Corona Thread |OT| Nu variant, who dis?

[Madrun Badrun]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8503151/quebec-to-impose-a-tax-on-people-who-are-unvaccinated-from-covid-19/

comes after showing that the stick works

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/first-dose-vaccinations-quadruple-in-quebec-ahead-of-restrictions-at-liquor-and-cannabis-stores-1.5731327

[Raist]

bUt iT's onLY cASe NumBerS goINg Up WHo CaREs LoL 

[jorma]

bUt iT's onLY cASe NumBerS goINg Up WHo CaREs LoL 

(Image removed from quote.)

number of daily cases (7 day ma) is up 400% from three months ago and is 3 times higher than the previous record

number of daily deaths (7 day ma) is up like 20% from three months ago (and is 6.5 times lower than the previous record)

so.. yes?

[Raist]

A bunch of people (including here) were arguing that the latest new wave didn't matter, it's all fine because hospitalizations and deaths were flat.
Which, of course, turned out to be really dumb, but I guess a delay between a rise in cases and the rest is totally unheard of in the past two years.

Hospitalizations have nearly tripled in the past month, and there's well over 300 people dying every day, but I guess that's fine 

[Cauliflower Of Love]

20% increase of deaths is pretty significant.

[railGUN]

Officially 3 deep now. Double fiz and chased it with some 'derna.

 

[Potato]

The important question is what proportion of people who are infected are hospitalised or die?

Raw numbers are not a good measure of severity of disease.

[jorma]

20% increase of deaths is pretty significant.

that seems like it might be a perfectly normal variation between fall and winter to me.
at least in Sweden, idk about the uk

the number of daily new cases passed the previous peak over a month ago, and if the mortality rates correlated they should be in the 1000-1200 range instead of the current 191 daily deaths
i dont know how you could dispute that the virus is just not as lethal anymore

[benjipwns]

After reviewing the charts of every COVID-positive patient at UCSF hospitals on Jan. 4, Dr. Jeanne Noble, an associate professor of emergency medicine at UCSF, determined that 70% of them were in the hospital for other reasons.

"The real COVID crisis that our hospitals are facing is a severe staffing shortage that is compromising the quality of our care," Noble said Friday, shortly before the policy change was announced.

Staffing shortages are so severe that California is considering canceling elective surgeries, as happened during the worst of last year’s peak.

"The crisis from the Omicron peak is not generated by serious COVID illness in regions with highly vaxxed populations," Noble wrote in an email to SFGATE. "The crisis we are suffering in the Bay Area is largely driven by disruptive COVID policies that encourage asymptomatic testing and subsequent quarantines. … The vast majority of COVID-plus patients I take care of need no medical care and are quickly discharged home with reassurance."

[Madrun Badrun]

70% seems high and really doesn't change a lot.  If you have something else plus covid, it just exacerbates the issue.  Early in the pandemic, I knew a snowbird neighbor that had to come back to Canada because he had a heart attack and then found out he just happened to have covid and it just prolonged recovery. 

Also from today,

https://globalnews.ca/news/8502714/ontario-incidental-covid-hospitalizations-january-11/

The province indicated that there are currently 3,220 people in hospital with COVID-19 — around 54 per cent of them were admitted because of the virus, while about 46 per cent were admitted for other reasons but tested positive for COVID-19.

and more importantly

Of those hospitalized [with covid], the province said 477 are in ICUs, which is up by 39. Around 83 per cent of those in intensive care were admitted because of COVID, while around 17 per cent were admitted for other reasons.

[benjipwns]

A bunch of people (including here) were arguing that the latest new wave didn't matter, it's all fine because hospitalizations and deaths were flat.
Which, of course, turned out to be really dumb, but I guess a delay between a rise in cases and the rest is totally unheard of in the past two years.

Hospitalizations have nearly tripled in the past month, and there's well over 300 people dying every day, but I guess that's fine 

Who said it was "fine"? Himu's obviously antsy, but should we be ignoring or discarding new data for some reason? Especially about new variants? It seems rather important if the case rate is dramatically diverging from the hospitalization/death rate, and especially that it's continuing for the vaccinated. What is it that you're proposing? Are you proposing anything?

