the viral envelope. The N and E protein are accessory proteins that interfere with the host's immune response.
HOST FACTORS
Human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) is the host factor that SARS-COV2 virus targets causing COVID-19. Theoretically the usage of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and ACE inhibitors upregulating ACE2 expression might increase morbidity with COVID-19, though animal data suggest some potential protective effect of ARB. However no clinical studies have proven susceptibility or outcomes. Until further data is available, guidelines and recommendations for hypertensive patients remain.
The virus' effect on ACE2 cell surfaces leads to leukocytic infiltration, increased blood vessel permeability, alveolar wall permeability, as well as decreased secretion of lung surfactants. These effects cause the majority of the respiratory symptoms. However, the aggravation of local inflammation causes a cytokine storm eventually leading to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
HOST CYTOKINE RESPONSE
The severity of the inflammation can be attributed to the severity of what is known as the cytokine storm. Levels of interleukin 1B, interferon-gamma, interferon-inducible protein 10, and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 were all associated with COVID-19 disease severity. Treatment has been proposed to combat the cytokine storm as it remains to be one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 disease.
A cytokine storm is due to an acute hyperinflammatory response that is responsible for clinical illness in an array of diseases but in COVID-19, it is related to worse prognosis and increased fatality. The storm causes the acute respiratory distress syndrome, blood clotting events such as strokes, myocardial infarction, encephalitis, acute kidney injury, and vasculitis. The production of IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, TNF-alpha, and interferon-gamma, all crucial components of normal immune responses, inadvertently become the causes of a cytokine storm. The cells of the central nervous system, the microglia, neurons, and astrocytes, are also be involved in the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines affecting the nervous system, and effects of cytokine storms toward the CNS are not uncommon.
DIAGNOSIS
COVID-19 can provisionally be diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and confirmed using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or other nucleic acid testing of infected secretions. Along with laboratory testing, chest CT scans may be helpful to diagnose COVID-19 in individuals with a high clinical suspicion of infection. Detection of a past infection is possible with serological tests, which detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the infection.
VIRAL TESTING
The standard methods of testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2 are nucleic acid tests, which detects the presence of viral RNA fragments. As these tests detect RNA but not infectious virus, its "ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited." The test is typically done on respiratory samples obtained by a nasopharyngeal swab; however, a nasal swab or sputum sample may also be used. Results are generally available within hours. The WHO has published several testing protocols for the disease.
A number of laboratories and companies have developed serological tests, which detect antibodies produced by the body in response to infection. Several have been evaluated by Public Health England and approved for use in the UK.
The University of Oxford's CEBM has pointed to mounting evidence that "a good proportion of 'new' mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with" and have called for "an international effort to standardize and periodically calibrate testing" On 7 September, the UK government issued "guidance for procedures to be implemented in laboratories to provide assurance of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA results during periods of low prevalence, when there is a reduction in the predictive value of positive test results."
IMAGING
Chest CT scans may be helpful to diagnose COVID-19 in individuals with a high clinical suspicion of infection but are not recommended for routine screening. Bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacities with a peripheral, asymmetric, and posterior distribution are common in early infection. Subpleural dominance, crazy paving (lobular septal thickening with variable alveolar filling), and consolidation may appear as the disease progresses. Characteristic imaging features on chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) of people who are symptomatic include asymmetric peripheral ground-glass opacities without pleural effusions.
Many groups have created COVID-19 datasets that include imagery such as the Italian Radiological Society which has compiled an international online database of imaging findings for confirmed cases. Due to overlap with other infections such as adenovirus, imaging without confirmation by rRT-PCR is of limited specificity in identifying COVID-19. A large study in China compared chest CT results to PCR and demonstrated that though imaging is less specific for the infection, it is faster and more sensitive.
Coding
In late 2019, the WHO assigned emergency ICD-10 disease codes U07.1 for deaths from lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and U07.2 for deaths from clinically or epidemiologically diagnosed COVID-19 without lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATHOLOGY
The main pathological findings at autopsy are:
Macroscopy: pericarditis, lung consolidation and pulmonary oedema
Lung findings:
minor serous exudation, minor fibrin exudation
pulmonary oedema, pneumocyte hyperplasia, large atypical pneumocytes, interstitial inflammation with lymphocytic infiltration and multinucleated giant cell formation
diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) with diffuse alveolar exudates. DAD is the cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe hypoxemia.
organisation of exudates in alveolar cavities and pulmonary interstitial fibrosis
plasmocytosis in BAL
Blood: disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC); leukoerythroblastic reaction
Liver: microvesicular steatosis
PREVENTION
Preventive measures to reduce the chances of infection include staying at home, wearing a mask in public, avoiding crowded places, keeping distance from others, ventilating indoor spaces, washing hands with soap and water often and for at least 20 seconds, practising good respiratory hygiene, and avoiding touching the eyes, nose, or mouth with unwashed hands.
Those diagnosed with COVID-19 or who believe they may be infected are advised by the CDC to stay home except to get medical care, call ahead before visiting a healthcare provider, wear a face mask before entering the healthcare provider's office and when in any room or vehicle with another person, cover coughs and sneezes with a tissue, regularly wash hands with soap and water and avoid sharing personal household items.
The first COVID-19 vaccine was granted regulatory approval on 2 December by the UK medicines regulator MHRA. It was evaluated for emergency use authorization (EUA) status by the US FDA, and in several other countries. Initially, the US National Institutes of Health guidelines do not recommend any medication for prevention of COVID-19, before or after exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, outside the setting of a clinical trial. Without a vaccine, other prophylactic measures, or effective treatments, a key part of managing COVID-19 is trying to decrease and delay the epidemic peak, known as "flattening the curve". This is done by slowing the infection rate to decrease the risk of health services being overwhelmed, allowing for better treatment of current cases, and delaying additional cases until effective treatments or a vaccine become available.
VACCINE
A COVID‑19 vaccine is a vaccine intended to provide acquired immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19). Prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic, there was an established body of knowledge about the structure and function of coronaviruses causing diseases like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), which enabled accelerated development of various vaccine technologies during early 2020. On 10 January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence data was shared through GISAID, and by 19 March, the global pharmaceutical industry announced a major commitment to address COVID-19.
In Phase III trials, several COVID‑19 vaccines have demonstrated efficacy as high as 95% in preventing symptomatic COVID‑19 infections. As of March 2021, 12 vaccines were authorized by at least one national regulatory authority for public use: two RNA vaccines (the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine), four conventional inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, CoronaVac, Covaxin, and CoviVac), four viral vector vaccines (Sputnik V, the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, Convidicea, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine), and two protein subunit vaccines (EpiVacCorona and RBD-Dimer). In total, as of March 2021, 308 vaccine candidates were in various stages of development, with 73 in clinical research, including 24 in Phase I trials, 33 in Phase I–II trials, and 16 in Phase III development.
Many countries have implemented phased distribution plans that prioritize those at highest risk of complications, such as the elderly, and those at high risk of exposure and transmission, such as healthcare workers. As of 17 March 2021, 400.22 million doses of COVID‑19 vaccine have been administered worldwide based on official reports from national health agencies. AstraZeneca-Oxford anticipates producing 3 billion doses in 2021, Pfizer-BioNTech 1.3 billion doses, and Sputnik V, Sinopharm, Sinovac, and Johnson & Johnson 1 billion doses each. Moderna targets producing 600 million doses and Convidicea 500 million doses in 2021. By December 2020, more than 10 billion vaccine doses had been preordered by countries, with about half of the doses purchased by high-income countries comprising 14% of the world's population.
SOCIAL DISTANCING
Social distancing (also known as physical distancing) includes infection control actions intended to slow the spread of the disease by minimising close contact between individuals. Methods include quarantines; travel restrictions; and the closing of schools, workplaces, stadiums, theatres, or shopping centres. Individuals may apply social distancing methods by staying at home, limiting travel, avoiding crowded areas, using no-contact greetings, and physically distancing themselves from others. Many governments are now mandating or recommending social distancing in regions affected by the outbreak.
Outbreaks have occurred in prisons due to crowding and an inability to enforce adequate social distancing. In the United States, the prisoner population is aging and many of them are at high risk for poor outcomes from COVID-19 due to high rates of coexisting heart and lung disease, and poor access to high-quality healthcare.
SELF-ISOLATION
Self-isolation at home has been recommended for those diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who suspect they have been infected. Health agencies have issued detailed instructions for proper self-isolation. Many governments have mandated or recommended self-quarantine for entire populations. The strongest self-quarantine instructions have been issued to those in high-risk groups. Those who may have been exposed to someone with COVID-19 and those who have recently travelled to a country or region with the widespread transmission have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days from the time of last possible exposure.
Face masks and respiratory hygiene
The WHO and the US CDC recommend individuals wear non-medical face coverings in public settings where there is an increased risk of transmission and where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. This recommendation is meant to reduce the spread of the disease by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals and is complementary to established preventive measures such as social distancing. Face coverings limit the volume and travel distance of expiratory droplets dispersed when talking, breathing, and coughing. A face covering without vents or holes will also filter out particles containing the virus from inhaled and exhaled air, reducing the chances of infection. But, if the mask include an exhalation valve, a wearer that is infected (maybe without having noticed that, and asymptomatic) would transmit the virus outwards through it, despite any certification they can have. So the masks with exhalation valve are not for the infected wearers, and are not reliable to stop the pandemic in a large scale. Many countries and local jurisdictions encourage or mandate the use of face masks or cloth face coverings by members of the public to limit the spread of the virus.
Masks are also strongly recommended for those who may have been infected and those taking care of someone who may have the disease. When not wearing a mask, the CDC recommends covering the mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing and recommends using the inside of the elbow if no tissue is available. Proper hand hygiene after any cough or sneeze is encouraged. Healthcare professionals interacting directly with people who have COVID-19 are advised to use respirators at least as protective as NIOSH-certified N95 or equivalent, in addition to other personal protective equipment.
HAND-WASHING AND HYGIENE
Thorough hand hygiene after any cough or sneeze is required. The WHO also recommends that individuals wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the toilet or when hands are visibly dirty, before eating and after blowing one's nose. The CDC recommends using an alcohol-based hand sanitiser with at least 60% alcohol, but only when soap and water are not readily available. For areas where commercial hand sanitisers are not readily available, the WHO provides two formulations for local production. In these formulations, the antimicrobial activity arises from ethanol or isopropanol. Hydrogen peroxide is used to help eliminate bacterial spores in the alcohol; it is "not an active substance for hand antisepsis". Glycerol is added as a humectant.
SURFACE CLEANING
After being expelled from the body, coronaviruses can survive on surfaces for hours to days. If a person touches the dirty surface, they may deposit the virus at the eyes, nose, or mouth where it can enter the body cause infection. Current evidence indicates that contact with infected surfaces is not the main driver of Covid-19, leading to recommendations for optimised disinfection procedures to avoid issues such as the increase of antimicrobial resistance through the use of inappropriate cleaning products and processes. Deep cleaning and other surface sanitation has been criticized as hygiene theater, giving a false sense of security against something primarily spread through the air.
The amount of time that the virus can survive depends significantly on the type of surface, the temperature, and the humidity. Coronaviruses die very quickly when exposed to the UV light in sunlight. Like other enveloped viruses, SARS-CoV-2 survives longest when the temperature is at room temperature or lower, and when the relative humidity is low (<50%).
On many surfaces, including as glass, some types of plastic, stainless steel, and skin, the virus can remain infective for several days indoors at room temperature, or even about a week under ideal conditions. On some surfaces, including cotton fabric and copper, the virus usually dies after a few hours. As a general rule of thumb, the virus dies faster on porous surfaces than on non-porous surfaces.
However, this rule is not absolute, and of the many surfaces tested, two with the longest survival times are N95 respirator masks and surgical masks, both of which are considered porous surfaces.
Surfaces may be decontaminated with 62–71 percent ethanol, 50–100 percent isopropanol, 0.1 percent sodium hypochlorite, 0.5 percent hydrogen peroxide, and 0.2–7.5 percent povidone-iodine. Other solutions, such as benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine gluconate, are less effective. Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation may also be used. The CDC recommends that if a COVID-19 case is suspected or confirmed at a facility such as an office or day care, all areas such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, shared electronic equipment like tablets, touch screens, keyboards, remote controls, and ATM machines used by the ill persons should be disinfected. A datasheet comprising the authorised substances to disinfection in the food industry (including suspension or surface tested, kind of surface, use dilution, disinfectant and inocuylum volumes) can be seen in the supplementary material of.
VENTILATION AND AIR FILTRATION
The WHO recommends ventilation and air filtration in public spaces to help clear out infectious aerosols.
HEALTHY DIET AND LIFESTYLE
The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends a healthy diet, being physically active, managing psychological stress, and getting enough sleep.
While there is no evidence that vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19, there is limited evidence that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms. This has led to recommendations for individuals with vitamin D deficiency to take vitamin D supplements as a way of mitigating the risk of COVID-19 and other health issues associated with a possible increase in deficiency due to social distancing.
TREATMENT
There is no specific, effective treatment or cure for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, the cornerstone of management of COVID-19 is supportive care, which includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support and prone positioning as needed, and medications or devices to support other affected vital organs.
Most cases of COVID-19 are mild. In these, supportive care includes medication such as paracetamol or NSAIDs to relieve symptoms (fever, body aches, cough), proper intake of fluids, rest, and nasal breathing. Good personal hygiene and a healthy diet are also recommended. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that those who suspect they are carrying the virus isolate themselves at home and wear a face mask.
People with more severe cases may need treatment in hospital. In those with low oxygen levels, use of the glucocorticoid dexamethasone is strongly recommended, as it can reduce the risk of death. Noninvasive ventilation and, ultimately, admission to an intensive care unit for mechanical ventilation may be required to support breathing. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to address the issue of respiratory failure, but its benefits are still under consideration.
Several experimental treatments are being actively studied in clinical trials. Others were thought to be promising early in the pandemic, such as hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir, but later research found them to be ineffective or even harmful. Despite ongoing research, there is still not enough high-quality evidence to recommend so-called early treatment. Nevertheless, in the United States, two monoclonal antibody-based therapies are available for early use in cases thought to be at high risk of progression to severe disease. The antiviral remdesivir is available in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and several other countries, with varying restrictions; however, it is not recommended for people needing mechanical ventilation, and is discouraged altogether by the World Health Organization (WHO), due to limited evidence of its efficacy.
PROGNOSIS
The severity of COVID-19 varies. The disease may take a mild course with few or no symptoms, resembling other common upper respiratory diseases such as the common cold. In 3–4% of cases (7.4% for those over age 65) symptoms are severe enough to cause hospitalization. Mild cases typically recover within two weeks, while those with severe or critical diseases may take three to six weeks to recover. Among those who have died, the time from symptom onset to death has ranged from two to eight weeks. The Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità reported that the median time between the onset of symptoms and death was twelve days, with seven being hospitalised. However, people transferred to an ICU had a median time of ten days between hospitalisation and death. Prolonged prothrombin time and elevated C-reactive protein levels on admission to the hospital are associated with severe course of COVID-19 and with a transfer to ICU.
Some early studies suggest 10% to 20% of people with COVID-19 will experience symptoms lasting longer than a month.[191][192] A majority of those who were admitted to hospital with severe disease report long-term problems including fatigue and shortness of breath. On 30 October 2020 WHO chief Tedros Adhanom warned that "to a significant number of people, the COVID virus poses a range of serious long-term effects". He has described the vast spectrum of COVID-19 symptoms that fluctuate over time as "really concerning." They range from fatigue, a cough and shortness of breath, to inflammation and injury of major organs – including the lungs and heart, and also neurological and psychologic effects. Symptoms often overlap and can affect any system in the body. Infected people have reported cyclical bouts of fatigue, headaches, months of complete exhaustion, mood swings, and other symptoms. Tedros has concluded that therefore herd immunity is "morally unconscionable and unfeasible".
In terms of hospital readmissions about 9% of 106,000 individuals had to return for hospital treatment within 2 months of discharge. The average to readmit was 8 days since first hospital visit. There are several risk factors that have been identified as being a cause of multiple admissions to a hospital facility. Among these are advanced age (above 65 years of age) and presence of a chronic condition such as diabetes, COPD, heart failure or chronic kidney disease.
According to scientific reviews smokers are more likely to require intensive care or die compared to non-smokers, air pollution is similarly associated with risk factors, and pre-existing heart and lung diseases and also obesity contributes to an increased health risk of COVID-19.
It is also assumed that those that are immunocompromised are at higher risk of getting severely sick from SARS-CoV-2. One research that looked into the COVID-19 infections in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients found a mortality rate of 11%.
See also: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children
Children make up a small proportion of reported cases, with about 1% of cases being under 10 years and 4% aged 10–19 years. They are likely to have milder symptoms and a lower chance of severe disease than adults. A European multinational study of hospitalized children published in The Lancet on 25 June 2020 found that about 8% of children admitted to a hospital needed intensive care. Four of those 582 children (0.7%) died, but the actual mortality rate could be "substantially lower" since milder cases that did not seek medical help were not included in the study.
Genetics also plays an important role in the ability to fight off the disease. For instance, those that do not produce detectable type I interferons or produce auto-antibodies against these may get much sicker from COVID-19. Genetic screening is able to detect interferon effector genes.
Pregnant women may be at higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection based on data from other similar viruses, like SARS and MERS, but data for COVID-19 is lacking.
COMPLICATIONS
Complications may include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ failure, septic shock, and death. Cardiovascular complications may include heart failure, arrhythmias, heart inflammation, and blood clots. Approximately 20–30% of people who present with COVID-19 have elevated liver enzymes, reflecting liver injury.
Neurologic manifestations include seizure, stroke, encephalitis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome (which includes loss of motor functions). Following the infection, children may develop paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, which has symptoms similar to Kawasaki disease, which can be fatal. In very rare cases, acute encephalopathy can occur, and it can be considered in those who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and have an altered mental status.
LONGER-TERM EFFECTS
Some early studies suggest that that 10 to 20% of people with COVID-19 will experience symptoms lasting longer than a month. A majority of those who were admitted to hospital with severe disease report long-term problems, including fatigue and shortness of breath. About 5-10% of patients admitted to hospital progress to severe or critical disease, including pneumonia and acute respiratory failure.
By a variety of mechanisms, the lungs are the organs most affected in COVID-19.[228] The majority of CT scans performed show lung abnormalities in people tested after 28 days of illness.
People with advanced age, severe disease, prolonged ICU stays, or who smoke are more likely to have long lasting effects, including pulmonary fibrosis. Overall, approximately one third of those investigated after 4 weeks will have findings of pulmonary fibrosis or reduced lung function as measured by DLCO, even in people who are asymptomatic, but with the suggestion of continuing improvement with the passing of more time.
