FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Market or lab
Market or lab
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started" More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution " There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution " What is the "con"? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Din’t want an argument either (and for the record I personally believe it is natural spillover rather than lab made) but those two articles appear somewhat contradictory, at least in terms of timescales. Additionally the scientist in BBC article says... “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So not definitive and the reference to “fragmentary evidence” still leaves the door open to other theories. The main reason I still have some sympathy for the lab leak theory is the way in which the Chinese government controlled the WHO investigation, including very restricted access to Wuhan, a years delay, complete control over the data and samples the WHO team were able to access and a 1:1 shadowing of all WHO investigators with a Chinese authority counterpart (ie not unfettered access). At the time the several members of the WHO team were critical of this (with very carefully worded statements). While this could simply be Chinese govt paranoia, it also hints at cover up and manipulation of evidence and data. At the end of the day the WHO team could only work with the data and evidence they were given access to. Just think we are still unable, on that basis, to fully discount lab leak theory. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution What is the "con"? Winston " "Con"spiracy theorist tripe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... " Siri, ask me how this is going in five years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution What is the "con"? Winston "Con"spiracy theorist tripe." Im looking forward to reading it. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lab accident. So much points towards that being most likely. Though I don’t think we’ll ever truly know unless there’s a whistleblower in China " While I don’t really want to feed the conspiracy theories, as I said above, I still do not think a lab leak can be discounted. There was a whistleblower. A female scientist who worked in the lab in Wuhan. She was on social media in the early days claiming mistakes made in lab, then disappeared never to be seen again. She could have been crazy. She could have been an attention seeker. But it is all rather mysterious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lab accident. So much points towards that being most likely. Though I don’t think we’ll ever truly know unless there’s a whistleblower in China While I don’t really want to feed the conspiracy theories, as I said above, I still do not think a lab leak can be discounted. There was a whistleblower. A female scientist who worked in the lab in Wuhan. She was on social media in the early days claiming mistakes made in lab, then disappeared never to be seen again. She could have been crazy. She could have been an attention seeker. But it is all rather mysterious." There was also a patient zero named Huang Yanling, who worked at the institute. It was reported in the news in China that she had fallen ill after an accident at the lab, then she passed it to her boyfriend who also fell ill and he passed it to his family. This was reported before covid was even known. It was just reported as a “mystery illness”. She has since disappeared, and her name was scrubbed from the institutes website and all news articles and studies mentioning her have been censored. China’s official statement is that she left years ago, the incident never happened and she is living happily somewhere else… but to this day nobody has managed to track her down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease " There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there " This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."'" . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there " My statements are based on comments by one of the paper's authors, but ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... " Fewer people, fewer workers, less tax revenue, limited ability to get things done...a well thought through agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... " Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston" Hard to target your enemies specifically | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lab accident. So much points towards that being most likely. Though I don’t think we’ll ever truly know unless there’s a whistleblower in China " This, the truth will eventually come out about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lab accident. So much points towards that being most likely. Though I don’t think we’ll ever truly know unless there’s a whistleblower in China This, the truth will eventually come out about it "I like this saying, they have the watch, but we have the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal" Against china? Right you are! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Din’t want an argument either (and for the record I personally believe it is natural spillover rather than lab made) but those two articles appear somewhat contradictory, at least in terms of timescales. Additionally the scientist in BBC article says... “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So not definitive and the reference to “fragmentary evidence” still leaves the door open to other theories. The main reason I still have some sympathy for the lab leak theory is the way in which the Chinese government controlled the WHO investigation, including very restricted access to Wuhan, a years delay, complete control over the data and samples the WHO team were able to access and a 1:1 shadowing of all WHO investigators with a Chinese authority counterpart (ie not unfettered access). At the time the several members of the WHO team were critical of this (with very carefully worded statements). While this could simply be Chinese govt paranoia, it also hints at cover up and manipulation of evidence and data. At the end of the day the WHO team could only work with the data and evidence they were given access to. Just think we are still unable, on that basis, to fully discount lab leak theory. " Didnt the Chinese Dr who released the genome of it accidentally slit his own throat whilst shaving too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started It's was on the news that it was engineered in a chinese lab for research purposes so the tinfoil hat wearers were right all along obviously a lot of people buy in to the made up conspiracy shit but that is factually true just because some mongs have jumped on it doesn't make it false What is a mong?" is their a reason you are ignoring the content of what I have written and jumping on a word you find offensive is it because you do not have the intellect to counter my argument? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Din’t want an argument either (and for the record I personally believe it is natural spillover rather than lab made) but those two articles appear somewhat contradictory, at least in terms of timescales. Additionally the scientist in BBC article says... “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So not definitive and the reference to “fragmentary evidence” still leaves the door open to other theories. The main reason I still have some sympathy for the lab leak theory is the way in which the Chinese government controlled the WHO investigation, including very restricted access to Wuhan, a years delay, complete control over the data and samples the WHO team were able to access and a 1:1 shadowing of all WHO investigators with a Chinese authority counterpart (ie not unfettered access). At the time the several members of the WHO team were critical of this (with very carefully worded statements). While this could simply be Chinese govt paranoia, it also hints at cover up and manipulation of evidence and data. At the end of the day the WHO team could only work with the data and evidence they were given access to. Just think we are still unable, on that basis, to fully discount lab leak theory. Didnt the Chinese Dr who released the genome of it accidentally slit his own throat whilst shaving too? " touché  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically " *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston "And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Speculation based on speculative information = Nobody here knows for sure if covid began life as natural or manufactured virus. except scientists all agre e that covid 19 has all the hallmarks of manufactured virues and none of a natural occurring virus look it up you may be surprised at what you learn reading scientific research papers and less of the daily mail "This is not, actually, true. Some scientists have information that leads them to suspect that this might be the case. Others do not. The split is weighted towards natural contagion as is the available independent data from the WHO and other assessment teams. However, if you believe otherwise, that's up to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Din’t want an argument either (and for the record I personally believe it is natural spillover rather than lab made) but those two articles appear somewhat contradictory, at least in terms of timescales. Additionally the scientist in BBC article says... “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So not definitive and the reference to “fragmentary evidence” still leaves the door open to other theories. The main reason I still have some sympathy for the lab leak theory is the way in which the Chinese government controlled the WHO investigation, including very restricted access to Wuhan, a years delay, complete control over the data and samples the WHO team were able to access and a 1:1 shadowing of all WHO investigators with a Chinese authority counterpart (ie not unfettered access). At the time the several members of the WHO team were critical of this (with very carefully worded statements). While this could simply be Chinese govt paranoia, it also hints at cover up and manipulation of evidence and data. At the end of the day the WHO team could only work with the data and evidence they were given access to. Just think we are still unable, on that basis, to fully discount lab leak theory. " The Chinese cover up any mistake. As much for failing to prevent an outbreak in a market as a lab. The build up of non-Chinese data is towards a natural event. 100% certainty will clearly not exist so anyone can continue to assert a different position. Darwin's theory of evolution remains just that. This doesn't mean that Divine Creation should be taught in schools as an equally valid alternative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Speculation based on speculative information = Nobody here knows for sure if covid began life as natural or manufactured virus. except scientists all agre e that covid 19 has all the hallmarks of manufactured virues and none of a natural occurring virus look it up you may be surprised at what you learn reading scientific research papers and less of the daily mail
This is not, actually, true.
Some scientists have information that leads them to suspect that this might be the case. Others do not.
The split is weighted towards natural contagion as is the available independent data from the WHO and other assessment teams.
However, if you believe otherwise, that's up to you."it's not about belief its a fact that a virus mutated to be so infectious in such a short period of time never seen before other than man made viruses even old fauci admitted that the reason it was covered up was to protect the integrity of science in China | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Speculation based on speculative information = Nobody here knows for sure if covid began life as natural or manufactured virus. except scientists all agre e that covid 19 has all the hallmarks of manufactured virues and none of a natural occurring virus look it up you may be surprised at what you learn reading scientific research papers and less of the daily mail
This is not, actually, true.
Some scientists have information that leads them to suspect that this might be the case. Others do not.
The split is weighted towards natural contagion as is the available independent data from the WHO and other assessment teams.
However, if you believe otherwise, that's up to you.it's not about belief its a fact that a virus mutated to be so infectious in such a short period of time never seen before
other than man made viruses even old fauci admitted that the reason it was covered up was to protect the integrity of science in China "The Covid-19 virus did not mutate particularly quickly. It transmitted very quickly and was therefore able to replicate at a high rate of which some mutations occured. More mutations have occurred since vaccinations have become widespread as there is now a selection process which was not needed in a completely vulnerable population. This is not new science in any way. It is well established behaviour. "Old Fauci" and others did not make a big noise about it to begin with because they needed as much information as quickly as possible in order to deal with it. Saving face allowed the data to be released. That does not imply that anything was manufactured in a lab. It just indicates the Chinese wanting to cover up a failure. Just as likely not identifying a naturally occurring disease fast enough. That is politics and psychology. I guess you view this as you choose to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston
And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid. "The Chinese are simultaneously cunning and stupid, apparently. Alternatively, it was the pharmaceutical companies because they weren't making enough money already. Then there's Bill Gates... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston
And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid.
The Chinese are simultaneously cunning and stupid, apparently.
Alternatively, it was the pharmaceutical companies because they weren't making enough money already.
Then there's Bill Gates..."Isn't the way all conspiracy theories go? It's so obvious that some random in a basement can figure it out, but so devious that no trace of evidence exists for the experts. Who are either amazing or stupid depending on what the argument calls for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston
And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid.
The Chinese are simultaneously cunning and stupid, apparently.
Alternatively, it was the pharmaceutical companies because they weren't making enough money already.
Then there's Bill Gates...
Isn't the way all conspiracy theories go? It's so obvious that some random in a basement can figure it out, but so devious that no trace of evidence exists for the experts. Who are either amazing or stupid depending on what the argument calls for."Transparency creates confusion and lack of transparency fuels conspiracy, crazy world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid " Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston
And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid. "That's all part of the conspiracy. Just to confuse people innit and deflect the sleeping sheeples from the truth. 
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston
And if it were a Chinese weapon... Releasing it in China seems pretty stupid.
That's all part of the conspiracy. Just to confuse people innit and deflect the sleeping sheeples from the truth.
Winston"Of course  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal Against china? Right you are! " Against "The Lab", although obviously there would certainly be an attempt to make the Chinese Government accountable too. Just because there's no chance that China would comply, doesn't mean that governments wouldn't try. I suspect that the likes of the US would even impose trade and financial sanctions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made." Two points: 1) The conspiracy theories soon arrived in this thread and very quickly the debunkers started ridiculing rather than discuss. Both sides to blame but it is tiresome that people see the world in black & white rather than grey. 2) As I asserted above, this article and research is once again not definitive and is based on available data. It may well be correct but it doesn’t debunk the lab leak theory* Why? Bad data in = bad data out. The way China behaved in relation to the WHO investigation remains very suspicious (and it doesn’t get a pass because - hey it’s China). Think of a crime scene, say a murder. If the police and forensics people are not able to access the murder site for a year and during that time the only person who does have access (with no oversight or restrictions) is the murder suspect, then that site and anything found at the site would cease to be admissible evidence because the suspect would have been able to clean up the crime scene and change the nature of the evidence in order to stop them being incriminated. They could alter the data! Then when the police and forensics do get access a year later, the suspect still controls where in the crime scene they can go, what they can look at etc. ie the suspect still controls the data and access to it. Again for avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying it was a lab leak. I am saying that still cannot be discounted. *A lab leak does not necessarily mean it was either a) man made or b) some kind of bio weapon. It could simply be a naturally occurring virus they were studying that accidentally leaked! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made. Two points: 1) The conspiracy theories soon arrived in this thread and very quickly the debunkers started ridiculing rather than discuss. Both sides to blame but it is tiresome that people see the world in black & white rather than grey. 2) As I asserted above, this article and research is once again not definitive and is based on available data. It may well be correct but it doesn’t debunk the lab leak theory* Why? Bad data in = bad data out. The way China behaved in relation to the WHO investigation remains very suspicious (and it doesn’t get a pass because - hey it’s China). Think of a crime scene, say a murder. If the police and forensics people are not able to access the murder site for a year and during that time the only person who does have access (with no oversight or restrictions) is the murder suspect, then that site and anything found at the site would cease to be admissible evidence because the suspect would have been able to clean up the crime scene and change the nature of the evidence in order to stop them being incriminated. They could alter the data! Then when the police and forensics do get access a year later, the suspect still controls where in the crime scene they can go, what they can look at etc. ie the suspect still controls the data and access to it. Again for avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying it was a lab leak. I am saying that still cannot be discounted. *A lab leak does not necessarily mean it was either a) man made or b) some kind of bio weapon. It could simply be a naturally occurring virus they were studying that accidentally leaked!" We will probably never find out how it all started, I highly doubt the Chinese would ever admit to a lab leak if that was the cause. I'm very surprised all the experts on here haven't solved this yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made. Two points: 1) The conspiracy theories soon arrived in this thread and very quickly the debunkers started ridiculing rather than discuss. Both sides to blame but it is tiresome that people see the world in black & white rather than grey. 2) As I asserted above, this article and research is once again not definitive and is based on available data. It may well be correct but it doesn’t debunk the lab leak theory* Why? Bad data in = bad data out. The way China behaved in relation to the WHO investigation remains very suspicious (and it doesn’t get a pass because - hey it’s China). Think of a crime scene, say a murder. If the police and forensics people are not able to access the murder site for a year and during that time the only person who does have access (with no oversight or restrictions) is the murder suspect, then that site and anything found at the site would cease to be admissible evidence because the suspect would have been able to clean up the crime scene and change the nature of the evidence in order to stop them being incriminated. They could alter the data! Then when the police and forensics do get access a year later, the suspect still controls where in the crime scene they can go, what they can look at etc. ie the suspect still controls the data and access to it. Again for avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying it was a lab leak. I am saying that still cannot be discounted. *A lab leak does not necessarily mean it was either a) man made or b) some kind of bio weapon. It could simply be a naturally occurring virus they were studying that accidentally leaked!" In general incompetence is more likely than conspiracy. When assertions are stated as facts when they are not then it is appropriate to indicate why they are not. Neither have I said that it was definitely a natural event, but that is where the bulk of the evidence points. That is the case, is it not? This latest article does not rely on test data from the market. It uses infection data. China's inclination to cover up is equally plausible for hiding a botched response to infection from the market as from the lab. True? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made. Two points: 1) The conspiracy theories soon arrived in this thread and very quickly the debunkers started ridiculing rather than discuss. Both sides to blame but it is tiresome that people see the world in black & white rather than grey. 2) As I asserted above, this article and research is once again not definitive and is based on available data. It may well be correct but it doesn’t debunk the lab leak theory* Why? Bad data in = bad data out. The way China behaved in relation to the WHO investigation remains very suspicious (and it doesn’t get a pass because - hey it’s China). Think of a crime scene, say a murder. If the police and forensics people are not able to access the murder site for a year and during that time the only person who does have access (with no oversight or restrictions) is the murder suspect, then that site and anything found at the site would cease to be admissible evidence because the suspect would have been able to clean up the crime scene and change the nature of the evidence in order to stop them being incriminated. They could alter the data! Then when the police and forensics do get access a year later, the suspect still controls where in the crime scene they can go, what they can look at etc. ie the suspect still controls the data and access to it. Again for avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying it was a lab leak. I am saying that still cannot be discounted. *A lab leak does not necessarily mean it was either a) man made or b) some kind of bio weapon. It could simply be a naturally occurring virus they were studying that accidentally leaked! We will probably never find out how it all started, I highly doubt the Chinese would ever admit to a lab leak if that was the cause. I'm very surprised all the experts on here haven't solved this yet. " The Chinese will also not admit to failing to control transmission of a virus that caused a global pandemic from a market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think what it shows is that the first outbreaks arise from the market, and focused on the sale of racoon dogs. Tracks with the origins of SARS 1. I mean could someone have nefariously infected some racoon dogs? I don't think it can be disproven. Personally I think it's still unlikely, but whatever you like. I'm delighted that this kind of detail can be uncovered and hope it has implications for better understanding the virus and mitigating against future zoonotic disease There’s literally no evidence of the virus in the food market. They didn’t find it anywhere. It’s one of those false stories that people perpetuate based on initial theories. But nope they didn’t find any covid there This is just for clarification as you may not have fully read the article based on your comment: 'That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019."' . to clarify - what I meant was they didn’t find it in any animals in the food market! None at all. They don’t even know if it was just contamination from drainage and cleaning or from the staff. No smoking gun at all. They also found samples in schools, offices, public transport systems etc. In addition to this, the majority of samples were found outside of the market, and many cases (including the first ones) had no connection to the market other than living in proximity. Samples were also not taken until Jan 2021, more than 6 weeks (at least) after the epidemic had started. And to say it once again - no animals in the market were found to have covid Animals get sold in a food market. Sweeps were taken long after an outbreak was identified, as you said, so any animals are long gone. If you read the article, the entire point was that early cases were clustered around the market. With the high rate of asymptomatic infection you would not expect the cluster to be associated directly with the market, but in the general vicinity. Only symptomatic cases were logged at the start. There was no test. There was no cluster where people who work in the lab live. That's the point being made. Two points: 1) The conspiracy theories soon arrived in this thread and very quickly the debunkers started ridiculing rather than discuss. Both sides to blame but it is tiresome that people see the world in black & white rather than grey. 2) As I asserted above, this article and research is once again not definitive and is based on available data. It may well be correct but it doesn’t debunk the lab leak theory* Why? Bad data in = bad data out. The way China behaved in relation to the WHO investigation remains very suspicious (and it doesn’t get a pass because - hey it’s China). Think of a crime scene, say a murder. If the police and forensics people are not able to access the murder site for a year and during that time the only person who does have access (with no oversight or restrictions) is the murder suspect, then that site and anything found at the site would cease to be admissible evidence because the suspect would have been able to clean up the crime scene and change the nature of the evidence in order to stop them being incriminated. They could alter the data! Then when the police and forensics do get access a year later, the suspect still controls where in the crime scene they can go, what they can look at etc. ie the suspect still controls the data and access to it. Again for avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying it was a lab leak. I am saying that still cannot be discounted. *A lab leak does not necessarily mean it was either a) man made or b) some kind of bio weapon. It could simply be a naturally occurring virus they were studying that accidentally leaked! We will probably never find out how it all started, I highly doubt the Chinese would ever admit to a lab leak if that was the cause. I'm very surprised all the experts on here haven't solved this yet. The Chinese will also not admit to failing to control transmission of a virus that caused a global pandemic from a market." Absolutely true. It could be lab leak or it could be failure to control spread etc. China are clearly trying to cover up something. We won’t ever really know. I will just continue to assert that we cannot dismiss lab leak for all the reasons stated above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the truth is coming out " Is it? Problem is who’s truth will it be? The ONLY people who know the truth are the Chinese authorities so it is pretty safe to assume we will never know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the truth is coming out " You can't handle the truth! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the truth is coming out You can't handle the truth! " Colonel Jessup......... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like the truth is coming out Is it? Problem is who’s truth will it be? The ONLY people who know the truth are the Chinese authorities so it is pretty safe to assume we will never know." Do the Chinese authorities know the truth, or did they come into the market with the bleach and obliterate chances of anyone knowing the truth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point?" Got it in one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point?" Anybody interested in how viruses develop and develop into global pandemics with huge long-term consequences, perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point?" Yet you care enough to click into the forum and this thread and type six words rather than, you know, ignore it! + what Easy says | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point? Anybody interested in how viruses develop and develop into global pandemics with huge long-term consequences, perhaps?" It'll be interesting for the historical record, too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started" I 100% agree with this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- Define manufactured.... if otnwas being studied in lab and various mutations/strains being grown for chimp experimentation then clearly it could then have gotten out if there was a lapse of h+s protocol More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal" "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there anyone on here that believes our governments don't develop biological weapons? " Nooooo surely all they do is perfume and glitter.? Porton down is just a rebranded watership down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed" Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
But carry on with your conspiracy theories I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence." Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. " Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point? Anybody interested in how viruses develop and develop into global pandemics with huge long-term consequences, perhaps? It'll be interesting for the historical record, too." If there is a historical record... By the time we're done with covid, polio, smallpox-by-another-name, marburg, ebola, malaria, rising sea levels, heat waves, burning forests, atomic winters, mass extinctions, global ocean death... who's going to be left to write a historical record, never mind read it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point? Anybody interested in how viruses develop and develop into global pandemics with huge long-term consequences, perhaps? It'll be interesting for the historical record, too. If there is a historical record... By the time we're done with covid, polio, smallpox-by-another-name, marburg, ebola, malaria, rising sea levels, heat waves, burning forests, atomic winters, mass extinctions, global ocean death... who's going to be left to write a historical record, never mind read it?" “When you’re chewing on life’s gristle...” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who actually cares at this point? Anybody interested in how viruses develop and develop into global pandemics with huge long-term consequences, perhaps? It'll be interesting for the historical record, too. If there is a historical record... By the time we're done with covid, polio, smallpox-by-another-name, marburg, ebola, malaria, rising sea levels, heat waves, burning forests, atomic winters, mass extinctions, global ocean death... who's going to be left to write a historical record, never mind read it?" This makes my historian heart sad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"?" I hope "experts" would have the integrity to be honest and say... There's no evidence that can be trusted that allows us to form an opinion... Next. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"? I hope "experts" would have the integrity to be honest and say... There's no evidence that can be trusted that allows us to form an opinion... Next. " I think what they're very clearly saying is, this is what the evidence leads us to believe. This stuff isn't black and white. If we had to go "we know, or we don't know" most fields of study would be decimated. There's educated guesswork in every field | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"? I hope "experts" would have the integrity to be honest and say... There's no evidence that can be trusted that allows us to form an opinion... Next. I think what they're very clearly saying is, this is what the evidence leads us to believe. This stuff isn't black and white. If we had to go "we know, or we don't know" most fields of study would be decimated. There's educated guesswork in every field " And you're confident that politics aren't informing those pronouncements that have no supporting data? Data from a site that that has had over a year to drive whatever the Chinese would wish us to believe? You're very trusting.. Well much more trusting than I. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"? I hope "experts" would have the integrity to be honest and say... There's no evidence that can be trusted that allows us to form an opinion... Next. I think what they're very clearly saying is, this is what the evidence leads us to believe. This stuff isn't black and white. If we had to go "we know, or we don't know" most fields of study would be decimated. There's educated guesswork in every field And you're confident that politics aren't informing those pronouncements that have no supporting data? Data from a site that that has had over a year to drive whatever the Chinese would wish us to believe? You're very trusting.. Well much more trusting than I. " By pronouncement you mean peer reviewed scientific paper, right? If it were just pronouncements sure, it might be terribly tainted by politics. Given its a scientific paper, not so much. And... I'm not sure how you get from "people make estimates based on the evidence available" to "this is evidence free assertions". But ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not going to argue about it. People tend to believe what they choose and rarely change their mind. Just some information to share. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62307383.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16588665217438&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com" I would go with whatever the bbc reports because they are so reliable! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not going to argue about it. People tend to believe what they choose and rarely change their mind. Just some information to share. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62307383.amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16588665217438&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com I would go with whatever the bbc reports because they are so reliable!" Aunty is a lot more reliable than some of the whackadoodle nonsense some people post here. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Gain of function research on coronavirus going on at the Wuhan institute of virology at the time. Coincidence? " This is just repeating an accusation without evidence. What is "gain of function" and what, exactly was this research carried out? Do you know? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started -------- More real proof of convid being created than a natural evolution There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab. There is plenty of evidence that it was being STUDIED in the local bat populations at a lab. If there was ANY credible proof that the virus was manufactured, then there would be governments everywhere bringing legal action to recoup some of their huge losses. Cal "There is ZERO credible evidence of COVID being created in a lab." That's the trouble isn't it. There's ZERO credible evidence of COVID origins at all. Whether from lab or creation or animals or.... It must have been an act of god / budda / yaweh /mohammed Experts need to draw inference from limited data all the time. From the evidence that seems to exist, natural origins seem more likely. Does that mean it can't have been a lab leak or a weapon? No. But the more evidence we have, the less likely lab leak etc has become. That's how anything works, not just this. We go in the direction of the evidence. Well I'd hope scientists generally demand a little more rigour in their evidence and how it is obtained than prescribed access to staged and controlled areas and limited data. Well, they'd want it. What happens if you can't get it? Do you say could be lab leak, could be natural, could be Godzilla? Or do you say "this is what's most likely given what we can get"? I hope "experts" would have the integrity to be honest and say... There's no evidence that can be trusted that allows us to form an opinion... Next. I think what they're very clearly saying is, this is what the evidence leads us to believe. This stuff isn't black and white. If we had to go "we know, or we don't know" most fields of study would be decimated. There's educated guesswork in every field And you're confident that politics aren't informing those pronouncements that have no supporting data? Data from a site that that has had over a year to drive whatever the Chinese would wish us to believe? You're very trusting.. Well much more trusting than I. " Have you seen any of the data? If not, how can you assess its validity? If you must see all primary data from any report to assess its credibility then you will accept nothing. Have you any, actual, indication that the data is not credible or that the researchers are unreliable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. " *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically " And harder still to protect yourself given you really can’t control how a virus will mutate in the wild | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist?" None that is credible... Shrug.. .. Hence my initial comment. And going in circkes here but no credible evidence to me suggests no credible conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a swinging site???" I would think a swinging site would be a primary place for people to take contagious viruses seriously... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a swinging site??? I would think a swinging site would be a primary place for people to take contagious viruses seriously..." This. ^ Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. " The paper went came out as a pre print earlier this year- then went through peer review process and very much stood up to a very robust examination by many scientists in the meantime. Whilst it’s impossible to rule out a lab leak the evidence heavily points to two zoonotic events. Sadly, the big issue in all of this is that the illegal wildlife industry is huge in China. £20 billion a year involving hundreds of thousands of animal and people across southern China, Laos, Thailand. Not enough serologically surveillance is being done. That, in effect , is the lab that we should looking for not one in Wuhan. In addition, we forget that by ‘ living with Covid’ with doing very little to suppress the virus we have all become part of a live experiment where immunocompromised people have unintentionally and unfortunately become the pertindishes of future variants. The initial Wuhan strain had an R of 3 the current B2 is between R15 and R18 and yet we still blame China for a lab leak. People in glasshouses………. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. The paper went came out as a pre print earlier this year- then went through peer review process and very much stood up to a very robust examination by many scientists in the meantime. Whilst it’s impossible to rule out a lab leak the evidence heavily points to two zoonotic events. Sadly, the big issue in all of this is that the illegal wildlife industry is huge in China. £20 billion a year involving hundreds of thousands of animal and people across southern China, Laos, Thailand. Not enough serologically surveillance is being done. That, in effect , is the lab that we should looking for not one in Wuhan. In addition, we forget that by ‘ living with Covid’ with doing very little to suppress the virus we have all become part of a live experiment where immunocompromised people have unintentionally and unfortunately become the pertindishes of future variants. The initial Wuhan strain had an R of 3 the current B2 is between R15 and R18 and yet we still blame China for a lab leak. People in glasshouses………. " Right. We have no actual evidence of where the initial infections took place, but we estimate they were here here and here. We have no evidence of animals being infected but we do know animals were sold here so it's reasonable to assume that they were infected. Come on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible " Others are crippled with paranoia | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia" Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a swinging site??? I would think a swinging site would be a primary place for people to take contagious viruses seriously..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist?" The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading)." Has the whiff of the dodgy dossier that proved categorically beyond doubt that saddam had wmd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. " There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started" If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs." You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When I say that I literally mean no idea whatsoever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When I say that I literally mean no idea whatsoever. " Ironic post, surely? 
