ADVERTISEMENT

Nebby Covid

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's an excellent article, which I linked months ago when it came out in one of the now deleted threads, and it features many of the same experts that the article I linked above does. Are you now moving off your position that, "It is now clear that this came from the Wuhan Lab. Does anyone dispute that anymore?" I hope so. None of what I posted or the info in these articles "proves" the lab leak theory is wrong (very hard to prove something couldn't have happened) and that there's a natural origin for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but the evidence makes it pretty clear that a natural origin is at least far more likely, scientifically.
I am less confident that's for sure. But at the same time, I struggle with the fact that Covid-19 broke out in Wuhan, where just by chance there happens to be a major lab that was, you guessed it, conducting virology research. Doesn't that raise some doubts in you? There is so much disinformation out there, it is hard to know what is true and it seems scientists have become more and more politically influenced than has been the historical norm. There was a sham investigation at the outset and any suggestion that it was a lab leak was taboo.

"An ongoing controversy over what constitutes virology research that is too dangerous to conduct—and whether the U.S government funded studies in China that violated a policy barring funding for such risky research—has taken a new turn. While denying once again it had helped create the virus that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed in a letter sent yesterday to Republicans in Congress that experiments it funded through a U.S.-based nonprofit in 2018 and 2019 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China had the “unexpected result” of creating a coronavirus that was more infectious in mice."

https://www.science.org/content/art...ment-wuhan-created-bat-virus-made-mice-sicker

Critics of NIH who claim the agency has lied about the work it funded at WIV pounced on the letter. Rutgers University, Piscataway, microbiologist Richard Ebright, a prominent critic of GOF research, commented in a tweet: “NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director [Francis] Collins and NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] Director [Anthony] Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.”
 
As you say, absolute proof of the origins of this virus is unlikely to be found. For me, while it may be academically interesting, it's not particularly relevant. Because even if we could prove it originated in a lab in China, or prove that it didn't, I'm not seeing how it will change anything at this point.

Beyond lots of political noise and possibly some relatively short-lived sanctions, nothing would come of the information. China's government doesn't care because they don't have an opposition party to get voted out of power over it. And we're not going to war over it.

We can't control what China does, we can only control what we do. So I'm much more concerned with what the US does to find a way to get ahead of the virus. And I'm more concerned with how we prepare for the next one.
Wait, you are not interested in the origins of the pandemic? I'd think scientists want to know to help prevent a similar outbreak, especially if it did come out of the lab. If it was lab based, no more cooperation on such research going forward. No war. But clarity. You are speculating that nothing would come out of the information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
because he is the 100% face of covid and the MSM has him as the poster boy to deliver your Covid information...and you are saying who care about him....rather odd
Anybody who forms firm conclusions based about something as complex as COVID-19 based solely on input from any one person, be it Fauci, or Wen, or even from any three such people, is not applying intelligence or even common-sense to the situation.

The same applies to anybody who reads just one or two research studies (or worse, just some highlighted excerpts from them) and reaches a firm conclusion.

Can we agree on that much? Can we agree that COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving, highly complex problem about which absolutist statements of certainty are unhelpful (in other words, can we acknowledge that as time passes, we will likely learn of many erroneous early conclusions by many people who were, nonetheless, trying to help)?

I bet you'd even agree that it sucks that 860K people have died from it, and that it would be really nice if, the next time a virus comes around, or a much more deadly variant emerges, we're far better prepared to address it before it becomes a socioeconomic crisis that also results in another few 100K unnecessary deaths.

If we can agree on that, and leave our Demonization for Dummies guide in the closet, then we could probably even have productive discussions about how, as a society, we can move forward together.

And isn't solving the problem better than blaming someone?
 
Anybody who forms firm conclusions based about something as complex as COVID-19 based solely on input from any one person, be it Fauci, or Wen, or even from any three such people, is not applying intelligence or even common-sense to the situation.

The same applies to anybody who reads just one or two research studies (or worse, just some highlighted excerpts from them) and reaches a firm conclusion.

Can we agree on that much? Can we agree that COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving, highly complex problem about which absolutist statements of certainty are unhelpful (in other words, can we acknowledge that as time passes, we will likely learn of many erroneous early conclusions by many people who were, nonetheless, trying to help)?

I bet you'd even agree that it sucks that 860K people have died from it, and that it would be really nice if, the next time a virus comes around, or a much more deadly variant emerges, we're far better prepared to address it before it becomes a socioeconomic crisis that also results in another few 100K unnecessary deaths.

If we can agree on that, and leave our Demonization for Dummies guide in the closet, then we could probably even have productive discussions about how, as a society, we can move forward together.

And isn't solving the problem better than blaming someone?


well this basically contradicts an earlier post you made but I agree with this
 
Wait, you are not interested in the origins of the pandemic? I'd think scientists want to know to help prevent a similar outbreak, especially if it did come out of the lab. If it was lab based, no more cooperation on such research going forward. No war. But clarity. You are speculating that nothing would come out of the information.
That's not what I said. I said it's academically interesting. But I tend to not focus much on stuff I (or in this case, we) cannot control.

And it was a hypothetical as I think our odds of deterministically identifying the cause are extremely slim. China might know, but they aren't telling. And, realistically, we (the rest of the world) cannot do anything about that. There are a ton of things the world would like China to do, or not do. The world hasn't done a great job in achieving most of that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scarlet83
Anybody who forms firm conclusions based about something as complex as COVID-19 based solely on input from any one person, be it Fauci, or Wen, or even from any three such people, is not applying intelligence or even common-sense to the situation.

The same applies to anybody who reads just one or two research studies (or worse, just some highlighted excerpts from them) and reaches a firm conclusion.

Can we agree on that much? Can we agree that COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving, highly complex problem about which absolutist statements of certainty are unhelpful (in other words, can we acknowledge that as time passes, we will likely learn of many erroneous early conclusions by many people who were, nonetheless, trying to help)?

I bet you'd even agree that it sucks that 860K people have died from it, and that it would be really nice if, the next time a virus comes around, or a much more deadly variant emerges, we're far better prepared to address it before it becomes a socioeconomic crisis that also results in another few 100K unnecessary deaths.

If we can agree on that, and leave our Demonization for Dummies guide in the closet, then we could probably even have productive discussions about how, as a society, we can move forward together.

And isn't solving the problem better than blaming someone?
Where was this in 2020? 🤔
 
Unless they’re sick, yes.

It makes ZERO sense that Minnesota is practicing today, but if test results are positive they can’t play. If they’re able to prepare and practice, they are able to play
Ugh. Another reason why we can’t go back to normal. No one wants to be responsible adults. Let’s have some super spreader events for the players. There are many people who are immunocompromised and you would just have them all killed off to you don’t have to wear a mask. I have multiple family members that fall into that classification so I guess I actually give a damn.
 
My own unscientific opinion
Seems like those who have lied about masks effectiveness ( making a little protection for those around the wearer an act of stupity ) look like something bad the person wearing mask is doing and claim the vax is unsafe has help spreed the virus and made the death count higher than is should have been and then claim the virus being spread like wildfire all accross our nation and the number of people that have been hospitalized and/or died is proof that the mask and shot don't work.

Nothing like being part of the problem happening , then making the solution into a problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarlet83 and fsg2
Isn't it interesting that we are told that China is our enemy but we were funding research, which appears to be Gain of Function(Which apparently Fauci lied about) in a Chinese lab in Wuhan? Anybody ever ask this question why we are funding this type of research in a country that steals a ton of their technology?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
well this basically contradicts an earlier post you made but I agree with this
That has always been my preferred approach (to everything) when discussing stuff with people. I'm moderate and not playing for anybody's team. I have no agenda and don't care about the politics of it all.

OTOH, if people want to drag the discussion into the gutter, that's my happy place and I'm (obviously) always willing to roll around in the gutter be childish and counter-troll. But I'm just fed up with the gutter-level conversation about COVID on the forum is all. COVID is bad enough without all the manufactured divisiveness about it.

As for sporting event postponements and cancellations, I just haven't seen nearly enough data to reach any firm conclusions. I don't know if they (the postponements) make any sense, or some sense, or no sense at all. The "math" on it is extremely complicated due to the number of variables involved.