IMMUNITY
The immune response by humans to CoV-2 virus occurs as a combination of the cell-mediated immunity and antibody production, just as with most other infections. Since SARS-CoV-2 has been in the human population only since December 2019, it remains unknown if the immunity is long-lasting in people who recover from the disease. The presence of neutralizing antibodies in blood strongly correlates with protection from infection, but the level of neutralizing antibody declines with time. Those with asymptomatic or mild disease had undetectable levels of neutralizing antibody two months after infection. In another study, the level of neutralizing antibody fell 4-fold 1 to 4 months after the onset of symptoms. However, the lack of antibody in the blood does not mean antibody will not be rapidly produced upon reexposure to SARS-CoV-2. Memory B cells specific for the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2 last for at least 6 months after appearance of symptoms. Nevertheless, 15 cases of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported using stringent CDC criteria requiring identification of a different variant from the second infection. There are likely to be many more people who have been reinfected with the virus. Herd immunity will not eliminate the virus if reinfection is common. Some other coronaviruses circulating in people are capable of reinfection after roughly a year. Nonetheless, on 3 March 2021, scientists reported that a much more contagious Covid-19 variant, Lineage P.1, first detected in Japan, and subsequently found in Brazil, as well as in several places in the United States, may be associated with Covid-19 disease reinfection after recovery from an earlier Covid-19 infection.
MORTALITY
Several measures are commonly used to quantify mortality. These numbers vary by region and over time and are influenced by the volume of testing, healthcare system quality, treatment options, time since the initial outbreak, and population characteristics such as age, sex, and overall health. The mortality rate reflects the number of deaths within a specific demographic group divided by the population of that demographic group. Consequently, the mortality rate reflects the prevalence as well as the severity of the disease within a given population. Mortality rates are highly correlated to age, with relatively low rates for young people and relatively high rates among the elderly.
The case fatality rate (CFR) reflects the number of deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cases within a given time interval. Based on Johns Hopkins University statistics, the global death-to-case ratio is 2.2% (2,685,770/121,585,388) as of 18 March 2021. The number varies by region. The CFR may not reflect the true severity of the disease, because some infected individuals remain asymptomatic or experience only mild symptoms, and hence such infections may not be included in official case reports. Moreover, the CFR may vary markedly over time and across locations due to the availability of live virus tests.
INFECTION FATALITY RATE
A key metric in gauging the severity of COVID-19 is the infection fatality rate (IFR), also referred to as the infection fatality ratio or infection fatality risk. This metric is calculated by dividing the total number of deaths from the disease by the total number of infected individuals; hence, in contrast to the CFR, the IFR incorporates asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections as well as reported cases.
CURRENT ESTIMATES
A December 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis estimated that population IFR during the first wave of the pandemic was about 0.5% to 1% in many locations (including France, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Portugal), 1% to 2% in other locations (Australia, England, Lithuania, and Spain), and exceeded 2% in Italy. That study also found that most of these differences in IFR reflected corresponding differences in the age composition of the population and age-specific infection rates; in particular, the metaregression estimate of IFR is very low for children and younger adults (e.g., 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at age 25) but increases progressively to 0.4% at age 55, 1.4% at age 65, 4.6% at age 75, and 15% at age 85. These results were also highlighted in a December 2020 report issued by the WHO.
EARLIER ESTIMATES OF IFR
At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.[ On 2 July, The WHO's chief scientist reported that the average IFR estimate presented at a two-day WHO expert forum was about 0.6%. In August, the WHO found that studies incorporating data from broad serology testing in Europe showed IFR estimates converging at approximately 0.5–1%. Firm lower limits of IFRs have been established in a number of locations such as New York City and Bergamo in Italy since the IFR cannot be less than the population fatality rate. As of 10 July, in New York City, with a population of 8.4 million, 23,377 individuals (18,758 confirmed and 4,619 probable) have died with COVID-19 (0.3% of the population).Antibody testing in New York City suggested an IFR of ~0.9%,[258] and ~1.4%. In Bergamo province, 0.6% of the population has died. In September 2020 the U.S. Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported preliminary estimates of age-specific IFRs for public health planning purposes.
SEX DIFFERENCES
Early reviews of epidemiologic data showed gendered impact of the pandemic and a higher mortality rate in men in China and Italy. The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported the death rate was 2.8% for men and 1.7% for women. Later reviews in June 2020 indicated that there is no significant difference in susceptibility or in CFR between genders. One review acknowledges the different mortality rates in Chinese men, suggesting that it may be attributable to lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol rather than genetic factors. Sex-based immunological differences, lesser prevalence of smoking in women and men developing co-morbid conditions such as hypertension at a younger age than women could have contributed to the higher mortality in men. In Europe, 57% of the infected people were men and 72% of those died with COVID-19 were men. As of April 2020, the US government is not tracking sex-related data of COVID-19 infections. Research has shown that viral illnesses like Ebola, HIV, influenza and SARS affect men and women differently.
ETHNIC DIFFERENCES
In the US, a greater proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred among African Americans and other minority groups. Structural factors that prevent them from practicing social distancing include their concentration in crowded substandard housing and in "essential" occupations such as retail grocery workers, public transit employees, health-care workers and custodial staff. Greater prevalence of lacking health insurance and care and of underlying conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease also increase their risk of death. Similar issues affect Native American and Latino communities. According to a US health policy non-profit, 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native People (AIAN) non-elderly adults are at risk of serious illness compared to 21% of white non-elderly adults. The source attributes it to disproportionately high rates of many health conditions that may put them at higher risk as well as living conditions like lack of access to clean water. Leaders have called for efforts to research and address the disparities. In the U.K., a greater proportion of deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred in those of a Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority background. More severe impacts upon victims including the relative incidence of the necessity of hospitalization requirements, and vulnerability to the disease has been associated via DNA analysis to be expressed in genetic variants at chromosomal region 3, features that are associated with European Neanderthal heritage. That structure imposes greater risks that those affected will develop a more severe form of the disease. The findings are from Professor Svante Pääbo and researchers he leads at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Karolinska Institutet. This admixture of modern human and Neanderthal genes is estimated to have occurred roughly between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago in Southern Europe.
COMORBIDITIES
Most of those who die of COVID-19 have pre-existing (underlying) conditions, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. According to March data from the United States, 89% of those hospitalised had preexisting conditions. The Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità reported that out of 8.8% of deaths where medical charts were available, 96.1% of people had at least one comorbidity with the average person having 3.4 diseases. According to this report the most common comorbidities are hypertension (66% of deaths), type 2 diabetes (29.8% of deaths), Ischemic Heart Disease (27.6% of deaths), atrial fibrillation (23.1% of deaths) and chronic renal failure (20.2% of deaths).
Most critical respiratory comorbidities according to the CDC, are: moderate or severe asthma, pre-existing COPD, pulmonary fibrosis, cystic fibrosis. Evidence stemming from meta-analysis of several smaller research papers also suggests that smoking can be associated with worse outcomes. When someone with existing respiratory problems is infected with COVID-19, they might be at greater risk for severe symptoms. COVID-19 also poses a greater risk to people who misuse opioids and methamphetamines, insofar as their drug use may have caused lung damage.
In August 2020 the CDC issued a caution that tuberculosis infections could increase the risk of severe illness or death. The WHO recommended that people with respiratory symptoms be screened for both diseases, as testing positive for COVID-19 couldn't rule out co-infections. Some projections have estimated that reduced TB detection due to the pandemic could result in 6.3 million additional TB cases and 1.4 million TB related deaths by 2025.
NAME
During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus and disease were commonly referred to as "coronavirus" and "Wuhan coronavirus", with the disease sometimes called "Wuhan pneumonia". In the past, many diseases have been named after geographical locations, such as the Spanish flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Zika virus. In January 2020, the WHO recommended 2019-nCov and 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease as interim names for the virus and disease per 2015 guidance and international guidelines against using geographical locations (e.g. Wuhan, China), animal species, or groups of people in disease and virus names in part to prevent social stigma. The official names COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 were issued by the WHO on 11 February 2020. Tedros Adhanom explained: CO for corona, VI for virus, D for disease and 19 for when the outbreak was first identified (31 December 2019). The WHO additionally uses "the COVID-19 virus" and "the virus responsible for COVID-19" in public communications.
HISTORY
The virus is thought to be natural and of an animal origin, through spillover infection. There are several theories about where the first case (the so-called patient zero) originated. Phylogenetics estimates that SARS-CoV-2 arose in October or November 2019. Evidence suggests that it descends from a coronavirus that infects wild bats, and spread to humans through an intermediary wildlife host.
The first known human infections were in Wuhan, Hubei, China. A study of the first 41 cases of confirmed COVID-19, published in January 2020 in The Lancet, reported the earliest date of onset of symptoms as 1 December 2019.Official publications from the WHO reported the earliest onset of symptoms as 8 December 2019. Human-to-human transmission was confirmed by the WHO and Chinese authorities by 20 January 2020. According to official Chinese sources, these were mostly linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, which also sold live animals. In May 2020 George Gao, the director of the CDC, said animal samples collected from the seafood market had tested negative for the virus, indicating that the market was the site of an early superspreading event, but that it was not the site of the initial outbreak.[ Traces of the virus have been found in wastewater samples that were collected in Milan and Turin, Italy, on 18 December 2019.
By December 2019, the spread of infection was almost entirely driven by human-to-human transmission. The number of coronavirus cases in Hubei gradually increased, reaching 60 by 20 December, and at least 266 by 31 December. On 24 December, Wuhan Central Hospital sent a bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) sample from an unresolved clinical case to sequencing company Vision Medicals. On 27 and 28 December, Vision Medicals informed the Wuhan Central Hospital and the Chinese CDC of the results of the test, showing a new coronavirus. A pneumonia cluster of unknown cause was observed on 26 December and treated by the doctor Zhang Jixian in Hubei Provincial Hospital, who informed the Wuhan Jianghan CDC on 27 December. On 30 December, a test report addressed to Wuhan Central Hospital, from company CapitalBio Medlab, stated an erroneous positive result for SARS, causing a group of doctors at Wuhan Central Hospital to alert their colleagues and relevant hospital authorities of the result. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued a notice to various medical institutions on "the treatment of pneumonia of unknown cause" that same evening. Eight of these doctors, including Li Wenliang (punished on 3 January), were later admonished by the police for spreading false rumours and another, Ai Fen, was reprimanded by her superiors for raising the alarm.
The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission made the first public announcement of a pneumonia outbreak of unknown cause on 31 December, confirming 27 cases—enough to trigger an investigation.
During the early stages of the outbreak, the number of cases doubled approximately every seven and a half days. In early and mid-January 2020, the virus spread to other Chinese provinces, helped by the Chinese New Year migration and Wuhan being a transport hub and major rail interchange. On 20 January, China reported nearly 140 new cases in one day, including two people in Beijing and one in Shenzhen. Later official data shows 6,174 people had already developed symptoms by then, and more may have been infected. A report in The Lancet on 24 January indicated human transmission, strongly recommended personal protective equipment for health workers, and said testing for the virus was essential due to its "pandemic potential". On 30 January, the WHO declared the coronavirus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. By this time, the outbreak spread by a factor of 100 to 200 times.
Italy had its first confirmed cases on 31 January 2020, two tourists from China. As of 13 March 2020 the WHO considered Europe the active centre of the pandemic. Italy overtook China as the country with the most deaths on 19 March 2020. By 26 March the United States had overtaken China and Italy with the highest number of confirmed cases in the world. Research on coronavirus genomes indicates the majority of COVID-19 cases in New York came from European travellers, rather than directly from China or any other Asian country. Retesting of prior samples found a person in France who had the virus on 27 December 2019, and a person in the United States who died from the disease on 6 February 2020.
After 55 days without a locally transmitted case, Beijing reported a new COVID-19 case on 11 June 2020 which was followed by two more cases on 12 June. By 15 June there were 79 cases officially confirmed, most of them were people that went to Xinfadi Wholesale Market.
RT-PCR testing of untreated wastewater samples from Brazil and Italy have suggested detection of SARS-CoV-2 as early as November and December 2019, respectively, but the methods of such sewage studies have not been optimised, many have not been peer reviewed, details are often missing, and there is a risk of false positives due to contamination or if only one gene target is detected. A September 2020 review journal article said, "The possibility that the COVID-19 infection had already spread to Europe at the end of last year is now indicated by abundant, even if partially circumstantial, evidence", including pneumonia case numbers and radiology in France and Italy in November and December.
MISINFORMATION
After the initial outbreak of COVID-19, misinformation and disinformation regarding the origin, scale, prevention, treatment, and other aspects of the disease rapidly spread online.
In September 2020, the U.S. CDC published preliminary estimates of the risk of death by age groups in the United States, but those estimates were widely misreported and misunderstood.
OTHER ANIMALS
Humans appear to be capable of spreading the virus to some other animals, a type of disease transmission referred to as zooanthroponosis.
Some pets, especially cats and ferrets, can catch this virus from infected humans. Symptoms in cats include respiratory (such as a cough) and digestive symptoms. Cats can spread the virus to other cats, and may be able to spread the virus to humans, but cat-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven. Compared to cats, dogs are less susceptible to this infection. Behaviors which increase the risk of transmission include kissing, licking, and petting the animal.
The virus does not appear to be able to infect pigs, ducks, or chickens at all.[ Mice, rats, and rabbits, if they can be infected at all, are unlikely to be involved in spreading the virus.
Tigers and lions in zoos have become infected as a result of contact with infected humans. As expected, monkeys and great ape species such as orangutans can also be infected with the COVID-19 virus.
Minks, which are in the same family as ferrets, have been infected. Minks may be asymptomatic, and can also spread the virus to humans. Multiple countries have identified infected animals in mink farms. Denmark, a major producer of mink pelts, ordered the slaughter of all minks over fears of viral mutations. A vaccine for mink and other animals is being researched.
RESEARCH
International research on vaccines and medicines in COVID-19 is underway by government organisations, academic groups, and industry researchers. The CDC has classified it to require a BSL3 grade laboratory. There has been a great deal of COVID-19 research, involving accelerated research processes and publishing shortcuts to meet the global demand.
As of December 2020, hundreds of clinical trials have been undertaken, with research happening on every continent except Antarctica. As of November 2020, more than 200 possible treatments had been studied in humans so far.
Transmission and prevention research
Modelling research has been conducted with several objectives, including predictions of the dynamics of transmission, diagnosis and prognosis of infection, estimation of the impact of interventions, or allocation of resources. Modelling studies are mostly based on epidemiological models, estimating the number of infected people over time under given conditions. Several other types of models have been developed and used during the COVID-19 including computational fluid dynamics models to study the flow physics of COVID-19, retrofits of crowd movement models to study occupant exposure, mobility-data based models to investigate transmission, or the use of macroeconomic models to assess the economic impact of the pandemic. Further, conceptual frameworks from crisis management research have been applied to better understand the effects of COVID-19 on organizations worldwide.
TREATMENT-RELATED RESEARCH
Repurposed antiviral drugs make up most of the research into COVID-19 treatments. Other candidates in trials include vasodilators, corticosteroids, immune therapies, lipoic acid, bevacizumab, and recombinant angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.
In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated the Solidarity trial to assess the treatment effects of some promising drugs: an experimental drug called remdesivir; anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine; two anti-HIV drugs, lopinavir/ritonavir; and interferon-beta. More than 300 active clinical trials were underway as of April 2020.
Research on the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine showed that they were ineffective at best, and that they may reduce the antiviral activity of remdesivir. By May 2020, France, Italy, and Belgium had banned the use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.
In June, initial results from the randomised RECOVERY Trial in the United Kingdom showed that dexamethasone reduced mortality by one third for people who are critically ill on ventilators and one fifth for those receiving supplemental oxygen. Because this is a well-tested and widely available treatment, it was welcomed by the WHO, which is in the process of updating treatment guidelines to include dexamethasone and other steroids. Based on those preliminary results, dexamethasone treatment has been recommended by the NIH for patients with COVID-19 who are mechanically ventilated or who require supplemental oxygen but not in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen.
In September 2020, the WHO released updated guidance on using corticosteroids for COVID-19. The WHO recommends systemic corticosteroids rather than no systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of people with severe and critical COVID-19 (strong recommendation, based on moderate certainty evidence). The WHO suggests not to use corticosteroids in the treatment of people with non-severe COVID-19 (conditional recommendation, based on low certainty evidence). The updated guidance was based on a meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill COVID-19 patients.
WIKIPEDIA
Seth Wilbur Moulton, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives speaking in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo
5 July to 28 July 2019
White Box Gallery
5 Hare & Billet Road
Blackheath
London SE3 0RB
In his essay “Meanings of Landscape” (“Places of the Mind”, RKP 1949) the critic and curator Geoffrey Grigson described how “some people have ignored the personal factor” in writing on landscape art, and have attempted “to deduce from landscape rules of its own aesthetic”, describing the influence on art (and on art writing) of “a romantic pastime of English travellers in the eighteenth century” who sought to postulate “a kind of psychology divorced from the individual soul”. Particularly in response to the work of the painter John Constable, “Places of the Mind” proposed the alternate hypotheses that “landscape is you and me”, discussing how “we project ourselves” into an actual or painted landscape, “which then reflects our own being back to our eyes”...
Exhibition Guide (PDF) – tinyurl.com/y4f3z3xe
rorschachaudio.com/2019/04/22/international-lawns-rca-dis...
Special thanks to Domo Baal.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
☝️ Judge Napolitano: Ban TikTok? Not!
Former U.S WMD Inspector Scott Ritter on U.S. Tour of Duty Channel on Ask the Inspector, Episode 31
scheerpost.com/2022/12/19/scott-ritter-a-lexicon-for-disa...
Scott Ritter: A Lexicon for Disaster
Russia seeks arms control agreements to prevent dangerous escalation. But the U.S. seeks only unilateral advantage. This risks all out conflict unless this changes.
Dec. 8 marked the 35th anniversary of the signing of the intermediate nuclear forces (INF) treaty. This landmark arms control event was the byproduct of years of hard-nose negotiations capped off by the political courage of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev who together signed the treaty and oversaw its ratification by their respective legislatures.
The first inspectors went to work on July 1, 1988. I was fortunate to count myself among them.
In August 2019, former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the INF treaty; Russia followed shortly thereafter, and this foundational arms control agreement was no more.
The Decline of Arms Control
The termination of the INF treaty is part and parcel of an overall trend which has seen arms control as an institution — and a concept — decline in the eyes of policy makers in both Washington and Moscow. This point was driven home during a two-day period where I marked the INF anniversary with veteran arms control professionals from both the U.S. and Russia.
These experts, drawn from the ranks of the diplomatic corps who negotiated the treaty, the military and civilian personnel who implemented the treaty others from all walks of life who were affiliated with the treaty in one shape or another, all had something to say about the current state of U.S.-Russian arms control.
One thing that struck me was the importance of language in defining arms control expectations amongst the different players. Words have meaning, and one of the critical aspects of any arms control negotiation is to ensure that the treaty text means the same thing in both languages.
When the INF treaty was negotiated, U.S. and Soviet negotiators had the benefit of decades of negotiating history regarding the anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) treaty, the strategic arms limitation talks (SALT), and START, from which a common lexicon of agreed-upon arms control terminology was created.
Over the years, this lexicon helped streamline both the negotiation and implementation of various arms control agreements, ensuring that everyone was on the same page when it came to defining what had been committed to.
Today, however, after having listened to these veteran arms control professionals, it was clear to me that a common lexicon of arms control terminology no longer existed — words that once had a shared definition now meant different things to different people, and this definition gap could— and indeed would — further devolve as each side pursued their respective vision of arms control devoid of any meaningful contact with the other.