[Madrun Badrun]

Who said it was "fine"? Himu's obviously antsy

You answered your own question there.  Antsy is a nice way of saying unhinged.  No one is ignoring or disregarding new data but some people were and are using the diverging cases to hospitalizations as a way to downplay the severity of omicron and to show how mild it is.  Yes, it is mild in the sense that, if you get it, you have a lot less chance of dying.  It is not mild in the sense that more people will die because of its infectiousness.  The divergence is not evidence that precautions are not necessary or do not work.  So when you get 'antsy' people ranting about mask mandates and other precautions in one post and then using the divergence to downplay omicron in the very next post, then it's fine to show a chart showing what 'mild' actually means.   

[benjipwns]

I admit I try to read Himu as arguing against the rampant security theater in general and the notion of vaccine mandates in specific albeit with some misinformation and a large dose of Himu involved. But I also, maybe self-centeredly, took some of Raist's criticism as directed at those like myself since I have in fact argued in favor of the endemic framing and have criticized both the security theater and some I find quite irrationally paranoid about risk.

I'm also not sure there's yet any evidence that "more people will die" (which I take as meaning more people than some expected baseline not "more than zero") because of its infectiousness. Everything seems to indicate that the vaccines do work.

I also take as an implied suggestion the idea that current precautions are not enough and that something more must be done until nobody can get COVID which is probably evidence of being biased by The Discourse™.

[Madrun Badrun]

I'm also not sure there's yet any evidence that "more people will die" (which I take as meaning more people than some expected baseline not "more than zero") because of its infectiousness. Everything seems to indicate that the vaccines do work.

I also take as an implied suggestion the idea that current precautions are not enough and that something more must be done until nobody can get COVID.

No one is arguing that nobody will stop getting covid or that no deaths are possible.  Everyone knows it is endemic now.  Being endemic does not imply that all people who die now are inevitable deaths.  1)  Being endemic does not mean everyone will get it, despite certain articles saying that will happen.  Herd immunity, if we ever get that, does not happen at 100%.  It especially does not mean that everyone will get it in a short time span.  It is possible to minimize the chance of venerable people getting it.  2) You don't want everyone getting it at once and over-running health care systems.  Covid deaths are also not the only covid victims.  Hospitals that can not do elective surgeries result in unnecessary deaths.  3) delaying gives more time for people to get vaccinated, which there are still a considerable number of people without 2 does let alone 3.  Also, technology has just been a few steps behind and more effective vaccines will happen.

Anti-covid measures do work.  They worked before the vaccine and they still work after.  There is no reason to think otherwise.  Not letting people die is in no way just postponing the inevitable.  It's one of the major reasons why Canada has 1/3 the death rate over the US.  Being done with the pandemic is an absurd notion despite people feeling antsy.  A pandemic isn't something one can just be done with, unless one chooses a philosophy of I'll be fine and fuck the rest.  Maybe that comment doesn't apply to you, but it does to a lot of people who want to argue about security theater.

[benjipwns]

I do think you need to be specific though rather than just point to nebulous always working "anti-COVID" measures considering how many poor policies have been pursued. DC, for example, is again requiring a photo ID and vaccination card for access to a lot of places. That is absolutely security theater and is not an anti-COVID policy that works. Is criticizing such a policy as absurd by its own standards "letting people die" and "being done with the pandemic"? I don't think that's the case and I've taken those kinds of things as more Himu's targets. (Along with a general angst at seeing signs of many kinds.) I do agree that he's not properly framed a lot of things and has been foremost in leveling accusations of bad faith though, I've called it out a few times.

[Madrun Badrun]

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/first-dose-vaccinations-quadruple-in-quebec-ahead-of-restrictions-at-liquor-and-cannabis-stores-1.5731327

as I posted today, ID's to access places do work and is not absolutely security theater.  This same thing happened in both Ontario and Quebec when they first started limiting places with vaccination passes.  You may have personal liberty arguments against it but to pretend it doesn't do something is false.  The whole idea of security theater in a pandemic as an analog to say terrorism security theater is silly anyways.  The main players do not benefit and most people are not falsely reassured.  Just because some policies do not work or do not work as well as intended does not make it security theater.  It's just the way things play out when you need to make quick decisions and don't have a lot of information.  For example in Ontario, grooming places and gyms were closed for almost a year.  It made sense at the start to close them down without knowing how covid was spread and to give them a chance to figure out how to make it safe.  There was no reason to keep them closed that long.  It was a bad policy.  That doesn't make it security theater. 

Criticizing a policy because you do not think it works is not letting people die.  Criticizing a policy because you personally do not like it is letting people die, in that you are arguing that it's better to let others die than you personally having to sacrifice.  Determining the intentions one is arguing from is hard in some cases and very transparent in others.  Making bad faith arguments generally betrays that it is the latter.  Especially if someone just out and out says that all people are selfish so it's best to behave that way.           

[benjipwns]

How does it work to stop the spread? That's the justification being used, that infection case numbers are going up. That's why they're re-imposing it. If the goal is vaccination rather than people getting COVID then mandate vaccination.

And of course these things can absolutely be the same thing as terrorism security theater, all the bad policies there also have justifications from the officials too. You still have to take off your shoes for example. Many of the policies fail by their own standards, same as the COVID policies.

I can't really get behind the idea that it's "letting people die" to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy and criticize it rather than accept it as inherently good and necessary. Especially when there's alternatives and the links aren't clear. Would you refuse to criticize welding people into their homes indefinitely, going house to house to force positive cases into camps, and not reporting deaths publicly? Of course you wouldn't, but isn't not following China's policies "letting people die"? I don't see the argument that criticizing anything officials wish to do is fair to paint as "letting people die."

[Madrun Badrun]

Stoping spreading is not the only goal. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-covid-19-hospitalizations-omicron-canada-data-vaccinated-unvaccinated/

According to the Ontario Science Table’s online dashboard, the hospital occupancy rate for the unvaccinated was 611 per million unvaccinated people in the province’s population as of Jan. 7, compared to 129 per million among those who had received at least two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. The ICU occupancy rate among the unvaccinated was 153 per million, compared to about 11 per million among those who have received at least two vaccine doses.

ICU numbers have just about doubled in the last week.  About half the ICU is from unvaccinated and unknown status despite only making up 10% of the population.  Those ICU beds are being taken from people with cancer.  It is a policy that prevents deaths.  Maybe that is not true of DC, the problem is people are looking around for ideas that work, so if politicians see it being done in other regions they are likely to enact them.  Being wrong with something like a vac pass does very little damage.  That is the cost and benefits being weighed.   You can see how just as you feel some are irrationally paranoid about risk, some might feel like the concern about security theater is also just as irrationally paranoid?  There is reason to be concerned about the risk and there is reason to be concerned about security theater.  To be concerned about the hypothetical negatives of a vac pass in the middle of a pandemic is being overly paranoid.   

Of course, there are costs and benefits.  That is exactly why we are not talking about welding people into their homes indefinitely.  That has already been weighed.  We are talking about mask mandates, sick leave, vaccine passes etc.  Action is one of degrees and so the argument that anything short of doing everything to prevent even a single death is highschool-level silly.  No one is making that argument and it's not the logical outcome of what anyone is saying. Again, criticizing a policy is not lettering people die, but people who start with 'me first' are not weighing cost and benefits.

Part of why I think this discussion is muddled is because you ascribed some of Himu's intentions as being in line with your own.  That is not the case.  As such I am making two arguments at once against two different things.  I might think your stance of some stuff is silly and paranoid and disagree with the cost and benefits, see above, but I am not accusing you of making bad moral choices.  It is not "letting people die" to weigh the costs and benefits.  Letting people die is one of the costs.  Also, not enacting a policy is not weighing the costs and benefits, it is to choose a specific set of costs.  Waiting for more information to better inform policy is to choose a cost.  I think the way you do cost and benefits will result in some unneccissary deaths that can be prevented by paying a price in personal liberty.  It is fine to disagree with that.  It is also fine to disagree with the facts that support these cost and benefits.  It is not fine to start with one's own selfishness and then find whatever evidence one can to support one's desire to go back to normal.  That, is exactly the argument that it is better to let others die instead of me having to give any sacrifice.  And yes figuring out intentions is hard in general, but not in this case.                 

[Rufus]

i dont know how you could dispute that the virus is just not as lethal anymore

He isn't. It's bad enough, is what I get from that.

