Open Side Menu Go to the Top

08-20-2022 , 03:14 PM
And sorry for possibly misinterpreting your post.

When you say it is actually becoming more and more mainstream I understand that it gets, you know?, more and more mainstream. That the mainstream is accepting this for fact. If you meant something completely different, my bad.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
Covid-19 Discussion
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Covid-19 Discussion
08-20-2022 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
Just trust me
This isn't the first time you've said this. Trust me, no one here trusts you
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Washoe,

I didn't realize you wre some kind of autodidact, so this should be pretty straightforward since you've researched Covid origins.

As a non expert the 2 top sources I can remember off the top of my head are the original Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin by Zhang Et al. which was the first published paper afaik that understood and talked about Covid19 as a new disease. And a Nature correspondence that debunked the lab leak stuff The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 by Andersen Et al. I won't bother to link because you obviously know those papers by heart. But can you point me to the top cited papers showing it was leaked from a lab? Obviously neither of us are virology experts, but I imagine there should be a highly cited paper explaining why a lab leak is likely.
You still do not understand what is the problem here. There is no highly cited paper, not at the moment. As long as you do not understand this, and why that is, a discussion is fruitless.

Any scientific paper that is not agreeing with this is and will get auto dismissed and attacked at the moment. It is sad but thats what it is right now. Virology and gain of function research is in the hands of a few powerful people, who dictate whats to be said. You have to understand how the scientific world works, its all about funding, if you get no funding you are done as a scientist. You will even get blackmailed and destroyed. You cant speak up. You must have heard this from many scientists by now, becuase this is what they are all complaining about. Not all, but enough. The ones that dare to speak up and the ones that they cant coerce. That this is not in the name of science anymore. Its about coericion and money, almost cult like. You are way too smart to not understand this, I think. Its a business. You should really read those Vanitiy Fair articles, so you know how people in this world are dealt with at the moment.

Last edited by washoe; 08-20-2022 at 04:06 PM.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 04:34 PM
If I was a virologist, but not very good or ethical, I’d upload a crappy paper to the ArXiv, get people like you to spread it on the internet, go on Hannity and spread lies about it then write a popular level book on how it came from a lab leak. Wouldn’t make me super rich but more lucrative and way easier than trying to be a good virologist.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Washoe,

I didn't realize you wre some kind of autodidact, so this should be pretty straightforward since you've researched Covid origins.

As a non expert the 2 top sources I can remember off the top of my head are the original Pneumonia Outbreak Associated with a New Coronavirus of Probable Bat Origin by Zhang Et al. which was the first published paper afaik that understood and talked about Covid19 as a new disease. And a Nature correspondence that debunked the lab leak stuff The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 by Andersen Et al. I won't bother to link because you obviously know those papers by heart. But can you point me to the top cited papers showing it was leaked from a lab? Obviously neither of us are virology experts, but I imagine there should be a highly cited paper explaining why a lab leak is likely.
The Anderson paper argues that it was improbable in their opinion Sars2 was created through intentional human genetic manipulation. And they gave a technical explanation why (which neither you or I have the expertise to weigh on). It debunks absolutely nothing. That is orthogonal to the lab leak theory, which would also fall under the umbrella of "natural selection" through passaging. Basically, in a laboratory setting you let mutations happen randomly and choose the adaptations you prefer (for whatever reason). The authors even acknowledge this in the Anderson paper.

Believe it or not in the field of biology there is extremely little intelligent design at the genetic level. Almost all "genetic" experiments involve letting mutations happen randomly and then selecting the mutations you want, very similar to dog or plant breeding.

Also, FWIW one of the most renowned virologists in the world, David Baltimore, who has won a Nobel Prize in this field, gave his informed opinion based on direct analysis of Sars2 that it was likely a product of direct human manipulation. His direct quote was, "When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.".