The U.S. Lexicon
Disarmament. Apparently, disarmament doesn’t mean what it once did to the U.S.—the actual verifiable elimination of designated weapons and capability. In fact, disarmament and its corollary, reduction, are no longer in vogue amongst the U.S. arms control community. Instead, there is an arms control process designed to promote the national security interest. And by arms control, we mean arms increase.
America, it seems, is no longer in the arms reduction business. We did away with the ABM and INF treaties, and as a result we are deploying a new generation of ballistic missile defense systems and intermediate-range weapons. While this is disconcerting enough, the real threat comes if and when the only remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — the New START treaty — expires in February 2026.
If there is not a replacement treaty of similar capacity negotiated, ratified and ready for implementation at that time, then the notion of strategic arms control will be completely untethered from any controlling mechanism. The U.S. would then be free to modernize and expand its strategic nuclear weapons arsenal. Disarmament, it seems, means the exact opposite — rearmament. George Orwell would be proud.
The Interagency. Back when the INF treaty was negotiated and implemented, the United States was graced with a single point of contact for arms control matters —the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, or ACDA. Formed by President John F. Kennedy in the early 1960’s, ACDA provided the foundation for continuity and consistency for U.S. arms control policy, even as the White House changed hands.
While there were numerous bureaucratic stakeholders involved in formulating and executing U.S. arms control policy, ACDA helped ride herd over their often-competing visions through what was known as the interagency process—a system of coordinating groups and committees that brought the various players around one table to hammer out a unified vision for disarmament and arms control. The interagency was, however, a process, not a standalone entity.
How times have changed. Today, ACDA is gone. In its place is what is referred to as The Interagency. More than a simple process, The Interagency has morphed into a standalone policy making entity that is more than simply the combined power of its constituent components, but rather a looming reality that dominates arms control policy decision making.
The Interagency has moved away from being a process designed to streamline policy making, and instead transformed into a singular entity whose mission is to resist change and preserve existing power structures.
Whereas previously the various departments and agencies that make up the U.S. national security enterprise could shape and mold the interagency process in a manner which facilitated policy formulation and implementation, today The Interagency serves as a permanent brake on progress, a mechanism where new policy initiatives disappear into, never to be seen again.
Sole Purpose. Sole Purpose is a doctrinal concept which holds that the sole purpose of America’s nuclear arsenal is deterrence, and that American nuclear weapons exist only to respond to any nuclear attack against the United States in such a manner that the effective elimination of the nation or nations that attacked the U.S. would be guaranteed.
Sole Purpose was linked to the notion of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. Sole purpose/MAD was the cornerstone philosophy behind successive American presidential administrations. In 2002, however, the administration of President George W. Bush did away with the Sole Purpose doctrine, and instead adopted a nuclear posture which held that the U.S. could use nuclear weapons preemptively, even in certain non-nuclear scenarios.
Barack Obama, upon winning the presidency, promised to do away with the Bush-era policy of preemption but, when his eight-year tenure as the American commander in chief was complete, the policy of nuclear preemption remained in place. Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, not only retained the policy of nuclear preemption, but expanded it to create even more possibilities for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Joe Biden, the current occupant of the White House, campaigned on a promise to restore Sole Purpose to its original intent. However, upon assuming office, Biden’s Sole Purpose policy ran headfirst into The Interagency which, according to someone in the know, was not ready for such a change.
Instead, Sole Purpose has been re-purposed to the extent that it now reflects a policy posture of nuclear pre-emption. You got that right—thanks to The Interagency, the sole purpose of American nuclear weapons today is to be prepared to carry out preemptive attacks against looming or imminent threats. This, The Interagency believes, represents the best deterrent model available to promote the general welfare and greater good of the American people.
The Russian Lexicon
Reciprocity. Reciprocity is the Golden Rule of arms control — do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It was the heart and sole on the INF treaty — what was good for the Goose was always good for the Gander. In short, if the Americans mistreated the Soviet inspectors, one could guarantee that, in short order, American inspectors were certain to encounter precisely the same mistreatment.
Reciprocity was the concept which prevented the treaty from getting bogged down in petty matters and allowed the treaty to accomplish the enormous successes it enjoyed.
Under the terms of the New START treaty, each side is permitted to conduct up to 18 inspections per year. Before being halted in 2020 because of the pandemic, a total of 328 inspections had been carried out by both sides with the rules of reciprocity firmly in place and adhered to.
However, in early 2021, when both sides agreed that inspections could resume, the U.S. demonstrated the reality that the concept of reciprocity was little more than a propaganda ploy to make Russia feel “equal” in the eyes of the treaty.
When the Russians attempted to carry out an inspection in July, the aircraft carrying the inspection team was denied permission to fly through the airspace of European countries due to sanctions banning commercial flights to and from Russia in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russians cancelled the inspection.
Later, in August, the U.S. tried to dispatch its own inspection team to Russia. The Russians, however, denied the team permission to enter, citing issues of reciprocity — if Russian inspectors could not carry out their inspection tasks, then the U.S. would be similarly denied.
For Russia, the definition of reciprocity is quite clear — equal treatment under the terms of a treaty. For the U.S., however, reciprocity is just another concept which it can use to shape and sustain the unilateral advantages it has accrued over the years when it came to implementing the New Start treaty.
Predictability. Historically, the primary purpose of arms control agreements was to reach a common understanding of mutual objectives and the means to achieve them so that over the agreed upon timeframe there would exist an element of stability from the predictability of the agreement.
This, of course, required agreement on definitions and intent accompanied by a mutual understanding of the four corners of the deal, especially on quantifiable subjects such as treaty-limited items.
Under the INF treaty, the goals and objectives for both parties were absolute in nature: total elimination of the involved weapons which existed in a class covered by the treaty. One couldn’t get much clearer than that and by mid-1991, all weapons covered by the treaty had been destroyed by both the U.S. and Soviet Union.
Subsequent inspections were focused on ensuring both sides continued to comply with their obligation to permanently destroy the weapons systems designated for elimination and not to produce or deploy new weapons systems whose capabilities would be prohibited by the terms of the treaty.
Under New START, the goals and objectives are far more nebulous. Take, by way of example, the issue of decommissioning nuclear-capable bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missile launch tubes. The goal is to arrive at a hard number that meets the letter and intent of the treaty.
But the U.S. has undertaken to decommission both the B-52H and Trident missile launch tubes onboard Ohio-class submarines in a manner which allows for reversal, meaning that the hard caps envisioned by the treaty, and around which strategic planning and posture is derived, are not absolute, but flexible.
As such, Russian strategic planners must not only plan for a world where the treaty-imposed caps are in effect, but also the possibility of a U.S. “break out” scenario where the B-52H bombers and Trident missiles launch tubes are brought back to operational status.
This scenario is literally the textbook definition of unpredictability and is why Russia looks askance at the idea of negotiating a new arms control treaty with the U.S. As long as the U.S. favors treaty language which produces such unpredictability, Russia will more than likely opt out.
Accountability. One of the most oft-quoted sayings that emerged from the INF treaty is “trust but verify.” This aphorism helped guide that treaty through the unprecedented success of its 13-year period of mandated inspections (from 1988 until 2001.) However, once the inspections ended, the “verify” aspect of the treaty became more nebulous in nature, opening the door for the erosion of trust between the U.S. and Russia.
A key aspect of any arms control agreement is its continued relevance to the national security postures of the participating nations. At the same time the INF inspections came to an end, the administration of President George W. Bush withdrew from the landmark 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty.
In doing so, the United States propelled itself into a trajectory where the principles that had underpinned arms control for decades—the de-escalation of nuclear tensions through the adherence to principles of disarmament set forth in mutually-reinforcing agreements intended to be of a lasting nature, no longer applied.
By unilaterally disposing of the ABM treaty, the U.S. opened the door for the deployment of ABM systems in Europe. Two Mk. 41 Aegis Ashore anti-missile defense systems, normally deployed as part of a ship’s Aegis-capable cruisers and destroyers, were instead installed on the ground in Romania and Poland. The issue of the Mk. 41 system is that the launch pods are capable of firing either the SM-3 missile as an interceptor, or the sea-launched cruise missile (Tomahawk.)
Russia objected to the Mk. 41 potentially offense system being employed on the ground, arguing that in doing so the U.S. was violating the INF treat by deploying a ground-launched cruise missile.
The U.S. rejected the Russian allegations, declaring that the Aegis Ashore launch configuration was solely for the firing of surfacre-to-air missiles. However, the U.S. balked at providing Russia the kind of access that would be necessary to ascertain the actual science behind the U.S. claim that the missile batteries were configured to operate only in a surface-to-air mode.
The U.S. also claimed it was impossible for the Mk. 41 to incorporate the Tomahawk cruise missile or a follow-on variant of the SM-3 or the SM-6 Typhoon, which are surface-to-surface missiles at ranges (reaching Moscos) that would violate the INF treaty.
(Removal of these missiles from Poland and Romania was one demand Russia made in draft treaty proposals to the U.S. last December. After the U.S. rejected it, Russia intervened in Ukraine.)
As had been the case with the ABM treaty, the U.S. had grown tired of the restrictions imposed by the INF treaty. U.S. military planners were anxious to field a new generation of INF weapons to counter what they perceived to be the growing threat from China, whose ballistic missile arsenals were not constrained by the treaty.
The ABM and INF treaties had become inconvenient to the U.S. not because of any actions undertaken by their treaty partners, the Russians, but rather due to an aggressive, expansive notion of U.S. power projection that mooted the purpose of the treaties altogether.
Arms control treaties are not meant to facilitate the expansion of military power, but rather restrict it. By viewing treaty obligations as disposable, the U.S. was eschewing the entire philosophy behind arms control.
Moreover, the tactics employed by the U.S. to undermine the credibility of the INF treaty revolved around fabricating a case of alleged Russian violations built around “intelligence” about the development of a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile, the 9M729, which the U.S. claimed proved that the new missile was in violation of the INF treaty.
That the intelligence was never shared with the Russians, further eroded the viability of the U.S. as a treaty partner. When the Russians offered up the actual 9M729 missile for physical inspection to convince the U.S. to remain in the INF treaty, the U.S. balked, preventing not only U.S. officials from participating, but also any of its NATO allies.
In the end, the U.S. withdrew from the INF treaty in August 2019. Less than a month later, the U.S. carried out a test launch of the Tomahawk cruise missile from a Mk. 41 launch tube. The Russians had been right all along — the U.S., in abandoning the ABM treaty, had used the deployment of so-called new ABM sites as a cover for the emplacement of INF-capable ground-launched missiles on Russia’s doorstep.
And yet the U.S. pays no price — there is no accountability for such duplicity. Arms control, once a bastion of national integrity and honor, had been reduced to the status of a joke by the actions of the U.S.
No Trust Left
With no common language, there can be no common vision, no common purpose. Russia continues to seek arms control agreements which serve to restrict the arsenals of the involved parties to prevent dangerous escalatory actions while imposing a modicum of predictable stability on relations.
The U.S. seeks only unilateral advantage.
Until this is changed, there can be no meaningful arms control interaction between the U.S. and Russia. Not only will the New START treaty expire in February 2026, but it is also unlikely the major verification component of the treaty — on site inspections — will be revived between now and then.
Moreover, it is impossible to see how a new arms control agreement to replace the expired New START treaty could be negotiated, ratified, and implemented in the short time remaining to do so. There is no trust between Russia and the U.S. when it comes to arms control.
With no treaties, there is no verification of reality. Both the U.S. and Russian arsenals will become untethered from treaty-based constraint, leading to a new arms race for which there can be only one finishing line — total nuclear war.
There is a long list of things that must happen if meaningful arms control is ever to resume its place in the diplomatic arsenals of either the U.S. or Russia. Before either side can resume talking to one another, however, they must first re-learn the common language of disarmament.
Because the current semantics of arms control is little more than a lexicon for disaster.
www.foxnews.com/opinion/fbi-twitter-formed-censorship-all...
FBI and Twitter formed a censorship alliance and they can't be allowed to get away with it
Congress must get answers on Twitter censorship carried out in conjunction with the FBI
"They are probing & pushing everywhere." That line sums up an increasingly alarming element in the seventh installment of the so-called "Twitter files." "They" were the agents of Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they were pushing for the censorship of citizens in an array of stories.
Writer Michael Shellenberger added critical details on how the FBI was directly engaged in censorship at the company. However, this batch of documents contains a particularly menacing element to the FBI-Twitter censorship alliance. The documents show what writer Shellenberger described as a concentrated effort "to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published."
Twitter has admitted that it made a mistake in blocking the Hunter laptop story. After roughly two years, even media that pushed the false "Russian disinformation" claims have acknowledged that the laptop is authentic.
Yet, those same networks and newspapers are now imposing a new de facto blackout on covering the details of the Twitter files on the systemic blacklisting, shadow-banning, and censorship carried out in conjunction with the government.
The references to the new Hunter Biden evidence were also notable in the dates of these back-channel communications. On October 13, weeks before the election, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sent 10 documents to Twitter’s then-Head of "Trust & Safety" Yoel Roth related to the Biden story. It was the next day that New York Post ran its story on the laptop and its incriminating content. The United States government played a key role trying to bury a story damaging to the Democrats before the election.
The Twitter files now substantiate the earlier allegations of "censorship for surrogate" or proxy. While the First Amendment applies to the government, it can also apply to agents of the government. Twitter itself now admits that it acted as an agent in these efforts.
The current media blackout on the Twitter files story only deepens these concerns. For years, media figures have denied Twitter was engaging in censorship, blacklisting, shadow-banning and other techniques targeting conservatives. The release of the files have shattered those denials. There is simply no further room for censorship apologists.
In a city that relies on "plausible deniability," there is no longer a plausible space left in the wake of the releases. All that remains is silence -- the simple refusal to acknowledge the government-corporate alliance in this massive censorship system.
To cover the story is to admit that the media also followed the same course as Twitter in hampering any discussion of this influence peddling scandal. Indeed, while media is now forced to admit that the laptop is authentic, it cannot get itself to address the authentic emails contained in that laptop. Those emails detail millions of dollars in influence peddling by the Biden family. They also detail the knowledge and involvement of Joe Biden despite his repeated denial of any knowledge of the deals.
Those files also raise potential criminal acts that some of us have been writing about for two years. The emails are potentially incriminating on crimes ranging from tax violations to gun violations. In the very least, it is a target rich environment for investigators or prosecutors.
Yet, earlier disclosures showed that key FBI figures tamped down any investigation into the laptop. The latest documents now show the FBI also actively pressured the media to kill the story. That raises deeply troubling questions of the FBI politicalization. After Watergate, the Congress moved aggressively to pursue the use of the bureau by a president for political purposes. There is little call from the media for such an investigation today when the bureau is accused of working for Democrat rather than Republican interests.
The record of such bias extends beyond the Twitter files. The prior years, FBI agents were found to have shown overt political bias in the handling of FBI investigation. The agency continued to rely on sources like the Steele dossier despite warnings that the Clinton-funded report was likely Russian disinformation. Yet, when it came to Hunter Biden, the FBI reportedly was not interested in aggressively pursuing an investigation while calling on social media companies to censor any discussion of the scandal before the election. It continued to do so despite Twitter executives "repeatedly" indicating there was "very little" Russian activity on the platform.
In January 2020, Twitter’s then director of policy and philanthropy, Carlos Monje Jr., expressed unease on the pressure coming from the FBI and said "They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff)."
The question is why the FBI would be "probing & pushing everywhere" despite the fact that the Russian investigation had exposed prior bias related to the 2016 election. That was no deterrent to killing a story viewed as damaging to the Biden campaign.
In the end, the government-corporate alliance failed. Despite the refusal of many in the media to cover the Twitter files, nearly two-thirds of voters believe Twitter shadow-banned users and engaged in political censorship during the 2020 election. Seventy percent of voters want new national laws protecting users from corporate censorship.
It is clear that any such reforms should include a full investigation of the FBI and its involvement in censorship efforts. As many as 80 agents reportedly were committed to this effort. It is clear now that, if we are to end censorship by surrogate, the House will have to "probe and push everywhere" in the FBI for answers.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
(Under the ownership of anti-war activist, musician & actor Tim Robbins & The Rogues Gallery Band. In the same group of combined art works & literature- they also own Robin Cracknell's 'JOY' & Michael Stevens' first edition of The Road to Interzone - Reading William Burroughs Reading..: www.flickr.com/photos/denesamy/4501519283/in/photostream )
IV. - Title - Why Does The Unknown Soldier, Remain Forever- The Unknown Soldier ? { la douleur d'être réel } NO MORE WAR -
18" x 24.5" acid free paper, ebony pencil, black ink, white acrylic & white charcoal.
"For these cultures, getting rid of the pain without addressing the deeper cause would be like shutting off a fire alarm while the fire's still going." -
David Foster Wallace
( Obama's War: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/#morelink )
"The report, released Thursday at the Pentagon, found that it was not only the stress of repeated deployments over nearly a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan that has driven the Army suicide rate above the civilian rate for the first time since the Vietnam War. Significantly, the report said that 79 percent of the soldiers who committed suicide had had only one deployment, or had not deployed at all. "
- www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/30suicide.html?src=mv
Treating Soldier Stress: www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2008931_2172992,00...
British war dead in Afghanistan- www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/582734...
British war dead in Iraq- www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/439875...
"Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté." www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/is-the-war-in-afghanist...
Samantha Power - Development and Democracy - "Samantha Power discusses the political challenges facing democracy promotion and the practical needs of effective democratization." www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUOO5cCNVg
"The facts revealed by WikiLeaks are indeed shocking: wide-scale killing of civilians by US and NATO forces; torture of prisoners handed over to the Communist-dominated Afghan secret police; American death squads; endemic corruption and theft; double-dealing and demoralization of Western occupation forces facing ever fiercer Taliban resistance. " - "Politicians are petrified to oppose this nine-year war lest they be accused of being anti-patriotic, the kiss of death in hyperpatriotic America where flag-wavers root for foreign wars so long as their kids don't have to serve and they don't have to pay taxes to finance them. "
www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/wikigate---the-truth...
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology )
"I still feel sick to my stomach when I think of my friends who died in Vietnam and whose families are still suffering from their pointless deaths." - www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/terrible-consequenc...
"JA: We have to be careful there. Remember, this is a civil war. Everyone says Taliban, but in fact, the Taliban are Afghans. This is a civil war that is going on. And Taliban are a part of the will of the Afghan people. They are also part, probably, of the Pakistani secret intelligence service, and maybe, of course, part of the will of Saudi Arabia, who is giving some money to this. But in terms of the bodies on the ground, people are actually doing their work. The Taliban is part of the will of the Afghan people. And the United States and the allied forces need to recognize and understand that it’s part of the Afghan people and if you are shooting Taliban, you are shooting the Afghan people.
That does not mean they do not have blood on their hands.
This material does not paint the behaviors of any military groups in a nice light – there is blood on all sides."
rt.com/Politics/2010-08-01/taliban-wikileaks-afghan-assan...
"This is but one isolated example, but it is a symptom of the main reason these leaks are important: in order to form an opinion on the war, we need to be able to trust the official information coming from the field. The leaks suggest that we cannot always do so. This in turn erodes populations' trust in what their military establishments tell them. "
www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/dont-let-anyone-fool...
"the aim of those who had created these techniques was not to liberate people but to control them" From: The Century of Self, by Adam Curtis part 4: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1122532358497501036#
“To a personal injury plaintiffs lawyer, those are all potential clients in a tort suit against a contractor,” she said.
”So, for the ambulance chasers of the battlefield, the WikiLeaks database is a goldmine.” blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/lawyer_wikileaks...
( & - www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.... )
Noam Chomsky's recorded address to the United National Peace Conference, 7/24/2010 : www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIVNzcMucU
Innocence Lost: Ethan McCord recounts aftermath of Iraqi civilian massacre | UNPC 7/24/2010 : www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ihPGtcHjNk
"Afghan life, like Iraqi life, must be almost invisible, like raindrops compared to ours."- www.americablog.com/2010/07/ellsberg-obama-has-indicted-m...
"War has become a luxury that only small nations can afford." -
Hannah Arendt
"Instead, many eyes will now pore over this data from many different directions, looking for patterns and attempting to eliminate the noise, disinformation and fog of war.
Many will look to it to criticise and condemn the US presence in Afghanistan, but if those on the other side – those who support such military incursions – have any sense, they too will use it to understand better the war in which they find themselves and adapt their counsel to fit more accurately the facts on the ground.
That’s the benefit, usually, of an open society. We get to triangulate on the truth by gathering facts in the public space, then providing them to all sides to chew over. We use this against our own illusions and those of more closed societies who can only view the world through one narrow perspective.": www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0730/1224275801...
-
"Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them." - Julian Assange, editor & founder of Wikileaks
"WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs- ; ''I Enjoy Crushing Bastards" www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708518,00.html
- ( !! Yessssssssssssss.. Enough of bastards... )
-
"Wikileaks confirmed: A plan to kill American geologist with poison beer
The Wikileaks documents contain a claim that Pakistan and Afghanistan insurgents were working to poison alcoholic drinks in Afghanistan. While that's unproven, one US adviser in Afghanistan tells the Monitor he was almost poisoned that way in 2007." : www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0728/Wiki...
"We journalists should be delighted that WikiLeaks exists because our central task has always been one of disclosure, of revealing public interest material that others believe wish to be kept secret.The website deserves our praise and needs to be defended against the reactionary forces that seek to avoid exposure."
edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/29/wikileaks.roy.greensla...
"The leak of tens of thousands of Afghanistan war-related documents tells us more than the sum total of many official communiqués about the war. On balance, more disclosure is a good thing, but the leaking of raw military intelligence is a special case that requires a careful, rather than a cavalier, approach.
There is not enough information about the war, and much official information is misleading. In Canada, the federal government's quarterly reports contain a few updates based on its goals in Kandahar, but little else that informs. The government has already shown itself to be an unreliable source on issues relating to Afghan detainees.
The situation is now too dangerous for the most trustworthy chroniclers – journalists, UN personnel – to go outside NATO-protected areas.
So reliable, independent information is lacking. The circumstances in this war make such information even more necessary."
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/we-neede...
"The first phase was chilling, in part because the banter of the soldiers was so far beyond the boundaries of civilian discourse. “Just fuckin’, once you get on ’em, just open ’em up,” one of them said. The crew members of the Apache came upon about a dozen men ambling down a street, a block or so from American troops, and reported that five or six of the men were armed with AK-47s; as the Apache maneuvered into position to fire at them, the crew saw one of the Reuters journalists, who were mixed in among the other men, and mistook a long-lensed camera for an RPG. The Apaches fired on the men for twenty-five seconds, killing nearly all of them instantly."
Read more www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khat...
"With the release of the WikiLeaks documents, Arab media may finally feel vindicated, as Western media finally start to give greater prominence to civilian casualties." newamericamedia.org/2010/07/wikileaks-documents-validate-...
"How to read the Afghanistan war logs: video tutorial
David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations editor, explains the online tools we have created to help you understand the secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan": www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/video/2010/jul/25/afgha...
"Jonathan Foreman, writing for the right of center National Review's Corner blog, hopes the documents will force America to deal with the possible deceptions being made by ally Pakistan. "It is possible that the publication of documents that provide actual evidence — rather than rumors — of the role of ISI personnel in Taliban planning, logistics, and strategy will give the West greater leverage in dealing with Islamabad and might force Pakistan’s political elite to confront the reality of the ISI’s secret activities. If so, that would be a silver lining to what is otherwise a military disaster abetted by the U.S. and British media."
www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/NATL-The-Importance-o...
"This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn't break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan—which it wasn't going to get anyway—the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants."
www.billoreilly.com/site/rd?satype=13&said=12&url...
"The real significance of the Afghan war diaries lies in what Wikileaks represents as a movement, as an evolution in journalism. One analyst has called it the emergence of open source journalism. Julian Assange makes it possible for anybody anywhere in the world to submit secret documents for publication." www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Sevanti_Ninan/article541...
A War Without End: www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html
"Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs: 'They show the true nature of this war'
Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, explains why he decided to publish thousands of secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan Afghanistan war logs expose truth of occupation": www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/25/julian-assange...
The history of US leaks: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10769495
Freedom of Information Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_...
"A long-delayed Afghanistan war funding bill, stripped of billions for teachers and black farmers, is back before the House and walking now into the storm over the Internet leak of battlefield reports stirring old doubts about U.S. policy and relations with Pakistan.": www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40254.html & www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40251.html
This ongoing series is dedicated to everyone who has needlessly had their lives destroyed, been injured or die in this almost past decade of war. For the sources, journalists & average citizens who risk their lives to inform us.
Reuters reporters Namir Eldeen, Saeed Chmagh & the good samaritan ( father ) who died trying to save them & of course his two surviving small children who will forever be impacted by the brutality of war for decades to come.
Please help Private Bradley Manning- www.bradleymanning.org/
"One surprising consequence of the war in Iraq is the surrender of postmodernism to a victorious modernism. This has been largely overlooked in North America.
In reaction to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Jacques Derrida, a famous postmodernist, signed on as co-author of an article drafted by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, previously an opponent of his, in an unmistakable endorsement of modernist Enlightenment principles. Derrida, the apostle of deconstructionism, is now advocating some decidedly constructive and Eurocentric activism.
The article appeared simultaneously in two newspapers on May 31, in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as "After the War: The Rebirth of Europe," and in French in Libération, less triumphantly, as "A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy: The demonstrations of Feb. 15 against the war in Iraq designed a new European public space."
Other famous intellectuals joined in with supportive newspaper articles of their own: Umberto Eco (of The Name of the Rose) and Gianni Vattimo in Italy and an American philosopher, Richard Rorty. This provoked much discussion in Europe, but only a few comments so far in North America, the Boston Globe and the Village Voice being rare exceptions.
This week in Montreal, there was an anti-globalization riot in which windows were broken in protest against a World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting. But the Habermas-Derrida declaration praises the WTO and even the International Monetary Fund as part of Weltinnenpolitik: maddeningly hard to translate, but something like "global domestic policy" or "external internal policy."
Yet it is not much of a stretch to claim the young anti-globalists as disciples of postmodernism and Derrida, who has hitherto been a foe of "logocentrism" (putting reason at the centre), "phallologocentrism" (reason is an erect male organ and, as such, damnably central) and Eurocentrism (the old, old West is the homeland of all of the above).
Derrida added a note to the article, observing most people would recognize Habermas's style and thinking in the piece, and that he hadn't had time to write a separate piece. But notwithstanding his "past confrontations" with Habermas (Derrida had objected to being called a "Judaistic mystic," for one thing), he agreed with the article he had signed, which calls for new European responsibilities "beyond all Eurocentrism" and the strengthening of international law and international institutions."
More: www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000361.php
"In early 2003, both Habermas and Derrida were very active in opposing the coming Iraq War, and called for in a manifesto that later became the book Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe for a tighter union of the states of the European Union in order to provide a power capable of opposing American foreign policy. Derrida wrote a foreword expressing his unqualified subscription to Habermas's declaration of February 2003, "February 15, or, What Binds Europeans Together: Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in Core Europe,” in Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe which was a reaction to the Bush administration demands upon European nations for support for the coming Iraq War[25]. Habermas has offered further context for this declaration in an interview."
More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%c3%bcrgen_Habermas#Habermas_and_D...
Habermas: ”The asymmetry between the concentrated destructive power of the electronically controlled clusters of elegant and versatile missiles in the air and the archaic ferocity of the swarms of bearded warriors outfitted with Kalashnikovs on the ground remains a morally obscene sight
I consider Bush' s decision to call for a "war against terrorism" a serious mistake, both normatively and pragmatically. Normatively, he is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies; and pragmatically, one cannot lead a war against a "network" if the term "war" is to retain any definite meaning.”
Derrida: “To say it all too quickly and in passing, to amplify and clarify just a bit what I said earlier about an absolute threat whose origin is anonymous and not related to any state, such "terrorist" attacks already no longer need planes, bombs, or kamikazes: it is enough to infiltrate a strategically important computer system and introduce a virus or some other disruptive element to paralyze the economic, military, and political resources of an entire country or continent. And this can be attempted from just about anywhere on earth, at very little expense and with minimal means. The relationship between earth, terra territory, and terror has changed, and it is necessary to know that this is because of knowledge, that is, because of technoscience.
It is technoscience that blurs the distinction between war and terrorism. In this regard, when compared to the possibilities for destruction and chaotic disorder that are in reserve, for the future, in the computerized networks of the world, "September 11" is still part of the archaic theater of violence aimed at striking the imagination. One will be able to do even worse tomorrow, invisibly, in silence, more quickly and without any bloodshed, by attacking the computer and informational networks on which the entire life (social, economic, military, and so on) of a "great nation," of the greatest power on earth, depends.”
www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000361.php
I am incredibly- delighted at all the vital discussions about the war & US gov that are FINALLY taking place- & on a mass scale- as a result of this leak .. Simply miraculous..
