Best News Segment on the Pandemic

[Victoria33]

So, Epoch Times is anti-Communist, there is little doubt, there are work camps, concentration camps in Western China filled with Uighur Muslims and the list goes on, human rights, etc. It’s pretty clear that Communist China is concealing still, much about this virus and allowed it to spread about the world. But, oh dear, how bad it is to be anti-Communist.

This whole thing too has made me think, we do need to start demanding countries start respecting human rights, it be North Korea, Communist China or whoever the case might be.

Japan set to pay its manufacturers to leave China

The country’s record stimulus package to try to offset the effects of the pandemic includes US$2 billion for companies shifting production back to Japan.

www.scmp.com

Japan has earmarked money for the Japanese to move their factories out of Communist China, perhaps all should be doing this UNLESS, freedoms, a Democratic government comes about.

 

[mrad25]

No, I saw it several days ago. I trust Scripts Research Institute over Botao Xiao’s headline with no paper, and uploaded by a right-wing financial blog.

The paper is there. When did Scribd become a right-wing financial blog? It’s a publisher hosting site.

 

[josie_L]

But in the explanations given to you I wasn’t trying to convince you that the original source was the lab in Wuhan. I simply took issue with how you were undermining or rather ignoring the possibility of infection from the original source and onwards before it reached the wet markets, which could in part explain the 33% of cases that were not connected to the wet markets.

That you claim this is likely less plausible or too complex is not based on what we know for you said so yourself that this is a highly infectious disease and that the first case was not likely the first case.

Rutgers University bioweapons expert Dr. Richard Ebright told CNN, “the possibility that the virus entered humans through a laboratory accident cannot and should not be dismissed… It is absolutely clear the market had no connection with the origin of the outbreak virus, and, instead, only was involved in amplification of an outbreak that had started elsewhere in Wuhan almost a full month earlier.”

“I think people went into the fish market who were already infected,” Vincent Racaniello, a microbiology professor at Columbia University, told CNN. “In bats, these viruses are intestinal viruses, and they are shedding the bat feces, which we call guano,” he said. “And if you go into a bat cave, it is littered with guano. And farmers in many countries harvest the guano to fertilize their fields.”

How much time lapsed before the virus reached the wet markets and did the virus reach the market from someone already infected?? And who is patient zero??

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, I saw it several days ago. I trust Scripts Research Institute over Botao Xiao’s headline with no paper, and uploaded by a right-wing financial blog.

The paper is there. When did Scribd become a right-wing financial blog? It’s a publisher hosting site.

It is not Scribd I was referring to. It was Zerohedge, which is a right-wing financial blog. You really need to read what you post more carefully. Scribd is an open publishing platform. They do no vetting of what they publish. So what are seeing is what Zerohedge wants you to see. And did you understand the reasoning behind the conclusion in the headline? Does the text of the article by Botao Xiao support the headline? And who is Botao Xiao? What else has he published? What is his reputation? So many questions need to be answered before you swallow this conspiracy theory.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

the possibility of infection from the original source and onwards before it reached the wet markets,

Don’t confuse a “possibility” with a “likelihood”.

 

[Victoria33]

What the Epoch Times is saying is not that they are saying something nobody else is saying. Many people say this and in fact, in regards to the UK Government:

Boris Johnson's government has considered the possibility that the coronavirus may have accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab

"Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is that laboratory in Wuhan," one UK government official told the Mail on Sunday.

www.businessinsider.com

Boris Johnson’s government has considered the possibility that the coronavirus may have accidentally leaked from a Chinese lab​

• The UK government reportedly believes the coronavirus outbreak may have started in a Chinese laboratory.
• Most experts believe the outbreak began when animals passed the virus to humans in China, specifically in or near a market in the city of Wuhan where live animals were sold.
• Some scientists, however, believe an accidental leak is a plausible alternative theory — and the Mail on Sunday said UK officials were not ruling it out.

So, good luck finding fault with the Epoch Times, NTD, Tucker Carlson and on down the line.

“Not ruling it out” and that sounds reasonable.

 

[josie_L]

The likelihood that no one a month before the virus reached the wet market got infected defies the very nature of this infectious disease!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you sure that is the only alternative? It does not seem like a binary choice to me.

 

[OraLabora]

But in the explanations given to you I wasn’t trying to convince you that the original source was the lab in Wuhan. I simply took issue with how you were undermining or rather ignoring the possibility of infection from the original source and onwards before it reached the wet markets, which could in part explain the 33% of cases that were not connected to the wet markets.

I’m not ignoring anything. You seem to want to “prove” your pet theory (confirmation bias). I’m not trying to prove anything, I am suggesting that scientists will look at the most probable and simplest scenarios first. Which includes an asymptomatic patient who did have contact with the market, infected a first patient who did not. Another possible scenario to explain an earlier emergence than the wet market, is an illegal pangolin dealer who illicitly sold pangolins both to the wet market and to other buyers in Wuhan. Given that pangolins are a delicacy and a folk medicine in China, given that pangolins are a protected species, and given that pangolins are a fairly probable bat-to-human vector, there is a widespread and not always easy to trace black market in Pangolins.