[Kurt Russell]

Fauci Was Told Privately by Key Scientists That COVID-19 Natural Origin Was ‘Highly Unlikely,’ Newly Unredacted Emails Confirm

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fauci-was-told-privately-by-key-scientists-that-natural-origin-was-highly-unlikely-newly-unredacted-emails-confirm_4207003.html

 

[Rufus]

Unironically posting Epoch Times links really is yikes, I agree.

[Kurt Russell]

Unironically posting Epoch Times links really is yikes, I agree.

And when you're done attacking the source, do you want to refute the claims it made, or are you just going to ignore those?

[headwalk]

A bunch of people (including here) were arguing that the latest new wave didn't matter, it's all fine because hospitalizations and deaths were flat.
Which, of course, turned out to be really dumb, but I guess a delay between a rise in cases and the rest is totally unheard of in the past two years.

Hospitalizations have nearly tripled in the past month, and there's well over 300 people dying every day, but I guess that's fine 

daily "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" have gone up by about 20% and are only just about reaching october numbers (your 300+ day a number is based on day reported, which always has a massive bump on tuesdays for weekend reports that come in late), despite the fact half the country has had this bug within the last 28 days. given that we usually get about 50,000 all cause deaths in january and at a modest estimate 20% of the country has had omicron, we'd expect 10,000 "deaths within 28 days" just based on the maths of it.

numbers on mechanical ventilators (the best indicator of number of critically ill covid patients) are the lowest since the beginning of october and in ICUs have been declining consistently even as the chronic infects people on unprecendented numbers. half of omicron "hospitalisations" are incidental (a third actually contract it after being admitted for something else) and the vast majority are short and precautionary. we are following every pattern that south africa went through: insane number of cases, a managable rise in largely precautionary and incidental hospitalisations and a near total decoupling of case numbers with severe illness, a magnitude less needing intensive care and a CFR lower than even the mildest flu.

speaking for the UK, omicronical's biggest legacy is that it fucked off delta, which is still largely responsible for the small numbers of seriously ill covid patients and fast forwarded endemicity by two years.

[Rufus]

And when you're done attacking the source, do you want to refute the claims it made, or are you just going to ignore those?

I'll do it right after you tell me why you lend their claims any credence.

[Kurt Russell]

If Covid really is going to be endemic and global leaders have pretty much accepted that, surely the best thing we can do at this stage is let Omicron rip?

I could see Covid potentially reaching a flu-like fatality rate, particularly when you consider that we've built up a degree of immunity to the variants of flu our whole lives. Even when you take the UK's 300ish number of deaths (which is an accumulation of 2/3 days reporting as pointed out before), you are running at a % of 0.26 against the 138 thousand cases reported the UK reported two weeks ago on 28th December.

Let's not forget that the UK reported 30,000 deaths from flu in the winter of 2018 (the last pre-pandemic winter), and considering that you can only die once of either covid or flu, I think that in a decade, the combined number of covid + flu deaths annually won't be much different to the flu deaths the UK has reported in previous years. Certainly not worth crippling the economy for any longer.

[Kurt Russell]

I'll do it right after you tell me why you lend their claims any credence.

Because, the very fact that someone has written that indicates that someone - somewhere believes that.

I can either agree with it, ignore it or refute it. But, in order to effectively refute it, I first need to understand why they believe what they do and the way to do that is not by snorting down my nose at them and dismissing everything they say out of hand. I need to see what their information source is and understand what they are reading and what conclusions they are drawing.

[headwalk]

If Covid really is going to be endemic and global leaders have pretty much accepted that, surely the best thing we can do at this stage is let Omicron rip?

I could see Covid potentially reaching a flu-like fatality rate, particularly when you consider that we've built up a degree of immunity to the variants of flu our whole lives. Even when you take the UK's 300ish number of deaths (which is an accumulation of 2/3 days reporting as pointed out before), you are running at a % of 0.26 against the 138 thousand cases reported the UK reported two weeks ago on 28th December.

Let's not forget that the UK reported 30,000 deaths from flu in the winter of 2018 (the last pre-pandemic winter), and considering that you can only die once of either covid or flu, I think that in a decade, the combined number of covid + flu deaths annually won't be much different to the flu deaths the UK has reported in previous years. Certainly not worth crippling the economy for any longer.

i don't think there's much to suggest omicron has anything like the severity or CFR of flu, which has been oddly dismissed due to the "it's just a flu bro" sentiment early doors with covid (and years of people calling bad colds "a bit of flu"). flu will properly fuck you up. it's biologically and symptomatically much more in line with the other 4 coronaviruses that we universally call "a cold", up to the fact that research suggests common cold t-cell antibodies give you some protection against it

[Uncle]

And when you're done attacking the source, do you want to refute the claims it made, or are you just going to ignore those?

I'll do it right after you tell me why you lend their claims any credence.

1) fuck epoch times

2) I clicked the link and they are citing unredacted emails in this document: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf

I don't know what republicans-oversight.house.gov really is, I can't find anyone online ranting about its illegitimacy or being a shitty grift, though if it's run by republicans I suppose it could very easily be full of shit

but it's clear your complaint in this case is not with epoch but with republicans-oversight.house.gov

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/comer-jordan-faucis-emails-raise-questions-of-lab-leak-cover-up/

honestly at this point I don't know why your first issue would be with the source, rather than why anyone should care about what fauci knew or didn't know, because whether it was a lab leak or not doesn't seem to impact the stage of prevention/cure we're at now

it's not fauci's responsibility to impose sanctions on china

[Madrun Badrun]

My Grandma just changed nursing homes and the people taking care of her have covid 

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Dr. Fauci: Omicron will “find just about everybody”

Wrap it up.

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

Weed cures Covid!!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/business/status/1481152460332974081

[Kurt Russell]

Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/11/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-feared-debate-could/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1641936760-1

[Uncle]

ugh unironically linking the telegraph 

[Rufus]

I'll do it right after you tell me why you lend their claims any credence.

Because, the very fact that someone has written that indicates that someone - somewhere believes that.

Not good enough, I'm afraid.

[Kurt Russell]

Not good enough, I'm afraid.

That's too bad. Next time, I hope to win your approval by posting the Daily Stormer ironically.

[chronovore]

My Grandma just changed nursing homes and the people taking care of her have covid 

That has happened with my mom‘s assisted living home a couple of times now, and it’s always scary. Keep in mind that they are in a medical facility with care nearby at all times, which is better than if they were trying to look after themselves.

Not good enough, I'm afraid.

That's too bad. Next time, I hope to win your approval by posting the Daily Stormer ironically.

The truth is, “because somebody somewhere believed it, and it deserves being looked at“ is not a good enough reason for thinking people to feel compelled to investigate it. It is along the lines of the “I’m just asking questions“ position in terms of dishonest arguments. All arguments are not equal. Starting from a bad premise undermines the entire structure of the argument.

Someone who starts by asking me to explain an article on Breitbart to them has already shown me their (edit: spelling) inability to differentiate reasonable data as being different than that from highly-biased sources.

[Kurt Russell]

The truth is, “because somebody somewhere believed it, and it deserves being looked at“ is not a good enough reason for thinking people to feel compelled to investigate it. It is along the lines of the “I’m just asking questions“ position in terms of dishonest arguments. All arguments are not equal. Starting from a bad premise undermines the entire structure of the argument.

Someone who starts by asking me to explain an article on Breitbart to them has already shown me their i

I know, right?. What was I thinking? Did I really just unironically show an interest in understanding which of the recently unredacted Fauci emails those fringe media guys have read and why they've drawn the conclusions from them that they did? Why would I do that? I wasn't even being ironic! Like wow I can't even what a moron.

Please, if you have any support numbers to de-radicalise my alt-right trumper incel leanings, do PM them over to me. But please do it quick, I feel another thoughtcrime coming on.

I mean where does this end? Today, I want to understand a right-wing perspective, tomorrow I'll probably be eating buckets of Chick-fil-A. I'd give it until February until I'm poisoning the Mexican water supplies. Unironically.

[Madrun Badrun]

Just so we are clear, you are just gathering information about why certain people believe certain things and your original "" comment was ", now those certain people have more fuel to drive their conspiracies" and not " the conspiracy is true"?

[Kurt Russell]

Just so we are clear, you are just gathering information about why certain people believe certain things and your original "" comment was ", now those certain people have more fuel to drive their conspiracies" and not " the conspiracy is true"?

Nope, my Yikes was related to the fact that these emails appear to suggest that Fauci knew information that indicated a lab leak was a possibility whilst continuing to publicly downplay and ridicule anyone with the audacity to suggest it

In fact, I may even upgrade that Yikes to an Ooof.

[Potato]

I find it weird that people wont even entertain the idea that this leaked from the lab.

Here is a neutral discussion on the origins of COVID-19 which was written in June 2021 after Biden, Australia, the EU and Japan asked for a more robust investigation into the origins than the sham investigation organised by the WHO.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

While the authors don't have any firm conclusions about the origins, and largely dismiss the lab-leak theories, they also discuss that it is certainly a possibility.

To completely dismiss the possibility that a coronavirus leaked from a coronavirus research lab is naïve at best.

[Kurt Russell]

I'm sorry, but if you're unironically making the suggestion that a lab leak is possible, particularly after the Chinese government and the WHO have gone out of their way to explain to you that this is impossible, then you're an absolute mong who doesn't deserve to have a voice in this debate.

Rufus was right

[Potato]

Maybe I need to check my source

[Kurt Russell]

Maybe I need to check my source

Have you considered Yang Cheng Wan Bao? It has excellent reporting, fearless journalism and an unwavering commitment to telling the whole truth about the stories that really matter.

[chronovore]

Just to be clear, I think a lab leak is possible.

To be more clear, whenever I find something controversial to discuss, I don't start it by linking to Fortean Times or the National Enquirer.

I have enough shithead relatives forwarding Breitbart and "thinktank" financial newsletters decrying the impending financial collapse WORSE THAN 2008, etc. When I have something to talk about, I try to find the most reliable, least-biased sources I can. So when they were "debating" the deadliness of the disease, the effect on the economy, I was finding articles in WSJ and Forbes, and AP/Reuters in a pinch. I was not linking HolisticSunshineNews.com

We all had EIGHT FOUR MOTHERFUCKING YEARS of constant lying from the Executive Branch and his Press Secretary. We had plenty of misinformation spewed about the vaccines, and that misinformation has led directly to the deaths of anyone in one of those areas that has lower than 20% vaccination rate. Lies, ignorance, fear, I've fucking had enough of it.

So go ahead and get your back up about expecting us to trust a bullshit source and react to it like some peer-reviewed report. I'm done.

[Madrun Badrun]

Just so we are clear, you are just gathering information about why certain people believe certain things and your original "" comment was ", now those certain people have more fuel to drive their conspiracies" and not " the conspiracy is true"?

Nope, my Yikes was related to the fact that these emails appear to suggest that Fauci knew information that indicated a lab leak was a possibility whilst continuing to publicly downplay and ridicule anyone with the audacity to suggest it

In fact, I may even upgrade that Yikes to an Ooof.

Well, then that makes the below post sound like a bunch of horse shit.  Saying one has to evaluate all information isn't really a defense of specific information, especially coming from an unreputable source. 

I'll do it right after you tell me why you lend their claims any credence.

Because, the very fact that someone has written that indicates that someone - somewhere believes that.

I can either agree with it, ignore it or refute it. But, in order to effectively refute it, I first need to understand why they believe what they do and the way to do that is not by snorting down my nose at them and dismissing everything they say out of hand. I need to see what their information source is and understand what they are reading and what conclusions they are drawing.

Besides the whole argument is dumb and doesn't depend on if it was a lab leak or not.  The argument depends on if Fauci, in the early months of the pandemic, ignored credible evidence that this was the case or ignored a suggested hypothetical with no evidence.  As per the nature article above, there is still no credible evidence for it, as such it would be him doing the former.  To ignore a suggested hypothetical with no evidence is both good science and good policy.  Note this is not the same as discluding a hypothesis, which is when you have evidence that it is not true.     

Please reply about being burned at the stake for your thought crimes.   

[BIONIC]

We all had EIGHT MOTHERFUCKING YEARS of constant lying from the Executive Branch and his Press Secretary.

 

[chronovore]

We all had EIGHT MOTHERFUCKING YEARS of constant lying from the Executive Branch and his Press Secretary.

 

Sorry, felt like EIGHT years. Yes, my bad. Will correct.

[Madrun Badrun]

Keeping track of time must be like calorie counting for a time devourer, and best left to apps.

[chronovore]

Keeping track of time must be like calorie counting for a time devourer, and best left to apps.

[Occam]

Current data indicates you can catch Omicron more than once. While not as deadly as Delta, Omicron can still cause thrombosis and potentially long lasting organ damage (including to the brain), specifically if you are unvaccinated. Once infected, the unvaccinated have a much higher virus load and infect a far greater number of others, and there is a higher chance of mutation.
Not getting vaccinated, wearing masks and limiting contacts harms everyone. It's anti-social. Society needs to protect itself. It is not a human right to harm others by refusing to get vaccinated because of an inability to understand science. In fact, the rest of society has the right not to be harmed. Therefore, vaccine mandates make sense for the greater good, they are basically a form of self-defense.

[Uncle]

Just to be clear, I think a lab leak is possible.

To be more clear, whenever I find something controversial to discuss, I don't start it by linking to Fortean Times or the National Enquirer.

I have enough shithead relatives forwarding Breitbart and "thinktank" financial newsletters decrying the impending financial collapse WORSE THAN 2008, etc. When I have something to talk about, I try to find the most reliable, least-biased sources I can. So when they were "debating" the deadliness of the disease, the effect on the economy, I was finding articles in WSJ and Forbes, and AP/Reuters in a pinch. I was not linking HolisticSunshineNews.com

We all had EIGHT FOUR MOTHERFUCKING YEARS of constant lying from the Executive Branch and his Press Secretary. We had plenty of misinformation spewed about the vaccines, and that misinformation has led directly to the deaths of anyone in one of those areas that has lower than 20% vaccination rate. Lies, ignorance, fear, I've fucking had enough of it.

So go ahead and get your back up about expecting us to trust a bullshit source and react to it like some peer-reviewed report. I'm done.

I don't see how hard it is to just do what I did, click the link to see what their sources were, fully expecting to roll my eyes

if it says "a secret whistleblower source we must protect has said this!!!!" then fuck that

instead it went to a pdf of unredacted emails from a .gov website

I am interested in whether THAT source should be considered as untrustworthy as epoch, like do we think somebody just typed all this up to fuck around 

[Rufus]

I find it weird that people wont even entertain the idea that this leaked from the lab.

Here is a neutral discussion on the origins of COVID-19 which was written in June 2021 after Biden, Australia, the EU and Japan asked for a more robust investigation into the origins than the sham investigation organised by the WHO.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

While the authors don't have any firm conclusions about the origins, and largely dismiss the lab-leak theories, they also discuss that it is certainly a possibility.

To completely dismiss the possibility that a coronavirus leaked from a coronavirus research lab is naïve at best.

I don't dismiss it completely, but I follow the virology communities' opinion that a leak is unlikely, since I can't evaluate the information myself, e.g. the Furin cleavage site enabling the virus to jump to humans evolved naturally. What the fuck is a Furin cleavage site, actually? Fuck if I know. Fuck if anyone here knows. (Besides Raist, who is a virologist iirc.)

When everybody who declares a lab leak a slam and shut case without any actual evidence and has some kind of axe to grind with the current admin of the USA, China, Fauci (or their local equivalent), etc. then I can't help but be very suspicious of them and their motives.

I am interested in whether THAT source should be considered as untrustworthy as epoch, like do we think somebody just typed all this up to fuck around 

No, not to just fuck around. Republicans have made Fauci enemy #1. They have decided that this is a good thing to do. It's politics.

[Uncle]

so you don't think the contents of that pdf are trustworthy?  I don't know whether to believe it, because like I said I can't find any commentary online about the validity of republicans-oversight.house.gov

and there are other reasonable objections to what's been said/implied, for example just because fauci was cc'd on an email doesn't mean he agreed with it, or read it, or fully digested it, being a busy man

there are a few small replies from him in there but I'm not sure they point to any grand conspiracy, essentially the most "damning" thing is someone saying "hey these people are saying it came from a lab" and he replied "don't worry about it, it's just a shiny object that'll go away"

[Madrun Badrun]

What one publishes and why is paramount in being a trustworthy news organization.  News organization do not just pass along information but also an understanding of how to interpret that information.  Just because the original source comes from a GOP run government website does not make it a credible source nor is the Epoch Times just passing along the source without using it to make their own arguments which are not supported by the leaked emails.  The news is not just the leaked emails but also what those emails imply about what Fauci knew and what he is supposedly covering up.  As I and you both pointed out, that implication is illogical bullshit.  The untrustworthy part is not the facts of the email, it's trying to claim that those emails mean something that they do not actually mean.  It is very clear that the purpose is to discredit Fauci and push a lab-leak theory (because now we see big gov trying to cover it up, so it must be true).  That is not a credible source and using an uncredible source makes for an uncredible news organization. 