Obviously there was A LOT of pushback from the establishment, and he walked it back a little and said "smoking gun" was too strong a term and he wished he didn't use it. But he still believes based on his own expertise that Covid coming from a lab setting is a distinct possibility.

There isn't nearly the consensus in the scientific field on the origin of Covid that there is perceived to be. For good or bad (I obviously believe bad) in the public square there is a lot of suppression of certain ideas and amplification of others for political reasons. I, and a lot of other people, personally believe Nature and Science are part of the suppression mechanism for political reasons, meaning they are corrupted.

Ironically, in the Anderson paper they acknowledges exactly what is needed to actually put this matter to rest, the identification of the animal host Sars2 (or its ancestor) naturally jumped from. And this still hasn't happened yet. Even if one had the expertise to weigh all the available evidence (which clearly none of us do) and come to an opinion that one origin source is more likely than the other, the matter is far from settled. And I find it very unfortunate that scientific information is disseminated in such a corrupted form that few are willing to acknowledge this.

Last edited by TheNoGod2; 08-20-2022 at 05:11 PM.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
If I was a virologist, but not very good or ethical, I’d upload a crappy paper to the ArXiv, get people like you to spread it on the internet, go on Hannity and spread lies about it then write a popular level book on how it came from a lab leak. Wouldn’t make me super rich but more lucrative and way easier than trying to be a good virologist.
But what if you were from HK?
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
If I was a virologist, but not very good or ethical, I’d upload a crappy paper to the ArXiv, get people like you to spread it on the internet, go on Hannity and spread lies about it then write a popular level book on how it came from a lab leak. Wouldn’t make me super rich but more lucrative and way easier than trying to be a good virologist.

That is a gamble that could work. Thankfully many scientists are honest people imo and worry too much about the reputation and career. They havent studied a life time long to be the villain imo in front of their peers and families. Its a question of with what you can live and what is morally compatible with you.

I read about certain types of jourmalism having the same problem, also other areas of science. there are many niches where being an ******* gets you far. In Business for example cheating can get you very far, if your consciousness allows it. But yes, right now swimming against the current might ruin your career and vice versa, going along with it can make you really rich.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNoGod2
Ironically, in the Anderson paper they acknowledges exactly what is needed to actually put this matter to rest, the identification of the animal host Sars2 (or its ancestor) naturally jumped from. And this still hasn't happened yet. Even if one had the expertise to weigh all the available evidence (which clearly none of us do) and come to an opinion that one origin source is more likely than the other, the matter is far from settled. And I find it very unfortunate that scientific information is disseminated in such a corrupted form that few are willing to acknowledge this.
That's the point. I asked for the best papers that favor lab origin and got nothing. Nobody doubts that right wing nut jobs that can't get a 5 on a HS AP bio exam favor lab origin because of their insane political biases. They also think ivermectin is more effective than vaccines.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
That is a gamble that could work. Thankfully many scientists are honest people imo and worry too much about the reputation and career. They havent studied a life time long to be the villain imo in front of their peers and families. Its a question of with what you can live and what is morally compatible with you.

I read about certain types of jourmalism having the same problem, also other areas of science. there are many niches where being an ******* gets you far. In Business for example cheating can get you very far, if your consciousness allows it. But yes, right now swimming against the current might ruin your career and vice versa, going along with it can make you really rich.
Right. Which gives credence to the scientific literature which favors natural origins.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Right. Which gives credence to the scientific literature which favors natural origins.

lol. Im not so sure about this due to stated reasons. But yes, it depends from what angle you look at this.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
That's the point. I asked for the best papers that favor lab origin and got nothing. Nobody doubts that right wing nut jobs that can't get a 5 on a HS AP bio exam favor lab origin because of their insane political biases. They also think ivermectin is more effective than vaccines.
Does it bother you at all that you argued the Anderson paper "debunked the lab leak hypothesis" when it did no such thing? You are pretty critical of "right wingers" making declarative statements that arent true, but are pretty agnostic when you do the exact same thing.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
If I was a virologist, but not very good or ethical, I’d upload a crappy paper to the ArXiv, get people like you to spread it on the internet, go on Hannity and spread lies about it then write a popular level book on how it came from a lab leak. Wouldn’t make me super rich but more lucrative and way easier than trying to be a good virologist.

The problem starts when you dismiss and gaslight the best people in the field, and this is what happened on many occasions, for example the people of the Barrington Decl. Those are really top noche but there are more.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
The problem starts when you dismiss and gaslight the best people in the field, and this is what happened on many occasions, for example the people of the Barrington Decl. Those are really top noche but there are more.
The Barrington bullshit was about herd immunity, which apparently cannot be achieved through simple infections. They were horribly wrong. But no surprise that you think otherwise.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNoGod2
Does it bother you at all that you argued the Anderson paper "debunked the lab leak hypothesis" when it did no such thing? You are pretty critical of "right wingers" making declarative statements that arent true, but are pretty agnostic when you do the exact same thing.
Ir debunks Washoe level claims about it being a lav leak because his roommate was Chinese. The best sources favor natural origin and right wingers want to ignore that because of their political biases. There isn't really much to gain by pointing out some long shot possibility when no direct evidence for it has been cited.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InJuiceWeTrust
The Barrington bullshit was about herd immunity, which apparently cannot be achieved through simple infections. They were horribly wrong. But no surprise that you think otherwise.
I think you dont even know what it was about. It was about a more balanced approach, like treatments and questioning nonsenical rules. you should read it at least once.

Spoiler:


The Great Barrington Declaration






The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.





Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 07:58 PM
The thing that bothers me the most about the "origin" conversation is that the mainstream scientific community is making a giant logic/deduction error IMO.

We know that Wuhan is one of two places in the world that does high level coronavirus research. We also know they have transferred bat coronaviruses that have infected humans from SW China to Wuhan to study, and these are genetically very similar to SarsCov2. Given this, simple deduction would weigh heavily towards the Wuhan Institute of Virology being involved some way in the pandemic. And it would take A LOT of evidence supporting natural origin to counterweight this (which IMO we dont have). From a simple logic perspective, the argument the US planted it there to frame the Wuhan Institute of Virology is more plausible than natural origin from a simple logic argument. The pandemic starting in Wuhan is just too big a coincidence to handwaive away the way our scientific community has.

Ironically, you can use the same simple deductions to conclude that global warming is manmade. We know that through burning of fossil fuels we are releasing lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know greenhouse gases trap heat. Therefor, the fact the Earth is heating exactly at the time we are releasing all these gases supports the manmade global warming; and it would take overwhelming evidence (which there clearly isn't) to discount this.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
I think you dont even know what it was about. It was about a more balanced approach, like treatments and questioning nonsenical rules. you should read it at least once.
They wanted herd immunity through mass infections. They failed. That's it.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNoGod2
to handwaive away the way our scientific community has.
If only our scientific community would listen to those hyper intelligent guys who post in the politics section of a poker forum.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 08:17 PM
Sweden basically followed the ethos of the Barrington Declaration. Although herd immunity was never completely achieved due to viral mutation you dont see too many stories on the news about how much worse off Sweden is than the rest of the Western world. If one were inclined to analytically compare the pros and cons of quarantining it seems comparing the fate of Sweden to neighboring countries that did aggressive quarantining would be a good place to start.

I actually dont know what the answer to this question is, although my spidey senses are telling me the fact we see nothing about Sweden in the last 1+ years tells us the story doesn't fit the narrative; so my suspicion is Sweden fared just as well as its neighbors, and possibly better.

--I also want to note that taking a more "pragmatic" quarantine approach and "anti-tax" are 2 very different things, which get lumped together in the US for political reasons. Although they didn't quarantine like most of the rest of the Western World, I suspect Swedes were just as aggressive in getting vaccinated.

Last edited by TheNoGod2; 08-20-2022 at 08:29 PM.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNoGod2
Sweden basically followed the ethos of the Barrington Declaration. Although herd immunity was never completely achieved due to viral mutation you dont see too many stories on the news about how much worse off Sweden is than the rest of the Western world. If one were inclined to analytically compare the pros and cons of quarantining it seems comparing the fate of Sweden to neighboring countries that did aggressive quarantining would be a good place to start.

I actually dont know what the answer to this question is, although my spidey senses are telling me the fact we see nothing about Sweden in the last 1+ years tells us the story doesn't fit the narrative; so my suspicion is Sweden fared just as well as its neighbors, and possibly better.

--I also want to note that taking a more "pragmatic" quarantine approach and "anti-tax" are 2 very different things, which get lumped together in the US for political reasons. Although they didn't quarantine like most of the rest of the Western World, I suspect Swedes were just as aggressive in getting vaccinated.
Sweden had more than twice the death rate per capita as Norway their land neighbor during the first year of Covid.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Rick
Sweden had more than twice the death rate per capita as Norway their land neighbor during the first year of Covid.
Sweden saw lower 2020 death spike than much of Europe - data

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2BG1R9


Sweden no longer stands out in pandemic, says architect of ‘no lockdown’ policy

Anders Tegnell remains unapologetic about country’s early Covid strategy as commission investigates response

https://www.ft.com/content/0c07de5f-...b-5f8f7d18ebef

it might all even out idk.

What I do know is that they didnt have anything, no masks, no lockdowns, nothing, never, ever. I think it really evens out, I really do. I know this friend that always goes to sweden becuase the have business and family there, and he always tells me what they do is nothing there. nada, seriously.

Last edited by washoe; 08-20-2022 at 09:28 PM.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe

The Great Barrington Declaration

https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stori...on-declaration

Quote:
5 failings of the Great Barrington Declaration

1. It creates a false dichotomy.

2. The Barrington declaration gives oxygen to fringe groups.

3. The Barrington declaration puts individual preference far above public good.

4. The declaration misunderstands herd immunity.

5. The declaration offers no details on how it would protect the vulnerable.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steamraise

Two words:

Spoiler:
propaganda



Lets see how sweden plays out, in a few years we know better.

I have great respect of this virus bc I have seen what it can do. It can be terrible. So I am unsure. Its lot of politics I think that can be said.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 10:07 PM
my friend didnt give me the whole truth acc. to this article, he said they never had anything.

"Sweden’s government took a more active role in the pandemic during the second Covid-19 wave in December and January, imposing new restrictions that moved the country closer to the rest of Europe, just as much of the EU followed Stockholm in declining to close schools in more recent outbreaks."

The bolded is interesting though. So they copied sweden too.

Last edited by washoe; 08-20-2022 at 10:12 PM.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
08-20-2022 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sweden has been a lightning rod since early in the Covid-19 pandemic. Opponents of lockdowns and mask mandates in the U.S. and U.K. pointed to its more-relaxed approach and relatively modest death toll as evidence that drastic measures were not only overkill, but counterproductive.


Critics of Sweden’s approach, meanwhile, noted that it is a nation of only 10 million people in a relatively isolated corner of Europe, and that its fellow Nordic countries have all done a far better job of protecting their citizens from Covid-19.


[url
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/so-was-sweden-a-covid-success-or-failure/2021/10/14/fe2747f6-2cb8-11ec-b17d-985c186de338_story.html[/url]



.

I cant get behind the paywall, but this is what you can read.

Yes they are a small country with relatively big spaces, but they are also a country with a very cold winter, which favors a virus, the winters are long and cold and they are sitting together with old and yound people inside houses. So that could explain a higher transmission and death count in itself. probably a give and take.
Covid-19 Discussion Quote
Covid-19 Discussion
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Covid-19 Discussion

      
m