This would be enough of an embarrassment to China as it’s not the first time viruses have crossed species barriers there due to poor and/or traditional animal husbandry practices that they cannot seem to be able to eradicate.

So that’s where I would look first. If it’s not conclusive, or proven false, then one goes further down the list of possibilities. I’m not suggesting we don’t consider all possibilities, I’m suggesting it’s best to do it in an orderly and organized manner starting with the simplest and most likely scenarios first.

You on the other hand seem to be trying to fit “data” to a preconceived conclusion. Science will try to leave politics, and distaste for the Chinese system, out of the equation unless investigations suggest otherwise.

 

[josie_L]

I wrote to you because you KEPT INSISTING and still insist that it is MORE PLAUSIBLE for the 33% of cases not connected to the wet markets to have been infected by asymptomatic individuals who visited the markets, BUT THE OUTBREAK’S ORIGINS were not in the wet markets and the outbreak started almost a whole month earlier elsewhere.

Logically, people got infected prior to the market ever getting the virus, which would in part account for some of the 33%.

This is not me TRYING TO PROVE THIS CAME FROM A LAB, this is me using the knowledge we have to come up with a MORE plausible and more logical scenario!

You’re insistence that this is not or that it’s more complex than your scenario doesn’t make sense considering what we do know.

 

[OraLabora]

Or illicit pangolin traffic.

We’ve already established that the wet markets are not the origin. Most of the scientific literature asserts that. But it appears to be the primary vector between the host species and humans, because of the large amount of traffic through it, through an intermediate species. This would account for the 66% of initial cases traceable to the market. You have to recognize that this intermediate species may not have been sold only at the wet markets, the same dealer may have sold to several sources. So for the 33% not traceable to the market, all or a portion may have come from asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 at the market, and another portion may, or may not, have come from illicit pangolin sales to other clients.

It is notable that studies have shown quite a bit of variation in asymptomatic patients:

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-asymptomatic/

Enough though, are asymptomatic to easily account for 33% spread that cannot be traced back to the market.

 

[josie_L]

 

[Victoria33]

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/othe...ience-says-about-covid-19-origins/ar-BB12sMhR

This is informative but I don’t think it excludes anything totally. It does seem to make the case that a virus that escaped the lab is probably not what happened BUT… we do not know for certain. The article seems to say it is unlikely and I don’t think there is some motivation to cover it up. I think it is an honest report.

 

[Theo520]

This is informative but I don’t think it excludes anything totally. It does seem to make the case that a virus that escaped the lab is probably not what happened BUT… we do not know for certain. The article seems to say it is unlikely and I don’t think there is some motivation to cover it up. I think it is an honest report.

There is no way of knowing except for China confessing. The virus could have escaped the lab and still been a natural virus they discovered from their collecting of bats, to find such viruses.

 

[Minks]

josie_L:

Leaf, don’t give me that malarkey, the people who fact check and claim the biases in the first place have their own biases!!

Were we talking about fact checkers? I didn’t think so. I was referring to reputation, something the Washington Post and the New York Times have and that Epoch Times can only wish they had.

Lol! “Now, THAT’s funny! What honest publication would want the trending reps of the NYTimes and Washington Posts of the past few years?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

josie_L:

Leaf, don’t give me that malarkey, the people who fact check and claim the biases in the first place have their own biases!!

Were we talking about fact checkers? I didn’t think so. I was referring to reputation, something the Washington Post and the New York Times have and that Epoch Times can only wish they had.

Lol! “Now, THAT’s funny! What honest publication would want the trending reps of the NYTimes and Washington Posts of the past few years?

As Mrs. Tweedy said to Mr. Tweedy, “All of them!”

 

[mrad25]

It is not Scribd I was referring to. It was Zerohedge, which is a right-wing financial blog. You really need to read what you post more carefully. Scribd is an open publishing platform. They do no vetting of what they publish. So what are seeing is what Zerohedge wants you to see. And did you understand the reasoning behind the conclusion in the headline? Does the text of the article by Botao Xiao support the headline? And who is Botao Xiao? What else has he published? What is his reputation? So many questions need to be answered before you swallow this conspiracy theory.

It’s not me who has to read what I post more carefully. I never posted anything from ZeroHedge. You claimed the report I posted which was uploaded to Scribd was from a far right site. It wasn’t. I will say however sites like ZeroHedge have been at the forefront of keeping the lines of investigation open, have at it if you want to marginalize though. You don’t have to tell me what Scribd is, as I stated in my post, which you would see if you read it more carefully, I stated Scribd is an open publishing platform, however that doesn’t mean the study came out of no-where. My suggestion to you is to look and read people’s posts more closely. You may then see where the study was initially posted. It came out of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Now if you actually read the study you will see that it states and concludes but here I will help you out: “In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.”

 

[mrad25]

Assuming that COVID-19 emerged naturally in a matter of weeks in the middle of a massive urban metropolis the size of New York City, when the host population of bats was hibernating requires completely ignoring everything we know about how viruses transfer between species, and zoonotic jumps.

The circumstances of this “supposed” transfer would lieterally require rewriting the textbooks on zoonotic jumps if it occurred it all, but beyond that: supposedly not only did a zoonotic jump happen instantly without the necessary steps, but when it hit humans it was extraordinarily virulent from the start, something that’s supposed to take an extensive amount of time to ever happen as mutations go through selective trial-and-error. This trial-and-error takes time and is why viruses have never made a zoonotic jump and been instantly virulent in a new host species like COVID-19 has been in humans.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is not Scribd I was referring to. It was Zerohedge, which is a right-wing financial blog. You really need to read what you post more carefully. Scribd is an open publishing platform. They do no vetting of what they publish. So what are seeing is what Zerohedge wants you to see. And did you understand the reasoning behind the conclusion in the headline? Does the text of the article by Botao Xiao support the headline? And who is Botao Xiao? What else has he published? What is his reputation? So many questions need to be answered before you swallow this conspiracy theory.

It’s not me who has to read what I post more carefully. I never posted anything from ZeroHedge.

Correcting right-wing misinformation is so exhausting…

Your very first link was this:

https://www.scribd.com/document/447056518/Originsof2019-NCoV-XiaoB-Res#from_embed

If you click on that link, at the top of the page you will see “Uploaded by Zerohedge”. And as you can see from my link, Zerohedge is a right-wing financial blog.

Now, maybe you are referring to one of your other links. If so, be specific, because you will find the more reputable a link you find, the less it will support the claim that SARS/Cov-2 was engineered. And of course you totally ignored my citation saying that it was not engineered.

I will say however sites like ZeroHedge have been at the forefront of keeping the lines of investigation open…

…political investigations, maybe. Especially those that favor right-wing causes.

I stated Scribd is an open publishing platform, however that doesn’t mean the study came out of no-where.

Nor does it mean the study has any merit or validity or applicability. Like many things we see on the Internet, we just don’t know. And so we use our imagination to interpret it as best suits us.

It came out of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Well, cite that appearance directly rather than through an ideological filter.

“In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.”

This means nothing unless I know the reputation of the person saying it.

Assuming that COVID-19 emerged naturally in a matter of weeks in the middle of a massive urban metropolis the size of New York City, when the host population of bats was hibernating requires completely ignoring everything we know about how viruses transfer between species, and zoonotic jumps.

The circumstances of this “supposed” transfer would lieterally require rewriting the textbooks on zoonotic jumps if it occurred it all…

See, this is what happens when armchair epidemiologists pretend to be real epidemiologists.

 

[mrad25]

Correcting right-wing misinformation is so exhausting…

Your very first link was this:

Correcting is exhausting esp. when ppl don’t pay attention.

If you click on that link, at the top of the page you will see “Uploaded by Zerohedge”. And as you can see from my link, Zerohedge is a right-wing financial blog.

Just because the study was uploaded by Zerohedge does not mean the study came from them, as you claimed. If you download the study you will see where the study was originally published. Start there.

Now, maybe you are referring to one of your other links. If so, be specific, because you will find the more reputable a link you find, the less it will support the claim that SARS/Cov-2 was engineered. And of course you totally ignored my citation saying that it was not engineered.

Maybe you have missed the part that stated the US Intel Dept can’t rule out the virus didn’t come from a lab or was engineered or the experts in the doc who said similarly. Just because you post some study doesn’t not make it true either. There have been numerous takedowns and debunking of that study from China’s own Nature magazine, you are throwing out, which you are failing to pay attention to. And if nothing else, it is wildly irresponsible to speak-out against the possibility that the virus got out of a lab when a natural origin has not been conclusively demonstrated.

…political investigations, maybe. Especially those that favor right-wing causes.

You aren’t paying close enough attention, but if throwing out marginalizations make you feel best.

Nor does it mean the study has any merit or validity or applicability. Like many things we see on the Internet, we just don’t know. And so we use our imagination to interpret it as best suits us.

Oh but the study you posted does? The study I posted has been peer reviewed, from experts in the field, but please go ahead & marginalize those scientists too while you are at it, instead of coming at anything with evidence, science & facts of what the study they published found.

This means nothing unless I know the reputation of the person saying it.

The names of the scientists who said it are on the paper, research them if you want to know their reputation. I provided the study, not their resumes.

See, this is what happens when armchair epidemiologists pretend to be real epidemiologists.

Glad to think you know me so well or better yet what well known epidemiologists have said too. But hey here’s some studies for you to understand better what I said regarding viruses & zoonotic jumps. It’s kind of common knowledge for those in the field, nothing armstrong about it.

https://mmbr.asm.org/content/mmbr/72/3/457.full.pdf

Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China - Virologica Sinica

link.springer.com