F20CEC24- Part 3 (Extra)

Hi, everyone.

Welcome back to lesson 24 Part three.

This is the extra part two part three.

Really. Part four.

But I wanted to finish up with your questions that

you had here.

You had a lot of good questions, but I wanna

make sure I get through all of them.

We're at the end of the article.

Article six questions Here.

Where, um, we're talking about.

Let's see, where are we?

There we are.

Yeah. We had talked about the flow and special reservoirs,

and then we're getting up here to finish up group

EFS questions.

Here are the flu viruses.

Example. The first type in the hantavirus hunter virus is

the other.

Um, there are two examples there.

You're saying in paragraph five.

So what does the phrase the latter in paragraph six

mean again the ladder?

You know, when they say ladder, it's either former or

ladder. So former means the first and ladder means the

second. So, yes, the second type, it does mean the

second type.

Um, in paragraph five, you say you can't understand agricultural

species with some regularity.

Yeah, um, what they're saying in paragraph five is that

the flu viruses seem to hop among us and our

agricultural species.

Agricultural species are the animals that we grow for food

around us, like cows and pigs and chickens.

So this is referring to cows, pigs and chickens and

maybe goats, things that we, you know, animals that we

keep on farm.

So these air farm animals essentially.

And so they're saying that this is because these animals

are around us.

That's where the virus is often come from, is they

jump from these species, just like in Korea.

We have swine flu, you know, pig flu going on

right now to where they have to kill our coal,

they say.

Cole c u L L.

Cole. They have to call these many, many pigs sometimes

to try to stop the virus from from transferring between

them, even if it doesn't affect humans directly.

Anyway, that's what that's referring to.

Um, Group G here is asking about paragraph fourteens first

sentence in the examples that could follow.

Um, yeah, if you simply estimated the number of zoonotic

jumps based on the species number, groups that seem threatening

start to look fairly mundane.

So yeah.

What? What?

That's talking about it.

The first, the first sentence.

There is saying that that when you first look again,

when you think about zoonotic transfers, they're saying that it

seems like it's based on the species number again, that

idea that there, if there are more species, then there

would be more chance of, ah, virus coming from those

species, because when there's mawr, there's a higher probability.

But the sentence is telling us in Paragraph 14 that

that seems like it would be true.

But the threat starts to look mundane.

Mundane means not important.

So in other words, what this whole sentence is saying

is that it seems like if we have Mawr, if

we have more more species than we have more threat.

But no, it's not true.

It looks like there isn't anymore so that that the

research doesn't show anything.

Eso It's mundane.

It's not important and again, so it talks about the

examples there off hot spots, hot spots somebody's gonna ask

about later.

The idea of hot spots is just a place where,

where it's hot means that where there are lots of

viruses jumping because again, our topic here is about zoonotic

transfer viruses going for coming from animals going to humans.

So the hot spot would be a place where that

happens a lot.

Okay. In paragraph 16, we're wondering about the the meaning

of combination in paragraph 16.

Yeah, I'm looking at paragraph 16 and yeah, it says

that said, some species virus combinations are notable so again

they're they're They're talking about species and virus combinations.

So you have this.

Maybe this species has different kinds of viruses that affect

them, and maybe this species has some of those but

different ones.

So it's just pointing out again.

Zoonotic transfer that some viruses happen for some animals, but

not for others.

And one animal, one species of animal doesn't just have

one species, one kind of virus that affects them.

No, there's there's a mix of them, like this.

One might have these five, and this one might have

two of those, plus three others.

And again, there's different combinations possible between which viruses effect

which species of animals.

So they're just talking about that in paragraph 12.

Again, the relationship between the main idea and the controlling

idea in paragraph 12.

Yeah, um, again, do you see what the first sentence

says? While the host order appeared to matter at first.

The order is not the order like number one.

Number two.

Number three, order 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

It's not like that.

Order means Ah, grouping of animals again species family order.

And then there's, you know, there again, there's all of

these different ways to group animals.

That's what the order is.

So the order on the evolutionary tree appeared to matter

at first, but then no, it didn't.

So this whole paragraph 12 is telling you how once

you actually kind of study carefully this aspect about how

families evolutionary tree, that you know how close an animal

is to another once you actually look at the details,

it's not true.

Also again, this this is kind of just just pointing

out that this this theory is not correct.

It doesn't work.

Okay, um, where are we?

Here, paragraph 14.

The last sentence, especially the last sentence of paragraph 14.

Again, it looks, yeah, I look at the last sentence

there. It says the one exception is again the ungulates,

which seemed to send viruses our way at rates above

what we'd expect.

So ungulates are a kind of animal grouping of animals

and you don't really need to know what grouping that

is. To understand this, it's some group of animals, and

those group of animals do seemed different.

They are an exception to the other ones.

They don't look mundane.

They do look interesting because they send viruses to us

at a higher rate, so they seem to be a

hotspot. But then, if you go down, um, again, it

seems to send viruses are way it at rates above

what we'd expect.

So it seems like it.

But then you see in paragraph 15, it starts to

kind of tell you, Look at the end of paragraph

15. It kind of says that it's likely to be

small. You know, the number of viruses transferred is likely

to be small, and it might not stand out from

statistical noise.

Statistical noise means it's not statistically important.

It means it's not.

There's no relationship.

So again, this whole article is telling you in many

different expressions how there's no result.

There's no pattern, there is no connection.

So that's just what it's telling you.