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... " The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When I say that I literally mean no idea whatsoever. Ironic post, surely?
Winston "I would certainly look at a thread in the politics section with Russia in the title | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston " You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. " This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. This "This ^^^ There's no 'Sagan Standard' on this forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. When I say that I literally mean no idea whatsoever. " Maybe I don’t have any idea, maybe you have ideas, but maybe ideas of fantasy not reality. Time will tell but so far none of the conspiracy prophecies around this topic show any signs of coming true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs." Not sure I agree with much of that.the implication that sceptics are believers I conspiracies. We don't need to be experts in anything to read.... A peer reviewed paper that clearly says we have no proof of anything but we estimate (kde) that it is likely to have started somewhere in this market. And that's fine. It's a peer reviewed paper that says "we think it could have". And how could it say anything different a year after all physical evidence has been scrubbed.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. " Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account " Nowhere did I say 'so there's no point', nowhere have have I expressed my opinion on the subject. I have though expressed my views on those who do not know how or refuse to debate. I'm unlikely to express my opinions on such an important subject here because though an adult only site, there is very little in the way of debate and discussion, just immature thumping of chests. Though I thank you for proving my point. *Edit for typos* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you " Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account " So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. " When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it " Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston " You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment" The article refers to a paper which is available to be read, where their methodology is examined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it." Evidence does matter which is the entire point. Despite what you may think the bbc does not have the final say in matters of science or any other issue and anyone who thinks so is naive beyond belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment The article refers to a paper which is available to be read, where their methodology is examined." Case closed then.... Hahaha haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it. Evidence does matter which is the entire point. Despite what you may think the bbc does not have the final say in matters of science or any other issue and anyone who thinks so is naive beyond belief. " If you think I'm relying on the BBC, the Guardian, or whatever left of far-right media outlet you choose to pick on, you're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're just parroting the same old lines that have become increasingly tiresome over the pandemic. Yes. I know you think the BBC etc are icky. People who disagree with you are also able to look at scientific papers and do our own research. And still disagree with you afterwards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment The article refers to a paper which is available to be read, where their methodology is examined. Case closed then.... Hahaha haha " What, evidence exists therefore you don't need to look at it because you're right? Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment The article refers to a paper which is available to be read, where their methodology is examined. Case closed then.... Hahaha haha " Actually.....yes. Exactly that. The BBC didn't write the paper, they published it. You *understand the difference between author and publisher I assume? Winston *possibly an unlikely assumption | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Honestly at this stage unless you're the kind of tin hat wearing, flat earther crackpot, fake moon landing, conspiracy theorist who thinks it was created, it doesn't really matter where the virus started If you look then you will see The scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated. The evidence is good but not yet overwhelming, however it is growing significantly. Of course people in suburbia who watch mainstream TV documentaries and who might have done A level biology back in the 1980s might know better..... The scientific evidence isn’t pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated at all. Winston You are 100% wrong. But thats for you to find out, I can only inform you Given that the scientific review at the top of this thread says where the source is believed to have originated, it seems strange to state categorically that "the scientific evidence is pointing to lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was manipulated" The scientific statement and your assertion seem at odds, yes? Winston You are referring to an article by the BBC. I don't need to say anymore, the BBC stated there was evidence of wmd in Iraq and continued to state that even when it became clear there wasnt. The bbc should not be treated seriously. It is primarily entertainment The article refers to a paper which is available to be read, where their methodology is examined. Case closed then.... Hahaha haha Actually.....yes. Exactly that. The BBC didn't write the paper, they published it. You *understand the difference between author and publisher I assume? Winston *possibly an unlikely assumption " They referred to it in a story, they didn't even publish it That makes it tainted. Because reasons. *Shrug* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it. Evidence does matter which is the entire point. Despite what you may think the bbc does not have the final say in matters of science or any other issue and anyone who thinks so is naive beyond belief. If you think I'm relying on the BBC, the Guardian, or whatever left of far-right media outlet you choose to pick on, you're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're just parroting the same old lines that have become increasingly tiresome over the pandemic. Yes. I know you think the BBC etc are icky. People who disagree with you are also able to look at scientific papers and do our own research. And still disagree with you afterwards." You can disagree and I can disagree. But it's not helpful or scientific to brand anyone who doesn't share your establishment opinion as crackpot. The lab leak theory has good and growing evidence despite what the bbc tells you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it. Evidence does matter which is the entire point. Despite what you may think the bbc does not have the final say in matters of science or any other issue and anyone who thinks so is naive beyond belief. If you think I'm relying on the BBC, the Guardian, or whatever left of far-right media outlet you choose to pick on, you're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're just parroting the same old lines that have become increasingly tiresome over the pandemic. Yes. I know you think the BBC etc are icky. People who disagree with you are also able to look at scientific papers and do our own research. And still disagree with you afterwards. You can disagree and I can disagree. But it's not helpful or scientific to brand anyone who doesn't share your establishment opinion as crackpot. The lab leak theory has good and growing evidence despite what the bbc tells you " I've seen as much evidence for it as I've watched any BBC in the last two years. That would be.... zero | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? " I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale." No it isn't considering how many people died of covid. To say it doesn't matter where it came