[Madrun Badrun]

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2022/1/12/1_5738198.amp.html

Inside an ICU where 70 per cent of COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated

[Raist]

I don't dismiss it completely, but I follow the virology communities' opinion that a leak is unlikely, since I can't evaluate the information myself, e.g. the Furin cleavage site enabling the virus to jump to humans evolved naturally. What the fuck is a Furin cleavage site, actually? Fuck if I know. Fuck if anyone here knows. (Besides Raist, who is a virologist iirc.)

Please. I'm a molecular immunologist, not a dirty virologist peasant .


Furin is an enzyme that cuts proteins at very specific sites that have a well defined sequence. Furin sites in the Spike protein isn't uncommon in coronaviruses (or proteins from other viruses), but what makes people raise an eyebrow is:

- the couple of coronaviruses that are the most closely related overall to SARS-CoV2 (thus the most likely to be its progenitors, if we assume that it's 100% "natural") don't have a furin site.
While not strictly impossible, the emergence of that particular sequence from scratch has a rather low probability, and the alternative possibility that one of those couple "progenitor" viruses recombined in the wild with another one that does have a furin site would be very likely to look like something quite different from SARS-CoV2.

- The exact nature of this particular sequence (at the genomic level) is a bit odd, again the probability for it to have appear naturally is very low.


None of this is an absolute "proof" that it was artificially derived for research, and someone fucked up, but at the same time its origin are not clear at all, and there is to date no definite "it evolved from this exact bat (or other reservoir) virus". Something that is usually identified relatively quickly, including back when the methods used were nowhere near as cheap, quick, and robust.


tl;dr:

[Rufus]

Please. I'm a molecular immunologist, not a dirty virologist peasant .

Apologies. Your file has been updated. 

- The exact nature of this particular sequence (at the genomic level) is a bit odd, again the probability for it to have appear naturally is very low.

What are these people on about then?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

None of this is an absolute "proof" that it was artificially derived for research, and someone fucked up, but at the same time its origin are not clear at all, and there is to date no definite "it evolved from this exact bat (or other reservoir) virus". Something that is usually identified relatively quickly, including back when the methods used were nowhere near as cheap, quick, and robust.

I assume the political climate was more favourable and local authorities more cooperative.

[Raist]

What are these people on about then?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

They don't really discuss the particular point that I mentioned and you quoted. It's getting rather technical and a bit tricky to "dumb down" clearly.

I don't know what to make either of "Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used(19). However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone(20)" because:
- there is no such data in this particular paper and the references they cite are generic coronavirus stuff, not SARS-CoV-2-specific (they predate this virus); there might be such "irrefutable" data published out there, I don't know it's not exactly my usual research area - but if there is, then I don't know why they didn't cite it right there
- we are long past the point where those type of "archaic" (relatively speaking) systems are strictly necessary. These days one can easily make recombinant viruses that would have no obvious trace whatsoever of artificial engineering, in mere days and for a couple hundred bucks (with obviously the appropriate know-how and fairly expensive yet ubiquitous equipment).

In any case, there is extremely rarely one true and infallible paper. Science works primarily by repetition, validation and consensus.
They may be absolutely right, or full of shit, we simply don't have any clear evidence either way. And I don't think we ever will, for what it's worth, at this stage it's all a bit moot.

I assume the political climate was more favourable and local authorities more cooperative.

I mean, it was China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia so...

[Potato]

So, we're back to square one where it could have been a lab leak, it could have been natural, but we'll never know because the totalitarian government which rules with an iron fist is doing everything it can to obfuscate the origins and obstruct any investigation.

[Occam]

And of course the stupid GQP-bitches at the Supreme Court have blocked the vaccine mandate for large employers.