Coronavirus: Already In a Neighborhood Near You

[Tiger337]

46 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

There is apparently enough evidence to lean towards likely, where just until recently all the top experts either said everything pointed to natural or simply avoided the question.  

Did Fauci actually say it was absurd to think the lab leak was an option...no, he was very careful in how he said stuff.  But up until recently he would blow off the question, discuss how natural transmission happens, or 'own' Rand Paul instead of giving us his honest opinion, which again, we know now based on his initial emails that his first thought was lab leak, which counters everything he pushed towards the media. 

Scientists are not supposed to report their own opinion.  Their job is to throroughly look at all the evidence and make conclusions based on that.  A scientist reporting his own opinion would give the appearance that his research was biased and make it difficult to trust him.  It's not his job to state personal opinions.   

[Edman85]

There are so many factors that it is tough to get a mathematical number on how effective things are. Good luck isolating variables, so that leads to bad faith actors twisting data how they want.

Let's say you went out into public in 2020. Your chances of catching COVID were dependent upon...

-Amount of people you came into contact with

-How long you came into contact with those people

-How close you were to those people

-Whether those people were masked

-Whether you were masked

-Was it indoors or outdoors

-What was the humidity/temperature indoors or outdoors

-How strong is your immune system?

-How was the ventilation?

 

Good luck isolating all the variables you need, and that's only a fraction of them.

 

[pfife]

Uncle rob proved masks work years ago

 

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

There is apparently enough evidence to lean towards likely, where just until recently all the top experts either said everything pointed to natural or simply avoided the question.  

Did Fauci actually say it was absurd to think the lab leak was an option...no, he was very careful in how he said stuff.  But up until recently he would blow off the question, discuss how natural transmission happens, or 'own' Rand Paul instead of giving us his honest opinion, which again, we know now based on his initial emails that his first thought was lab leak, which counters everything he pushed towards the media. 

One of the reasons there were a lot people that changed their mind early on was that certain sequences in the virus were the same as some lab sequences - that intitally seemed to be good evidence for a lab origin hypothesis. But then as more data came in, those sequences were found in other wild types, which kicked the legs out of that one and other factors not so favorable to lab origin gained greater weight.  So there have been a lot of people whose ideas have gone back and forth as data evolved. That is how Science is supposed to work after all - best theory to fit the data as we know it today - and maybe tomorrow that is different. But the sample gathering ended some time ago and these various intelligence forays are mostly reprocessing the same old data as opposed to being able to add to it. That can be useful but clearly their need to qualify their own conclusions as 'weak' means nobody found any smoking guns.

in the end, whether the virus jumped from a live animal or a petri dish has political implications but not really scientific ones. Virus research isn't going to/can't stop. And if the virus jumped in a lab it's only because risks that were already well understood weren't properly addressed. If that can be shown to have happened that's good for supporting better enforcement of reseach protocols, but it's not new science.

Edited February 27, 2023 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

28 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

One of the reasons there were a lot people that changed their mind early on was that certain sequences in the virus were the same as some lab sequences - that intitally seemed to be good evidence for a lab origin hypothesis. But then as more data came in, those sequences were found in other wild types, which kicked the legs out of that one and other factors not so favorable to lab origin gained greater weight.  So there have been a lot of people whose ideas have gone back and forth as data evolved. That is how Science is supposed to work after all - best theory to fit the data as we know it today - and maybe tomorrow that is different. But the sample gathering ended some time ago and these various intelligence forays are mostly reprocessing the same old data as opposed to being able to add to it. That can be useful but clearly their need to qualify their own conclusions as 'weak' means nobody found any smoking guns.

in the end, whether the virus jumped from a live animal or a petri dish has political implications but not really scientific ones. Virus research isn't going to/can't stop. And if the virus jumped in a lab it's only because risks that were already well understood weren't properly addressed. If that can be shown to have happened that's good for supporting better enforcement of reseach protocols, but it's not new science.

Politicians and their pundit friends are incapable of changing minds.  That's a sign of weakness and worse, a conspiracy.  No, you must plant your feed on a side and stay there at all costs.

 

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Politicians lack the ability to undersrtand nuance and scientific thought.  They have no qualms about lying and stating things as fact that aren't truth.  A scientist will not tell you the sun will come up tomorrrow because it is possible the earth will stop rotating and we'll all die.  So when a scientist says they don't know or aren't sure or the evidence isn't conclusive... well that shit don't fly in campaign commercials and ol' Gymbo and "Dr" Paul can't grandstand and mug for the camera and the half wit media commentators on the right play it up and their gullible followers eat it up. 

 

 

I think some of them understand nuance and scientific thought, but it's of no use to them.   