from is genuinely disturbing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account So because people give a shit, we should ignore the evidence that does exist and follow crackpot ideas because it validates their feelings? Lol ok. When you say "crackpot ideas" are you quoting The sentiments of The Guardian or are you expressing your own feelings on scientific and political theories like black hole theory or the jfk assassination? The lab leak theory is an established scientific theory and has good and growing evidence to back it up including the authority of mainstream scientists. That's a fact even if you refuse to accept it Oh ok. So evidence doesn't matter because you say so and you have friends who also say so, and you can throw in a newspaper you don't like. Got it. Evidence does matter which is the entire point. Despite what you may think the bbc does not have the final say in matters of science or any other issue and anyone who thinks so is naive beyond belief. If you think I'm relying on the BBC, the Guardian, or whatever left of far-right media outlet you choose to pick on, you're either not reading what I'm writing, or you're just parroting the same old lines that have become increasingly tiresome over the pandemic. Yes. I know you think the BBC etc are icky. People who disagree with you are also able to look at scientific papers and do our own research. And still disagree with you afterwards. You can disagree and I can disagree. But it's not helpful or scientific to brand anyone who doesn't share your establishment opinion as crackpot. The lab leak theory has good and growing evidence despite what the bbc tells you " You seem intent on holding the BBC responsible for the scientific paper. Again, they are not the author.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale." Personally as a general rule people should keep the holocaust out of their mouths far more often, full stop. Especially when it comes to comparisons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale. No it isn't considering how many people died of covid. To say it doesn't matter where it came from is genuinely disturbing. " If I've said that, do point that out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale. Personally as a general rule people should keep the holocaust out of their mouths far more often, full stop. Especially when it comes to comparisons." The only time I'd compare the Holocaust to other things is other instances of genocide. It might be interesting to note that during that period the Germans eviscerated public health measures, at least for the people they seemed lesser. It is possible that lessons might be learned, but I doubt this is a subject that can be fruitfully pursued without expertise, nuance, and calm heads. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can we not debate without patronising people you disagree with? I know, right? Saying that people who follow the evidence of science would cover up the Holocaust is beyond the pale. Personally as a general rule people should keep the holocaust out of their mouths far more often, full stop. Especially when it comes to comparisons." That's your opinion. You are welcome to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of you are so gullible Others are crippled with paranoia Some yes. Others a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a point when scepticism is healthy and a point when it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately for society to function citizens have to put some trust in the systems and balances in place. We can not all be leading experts on all things. Mistakes will always be made because knowledge is imperfect but Covid has highlighted a group in society who firmly believe in a global conspiracy out to intentionally cause them harm. That is a sad state of affairs. Not sure I agree with much of that.the implication that sceptics are believers I conspiracies. We don't need to be experts in anything to read.... A peer reviewed paper that clearly says we have no proof of anything but we estimate (kde) that it is likely to have started somewhere in this market. And that's fine. It's a peer reviewed paper that says "we think it could have". And how could it say anything different a year after all physical evidence has been scrubbed.? " I was speaking on Covid sceptics more generally rather than regards scepticism about its source.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account " What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? " I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. " You believe it based on what? Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. " Well, time will tell. Given our government appears unable to collude to keep something as simple as a party covered up, global collusion between nations seem a stretch of the imagination. PS I want to live in a society that complies, one in which those democratically elected to set those rules are held to account. Where does a none compliant rule breaker draw the line... does it stop at ignoring Covid rules, does it stop at dropping litter, does it stop at driving without a seat belt, does it stop at shop lifting, does it stop at stabbing anyone they disagree with... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading)." It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. " What is your view on the Russian approach to the Covid vaccines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less." Yes, these aren't easy questions. I'll follow the evidence, and I'm happy to say "this is what it looks like given what we know so far" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less." Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised." Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. " What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter?" “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure." Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised." Nobody, has said that it was definitely a zoonotic source, have they? There is nothing even remotely close to any scientific consensus on a lab leak as the source, is there? Not even theories that are considered scientifically credible. There is a completely valid suspicion that the Chinese government lies. It is not possible to assess available data with data that may or may not exist. Bad data in does mean bad data out. No data in means nothing out. SARS cannot be "ruled out" as having originally come from a lab either. Nor MERS. So, either we accept that nothing is known and will never be known (no data) or we accept the best information available which in your assessment is bad data but can also be neutrally described as some data with some credibility. Otherwise we have politics (suspicion of cover-up and unavailable data) vs science (available data) and the associated caveats. It's a comparison with some data with some credibility and a reasonable consensus about the theory with no data for which there is very little support for the theory. They are not equivalent even if we only looked at the theories without data because the starting points are not the same. The lab leak option is less likely even as a starting point. Long because I am trying to explain this in as many different ways as possible. Here's an alternative cover-up theory. Zoonotic transmission discovered from the market. Findings suppressed but virus identified and taken to lab. Investigated but no flag raised. Virus becomes deadly. Lab/government terrified that information was sat on. Access restricted to cover this up. Remember how impressed everyone was that the virus genome was made available so quickly? This would better follow the incompetence/cover-up tree than an actual lab leak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. What is your view on the Russian approach to the Covid vaccines?" Given how little of what Russia tells the world is truthful or accurate I’m not sure many can give a qualified view on the Russian approach....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's simply not true. " Reply+quote is helpful.
Winston | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone is an expert on this, depending on where they find their info depends on their beliefs. I don't think we'll ever truly find out what happened, where it's come from. It's laughable how ignorant and arrogant people can be, whilst expressing others are just that. Wrong. The only reason we won't find out is because people like you express the idea "well we will never find out so there's no point" you are a willing apologist to those who committed this crime. Imagine if people like you said that about the fate of the Jews in the 1940s.. The truth WILL be uncovered despite the CIA, us govt and big pharma trying to cover up their crime against humanity. That is because people DO give a shit and value their freedom and want to hold their govts to account What crime against humanity are you accusing government and big pharma of undertaking? I believe that big pharma and govt were not only responsible for the covid outbreak and the deaths of millions but that they colluded to make huge profits from a dubious vaccine whose efficacy and dangers are subject to an ongoing govt cover up, and implemented policies that destroyed lives and wrecked communities, restricted individual freedoms and established a culture of govt compliance on society at the same time generally inflicting chaos and misery on the world at large. What is your view on the Russian approach to the Covid vaccines? Given how little of what Russia tells the world is truthful or accurate I’m not sure many can give a qualified view on the Russian approach.... "There are other threads that explain why the Russian question was raised. The person being asked will get the context | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"?" Hey @_naswingdress saying “Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later?” sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Also..."the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? why jump straight to “wild conspiracy” isn’t there a spectrum of possible events and causes. Not everything that may be a bit dodgy falls into the realms of tinfoil hats! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? Hey @_naswingdress saying “Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later?” sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Also..."the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? why jump straight to “wild conspiracy” isn’t there a spectrum of possible events and causes. Not everything that may be a bit dodgy falls into the realms of tinfoil hats!" Here's a little walk down memory lane... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? Hey @_naswingdress saying “Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later?” sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Also..."the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? why jump straight to “wild conspiracy” isn’t there a spectrum of possible events and causes. Not everything that may be a bit dodgy falls into the realms of tinfoil hats!" The fact that you can't tell the difference between "we don't know the knowledge or motivations of the Chinese" (we rarely know anyone's motivations, it's difficult to assume) and "there's no point giving cover to possibilities that have no evidence, where evidence exists", troubles me. Ultimately my dog in this fight is the use and abuse of evidence. I'm not a scientist, but analysing partial evidence is very much my bag in other contexts. But, whatever you like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? Hey @_naswingdress saying “Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later?” sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Also..."the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? why jump straight to “wild conspiracy” isn’t there a spectrum of possible events and causes. Not everything that may be a bit dodgy falls into the realms of tinfoil hats! Here's a little walk down memory lane... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51364382 " This indicates a totalitarian state something covering up. Nobody has said otherwise. None of this indicates a lab leak, does it? There is no evidence to refute an extraterrestrial origin either, so... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's interesting reading the actual paper linked to... That the evidence has been Co structed from an estimate and probability map. Possibly helpful. But really it's not being presented as an estimate. Anyway...it seems to be enough evidence to wtite the headlines and convince some people. *Shrug* given the lapse of time and degradation/destruction of material (deliberate, accidental, whatever) what kind of evidence do you expect to exist? The issue, as I see it, is that these sort of papers are being published. They are peer reviewed. Joe Public reads headline and hey presto an informed theory becomes fact. We have no facts. We have very intelligent people working with flawed data and drawing the best conclusions they can based on that data. “We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." So they say “as sure as we can be” so not sure then, but worse... “Based on the fragmentary evidence we do have” So their conclusions are based on their expertise (good) using incomplete (and likely compromised) data (bad). Because of that I continue to call out any attempt to say “this is fact” (not the OP or the article but the take away some have from headline reading). It took 15 years to eventually identify a closely related bat virus to SARS and even then, it was not an exact match. Goodness only knows why there should be any expectation of doing better this time. The fact that there is no animal host identified does not make a lab leak any more likely. They are independent. It is not normal in science to disprove a theory for which there is scant scientific (rather than political) evidence. Yet in this case, that is what is being expected. A zoonotic virus transmitted from the market is the best available information and adds to the previous best available information. It is not conclusive, but it's as good as it gets. No more, no less. Indeed no argument there apart from (and I repeat) bad data in = bad data out. All studies to date reference (using a variety of wording) the limitations of the data available to them. The data available to them appears to indicate zoonotic virus transmitted from the market but it cannot rule out other options due to quality of primary evidence/data. There are two inarguable facts (verified by history and the WHO investigators themselves): 1. China refused access to Wuhan for over one year. 2. The WHO team did not have unrestricted/unfettered access to all relevant sites in Wuhan (inc the lab in question). This is not opinion. Both these things happened. What does that mean? Compromised data. Does it mean there was a lab leak? No! But it doesn’t rule it out either. Does it mean it was a zoonotic virus transmitted from the market? Possibly/probably but nobody can claim it for certain as the data is incomplete and likely compromised. Don't bring your open minded reasoning in here. What is, currently, the most likely source of the virus for which some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists? How open minded is your reasoning on this matter? “some body of reviewed scientific evidence exists” based on, as the scientists/authors of the paper(s) admit themselves, fragmentary data. They are saying this is our best hypothesis based on the data we have access to. Not really sure why this ditch needs fighting. The data is incomplete and very likely compromised. Ergo they cannot be definitive by their own admissions. Their hypothesis may indeed be correct. But nobody (except the Chinese authorities) can know/verify for sure. Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later? At the moment, the evidence points towards a natural origin. Note I didn't say is definitely a natural origin forever no matter what. This evidence in particular points that way. All evidence is by definition partial. Do we then go and say "the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? Hey @_naswingdress saying “Do the Chinese authorities know? Or did they cover up first and ask questions later?” sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Also..."the stuff with the evidence and a wild conspiracy theory are equally valid"? why jump straight to “wild conspiracy” isn’t there a spectrum of possible events and causes. Not everything that may be a bit dodgy falls into the realms of tinfoil hats! The fact that you can't tell the difference between "we don't know the knowledge or motivations of the Chinese" (we rarely know anyone's motivations, it's difficult to assume) and "there's no point giving cover to possibilities that have no evidence, where evidence exists", troubles me. Ultimately my dog in this fight is the use and abuse of evidence. I'm not a scientist, but analysing partial evidence is very much my bag in other contexts. But, whatever you like." But that is the point. The whole reason the lab leak theory even exists is because there are so many coincidences. The “evidence” is circumstantial but there are sufficient indicators to raise suspicion. It simply isn’t in the same league as a conspiracy theory about the illuminati or population reduction or bio weapon. It simply says something leaked from a lab where coronaviruses were bring studied. It is plausible (whereas to Easy’s point and extraterrestrial virus thingy isn’t). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Covid19 is divisive. Origin: was it a natural virus or was it engineered. How did it find its way into the population? Was it transmitted naturally, was it an accidental transmission, or was it through means of transmission that was controlled? Possibilities: 1) Natural - transmitted naturally 2) Natural - transmitted by accident 3) Natural - transmitted by choice 4) Man made - transmitted by accident 5) Man made - transmitted by choice If you consider the detailed evidence needed to arrive at a conclusion of fact for the above, it becomes clear that evidence would only be available from the perpetrators for 3 - 4 - 5. Likelihood of a government, organisation or person holding up their hands to this 0%. That would indicate that reliable evidence does not exist for 3 - 4 - 5. This would leave options 1 & 2, but as mentioned above if a person was culpable to the release of Covid19, there would be an expectation of 0% admission, removing 2 -3- 4- 5. This leaves us with option 1. With all the best will in the world some things may never be known and others things will never be accepted as the truth. " To add further... If you're mad enough to do 3 or 5..its not unreasonable that you might just create evidence to misdirect. And let's not forget whatever evidence may have existed originally has long since disappeared.. That old chain of custody concept. Seems to me its a debate about something that has no evidence compared to something that has no credible evidence...and choosing a side based on bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Covid19 is divisive. Origin: was it a natural virus or was it engineered. How did it find its way into the population? Was it transmitted naturally, was it an accidental transmission, or was it through means of transmission that was controlled? Possibilities: 1) Natural - transmitted naturally 2) Natural - transmitted by accident 3) Natural - transmitted by choice 4) Man made - transmitted by accident 5) Man made - transmitted by choice If you consider the detailed evidence needed to arrive at a conclusion of fact for the above, it becomes clear that evidence would only be available from the perpetrators for 3 - 4 - 5. Likelihood of a government, organisation or person holding up their hands to this 0%. That would indicate that reliable evidence does not exist for 3 - 4 - 5. This would leave options 1 & 2, but as mentioned above if a person was culpable to the release of Covid19, there would be an expectation of 0% admission, removing 2 -3- 4- 5. This leaves us with option 1. With all the best will in the world some things may never be known and others things will never be accepted as the truth. " kudos for that explanation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Covid19 is divisive. Origin: was it a natural virus or was it engineered. How did it find its way into the population? Was it transmitted naturally, was it an accidental transmission, or was it through means of transmission that was controlled? Possibilities: 1) Natural - transmitted naturally 2) Natural - transmitted by accident 3) Natural - transmitted by choice 4) Man made - transmitted by accident 5) Man made - transmitted by choice If you consider the detailed evidence needed to arrive at a conclusion of fact for the above, it becomes clear that evidence would only be available from the perpetrators for 3 - 4 - 5. Likelihood of a government, organisation or person holding up their hands to this 0%. That would indicate that reliable evidence does not exist for 3 - 4 - 5. This would leave options 1 & 2, but as mentioned above if a person was culpable to the release of Covid19, there would be an expectation of 0% admission, removing 2 -3- 4- 5. This leaves us with option 1. With all the best will in the world some things may never be known and others things will never be accepted as the truth. To add further... If you're mad enough to do 3 or 5..its not unreasonable that you might just create evidence to misdirect. And let's not forget whatever evidence may have existed originally has long since disappeared.. That old chain of custody concept. Seems to me its a debate about something that has no evidence compared to something that has no credible evidence...and choosing a side based on bias. " Yeah it does seem like some people are wedded to conspiracy and others wedded to not wanting to believe it could be anything other than natural with natural transmission. As I said way up above, there seems to be a need for seeing the world in black and white rather than accepting that most things in life are shades of grey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Covid19 is divisive. Origin: was it a natural virus or was it engineered. How did it find its way into the population? Was it transmitted naturally, was it an accidental transmission, or was it through means of transmission that was controlled? Possibilities: 1) Natural - transmitted naturally 2) Natural - transmitted by accident 3) Natural - transmitted by choice 4) Man made - transmitted by accident 5) Man made - transmitted by choice If you consider the detailed evidence needed to arrive at a conclusion of fact for the above, it becomes clear that evidence would only be available from the perpetrators for 3 - 4 - 5. Likelihood of a government, organisation or person holding up their hands to this 0%. That would indicate that reliable evidence does not exist for 3 - 4 - 5. This would leave options 1 & 2, but as mentioned above if a person was culpable to the release of Covid19, there would be an expectation of 0% admission, removing 2 -3- 4- 5. This leaves us with option 1. With all the best will in the world some things may never be known and others things will never be accepted as the truth. To add further... If you're mad enough to do 3 or 5..its not unreasonable that you might just create evidence to misdirect. And let's not forget whatever evidence may have existed originally has long since disappeared.. That old chain of custody concept. Seems to me its a debate about something that has no evidence compared to something that has no credible evidence...and choosing a side based on bias. Yeah it does seem like some people are wedded to conspiracy and others wedded to not wanting to believe it could be anything other than natural with natural transmission. As I said way up above, there seems to be a need for seeing the world in black and white rather than accepting that most things in life are shades of grey." Someone should write a book about that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Depop agenda, poison as many you can with a crisis then let nature take its course... Thinking that using an airborne virus as a weapon to depopulate the planet is a good idea scores really low. People who belive that have not thought it through. Winston Hard to target your enemies specifically *unscrews lid of highly contagious, uncontrollable, airborn, depopulation virus jar....... **immediately starts coughing. ***Begins to doubt wisdom of plan.
Winston " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Covid19 is divisive. Origin: was it a natural virus or was it engineered. How did it find its way into the population? Was it transmitted naturally, was it an accidental transmission, or was it through means of transmission that was controlled? Possibilities: 1) Natural - transmitted naturally 2) Natural - transmitted by accident 3) Natural - transmitted by choice 4) Man made - transmitted by accident 5) Man made - transmitted by choice If you consider the detailed evidence needed to arrive at a conclusion of fact for the above, it becomes clear that evidence would only be available from the perpetrators for 3 - 4 - 5. Likelihood of a government, organisation or person holding up their hands to this 0%. That would indicate that reliable evidence does not exist for 3 - 4 - 5. This would leave options 1 & 2, but as mentioned above if a person was culpable to the release of Covid19, there would be an expectation of 0% admission, removing 2 -3- 4- 5. This leaves us with option 1. With all the best will in the world some things may never be known and others things will never be accepted as the truth. To add further... If you're mad enough to do 3 or 5..its not unreasonable that you might just create evidence to misdirect. And let's not forget whatever evidence may have existed originally has long since disappeared.. That old chain of custody concept. Seems to me its a debate about something that has no evidence compared to something that has no credible evidence...and choosing a side based on bias. " I think at this point, it's most profitable for us to learn all that we can, from how we've managed this as a species, so that we have the stronger potential success, when we face the next pandemic. However it's passed to us, the natural world has many existing infections that could jump species. Human behaviour is uncaring about our impact on the wildlife habitats that we encroach into and how we affect other species for our own selfish gain. We'll be unlikely to need to wait long, before our callous disregard for the world gets to hit us. Perhaps we'll still be debating lab vs natural, when this arrives? Or use our energy more wisely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personal favourite source of information on COVID is by far Dr Michael Osterholm and his podcasts on YouTube. One can actually form his own opinion. I encourage everyone to go back to March 2019 (just before the very first lockdown, which was meant to be 14 days and ended up being 7 months...) Just my two cents... " I think he is too qualified for a lot of the folx here to get information from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@sophie.. You make an excellent point. I suppose we should also understand the money trail too. As that usually leads in the right direction. Which countries economies did the best from the experience? " Certainly the importance of financial gains are never best ignored. For the future though, there are very likely to be states that retain and develop readiness for the next pandemics better than others. In the west, we tend to be very good at short-termism, ignoring anything that doesn't give short-term gains. ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Personal favourite source of information on COVID is by far Dr Michael Osterholm and his podcasts on YouTube. One can actually form his own opinion. I encourage everyone to go back to March 2019 (just before the very first lockdown, which was meant to be 14 days and ended up being 7 months...) Just my two cents... " March 2020 surely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
