bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 5, 2024 9:05:07 GMT -5
With over seven million deaths now attributed to COVID worldwide, there's an awful lot of legal liability out there. China has made moves to cut off origination information because they think it is in their best interests to claim the disease got its start somewhere else (they've been pointing at the USA). That being the case, there continue to be a lot of unknowns, which allow the conspiracy theorists to jump in with their opinions. Most of these naturally support their previously held ideology. No surprise there. Not sure why (or how) this is an ideology issue? Not saying that it hasn't devolved into this. It does appear that many from the left have moved to the decent possibility of a lab leak. Somewhat related to ideology - 'Trust in Government' used to be a rock solid opinion of conservatives and not so much for liberals. This has now flipped - conservates are way less likely to trust the Government. The irony of how on many things have switched between left and right over the past 20 years.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 5, 2024 9:14:57 GMT -5
I know that generally virologists think lab leak is less than 50%, but then they have a MAJOR incentive for this to be natural and not sure their opinion can be fully taken on face value It's a key sign of science conspiracy theories when people claim that the scientific community in some subject has some nebulous "incentive" to cover up or suppress some supposed fact. Scientists as a group tend to be skeptical and eager to show that they have figured out something that other people have missed, making them quite unlikely to participate in cover-ups. Okay - I may be getting over my skies here. But it is my understanding that the evidence on the origins of COVID is horrible compared to just about anything similar to this. Typically, we would pretty much know the animal that was the source and have a high level of confidence on the source (how and why) for a new virus like this. However, we don't have that with this. I suspect a large part of this is how bad China has been in providing or helping with this information. And of course - they have an incentive to lie or stonewall information, along with a history of doing this. Which makes me think that virologist are mostly giving educated opinions on the origins that are far less conclusive than SARS and other similar things. Which makes their incentives or priors on this more tainted than usual. I am not saying they are lying - I assume they are giving their expert opinion. But let us not kid ourselves in thinking that a lot of their job is tied to the kinds of research that was taking place in Wuhan. This is similar to polling the opinions of nuclear engineers on the subject of a nuclear accident when unable to get the quality data needed to study.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 5, 2024 9:31:44 GMT -5
This is similar to polling the opinions of nuclear engineers on the subject of a nuclear accident when unable to get the quality data needed to study. I think the opinions of nuclear engineers about a nuclear accident are probably pretty useful.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 5, 2024 10:34:29 GMT -5
It's a key sign of science conspiracy theories when people claim that the scientific community in some subject has some nebulous "incentive" to cover up or suppress some supposed fact. Scientists as a group tend to be skeptical and eager to show that they have figured out something that other people have missed, making them quite unlikely to participate in cover-ups. Okay - I may be getting over my skies here. But it is my understanding that the evidence on the origins of COVID is horrible compared to just about anything similar to this. Typically, we would pretty much know the animal that was the source and have a high level of confidence on the source (how and why) for a new virus like this. However, we don't have that with this. I suspect a large part of this is how bad China has been in providing or helping with this information. And of course - they have an incentive to lie or stonewall information, along with a history of doing this. Which makes me think that virologist are mostly giving educated opinions on the origins that are far less conclusive than SARS and other similar things. Which makes their incentives or priors on this more tainted than usual. I am not saying they are lying - I assume they are giving their expert opinion. But let us not kid ourselves in thinking that a lot of their job is tied to the kinds of research that was taking place in Wuhan. This is similar to polling the opinions of nuclear engineers on the subject of a nuclear accident when unable to get the quality data needed to study. 18 Nov 2021 - Dissecting the early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan Elucidating the origin of the pandemic requires understanding of the Wuhan outbreak26 Jul 2022 - The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic 2023-03-08 - Opinion: I called for more research on the COVID ‘lab leak theory.’ Here’s what I found out2023 Mar 16 - What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?This article will review two theories: SARS-CoV-2 as a virus of zoonotic origin or as a leak from the high-level biosafety laboratory in Wuhan. ... Do these findings close the discussion on the origins of SARS-CoV-2? No. As can be seen, there are two theories that could coexist or the debate could be closed by choosing one or the other. Defining chains of infection and seeking the origin of them is a fundamental aspect of public health. Therefore, on the one hand, it seems evident that the transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand, three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats? More virologic and genomic studies are needed in order to provide a definitive response to these questions, in addition to collaboration from the Chinese government. This fundamental aspect has not occurred throughout the pandemic and it does not seem that it will. At any rate, two conclusions can be drawn from all of the above. First, respect for nature is fundamental and if we do not control food supply chains, it is possible that new infectious agents that pass from animals to humans will continue to emerge. Second, controls in high safety laboratories are very important and any research study must be subject to the ethical principles of medical practice.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 5, 2024 10:49:34 GMT -5
With over seven million deaths now attributed to COVID worldwide, there's an awful lot of legal liability out there. China has made moves to cut off origination information because they think it is in their best interests to claim the disease got its start somewhere else (they've been pointing at the USA). That being the case, there continue to be a lot of unknowns, which allow the conspiracy theorists to jump in with their opinions. Most of these naturally support their previously held ideology. No surprise there. Not sure why (or how) this is an ideology issue? Not saying that it hasn't devolved into this. It does appear that many from the left have moved to the decent possibility of a lab leak. Somewhat related to ideology - 'Trust in Government' used to be a rock solid opinion of conservatives and not so much for liberals. This has now flipped - conservates are way less likely to trust the Government. The irony of how on many things have switched between left and right over the past 20 years. It shouldn't be an ideology issue. But you seemed to be making it one by attributing it to a lab leak and using that as your launch pad to slam Fauci. Going after Fauci is one of the current GOP talking points. They are trying to sidestep Trump receiving the blame for mishandling COVID, and many of them apparently think Fauci is the most convenient fall guy. Part of their "explanation" is based on declaring that COVID started as a lab leak. Since China has cut off information to cover their butts, some of the data that exists can credibly draw that conclusion. The primary data point against it is where the cases first showed up. The market. It's in Wuhan, like the lab, but the two aren't otherwise really close to each other. Looking at all of the data available to us, it is not possible to draw a scientific conclusion of near certainty. As has been previously stated, the groups who have put out an opinion said one way or another, but with low confidence. This brings up a question: if scientists are close to 50/50 on this (actually they have a bias towards no lab leak), then why are you at 80%? It feels like to me that you are injecting political bias into this. Ideology, in other words. A rightwing echo chamber has developed to reinforce their beliefs among people they have trapped in their bubble. These beliefs have shifted far enough to the right that factual truth has become more and more poisonous to them. That being the case, they have wound up the propaganda machine to find fault with main stream media, science, and the federal government (at least when mostly under Dem control). I hope that this trend will reverse itself once the conservative rank and file realize Trump is leading them astray.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 5, 2024 10:53:08 GMT -5
Okay - I may be getting over my skies here. What does this mean? I've never heard this phrase before, and google doesn't have anything for it.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 5, 2024 12:46:15 GMT -5
It's *quite* clear that the virus spread from the Wuhan market. The only way the "lab leak" theory works is if some infected lab worker shopped at the market. That's possible, but since we also know that a version of the virus is present in the raccoon dog population, and the market live-slaughtered raccoon dogs, it sure as hell seems to me that the simpler explanation is that the virus jumped from a raccoon dog.
The "lab leak" theories mostly rely on studies of the virus itself, implying that it looks like it may have been artificially manipulated. But there is no proof of this. Just speculation. It seems unlikely at this late stage that we could possibly find definitive proof of a zoonotic spread. The only way we could find definitive proof of a "lab leak" is if some records exist that prove it, and that would require a level of transparency we don't usually see from China.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 5, 2024 12:48:54 GMT -5
And of course, none of this explains Blue's obvious hate for Tony Fauci.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 5, 2024 12:53:10 GMT -5
Okay - I may be getting over my skies here. What does this mean? I've never heard this phrase before, and google doesn't have anything for it. It may have been auto-corrected to skies instead of skis get out over your skis idiom Add to word list US (also get over your skis) to do something too early, or before you are ready or prepared dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/get-out-over-skis#google_vignette
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 5, 2024 13:06:08 GMT -5
Yes, a literal term from skiing. It's something you tell beginning skiers and has taken on the meaning of trying to explain something on a subject where you are out of your depth. It has a similar meaning to the football phrase "outkicking your coverage", when you kick the ball so far ahead of the coverage that the receiver can get a head start and is much harder to stop. It also means getting ahead of yourself, or getting out of your depth.
|
|