[smr-nj]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Ol' Gym thinks he has got you covered:

 

 

So Dr. Fauci and family deserve all those death threats because he MUST have some ulterior motive! 
Thank GOD this MENACE to good people is out ! But let’s not let him off the hook because 4 decades of work means nothing because he MUST be hiding all kinds of nefarious shit.  
 

He still has people gunning for him.

Good lord.  

[Tiger337]

LOL at Jim jordan questioning the honesty of everyone.  

[Motown Bombers]

Fauci spent 50 years building towards making everyone wear a mask for a year. It was all part of his plan. 

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Scientists are not supposed to report their own opinion.  Their job is to throroughly look at all the evidence and make conclusions based on that.  A scientist reporting his own opinion would give the appearance that his research was biased and make it difficult to trust him.  It's not his job to state personal opinions.   

Fauci had no problem selling the natural origins story days after knowing scientists had pointed out, what they thought at the time, was a likely lab origin.  

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

One of the reasons there were a lot people that changed their mind early on was that certain sequences in the virus were the same as some lab sequences - that intitally seemed to be good evidence for a lab origin hypothesis. But then as more data came in, those sequences were found in other wild types, which kicked the legs out of that one and other factors not so favorable to lab origin gained greater weight.  So there have been a lot of people whose ideas have gone back and forth as data evolved. That is how Science is supposed to work after all - best theory to fit the data as we know it today - and maybe tomorrow that is different. But the sample gathering ended some time ago and these various intelligence forays are mostly reprocessing the same old data as opposed to being able to add to it. That can be useful but clearly their need to qualify their own conclusions as 'weak' means nobody found any smoking guns.

The similar finds in nature took awhile to come out, not days.  I will admit things could have changed, but there is no public information that gives a reason why Fauci sits on a conference call where scientist identify how it makes sense it was of lab origin in Wuhan and then day's later he's pointing to The Lancet article which admonishes 'conspiracy theorists'.  And if you want to take Fauci on his current word, he claims he was always open to both natural and lab origins, but again, that's not what he was saying publicly early on and for quite a while after.

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

in the end, whether the virus jumped from a live animal or a petri dish has political implications but not really scientific ones. Virus research isn't going to/can't stop. And if the virus jumped in a lab it's only because risks that were already well understood weren't properly addressed. If that can be shown to have happened that's good for supporting better enforcement of reseach protocols, but it's not new science.

If that can be shown, that would be a good thing.  But if the experts convince everyone not to look there, maybe it's never shown.  I guess we can hope if it was lab leak, internally they decide to do something different in the future.  There certainly is an argument I'd be willing to accept where our virus research experts would work to correct that better than government oversight could do.

[Tiger337]

eh, he said, she said...Fauci is by far the public figure I have trusted the must throughout the pandemic (not that he has much competition). People change their mind when they learn things.  They sometimes say different things according to the sophistication of the audience.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by Tiger337

[oblong]

18 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Fauci had no problem selling the natural origins story days after knowing scientists had pointed out, what they thought at the time, was a likely lab origin.  

The similar finds in nature took awhile to come out, not days.  I will admit things could have changed, but there is no public information that gives a reason why Fauci sits on a conference call where scientist identify how it makes sense it was of lab origin in Wuhan and then day's later he's pointing to The Lancet article which admonishes 'conspiracy theorists'.  And if you want to take Fauci on his current word, he claims he was always open to both natural and lab origins, but again, that's not what he was saying publicly early on and for quite a while after.

If that can be shown, that would be a good thing.  But if the experts convince everyone not to look there, maybe it's never shown.  I guess we can hope if it was lab leak, internally they decide to do something different in the future.  There certainly is an argument I'd be willing to accept where our virus research experts would work to correct that better than government oversight could do.

Your problem in all of this is that you take cautious statements and attribute them as someone stating a fact. Fauci never said it didn’t come from a lab and that it’s absurd to think that.  You keep referencing it but have yet to produce a single item showing he ever said that. 

[pfife]

On NPR they had Michael Olsterholm on and he said there's data suggesting lab AND data suggesting nature.  

[pfife]

LOL at comparing a peer review journal to a conference call.   Lost cause bros 

[smr-nj]

22 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

People change their mind when they learn things.  

Yes. SCIENTISTS would be one of those people. lol.

Wouldn’t a reasonable person WANT that?

[ewsieg]

22 minutes ago, oblong said:

Your problem in all of this is that you take cautious statements and attribute them as someone stating a fact. Fauci never said it didn’t come from a lab and that it’s absurd to think that.  You keep referencing it but have yet to produce a single item showing he ever said that. 

How can you explain how a majority of people, that coincidently lean left, somehow felt the lab leak was a conspiracy theory for so long.  As I mentioned, Fauci was very careful of how he worded it and I'm confident he was happy with how the media took it.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd

Quote

If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what's out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,” Fauci says. Based on the scientific evidence, he also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory—that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped.

Notice his alternate theory, how specific he is which allows him to say he doesn't entertain it.  You're the one that talked about who has the motive, yet you don't see the motive that both Daszek and Fauci had in not having everyone come down on them (NIH and Ecohealth).  My guess is because at the time, Fauci, who I truly believe has committed his life to improve the science in these subjects, wanted to focus on keeping our nation and the world as prepared as possible in dealing with something that couldn't be taken back. I don't think he's an evil man, I don't think he did anything illegal, I do think he legally circumvented rules put in place by the Obama administration and just like the FBI, Dept of Energy and now 4 different US Intelligence agencies, I think the evidence points to a lab leak.

Also, at one point the argument was that China is stonewalling and we'll never know.  Do you think China stopped stonewalling?  Or is it possible that Fauci knew some of the same information that flipped the thoughts on these US agencies when they saw it too? 

[oblong]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

How can you explain how a majority of people, that coincidently lean left, somehow felt the lab leak was a conspiracy theory for so long.  As I mentioned, Fauci was very careful of how he worded it and I'm confident he was happy with how the media took it.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd

Notice his alternate theory, how specific he is which allows him to say he doesn't entertain it.  You're the one that talked about who has the motive, yet you don't see the motive that both Daszek and Fauci had in not having everyone come down on them (NIH and Ecohealth).  My guess is because at the time, Fauci, who I truly believe has committed his life to improve the science in these subjects, wanted to focus on keeping our nation and the world as prepared as possible in dealing with something that couldn't be taken back. I don't think he's an evil man, I don't think he did anything illegal, I do think he legally circumvented rules put in place by the Obama administration and just like the FBI, Dept of Energy and now 4 different US Intelligence agencies, I think the evidence points to a lab leak.

Also, at one point the argument was that China is stonewalling and we'll never know.  Do you think China stopped stonewalling?  Or is it possible that Fauci knew some of the same information that flipped the thoughts on these US agencies when they saw it too? 

So you agree with it’s what I said.  Thanks.  He didn’t say it didn’t come from a lab. 

now get all your righty friends off Fauci’s back so he doesn’t need 24 hour security detail.  
 

[Tiger337]

Did lefties think the lab leak was a conspiracy theory or did they think a lab leak engineered together by the Democrats, Fauci and China to take down Donald Trump was a conspiracy theory?  

[ewsieg]

25 minutes ago, pfife said:

LOL at comparing a peer review journal to a conference call.   Lost cause bros 

The call occurred on 2/1, then the follow up.

https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/

 

Quote

 

On February 2, for instance, the scientists and health officials sent a series of emails explaining their views on the virus’s features and its possible origin. The possibility that the virus emerged from a lab release was top of mind for some of the scientists. In one email to Fauci, Collins, and another NIH official, Farrar wrote, “On a spectrum if 0 is nature and 100 is release—I am honestly at 50!”

Farrar then summarized the perspectives of several other scientists, including Michael Farzan, of UF Scripps Institute. Farzan, Farrar wrote, was particularly puzzled by the presence in the virus’s genome of a furin cleavage site, which is a feature that has not been found in other SARS-related coronaviruses. The furin cleavage site plays an important role in helping the virus infect human airway cells. Farzan was “bothered by the furin site and has a hard time explaining that as an event outside the lab (though, there are possible ways in nature, but highly unlikely).” On the question of whether the virus had a natural origin or came from some sort of accidental lab release, Farrar reported that Farzan was “70:30” or “60:40” in favor of an “accidental-release” explanation and that “Bob” — an apparent reference to Robert Garry — was also surprised by the presence of a furin cleavage site in this virus. Farrar quoted Bob saying: “I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature. … it’s stunning.”

Several other scientists, including the Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier, offered very different perspectives. In a lengthy February 2 email, Fouchier wrote, “It is my opinion that a non-natural origin of [the virus] is highly unlikely at present. Any conspiracy theory can be approached with factual information. I have written down some of the counter-arguments.” Among other things, he explained that a “natural origin of the furin site is certainly not impossible.” He also warned his colleagues that further debate about the “accusation” that SARS-CoV-2 may have been engineered and released into the environment by humans “would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.” He expressed doubt that a follow-up discussion about the origin question “needs to be done on very short term,” given other pressing issues.

Throughout these exchanges, the scientists and health officials showed keen awareness of the growing public interest in and social media discussion about the question of Covid-19’s origin.