FREEDOM & PEACE ( transparency, diplomacy & the evolution of such ) FOR ALL WAR NATIONS.
-
( WARNING - links ( after excerpt ) are NOT for sensitive viewers- ) "Wikileaks have released over 150 supressed images. This is the tip of the iceberg, keep looking, keep publishing.In the last week Wikileaks has released over 150 censored photos and videos of the Tibet uprising and has called on bloggers around the world to help drive the footage through the Chinese internet censorship regime — the so called “Great Firewall of China”The transparency group’s move comes as a response to the the Chinese Public Security Bureau’s carte-blanche censorship of youtube, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and other sites carrying video footage of the Tibetan people’s recent heroic stand against the inhumane Chinese occupation of Tibet."
fortuzero.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/tibet-western-media-sa...
file.wikileaks.org/file/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
FREE TIBET!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also other dire & serious issues ( out of countless ) - that expose corruption by corporations & gov's:
"A documentary about intensive pig farming due to be screened at the Guardian Hay festival on Sunday is facing a legal threat from one of the companies it investigates. Pig Business criticises the practices of the world's largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, claiming it is responsible for environmental pollution and health problems among residents near its factories."
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/29/pig-business-document...
"In an investigation broadcast on BBC Radio 5 on November 14, 2004,[79] it was reported that the site is still contaminated with 'thousands' of metric tons of toxic chemicals, including benzene hexachloride and mercury, held in open containers or loose on the ground. A sample of drinking water from a well near the site had levels of contamination 500 times higher than the maximum limits recommended by the World Health Organization.[80]
In 2009, a day before the 25th anniversary of the disaster, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi based pollution monitoring lab, released latest tests from a study showing that groundwater in areas even three km from the factory up to 38.6 times more pesticides than Indian standards."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
-
The Blue Mask - Lou Reed - www.goear.com/listen/9960779/the-blue-mask-lou-reed ( & O Superman ) www.goear.com/listen/02cf55d/o-superman-(for-massenet)-la...
Lou Reed The Blue Mask
Lyrics:
They tied his arms behind
his back to teach him how to
swim They put
blood in his coffee and milk
in his gin They stood over the
soldier in
the midst of the squalor
There was war in his body and
it caused his
brain to holler
Make the sacrifice
mutilate my face
If you need someone to kill
I'm a man without a will
Wash the razor in the rain
Let me luxuriate in pain
Please don't set me free
Death means a lot to me
The pain was lean and it made
him scream he knew he was alive
They put a
pin through the nipples on his chest
He thought he was a saint
I've made love to my mother,
killed my father and my brother
What am I
to do
When a sin goes too far, it's
like a runaway car It cannot
be controlled
Spit upon his face and scream
There's no Oedipus today
This is no play you're thinking you
are in What will you say
Take the blue mask down from my face and
look me in the eye I get a
thrill from punishment
I've always been that way
I loathe and despise repentance
You are permanently stained
Your weakness buys indifference
and indiscretion in the streets
Dirty's what you are and clean is what
you're not You deserve to be
soundly beat
Make the sacrifice
Take it all the way
There's no won't high enough
To stop this desperate day
Don't take death away
Cut the finger at the joint
Cut the stallion at his mount
And stuff it in his mouth
---
-
"It looks like you can write a minimalist piece without much bleeding. And you can. But not a good one.
It seems important to find ways of reminding ourselves that most "familiarity" is meditated and delusive.
Nuclear weapons and TV have simply intensified the consequences of our tendencies, upped the stakes.
One of the things that makes Wittgenstein a real artist to me is that he realized that no conclusion could be more horrible than solipsism.
Pleasure becomes a value, a teleological end in itself. It's probably more Western than U.S. per se. "
"And I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar.. in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests." - All by David Foster Wallace
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-oq-u2rKM
STOP CENSORSHIP IN THAILAND! - ( & Egypt, China, Australia- & in the US- etc & etc!! )
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human experimentation program, run by the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continued at least through the late 1960s, and used U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects.
The published evidence indicates that Project MKULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.
Project MKULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms' destruction order.
Although the CIA insists that MKULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MKULTRA was abandoned a "cover story.
See links:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Resea...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZtPqfvpu8
"HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere
HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater." (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)
Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead.
HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.
Press releases and other information from the military on HAARP continually downplay what it could do. Publicity documents insist that the HAARP project is no different than other ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. However, a 1990 government document indicates that the radio-frequency (RF) power zap will drive the ionosphere to unnatural activities.
" ... at the highest HF powers available in the West, the instabilities commonly studied are approaching their maximum RF energy dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will 'runaway' until the next limiting factor is reached."
If the military, in cooperation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, can show that this new ground-based "Star Wars" technology is sound, they both win. The military has a relatively-inexpensive defense shield and the University can brag about the most dramatic geophysical manipulation since atmospheric explosions of nuclear bombs. After successful testing, they would have the military megaprojects of the future and huge markets for Alaska's North Slope natural gas.
Looking at the other patents which built on the work of a Texas' physicist named Bernard Eastlund, it becomes clearer how the military intends to use the HAARP transmitter. It also makes governmental denials less believable. The military knows how it intends to use this technology, and has made it clear in their documents. The military has deliberately misled the public, through sophisticated word games, deceit and outright disinformation.
The military says the HAARP system could:
Give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986)
Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology
Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system
Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military's own communications systems working
Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements
Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area
Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete
The above abilities seem like a good idea to all who believe in sound national defense, and to those concerned about cost-cutting. However, the possible uses which the HAARP records do not explain, and which can only be found in Air Force, Army, Navy and other federal agency records, are alarming. Moreover, effects from the reckless use of these power levels in our natural shield -- the ionosphere -- could be cataclysmic according to some scientists.
Two Alaskans put it bluntly. A founder of the NO HAARP movement, Clare Zickuhr, says "The military is going to give the ionosphere a big kick and see what happens."
The military failed to tell the public that they do not know what exactly will happen, but a Penn State science article brags about that uncertainty. Macho science? The HAARP project uses the largest energy levels yet played with by what Begich and Manning call "the big boys with their new toys." HAARP is an experiment in the sky, and experiments are done to find out something not already known. Independent scientists told Begich and Manning that a HAARP-type "skybuster" with its unforeseen effects could be an act of global vandalism."
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
This week marks the beginning of the highly publicized United Nation Conference on Climate Change. Already marred by controversy and leaks; leaks and disinformation by industrialist interest in the rich nations trying to create doubt as to what is happening to our planet. Multi-national corporations in the industrial countries have gone to great length to derail the meeting even before it has started. These corporations have been funding front groups and the scientist they pay to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem. Creating confusion in what they dub Climategate.
We know that some of the countries most likely to suffer severe impact of climate change are the poor nations of the Third World, many have already seen deforestation, desertification, dwindling rain fall, and rising sea levels; with little resources to stop the advances of climate change and the enormous impact it will have on there fragile economies and population. We need to hold the industrialized nations responsible for the impending disaster and for the abuses to the environment caused by toxic pollution. The powerful nations need to put aside greed and do the right thing for our planet. It's the only one we have. Right?
en.cop15.dk/
www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energ...
Blind patriotism is simply a form of tyranny. Now again enter the CV-19 scenario, and all that goes with it. Countless issues and factors are coming to a head, at blinding speed, the former paradigm is done, it's over, it's not coming back, and even now how many are willing to turn away from countless verifiable truths, existential truths? Many are all too willing to bury their head, even deeper in the rapidly rising sea of lies, even to help perpetuate the lies and disinformation, if they feel it provides a paycheck and pension, which won't matter much longer. Wait and see.
As the United States continues to deal with controversy over foreign interference and disinformation in the 2016 presidential election, concerns are growing that elections in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and elsewhere could be similarly influenced by so-called “fake news.” How real is this threat in Latin America and what can be done about it? Are technology companies responding adequately or is regulation required? What are the implications for freedom of expression if governments or corporations decide what is real and what is “fake”?
Please join us for a timely conversation that separates fact from rumor, assesses the threat to upcoming Latin American elections from deliberate disinformation in social media, and looks rigorously at potential policy responses both from the technology sector and governments.
Notting Hill Carnival 2022, Canon P, Industar 55mm F2.8; FP4
Claudia Jones, née Claudia Vera Cumberbatch (21 February 1915 – 24 December 1964) , was a Trinidad and Tobago-born journalist and activist. As a child, she migrated with her family to the US, where she became a Communist political activist, feminist and black nationalist, adopting the name Jones as "self-protective disinformation". Due to the political persecution of Communists in the US, she was deported in 1955 and subsequently lived in the United Kingdom. Upon arriving in the UK, she immediately joined the Communist Party of Great Britain and would remain a member for the rest of her life. She then founded Britain's first major black newspaper, the West Indian Gazette, in 1958, and played a central role in founding the Notting Hill Carnival, the second-largest annual carnival in the world.
A cardboard army of Mark Zuckerbergs at the Capitol, part of a protest by Avaaz.
"Ahead of Mark Zuckerberg's Senate hearing on Tuesday, advocacy group, Avaaz, takes an army of 100 life-sized Zuckerberg cutouts wearing 'Fix Facebook' t-shirts to the Capitol lawn. The event intends to call attention to the hundreds of millions of fake accounts still spreading disinformation on Facebook. The group is calling on the CEO to ban all bots, alert the public any and every time users see fake or disinformation, fund fact checkers around the world, and submit to an independent audit to review the scale and scope of fake news."
Brian Stelter, Fellow, Media and Democracy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, USA speaking in the The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation session at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2023 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, 17 January. Congress Centre - Spotlight. Copyright: World Economic Forum/Faruk Pinjo