I've read a ton of opinions, which are all based on partial evidence. But have seen no direct evidence that doesn't a ton of potentially invalid speculation.

Keep in mind that not every indoor arena has the same airflow characteristics. The correct answer for one arena may not suffice for another. For example, if an arena is designed strongly pull air upwards and towards the center of the structure, and then out of the structure, that would obviously be a vastly different model to consider than one with no such strongly directed airflow. Not all arenas do that, and any that do will have different degrees of success. But if an arena does do that, it's likely it can get by with far less stringent anti-COVID measures - or no measures at all.

And that's just one of dozens of variables in question about the risks of cramming a bunch of people into an indoor facility during peak transmission times of a pandemic. The dangerousness of the currently active variant is another factor. Types of mask mandates, vaccine mandates, enforcement of mandates, emergence of new variants, ICU vacancy, temperature inside the arena, air pressure inside the structure, and all kinds of other stuff are all part of the equation.

It's so complicated that what appears to be happening is that, in the absence of deterministic data, organizations are forced to speculate. Some will err on the side of caution. Some throw caution to the wind for which there's strong financial motivation to do so.

I'm like everybody else in that I really wish this COVID shit would dry up and go away. It won't. But I wish it would.
 
Isn't it interesting that we are told that China is our enemy but we were funding research, which appears to be Gain of Function(Which apparently Fauci lied about) in a Chinese lab in Wuhan? Anybody ever ask this question why we are funding this type of research in a country that steals a ton of their technology?
China is our enemy? It's a lot more complicated than that.
 
fauci-home-office-comp-1.jpg
Are you implying that if you have a painting of yourself, you are an egomaniac who does not deserve to be listened to? What if that painting also has Jesus Christ just over your shoulder with his hand resting on your shoulder and the other one presenting you to the world as if you were his return?

You know, like Ben Carson does.
 
China is our enemy? It's a lot more complicated than that.
China and Russia are considered our two biggest enemies when it comes to war. If they are why would we be funding this type of potentially dangerous research with them. I find it odd.
 
Where was this in 2020? 🤔
You mean early in the pandemic? I held the exact same opinions then as I do now. The same level of skepticism about everybody's favorite highly speculative theories.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "this". I wasn't downplaying the dangerousness of COVID then and I'm not now. I've been consistent with my moderate positions on COVID from the start, I think.

If we were discussing this on a CE forum, I'd have more to say about how it's being handled by our leadership (which wasn't good enough then and still isn't good enough now, IMO). But I avoid politics outside such forums, and I was getting sick of those conversations back in 2018 or so, had stopped participating as ton until the period leading just prior to the election (where I temporarily hosted a CE forum when the one here shut down), and then stopped again a few months after the election when this one reopened (thankfully).

And I largely only participated just to troll trolls and generally make fun of the politically obsessed, which was great and addictive fun for awhile (it's impossible to lose on the internet when you don't care about the subject matter). But eventually it got old (back in 2018 or so).
 
Are you implying that if you have a painting of yourself, you are an egomaniac who does not deserve to be listened to? What if that painting also has Jesus Christ just over your shoulder? You know, like Ben Carson does.
Ben Carson doesn't think he is Jesus Christ.

Fauci thinks he is God.
 
I have no idea what this means. Do you mean they would be the most dangerous if we ended up in a war with them?
My original post was asking why would we do potentially dangerous research with our supposed enemy? What don't you understand. Should we be doing this gain of function research with Iran and Russia too? Why would you share research like this with your enemy?
You're a weird dude.
Oh, yeah. Anthony I AM SCIENCE Fauci, seems to think pretty damn highly of himself.
 
My original post was asking why would we do potentially dangerous research with our supposed enemy? What don't you understand. Should we be doing this gain of function research with Iran and Russia too? Why would you share research like this with your enemy?
I don't understand what "our two biggest enemies when it comes to war" means. I speculated that you meant they would be the most dangerous adversaries in case of war, but you haven't clarified.

I think that calling China our enemy is a bit of an exaggeration, or at least an oversimplification.
Oh, yeah. Anthony I AM SCIENCE Fauci, seems to think pretty damn highly of himself.
Okay?
 
This is very sad.