“I agree that we really cannot take Ron’s suggestion about waiting,” Fauci wrote on February 2. “Like all of us, I do not know how this evolved, but given the concerns of so many people and the threat of further distortions on social media, it is essential that we move quickly.”

“Hopefully we can get [the World Health Organization] to convene,” he added. Fauci, Farrar, and Collins had decided to alert top WHO brass to the concerns about the origin of the virus and ask the organization to convene a group to explore the matter. WHO apparently declined to do so at the time.

“Critical that responsible, respected scientists and agencies get ahead of the science and the narrative of this and are not reacting to reports which could be very damaging,” Farrar wrote that same day.

By February 4, after a brief period of debate and data collection, Edward Holmes and some of the other scientists involved in the calls and emails had written up a rough summary of their deliberations. “It’s fundamental science and completely neutral as written,” he explained in an email. “Did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons.”

 

Soon after, we see the pushback

https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-strongly-condemn-rumors-and-conspiracy-theories-about-origin-coronavirus

Quote

"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin," says The Lancet statement, which praises the work of Chinese health professionals as "remarkable" and encourages others to sign on as well.

 

[ewsieg]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Did lefties think the lab leak was a conspiracy theory or did they think a lab leak engineered together by the Democrats, Fauci and China to take down Donald Trump was a conspiracy theory?  

@Hongbit, when people said 'lab leak' to you, did you think that was the conspiracy theory, or did you believe it absolutely could have come out of the lab, but the conspiracy portion was that Fauci and China were taking down China?

[pfife]

Now hongbit is a lefty.   This shit keeps getting more hilarious

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

On NPR they had Michael Olsterholm on and he said there's data suggesting lab AND data suggesting nature.  

So when the virus 1st hit, it seemed to me the circumstantial evidence was strong that this was something that got loose from the Wuhan lab. You look at what they were working on, the proximity, the way the Chinese closed ranks. But as the more detailed scientific info started appearing the majority of the US epidemiological establish became skeptical of the lab leak hypothesis (as we all know) and from what I read their reasoning - based mostly on genetic signatures, appeared sound based on what was known. Then I pretty much stopped paying attention to the question because, in the end, the answer isn't relevant to my life.

On the evidentiary side, the Chinese killed further productive investigation so you still have the 'obvious' circumstantial evidence vs the various scientific caveats arguing there are reasons to be skeptical of the 'easy' circumstance based conclusions. But it's a fundamentally un-productive argument when the possibility of resolving it has been foreclosed. In Philosophy 101 the Prof always harped on not arguing non-verifiable propositions. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Hongbit]

23 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

@Hongbit, when people said 'lab leak' to you, did you think that was the conspiracy theory, or did you believe it absolutely could have come out of the lab, but the conspiracy portion was that Fauci and China were taking down China?

My views have changed greatly from this post.  

While the radical right in America wants to blame Jews for stealing all the gold, the Chinese feel very much the same way about Leprechauns.  It’s one of the big reasons that St. Patrick’s Day is not celebrated in China and Colin Ferrell is no longer allowed in the country.  

Knowing this information, I believe the Chinese were trying to find a way to kill all the Leprechauns and that’s why they developed the virus in a lab in Wuhan.   Unfortunately, as has been happening for centuries, humans continue to underestimate the amazing craftiness of the Leprechaun.    The test subject the Chinese thought they caught was actually playing possum and ended up destroying the lab and in turn releasing the virus on the world.  

They should’ve followed the Ancient Chinese proverb.    The more you fuck around with Leprechauns, the more you will find out.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by Hongbit

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

But as the more detailed scientific info started appearing the majority of the US epidemiological establish became skeptical of the lab leak hypothesis (as we all know) and from what I read their reasoning - based mostly on genetic signatures, appeared sound based on what was known. Then I pretty much stopped paying attention to the question because, in the end, the answer isn't relevant to my life.

This is exactly my point.  They got exactly what they wanted by manipulating the media.  As I provided above, that Lancet article was put out to push this as a natural origin even as most involved seemed to think the Lab leak theory was viable and even a few thinking it was likely.  For those that are now saying 'show me where Fauci said the lab leak theory was not an option', you damn well know how he spoke and what was pushed to the media.  If you said lab leak, you were the reason why St. Patty's day isn't celebrated in China.  

 

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

They got exactly what they wanted by manipulating the media. 

I'm not sure who wanted what. There is no motive for numbers of independent academics and docs around the country to have a particular agenda on this. There just isn't. The medico/scientific community were arguing from the data they saw. Now lots of outside people had agendas and pushed them for lots of reasons, but it's pure projection for the politically motivated folks to argue the science people were working from the same kind of agenda's they do. When academic people argue with each other in their break rooms they  argue over data. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by gehringer_2