The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

You know, sometimes if I close my eyes and listen to the wind, I can almost hear Archy's tortured howls. Or the telltale sound of a goalpost being moved. 

 

Miss that guy. 

It’s ok to admit you read the posts.  JJ really won’t mind and he really won’t put you on ignore like he claims.   Plus I know you are somewhat intellectually curious on a few of these things so might as well have the discussions out in the open.  
 

But if you want to be a closet reader still, be my guest.  

[Jason Sitoke]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Even though politics should be outside of science.  

Yes, but what fun would that be?

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Yes, but what fun would that be?

Not sure and don’t know if we will find out 

[Archy1221]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:46 AM, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

And speaking of reality, is climate change still not caused by human activity? Now that you seem to greet scientific findings with renewed vigor and authority, I'm wondering if you've come around.

Fun fact for you…..sea levels have risen some 400 feet the last 20,000 years.  Gotta be all those cars driven those last 20,000 years.  Or it could also be that the climate changes on its own and humans probably have some small component to that.   Far different than man made climate change as a whole. 
 

 

[Archy1221]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:30 AM, Scarlet said:

 

Hmmmm, Ummm Heidi and Scarlet…..about that DOE assessment you two are rage deeming about, and who's involved in making it.   Seems a bit more than a handful of physicists at the energy labs” 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-known-scientific-team-behind-015706576.html
 

Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department's analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology.

The labs were established as part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and operate largely in the classified realm. The department's cadre of technical experts includes members of the Energy Department's Z-Division, which since the 1960s has been involved in secretive investigations of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats by U.S. adversaries, including China and Russia.

The Energy Department is "a technical organization with tens of thousands of scientists," said a former energy official. "It's more than just physics. It's chemical and biological expertise. And they have a unique opportunity to look at intelligence from the technical aspect."

[NebraskaHarry]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Hmmmm, Ummm Heidi and Scarlet…..about that DOE assessment you two are rage deeming about, and who's involved in making it.   Seems a bit more than a handful of physicists at the energy labs” 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/little-known-scientific-team-behind-015706576.html
 

Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department's analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology.

The labs were established as part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and operate largely in the classified realm. The department's cadre of technical experts includes members of the Energy Department's Z-Division, which since the 1960s has been involved in secretive investigations of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threats by U.S. adversaries, including China and Russia.

The Energy Department is "a technical organization with tens of thousands of scientists," said a former energy official. "It's more than just physics. It's chemical and biological expertise. And they have a unique opportunity to look at intelligence from the technical aspect."

Just because most of the evidence points a certain way doesn't mean professionals aren't considering an alternative explanation. From what I've seen, the most likely explanation points to the wet market.

[Jason Sitoke]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Fun fact for you…..sea levels have risen some 400 feet the last 20,000 years.  Gotta be all those cars driven those last 20,000 years.  Or it could also be that the climate changes on its own and humans probably have some small component to that.   Far different than man made climate change as a whole. 
 

 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

I don’t mind standing.   Interesting scientific refute there.   The Scientific Journal of Lion King.  Paper authored by Timon, Poombaa, etc. al. 
 

Well when ya got nothing I guess that’s where ya gotta go.  

[Jason Sitoke]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t mind standing.   Interesting scientific refute there.   The Scientific Journal of Lion King.  Paper authored by Timon, Poombaa, etc. al. 
 

Well when ya got nothing I guess that’s where ya gotta go.  

I didn't really see an argument you made.  I did see your post start to fumble around with an oft-mentioned 'refute' of human-induced climate change.  I've seen various forms of it over the years...'Mars has temperature fluctuations....must be all those Martians driving SUVs', etc.  If these can be called arguments, they have been clearly addressed elsewhere and are easy to find if you were motivated to look for them.  Which you are not.

 

I think we have a climate change thread somewhere here, so I'll bring us back around to relevancy.  The issue isn't that you don't understand science (you don't), nor is it that you don't know that you don't understand science (you don't)...it is, and will always be, that you do not care that you don't know what you don't know, and furthermore that you enthusiastically push a series of bullet points associated with seemingly those which you identify socially/politically.

 

I understand the maze we can all find ourselves in where we really want to be correct, and really want those we despise to be incorrect.  Once that becomes the game, there really is no useful discussion or argument, and any valid points that might be made are incidental.

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

 

I think we have a climate change thread somewhere here, so I'll bring us back around to relevancy.  The issue isn't that you don't understand science (you don't), nor is it that you don't know that you don't understand science (you don't)...it is, and will always be, that you do not care that you don't know what you don't know, and furthermore that you enthusiastically push a series of bullet points associated with seemingly those which you identify socially/politically.

Aaaaanddd we’ve reached the “I don’t have an argument so I make silly little claims about a poster to get high fives” stage in all of this.  
 

Sounds like you probably still believe the following consensus arguments and say those who don’t agree are those who don’t understand science 
 

1) Miasma disease consensus

2) Lobotomies as standard of care more mental disease 

3) Blood letting 

4) Geocentric model

5) Continents never moved

6) Ulcers are purely stress induced

7) The Milky Way was the entire universe, not just one component. 
8) Out of Asia theory 

9) Balance of Nature consensus

10) well you kinda understand by now the point.  Things can change, new evidence comes about, and some rando spouting off on Huskerboard saying “arrghgg you don’t understand science,  argghg you don’t know blah blah” won’t deter this from happening again.   

No one knows for sure what started Covid-19 and how it spread in its initial stages.  We probably will never know if China doesn’t allow a review of its labs and data.  But people like you that discount a relevant possibility because it doesn’t fit your early narrative are a big part of the problem in trying to figure out the origin.  People like you that make fun of, have no intellectual curiosity to challenge “the consensus”, refuse to acknowledge more recent data, are part of the problem.   
 

I happen to believe a leak of some sort happened with Covid-19.  More and more evidence is suggesting this.   It isn’t proven yet, and if an origin animal host is found then I’m happy to acknowledge my thinking was wrong.  Unlike you, I keep an open mind while still having a thought preference.   

 

 

 

[commando]

maga has gone from "it's a hoax to try to control us" to "it was a chinese bioweapon intended to kill us all"   spare me any faux outrage

[Scarlet]

2 hours ago, NebraskaHarry said:

Just because most of the evidence points a certain way doesn't mean professionals aren't considering an alternative explanation. From what I've seen, the most likely explanation points to the wet market.

This is hard to understand when in mid-frothy meltdown. Then the narcissistic rage clouds judgement and reading comprehension, leading to the building of epic strawmen just to sooth the stung ego.   

 

I can't think of a single legit scientist, who has said that, when presented with irrefutable evidence that may be contrary to their current understanding of a matter, they would not openly accept those findings.  That's the entire basis of science and how our knowledge evolves.  

[nic]

On 2/27/2023 at 1:07 PM, ZRod said:

I'm sorry I just find it difficult to keep up with your latest airing of grievances. maybe a second Festives is in order?

 

Are you mad because you think the virus came from a lab? The DOE issued this latest release with a low confidence level, and there is still no consensus among US government agencies on the origin of the virus (and there won't be until China allows an independent investigation).

 

Are you mad that Twitter (who is a company and not a government agency), took steps to combat conspiracy theories and racism, even though there methods weren't perfect? I assume you are even more outraged at Desantis's Disney tactics if this is the case. Although Twitter is vastly different given that there was little to no information on the virus and it's origins when the implemented their misinformation policies.

 

Either way, I'm glad you've found more fodder for the outrage machine.

 

You sound more frustrated than me. I just like poking fun at Twitter and I feel good when I called BS back about their selective fake news labels and a few years later people come around. In this instance, they probably only flagged the Wuhan lab leak theory because Trump said it, so it must be false. To answer your question I posted this because I like making fun of Twitter. I have no idea whether COVID came from the lab but it certainly seemed plausible at the time.

[Archy1221]

 

[Scarlet]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1160162845/what-does-the-science-say-about-the-origin-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic

 

Quote

Four of the eight intelligence agencies lean toward a natural origin for the virus, with "low confidence," while two of them – the DOE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation – support a lab origin

 

Quote

But at the end of the day, the origin of the pandemic is also a scientific question. Virologists, who study pandemic origins, are much less divided than the U.S. intelligence community. They say there is "very convincing" data and "overwhelming evidence" pointing to an animal origin.

 

Quote

In particular, scientists published two extensive, peer-reviewed papers in Science in July 2022, offering the strongest evidence to date that the COVID-19 pandemic originated in animals at a market in Wuhan, China. Specifically, they conclude that the coronavirus most likely jumped from a caged wild animal into people at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where a huge COVID-19 outbreak began in December 2019.

Quote

They provide photographic evidence of wild animals such as raccoon dogs and a red fox, which can be infected with and shed SARS-CoV-2, sitting in cages in the market in late 2019. What's more, the caged animals are shown in or near a stall where scientists found SARS-CoV-2 virus on a number of surfaces, including on cages, carts and machines that process animals after they are slaughtered at the market.

Quote

NPR: So what is the likelihood of that coincidence happening — that the first cluster of cases occurs at a market that sells animals known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, but the virus didn't actually come from the market?

 

I would put the odds at 1 in 10,000. But it's interesting. We do have one analysis where we show essentially that the chance of having this pattern of cases [clustered around the market] is 1 in 10 million [if the market isn't a source of the virus]. We consider that strong evidence in science.

The analyses that we've done are telling a very strong story.

The evidence is amongst the best we have for any emerging virus.