Any thread about COVID on this forum turns to pure shit almost instantly. Science is mocked. Nuance is mocked. Medical professionals in our community are mocked. Discussions at any level of detail below a tweeted meme is mocked. Misinformation is worshiped. Trolling is applauded.

Facts supporting a position are cherry-picked while facts unsupportive of that position are denied, intentionally misstated and mocked. And the people doing this actually believe they sound intelligent.

Currently 860,000 dead. A total nothing-burger, amirite? Obviously it's vastly more important who we blame than working together to save lives and prevent even more deadly variants.

There's absolutely no point in trying to discuss COVID on this forum.

At this point, I think every single post or thread that even hints about COVID should be deleted and anybody participating should be banned for a week.
Everything about this is right except the last sentence.
 
I don't understand what "our two biggest enemies when it comes to war" means. I speculated that you meant they would be the most dangerous adversaries in case of war, but you haven't clarified.

I think that calling China our enemy is a bit of an exaggeration, or at least an oversimplification.

Okay?
Yes. They would be our most dangerous adversaries in case of war.
 
again YOU and MSM and FAUCI and his crew INABILITY to ADMIT you got ANYTHING WRONG, is why this country distrust science and msm but you keep plugging away. I am telling you this to help you understand, but instead you keep doubling down on just saying science is changing, all the while there is real evidence of blatant hypocrisy and lies
If you think that's why millions don't trust the media and science you are more willfully ignorant than I thought.

Millions dont trust them because the previous president told millions not to trust them for several years

God forbid doctors and scientists were wrong as we learned new things...thats how it works and we as society improve
 
I have no idea what this means. Do you mean they would be the most dangerous if we ended up in a war with them?
This is all getting way off-topic, and CE board-esque. But I think, as nations go, North Korea is the most dangerous realistic threat to us and to the entire world. They have a unpredictable psychotic firmly in control with nuclear capability and the means to deliver it. And he's operating from an irrational playbook nobody understands.

Most other nations, including China, Russia, and Iran, operate from a predictable understanding of the risks inherent to certain behaviors. And while they are happy to flout the international community on a whole range of things we view as bad or even evil at times, they are still operating within a framework in which they will act to avoid nuclear war (or worse). They each understand that pushing the United States too far could easily result in a nuclear exchange (or worse).

Whereas it's very difficult to feel confident in knowing what North Korea might do at any given time. Their leader gives every indication of not GAF if we lob nuclear missiles at his nation, even in a retaliatory strike. Or perhaps he thinks we wouldn't do it because of China (which is false). It's actually very hard to say because, again, he's very obviously psychotic. For sure he doesn't care about his people. I think the only thing holding him back from launching weapons at South Korea or in our direction is that, while he'd survive personally, his status, his power would evaporate. Not any concern for his people.

And that cannot be said of any of our other perceived nation-state enemies. Only terrorists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluoxetine
Are you implying that if you have a painting of yourself, you are an egomaniac who does not deserve to be listened to? What if that painting also has Jesus Christ just over your shoulder with his hand resting on your shoulder and the other one presenting you to the world as if you were his return?

You know, like Ben Carson does.

Ben Carson isnt leading our covid response

Nice whataboutism
 
Fauci spent thirty years serving America, often through turbulent times. Carson spent thirty thousand buying a table for his office and then blamed it on his wife.

You can pick whom you think is a hero.
I don't view either one as a hero. I think both had distinguished medical careers predating their more (in)famous Washington-based time. I think both are extremely intelligent. Their early work, Fauci with HIV and Carson in pediatric neurosurgery, saved and/or improved lives. Which is very commendable.

It would be fair to say Fauci's research positively affected many more lives than Carson's, if one feels it necessary to quantify things. And because both are imperfect humans, I suspect both have various blots on their histories (known and unknown) just like the rest of us.

Impressive, sure. But heroes? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
If you think that's why millions don't trust the media and science you are more willfully ignorant than I thought.

Millions dont trust them because the previous president told millions not to trust them for several years

God forbid doctors and scientists were wrong as we learned new things...thats how it works and we as society improve

They never admitted they got things wrong

Nice revisionist history as Trump let Fauci and cdc dictate pur public policy..odd post there

Trump listened to many of them too much

When you are dealing with the general public humility goes along way
 
  • Haha
Reactions: fsg2
This is very sad.

Any thread about COVID on this forum turns to pure shit almost instantly. Science is mocked. Nuance is mocked. Medical professionals in our community are mocked. Discussions at any level of detail below a tweeted meme is mocked. Misinformation is worshiped. Trolling is applauded.

Facts supporting a position are cherry-picked while facts unsupportive of that position are denied, intentionally misstated and mocked. And the people doing this actually believe they sound intelligent.

Currently 860,000 dead. A total nothing-burger, amirite? Obviously it's vastly more important who we blame than working together to save lives and prevent even more deadly variants.

There's absolutely no point in trying to discuss COVID on this forum.

At this point, I think every single post or thread that even hints about COVID should be deleted and anybody participating should be banned for a week.
Science is not mocked. What is mocked are the self-righteous table-pounding twits who say they are science or their science is the correct science. In order to mock science, it must be properly defined. It certainly is not Fauci, who has actually said that he is science. It certainly is not what is pushed by the government, or for that matter, any one group of people with a unified point of view. Science is rarely settled.

What gets mocked is people proclaiming that their version or view of science is science, and dissenting views are not science and the stuff of conspiracy theorists or non-scientists. Merriam Webster defines science as "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation."

So, taking that definition into account, any reasonable person should be comfortable with the notion that the "science" of Covid-19 is not "there" yet because there is not enough data around such topics as covid-induced immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity, although there is very powerful evidence that covid-induced immunity may offer the same or better protection over vaccine-induced immunity, but that is not settled.

Governments worldwide, including the US, have become scarily authoritarian and dogmatic when the science is not settled.

In this regard, golly ain't those vaccines fantastic. Maybe the 10th booster will be the charm--and yeah, we know vaccines significantly reduce severe symptoms and death. But this is a real head scratcher. Science-on, everyone.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
You can't argue with these guys on this. Fauci is the current target of the 2 mins of hate. Facts don't matter.
Sure they do. And he can't argue with this guy. My entire working life has been in science. Fauci deserves all the ridicule he gets because the facts do matter when it comes to his record and his arrogance. See how that works?
 
Well, RU confirmed today that it will be back to "normal" classes and campus activities on 1/31, which makes sense given the rapid decline in cases and soon to be rapid decline in hospitalizations. Still optimistic this is the last big wave, as per my long post above...

https://coronavirus.rutgers.edu/ret...paign=rutgerstoday&utm_content=Administration
Not busting your stones, but didn't you have a whole thread a year ago (maybe less) about the Covid endgame? This is more difficult than predicting the weather. Sure hope our dopey CDC director does not continue to follow the lead of Israel. Golly, it took her long enough to catch on about N95 masks, and even then, she still muddles the message and discourages wearing of N95s.
 
Science is not mocked. What is mocked are the self-righteous table-pounding twits who say they are science or their science is the correct science. In order to mock science, it must be properly defined. It certainly is not Fauci, who has actually said that he is science. It certainly is not what is pushed by the government, or for that matter, any one group of people with a unified point of view. Science is rarely settled.

What gets mocked is people proclaiming that their version or view of science is science, and dissenting views are not science and the stuff of conspiracy theorists or non-scientists. Merriam Webster defines science as "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation."

So, taking that definition into account, any reasonable person should be comfortable with the notion that the "science" of Covid-19 is not "there" yet because there is not enough data around such topics as covid-induced immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity, although there is very powerful evidence that covid-induced immunity may offer the same or better protection over vaccine-induced immunity, but that is not settled.

Governments worldwide, including the US, have become scarily authoritarian and dogmatic when the science is not settled.

In this regard, golly ain't those vaccines fantastic. Maybe the 10th booster will be the charm--and yeah, we know vaccines significantly reduce severe symptoms and death. But this is a real head scratcher. Science-on, everyone.


You are a treasure in these threads. Level headed and not politically biased either way

Follow the science is such a dirty term because science is never settled. THEY just want you to follow THEIR science without question

We needed to have public debates on covid..we sort of did with Trump but it turned into pissing matches because the MSM wanted to play gotcha with Trump
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT