Covid Thread | Pandemic started Five Years Ago

[superrific]

I still fail to understand how anyone can point to any findings and feel definitive about the source of COVID. So far as I know, no study or investigation has pointed with a high level of confidence to the source of the virus. That includes this latest CIA finding. The very fact that some are so willing to state definitively that they know where COVID came from based on the findings that are out there tells me that they aren't really to be taken seriously on the subject.

Moreover, I'm not sure why it really matters what the source is. We all know that there are awful things being created and researched in labs and we all know that there are scary viruses working their way through the ecosystem around us. Either way, the focus of COVID studies in my opinion should be directed at how we can better be unified and respond in a responsible manner rather than acting like bratty 3 year olds with all the answers.

It matters because of what Tom Cotton said quoted at the bottom of that article: "We must make China pay for the epidemic they unleashed on the world." That's why it matters.

Have you read any papers by virologists about the origins of COVID? If not, then maybe you should sit this one out. Nobody knows 100%, but there is a strong consensus among experts that the virus is very likely to have been of zoonotic origin, transmitted from bats to humans by means of one or more intermediaries.

Moreover, even if we don't know with confidence where it came from, that's not an excuse for indulging wild flights of fancy. If there was any evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, I would be open to it. But there is not. It is not a theory with any factual basis. That's not my opinion; again, that's the opinion of the people who have looked into it. Meanwhile, there are many obvious weaknesses in that theory, including the fact that the lab is quite far from the market and for the virus to have gotten from lab to market, it would have had to skip over the homes of a million people or so, not infecting them. Then it would have had to mix around the market for a while, not infecting anyone outside the market.

 

[superrific]

You’ve been so mad for years now about the lab leak lol. Weird how willing you are to die on that hill.

I'm not dying on any hill. My position is the one supported by the vast majority of scientific experts in the field. I don't give a fuck what Trump's CIA has to say. They are all liars, AND they don't know shit about this topic.

 

[wmheel1287]

It matters because of what Tom Cotton said quoted at the bottom of that article: "We must make China pay for the epidemic they unleashed on the world." That's why it matters.

Have you read any papers by virologists about the origins of COVID? If not, then maybe you should sit this one out. Nobody knows 100%, but there is a strong consensus among experts that the virus is very likely to have been of zoonotic origin, transmitted from bats to humans by means of one or more intermediaries.

Moreover, even if we don't know with confidence where it came from, that's not an excuse for indulging wild flights of fancy. If there was any evidence for the lab leak hypothesis, I would be open to it. But there is not. It is not a theory with any factual basis. That's not my opinion; again, that's the opinion of the people who have looked into it. Meanwhile, there are many obvious weaknesses in that theory, including the fact that the lab is quite far from the market and for the virus to have gotten from lab to market, it would have had to skip over the homes of a million people or so, not infecting them. Then it would have had to mix around the market for a while, not infecting anyone outside the market.

Maybe you should recognize that your place in the world is not determining who should and should not sit anything out. I never said I didn't have a leaning one way or the other on the origin of the virus. I said that nobody is going to be able to give an answer with a high level of confidence. I have looked at the evidence and if I am betting, I'm betting on natural origins. But that doesn't mean it's anything close to certain.

Furthermore, Tom Cotton is a fucking moron and is going to say the same things no matter what evidence there is or is not so I still do not see any point whatsoever in the discussion of the origin of the virus. It's just a pissing match used for red meat fodder.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

I know a virologist.....their conclusions are highly influenced by whomever is backing their research.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Maybe you should recognize that your place in the world is not determining who should and should not sit anything out. I never said I didn't have a leaning one way or the other on the origin of the virus. I said that nobody is going to be able to give an answer with a high level of confidence. I have looked at the evidence and if I am betting, I'm betting on natural origins. But that doesn't mean it's anything close to certain.

Furthermore, Tom Cotton is a fucking moron and is going to say the same things no matter what evidence there is or is not so I still do not see any point whatsoever in the discussion of the origin of the virus. It's just a pissing match used for red meat fodder.

And to be clear, this most recent CIA report as well as an earlier report from the Department of Energy, expressed "low confidence," that the report was accurate. In other words, there are two plausible explanations, and they didn't know which was correct, but the lab leak was favored based on a preponderance of the evidence. Christopher Wray also said the FBI felt that it was most likely a lab leak but he wasn't speaking in anything like absolutes. And we will likely never know.

I just think, of all the places the disease could pop up, its a heck of a coincidence that it happened 40 minutes away from one of the few labs studying similar viruses. It would be like a lab in Chapel Hill studying some rare disease and the disease pop up in a Raleigh supermarket. Maybe it happened completely coincidentally, but I think anyone who would dismiss a lab leak theory based on limited evidence is a little off. And I think anyone who is positive its a lab leak based on the same limited evidence also has some judgement issues.

 

[superrific]

I said that nobody is going to be able to give an answer with a high level of confidence.

About that, you are wrong. Lots of virologists believe, with a high level of confidence, that it was zoonotic in nature. It's not 100% confidence, but it's a high degree of confidence.

 

[superrific]

I just think, of all the places the disease could pop up, its a heck of a coincidence that it happened 40 minutes away from one of the few labs studying similar viruses. It would be like a lab in Chapel Hill studying some rare disease and the disease pop up in a Raleigh supermarket. Maybe it happened completely coincidentally, but I think anyone who would dismiss a lab leak theory based on limited evidence is a little off. And I think anyone who is positive its a lab leak based on the same limited evidence also has some judgement issues.

The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories. The Chinese government established these laboratories after multiple spillovers of the first SARS-CoV in 2002 through 2004, which caused approximately 8,000 cases of severe respiratory disease worldwide and at least 744 deaths."

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Everyone who thinks the lab leak is "plausible" should read that paper.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

The evidence remains clear: SARS-CoV-2 emerged via the wildlife trade - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories. The Chinese government established these laboratories after multiple spillovers of the first SARS-CoV in 2002 through 2004, which caused approximately 8,000 cases of severe respiratory disease worldwide and at least 744 deaths."

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Everyone who thinks the lab leak is "plausible" should read that paper.

Here's another NIH paper you may be interested in reading.

Laboratory biosafety in China: past, present, and future - PMC

The launch of the new journal, Biosafety and Health, presents me with a unique opportunity to recount the progress of laboratory biosafety (LB) in China and my contribution to this area over the past 30 years. Since the severe acute respiratory ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"As China's first BSL-4 laboratory put into operation, Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory conducts studies on highly pathogenic viruses. Since January 2018, the laboratory has been in operation for global scientists who wish to conduct scientific experiments on BSL-4 pathogens. In the near future, Wuhan BSL-4 Laboratory will serve as the national research and development center for the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, the culture collection center of microorganism and viruses and a WHO reference Laboratory for Infectious Diseases [2]. Meanwhile, low-level pathogenic infectious agents are tested, identified, and isolated in a large number of BSL-2 laboratories all over the country."

It appears that there are a number of labs that serve as collection points and initial research stations throughout the country while much of the in depth research was done in Wuhan, 40 minutes away from the origin of the disease.

 

[superrific]

Here's another NIH paper you may be interested in reading.

Laboratory biosafety in China: past, present, and future - PMC

The launch of the new journal, Biosafety and Health, presents me with a unique opportunity to recount the progress of laboratory biosafety (LB) in China and my contribution to this area over the past 30 years. Since the severe acute respiratory ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"As China's first BSL-4 laboratory put into operation, Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory conducts studies on highly pathogenic viruses. Since January 2018, the laboratory has been in operation for global scientists who wish to conduct scientific experiments on BSL-4 pathogens. In the near future, Wuhan BSL-4 Laboratory will serve as the national research and development center for the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, the culture collection center of microorganism and viruses and a WHO reference Laboratory for Infectious Diseases [2]. Meanwhile, low-level pathogenic infectious agents are tested, identified, and isolated in a large number of BSL-2 laboratories all over the country."

Actually, I've read it before. Thing that you're missing is that COVID is studied in BSL-3 labs in America and elsewhere. Any other ideas you'd like shot down?

 

[stankeylegjones]

Actually, I've read it before. Thing that you're missing is that COVID is studied in BSL-3 labs in America and elsewhere. Any other ideas you'd like shot down?

I think the point of his post is not that it's only studied in the lab in Wuhan, but the virus originated in/near Wuhan, where there also is a lab that studies the virus.

Having said that, put me in the camp that is not convinced either way, and doesn't the benefit of actually determining where it originated (unless it can somehow help future protection against it or other viruses). But, I also don't understand why discussing it rubs so many folks the wrong way.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Actually, I've read it before. Thing that you're missing is that COVID is studied in BSL-3 labs in America and elsewhere. Any other ideas you'd like shot down?

So now its not studied at the BSL-2 labs in the multiple cities around China like you mentioned, but at the Wuhan institute of Virology that has a BSL-4 lab, two BSL-3 lab's and 20 BSL-2 labs that is located 40 minutes from the epicenter of the Covid-19 virus?

Wuhan Institute of Virology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[superrific]

So now its not studied at the BSL-2 labs in the multiple cities around China like you mentioned, but at the Wuhan institute of Virology that has a BSL-4 lab, two BSL-3 lab's and 20 BSL-2 labs that is located 40 minutes from the epicenter of the Covid-19 virus?

Wuhan Institute of Virology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There were between 50 and 100 BSL-3 facilities in China in 2019. The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know a goddamn fucking thing about coronavirus research in China. Neither do I, which is why I'm not using that as a basis for a crackpot theory.

Cite me one affirmative piece of evidence for the lab leak. Not some bullshit coincidence. One affirmative piece.

 

[superrific]

I think the point of his post is not that it's only studied in the lab in Wuhan, but the virus originated in/near Wuhan, where there also is a lab that studies the virus.

Do you see the logical fallacy?

 

[stankeylegjones]

Do you see the logical fallacy?

No, I am not seeing it. What am I missing?

 

[superrific]

No, I am not seeing it. What am I missing?

"Not A implies Not B" follows from "A causes B" in a world of single causation (as we are assuming for this discussion). If there are labs where coronaviruses are studied outside of Wuhan, then the fact that the coronavirus was also studied in Wuhan is of no import.

 

[stankeylegjones]

I'm familiar with contrapositives, but I think you mean A implies B then not B implies not A.

I still don't see how it is a logical fallacy to question if a lab leaked is what led to the virus getting in the population, or if it was just a coincidence that it started very close to a lab studying it.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

There were between 50 and 100 BSL-3 facilities in China in 2019. The fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know a goddamn fucking thing about coronavirus research in China. Neither do I, which is why I'm not using that as a basis for a crackpot theory.

Cite me one affirmative piece of evidence for the lab leak. Not some bullshit coincidence. One affirmative piece.

Do you see the logical fallacy here? There are 50-100 BSL-3 labs in China. Coronovirus is researched in BSL-3 labs around the world. Therefore Coronavirus must be researched in 50-100 BSL-3 labs in China?

Do these 50-100 BSL-3 labs in China all study corona virus? I'm not seeing anything like that in your sources. The only thing I see is the paper that notes "In the near future, Wuhan BSL-4 Laboratory will serve as the national research and development center for the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, the culture collection center of microorganism and viruses and a WHO reference Laboratory for Infectious Diseases [2]. Meanwhile, low-level pathogenic infectious agents are tested, identified, and isolated in a large number of BSL-2 laboratories all over the country."

To me its still possible that it leaked from one of the main corona virus research locations in China. Its also possible it didn't.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I'm not dying on any hill. My position is the one supported by the vast majority of scientific experts in the field. I don't give a fuck what Trump's CIA has to say. They are all liars, AND they don't know shit about this topic.

This report was prepared by Biden's CIA. Trump just ordered it declassified.

 

[SmilingJack]

Rocky Marciano next I'm thinking.....

 

[superrific]

I'm familiar with contrapositives, but I think you mean A implies B then not B implies not A.

I still don't see how it is a logical fallacy to question if a lab leaked is what led to the virus getting in the population, or if it was just a coincidence that it started very close to a lab studying it.

It was stupid on my part to attempt to use formal logic with my head full of congestion and decongestants. I don't mean that contrapositive, but forget the logic and go with a more prosaic approach.

Here's the point: suppose every city in China has a BSL-3 lab. In one city, there's a virus. Since the viruses usually circulate in cities, 'cause people are there, you can conclude nothing from the presence of the lab. The presence of a lab would be associated with the virus, and also with not a virus. If a football team has won every game in which it scores a FG, might you conclude that kicking a FG would lead to victory? Not if the football team also won every game in which it didn't score a FG.

It's not a logical fallacy to question anything. It's a logical fallacy to assign very much weight at all to the proximity, given that there's proximity in many other places where the virus didn't emerge.