There the first sentence in paragraph 11 on their own,

the results would seem to point to the reservoir model.

Yeah, and it goes on to say so.

In other words, this is an introduction.

Paragraph 11 is saying that basically, we think it from

looking at the results.

It seems like it's pointing to the reservoir model as

being right.

Of course, the author goes on and tells you after

you look at it more carefully.

At first it seemed, But then when you look carefully,

no, it doesn't.

And that's a pattern that's repeated in this text.

A lot is where the author says, Well, we thought

it was this and then we looked more carefully and

no, it's not Okay, so that's happening all over this

text. Um, they were spread.

Here's the next question.

They were spread across 30 families who made their way

in 11 different orders and host species again.

This is just telling you numbers about how families and

orders and host species host just means the host is

the one who has the virus.

If you host the virus, that means you have it.

You are hosting it.

You are giving it life and again, all these families

and different orders, or just different groupings of animals that

may have the virus group.

I is asking about that long sentence, which I've already

talked about leaving the original host behind again.

This is just talking about how a pandemic happens and

how viruses go.

Haunt of viruses, especially frequently jump around and began, can

become pandemic.

So this is just a explanation of how these viruses

can become dangerous and spread amongst all humans and become

a pandemic like our current one.

Okay, paragraph question, too.

Uh, account.

This accounted for less than 1% of the overall risk.

If something accounts for less than 1% of the overall

risk, that means it doesn't.

It's not again, if if, If you say, if you

say something is ah very you know less than one.

Look what it says.

It's less than 1%.

When something is less than 1% it's tiny, and it's

not important.

It's mundane, it's not.

It doesn't have an effect again.

This is what the author keeps repeating in many different

ways that no, there's no it's so small that it

doesn't really have an effect.

So that's what they're saying here.

The overall risk.

No, it's not that this did not account this did

not create a risk.

The reservoir model I talked about already the hot spot.

I talked about viruses that moved from humans to animals.

Are there viruses that?

Yes, there are with this article.

Talks about those zoonotic viruses, like especially the hunt of

viruses are ones that transfer from humans to animals.

They have, ah, high zoonotic transfer rate is how the

author would say, Okay, Article seven, Fleet owner.

What does that mean?

A fleet owner is fleet means a fleet of cars.

So a whole bunch of cars owner, it means that

you own a whole bunch of them.

Okay, Why are vaccines came out as an example?

The vaccines are very similar.

The author says to how a I cars work.

The example The vaccine is the author solution is to

say the vaccines had all the similar problems and it

talks about how they're similar.

And the solution that they found for the vaccine and

no fault kind of fund was the solution that worked

for that problem.

So that same type of solution can work for this

problem with with a i cars.

So the author is clearly suggesting that this is a

good solution because it worked for a very similar situation.

Again, viruses are very different than cars, but they're actually

not in this example.

They are almost the same because there's a thes things

viruses, vaccines help you to to get rid of viruses.

So there you need them.

Automated cars help you to reduce risks and make it

more safer on the road eventually, so you want them.

So they're saying.

But if something goes wrong, it can kill you.

If the vaccine goes wrong, it can kill you.

If the automated car goes wrong, it can kill you.

So again, thes look like they're very different.

But the authors telling you know, they're actually very similar

again. A Let's see in.

Why did Wolf say what he said in Paragraph 17.

Again, Wolf just says that it's complicated, and that's what

this is talking about down here in Group B's question,

too. Why is it too expensive for crash victims to

get justice again?

Go look at the text.

All the answers were there for you.

It's more complicated because it's not just this person caused

the accident or this person.

We decide which of the two caused the accident.

No, we have to decide that all the different people

who were involved in controlling the automated system and all

the different variables of whether this person was actually driving

the car or not all of those things make mean

that there are many possible things that went wrong that

caused the crash.

It's more complicated.

Therefore, it's more difficult to understand.

It takes more money to figure it out.

All of those questions are related to that again.

Paragraph 25 is the same thing.

It's talking about the complication and again, multiple defendants or

possible that makes it more difficult.

All of these questions groupie are related to the same

question, which is that it's more complicated when you have

self driving cars because there's so many companies involved in

it and whether the person was actually driving the car.

Okay, Group C.

Why is there really responsible?

Well, really means that, you know, They said Jones was

responsible for the crash.

They tell you Jones, Was that his name?

No, Joshua Brown.

They say Joshua Brown was actually responsible, but now they're

saying who was really responsible means that that was not

a good decision.

So the author is clearly showing you that was not

a good solution.

Uh, you know, the H A V system?

Why does it matter?

Because it tells you whether who was actually driving the

car. If it's if it's the car driving or if

it's the person, it makes a big difference.

Uh, the HIV louse, same thing, suffers go before Special

vaccine already talked about that.

Oh, punitive means to recover what?

What you lost.

But compensation and punitive compensation.

I should say compensation means to give you what you

lost. Punitive means to give you mawr than what you

lost because it hurts you.

So that s so in other words, they're saying, You

don't get the punitive, you only get compensation.

And what's the writers attitude there?

What's the writers attitude and D is up to you

to figure out again.

This is something you can figure out.

But I think the author clearly is providing a solution.

But he's being a lawyer, so it's hard to tell.

Go ahead and look at all these details about the

exam and do get ready for it.

Look at the F Y.

I information about the exam to Okay, good luck

F20CEC24- Part 3 (Extra)

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated