Are the Dems really going to select an 80 year old to take on DeSantis? – politicalbetting.com

System

Are the Dems really going to select an 80 year old to take on DeSantis? – politicalbetting.com

Joe Biden and his party came out of the Mid Terms better than most predicted and this has reinforced the suggestions that he will seek a second term at the 2024 presidential election. To retain control of the Senate three weeks ago with possibly an increased majority was a huge achievement for the Dems but his name was not on the ballot as it would be in a White House race primary.

Read the full story here

ClippP

First?

edmundintokyo

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily? If he runs he'll probably get the nomination, and if he feels up to it he'll probably run.

I agree that if it's clear he'd be facing DeSantis instead of Trump then it's much more likely he'll retire but it that going to be clear in time? Once Trump drops out his people will stop sending him money. And if DeSantis is going to be running the traditional play of trying to defeat Trump without criticizing him then he's well short of certain to prevail, to put it mildly.

DecrepiterJohnL

Government help on home insulation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-joins-with-households-to-help-millions-reduce-their-energy-bills

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63776183

Fishing

edmundintokyo said:

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily?

There was a rash of it about 50 years ago. Johnson didn't run again when it looked like he'd lose. Nixon resigned when it looked certain he'd be kicked out. Harold Wilson resigned because ... we'll probably never be sure. Before that, I suppose you'd have to go back to the 30's here. Ramsay Mac and Baldwin left before they had to. And in America before terms were limited, it was strictly speaking voluntary for Presidents to follow Washington and not run for a third term.

It was never very common and has become much rarer with the rise of professional politicians I think.

Heathener

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

Heathener

p.s. and we also always go through this latest leadership fad (e.g. Pete Buttigieg). We don't yet know that de Santis has secured the GoP nomination. He has yet to face scrutiny and the rigours of the primary season. Let's just see ...

tlg86

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/28/im-a-celebrity-final-review-at-least-matt-hancock-the-rat-didnt-win

Matt Hancock’s interminable 21 days in the jungle is over – and he was intolerable to the last. Who was voting for this self-serving rodent?

Sound familiar?

rcs1000

Fishing said:

edmundintokyo said:

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily?

There was a rash of it about 50 years ago. Johnson didn't run again when it looked like he'd lose. Nixon resigned when it looked certain he'd be kicked out. Harold Wilson resigned because ... we'll probably never be sure. Before that, I suppose you'd have to go back to the 30's here. Ramsay Mac and Baldwin left before they had to. And in America before terms were limited, it was strictly speaking voluntary for Presidents to follow Washington and not run for a third term.

It was never very common and has become much rarer with the rise of professional politicians I think.

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.

rcs1000

Heathener said:

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

I thought he was still married to Jill.

DecrepiterJohnL

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/28/im-a-celebrity-final-review-at-least-matt-hancock-the-rat-didnt-win

Matt Hancock’s interminable 21 days in the jungle is over – and he was intolerable to the last. Who was voting for this self-serving rodent?

Sound familiar?

Not particularly but it is yet another article giving more prominence to Matt Hancock, whilst affecting to deplore him, than to the winner, Jill the footballer, Jill the lioness, Jill the odds-on favourite for the past couple of weeks.

Fwiw, according to the Betfair forum, Hancock was most popular on Facebook, and Jill on Instagram.

Andy_JS

"China rocked by protests as zero-Covid anger spreads
Tensions run into second day after vigil ends with clashes with police in Shanghai" (via G search)

https://www.ft.com/content/d8231c04-5d7f-468e-8547-77587546734e

Pulpstar

rcs1000 said:

Heathener said:

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

I thought he was still married to Jill.

9 years between them

eristdoof

Fishing said:

edmundintokyo said:

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily?

There was a rash of it about 50 years ago. Johnson didn't run again when it looked like he'd lose. Nixon resigned when it looked certain he'd be kicked out. Harold Wilson resigned because ... we'll probably never be sure. Before that, I suppose you'd have to go back to the 30's here. Ramsay Mac and Baldwin left before they had to. And in America before terms were limited, it was strictly speaking voluntary for Presidents to follow Washington and not run for a third term.

It was never very common and has become much rarer with the rise of professional politicians I think.

Claiming that Nixon went voluntarily is stretching it a bit. A bit like saying Thatcher went voluntarily.

rcs1000

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

Heathener said:

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

I thought he was still married to Jill.

9 years between them

Using @Leon math, that means that she is actually older than him.

Heathener

eristdoof said:

Fishing said:

edmundintokyo said:

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily?

There was a rash of it about 50 years ago. Johnson didn't run again when it looked like he'd lose. Nixon resigned when it looked certain he'd be kicked out. Harold Wilson resigned because ... we'll probably never be sure. Before that, I suppose you'd have to go back to the 30's here. Ramsay Mac and Baldwin left before they had to. And in America before terms were limited, it was strictly speaking voluntary for Presidents to follow Washington and not run for a third term.

It was never very common and has become much rarer with the rise of professional politicians I think.

Claiming that Nixon went voluntarily is stretching it a bit. A bit like saying Thatcher went voluntarily.

Indeed. Well even more so in Nixon's case. He was on the cusp of indictment and part of a criminal investigation: found guilty of being a co-conspirator to those who were indicted.

Heathener

She's 71.

Positively youthful for a sassy American lady.

Heathener

Really, truly, the Brit mindset which is geared around decrepitude bears no relation to the drive of the American dream. You stay fit, you work hard, you achieve goals through your 70's and 80's for as long as God gives you strength.

It's a totally different mentality to the slippers and fire big long snooze of British retirement.

DavidL

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

DavidL

eristdoof said:

Fishing said:

edmundintokyo said:

When was the last time a politician gave up a job like that voluntarily?

There was a rash of it about 50 years ago. Johnson didn't run again when it looked like he'd lose. Nixon resigned when it looked certain he'd be kicked out. Harold Wilson resigned because ... we'll probably never be sure. Before that, I suppose you'd have to go back to the 30's here. Ramsay Mac and Baldwin left before they had to. And in America before terms were limited, it was strictly speaking voluntary for Presidents to follow Washington and not run for a third term.

It was never very common and has become much rarer with the rise of professional politicians I think.

Claiming that Nixon went voluntarily is stretching it a bit. A bit like saying Thatcher went voluntarily.

Same with Johnson. He was going to lose to RFK and could not take the humiliation, having frozen Robert out of his administration.

Heathener

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

DavidL

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

Reagan famously said that he was not going to take advantage of his opponent's inexperience. But Reagan had real political skills and charm. Biden got selected because of his time with Obama. The difference between them is that Obama remains a truly great public speaker as he proved in Pennsylvania, helping flip the Senate. Biden never was.

ydoethur

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

In a campaign that began by being dominated by age, before Reagan’s famous zinger on the subject.

Andy_JS

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

ydoethur

On the subject of Mondale v Reagan, it is worth remembering that while Reagan deflected age as an issue in the campaign, he did become increasingly senile in his second term. It’s one reason why his administration became mired in so many scandals.

He became so detached from things that there was a serious move to depose him and make Bush Acting President, although in the end it came to nothing.

And he was younger then then Biden is now.

LostPassword

ydoethur said:

On the subject of Mondale v Reagan, it is worth remembering that while Reagan deflected age as an issue in the campaign, he did become increasingly senile in his second term. It’s one reason why his administration became mired in so many scandals.

He became so detached from things that there was a serious move to depose him and make Bush Acting President, although in the end it came to nothing.

And he was younger then then Biden is now.

But Reagan developed dementia didn't he? Which can happen to younger people anyway, and so it was the disease, not age, that robbed Reagan of his faculties.

Biden is old, but he's healthy. The administration appears to be functioning well.

In an ideal world you'd probably want someone like Whitmer running for the Democrats, but Biden is the incumbent, and frankly I think there's a high chance the Democrats end up with a younger candidate who is weaker than Biden.

Heathener

ydoethur said:

On the subject of Mondale v Reagan, it is worth remembering that while Reagan deflected age as an issue in the campaign, he did become increasingly senile in his second term. It’s one reason why his administration became mired in so many scandals.

He became so detached from things that there was a serious move to depose him and make Bush Acting President, although in the end it came to nothing.

And he was younger then then Biden is now.

Yes but that also illustrates the point that age is not synonymous with losing marbles. 'Senility' means nothing in and of itself. The Queen for example was perfectly capable of running the show into her 90's. And no one would have told David Attenborough to quit in his 80's.

ydoethur

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

On the subject of Mondale v Reagan, it is worth remembering that while Reagan deflected age as an issue in the campaign, he did become increasingly senile in his second term. It’s one reason why his administration became mired in so many scandals.

He became so detached from things that there was a serious move to depose him and make Bush Acting President, although in the end it came to nothing.

And he was younger then then Biden is now.

But Reagan developed dementia didn't he? Which can happen to younger people anyway, and so it was the disease, not age, that robbed Reagan of his faculties.

Biden is old, but he's healthy. The administration appears to be functioning well.

In an ideal world you'd probably want someone like Whitmer running for the Democrats, but Biden is the incumbent, and frankly I think there's a high chance the Democrats end up with a younger candidate who is weaker than Biden.

Alzheimer’s, to be exact, although whether that was during office or after it is not totally certain.

Heathener

ydoethur said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

In a campaign that began by being dominated by age, before Reagan’s famous zinger on the subject.

Yeah it was marvellous. I'm obviously no right-winger but Reagan did make me smile. He had a genuine youthquake behind him too. The youngsters loved him.

Heathener

DavidL said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

Reagan famously said that he was not going to take advantage of his opponent's inexperience. But Reagan had real political skills and charm. Biden got selected because of his time with Obama. The difference between them is that Obama remains a truly great public speaker as he proved in Pennsylvania, helping flip the Senate. Biden never was.

Well we can argue the toss about Obama's oratory prowess but I do feel that this is another very Brit-centred analysis. Go Stateside and the assessment of Obama's presidency is a lot less positive. A feeling that it was a missed opportunity and that he himself was very flat. Almost devoid of emotion and certainly people skills: notoriously so. Biden has arguably a lot more charisma but lacks the advantage of being the first black President (which was a great thing of course).

I think this is all one of those examples where if you don't live in a place you can miss the groundswell.

Luckyguy1983

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I think we've established that harping on about Biden's 'age' is a polite way of addressing his seeming increasing infirmity. It would be vigorously argued by many that Biden is in fact suffering from senile dementia - I don't know if that's true, I don't like watching gotcha videos of pratfalls and senior rambles. I think some are exaggerated.

IanB2

Andy_JS said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

But the odds of their staying so for any length of time aren’t so good, which is why it should matter.

Verulamius

Lord Ashcroft has published detailed analysis of the state of the Conservative party.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/11/they-think-its-all-over-can-the-tories-turn-it-round

The best graphic is

turbotubbs

Heathener said:

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

I’m sorry but while your point is valid about different national attitudes, no 78 year is extremely fit. He may be relatively fit for his age, but he is still a 78 year old man. He also shows the classic signs of his age on his mental faculties. Like my father, he gets names wrong and loses his thread in sentences.
Does he have the right to run? Yes, of course. Should he? I’m not convinced, unless it is vs Trump. And we should all pray to whatever god we have it’s not.

IanB2

Verulamius said:

Lord Ashcroft has published detailed analysis of the state of the Conservative party.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/11/they-think-its-all-over-can-the-tories-turn-it-round

The best graphic is

It shows very clearly that the Tories have been driven right back to their core vote, those whose narrow mindedness cannot see beyond their culture war obsessions a la Leon.

turbotubbs

Heathener said:

Really, truly, the Brit mindset which is geared around decrepitude bears no relation to the drive of the American dream. You stay fit, you work hard, you achieve goals through your 70's and 80's for as long as God gives you strength.

It's a totally different mentality to the slippers and fire big long snooze of British retirement.

Nope, you have characterised some peoples view of retirement (my mother in law) not everyone’s (my parents, my mother in particular). My mother runs the local Link service (drivers for people who need to get to hospital, go shopping etc). She was until recently on the parish council. She has wide hobbies including a sewing club once a week. She runs three times a week, including park run. She swims twice a week. She visits great grand hildren.
She is busy ALL the time.
What she is not doing is running a country.

CarlottaVance

Luckyguy1983 said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I think we've established that harping on about Biden's 'age' is a polite way of addressing his seeming increasing infirmity. It would be vigorously argued by many that Biden is in fact suffering from senile dementia - I don't know if that's true, I don't like watching gotcha videos of pratfalls and senior rambles. I think some are exaggerated.

Some also ignore Biden’s well known stutter which can cause a person to appear to struggle for thoughts when it’s the difficulty of getting words out that’s the problem. Ideally you’d judge a president by how well his administration ran, rather than selectively edited sound bites, and on that basis Biden is a clear improvement vs an admittedly low base.

IanB2

turbotubbs said:

Heathener said:

Really, truly, the Brit mindset which is geared around decrepitude bears no relation to the drive of the American dream. You stay fit, you work hard, you achieve goals through your 70's and 80's for as long as God gives you strength.

It's a totally different mentality to the slippers and fire big long snooze of British retirement.

Nope, you have characterised some peoples view of retirement (my mother in law) not everyone’s (my parents, my mother in particular). My mother runs the local Link service (drivers for people who need to get to hospital, go shopping etc). She was until recently on the parish council. She has wide hobbies including a sewing club once a week. She runs three times a week, including park run. She swims twice a week. She visits great grand hildren.
She is busy ALL the time.
What she is not doing is running a country.

It is worth noting, however, that despite the gruelling nature of the election campaign, the actual job of President does offer more scope for being carried by those around you - at least in terms of real impact - than does our PM which, as Johnson found out to his cost, does actually require you to put in the hard yards.

dixiedean

The difference between Biden and his two predecessors is that he appears to appoint competent and honest people to senior positions, and allows them to do their jobs.

ydoethur

CarlottaVance said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I think we've established that harping on about Biden's 'age' is a polite way of addressing his seeming increasing infirmity. It would be vigorously argued by many that Biden is in fact suffering from senile dementia - I don't know if that's true, I don't like watching gotcha videos of pratfalls and senior rambles. I think some are exaggerated.

Some also ignore Biden’s well known stutter which can cause a person to appear to struggle for thoughts when it’s the difficulty of getting words out that’s the problem. Ideally you’d judge a president by how well his administration ran, rather than selectively edited sound bites, and on that basis Biden is a clear improvement vs an admittedly low base.

Acceptable under the Circumstances was funny 'cos every word was true.

Pro_Rata

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

OnlyLivingBoy

Agreed. Biden will be the nominee if he's likely to face Trump, and probably won't be if he isn't. But who can they pick to beat RdS?

StillWaters

Heathener said:

Mike is seemingly not a man to change his view.

However, as I've pointed out to him before, this is a very Brit-centric view of ageing. Attitudes in the US are very different. 'Retirement' is not the golden fleece. The American Dream means staying fit and healthy and working on. The idea that in Britain a Senator could only retire at 100 is unthinkable, yet that's exactly what Senator Strom Thurmond did. Several Senators have sat into their 90's. You need a total mindset change at a Brit to comprehend the idea that MPs could run for Parliament in their 80's or 90's, but it happens in the US. (And don't make lazy comparisons to the House of Lords: the US Senate is an elected chamber and elections are full blown battles.)

Joe Biden is extremely physically fit. He has a young wife by his side. I have little doubt that he will run. And win.

When he steps down after his second term, having just turned 86, he would not even make the top 10 list of oldest senators.

https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/

Jill is 71. Describing her as “a young wife” makes it sound rather seedy

Leon

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I’m reading, with interest, your enthusiastic descriptions of this sharp, fit, eager, vigorous US President with the hot younger wife… and then I look at Joe and Jill Biden

Heathener

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcgG_E9gQJM

"Age is no guarantee of efficiency and youth is no guarantee of innovation."

Classic one liner from Skyfall.

Have a nice day folks.

xx

HYUFD

If the Democrats want a younger nominee Buttigieg is probably their best bet.

However DeSantis may not be the GOP nominee anyway, septugunarian Trump still leads several GOP primary polls

Casino_Royale

@Heathener is right, IMHO; we'd do well to take note of the different attitudes to age and work in America lest it affects the betting.

Leon

Casino_Royale said:

@Heathener is right, IMHO; we'd do well to take note of the different attitudes to age and work in America lest it affects the betting.

Older people are more visible in the American workplace, it is true, and America is more tolerant of really old politicians, but otherwise I’m not sure @Heathener’s thesis is true

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/10/30/most-democratic-voters-would-prefer-a-presidential-candidate-10-to-15-years-younger-than-the-current-primary-front-runners/

Andy_Cooke

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

Stuartinromford

The other question is what Trump does if Ron de Satan oops Santis gets the Republican nomination.

Does Trump run as an Independent? I wouldn't put it past him.

And then the Democrats could win at a canter with the mortal remains of William Henry Harrison.

Leon

Pro_Rata said:

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

Something in that, yet George Bush Senior mostly lacked that charm, and won. Trump entirely lacks it, and won

Biden is already unpopular and will grow less popular as he heads for serious, crotchetty old age

Nigelb

Heathener said:

p.s. and we also always go through this latest leadership fad (e.g. Pete Buttigieg). We don't yet know that de Santis has secured the GoP nomination. He has yet to face scrutiny and the rigours of the primary season. Let's just see ...

Except Buttigieg’s odds are reasonable value; DeSantis looks too short, even if he is the likely favourite for now.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

The other question is what Trump does if Ron de Satan oops Santis gets the Republican nomination.

Does Trump run as an Independent? I wouldn't put it past him.

And then the Democrats could win at a canter with the mortal remains of William Henry Harrison.

The mortal remains of WHH would be a far better President than Trump was!

CarlottaVance

UN expert warns of ‘global risk’ from SNP gender bill…

Alsalem’s 4,500-word analysis characterised the legislation as rushed, vague and contradictory, while its consultation had been insufficiently fair and inclusive.…

Alsalem’s human rights work spans 22 years. At Thursday’s first minister’s questions Sturgeon brushed off her initial letter as “the comments from the person from the UN,” and said “many of these issues have been discussed and addressed already by parliament.” Critics contrasted her attitude to the praise lavished on Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, who visited Scotland in 2018.

The first minister welcomed Alston, and when he published a report on poverty in Britain, he was lauded by Ian Blackford, the SNP’s Westminster leader, for exposing “Tory austerity cuts”. Joan McAlpine, the former SNP MSP, tweeted: “It’s a bad look when one [UN special rapporteur], who happened to be white and male, is praised & quoted . . . while another, a woman of colour, is ‘the person from the UN’ whose concerns are not valid.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4eb795f6-6ea6-11ed-a188-d2cb771901d6

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

If the Democrats want a younger nominee Buttigieg is probably their best bet.

However DeSantis may not be the GOP nominee anyway, septugunarian Trump still leads several GOP primary polls

Trump’s chances continue to ebb, though.

The GOP's great Trump reckoning begins at the state party level
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/27/gops-trump-state-party-level-00070833

pillsbury

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

HYUFD

Leon said:

Pro_Rata said:

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

Something in that, yet George Bush Senior mostly lacked that charm, and won. Trump entirely lacks it, and won

Biden is already unpopular and will grow less popular as he heads for serious, crotchetty old age

Bush Snr beat Dukakis who was rather less charming and charismatic than Bill Clinton who he didn't beat

Nigelb

Pro_Rata said:

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

Agreed - and that’s the point Mike is missing.
If Biden doesn’t run, the decision would likely be quite late in the day, and the subsequent nomination battle would threaten the stability of the Democratic coalition.
Harris would run; she probably wouldn’t get it. And that might damage the chances of any of those likely to do so, who will have said things less than effusive about her during the contest, in several key marginal states.

Nigelb

Leon said:

Pro_Rata said:

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

Something in that, yet George Bush Senior mostly lacked that charm, and won. Trump entirely lacks it, and won

Biden is already unpopular and will grow less popular as he heads for serious, crotchetty old age

That’s a load of cobblers.
If the economy improves, which is at least an evens chance, he’ll end his term more popular than he started it.

Andy_Cooke

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

kle4

Being as old as Biden doesn't guarantee he will be mentally or physically incapable (he's always gaffes apparently), but it will mean people will be more conscious of the possibility you are incapable.

Likewise, being a very youthful candidate would not guarantee so someone lacks wisdom or experience (one doesn't always come with age, the other irrelevant in terms of legal requirements) but it will make people more conscious of the possibility they are.

The 'Americans are more accepting of age' thing is a red herring, since it may well be true, but is still the case Presidents have not been of this age before, it's still new, and being a senator requires far less personal support.

In short, age won't determine this as much as the presence of Trump, but it's not nothing either.

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Pro_Rata said:

DavidL said:

If Trump keeps his hold on the Republican party despite the failures of the 2022 elections then Biden's age is neutralised and I think he runs again and wins. If, however, the Republicans finally recognise Trump for the loser he is and goes on to the next generation or even the generation after in De Santos, Biden will be deeply exposed. Let's face it, he was hardly articulate 20 years ago.

The problem that the Democrats have is who would replace Biden? For me, Gretchen Whitmer is the obvious choice. She is governor of a key swing state, she is 51 and she is articulate and moderate. Funnily enough the Times has come to the same view: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-gretchen-whitmer-democrats-party-michigan-hgq68xnv6

I very much doubt that the US as a whole is ready for an openly gay man, however articulate and capable he is, and Harris is clearly already over promoted.

So Biden's hopes turn on Trump. I think he, unlike the rest of us, will be disappointed. It is becoming much more common and less brave in the GOP to say that you want to vote for a winner: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3751624-2024-frontrunner-tussle-gets-interesting/

A lot of this contest down to sequencing.

With primaries kicking in in early 2024, decision time will be by next autumn at latest, on the facts on the ground at that point, both in terms of how Biden feels about running and what the Republican race is shaping up like. The Dems will not know which of the Republican nominees is likely and may not fully know Trump's prospects at the point Biden needs to announce.

The indications are he still wants the second term, so something has to change in the next 9 months with Biden's thinking, whilst over the months following that it would need a serious health event to change that course of his nomination.

If he wants it and doesn't have a specific health event, he gets it. That is the percentage to assess and I think it is probably higher than 45%.

And, I'll bring in my standard take on US presidents, that the uniting quality of pretty much every single US President post-Nixon, spanning many different characters and manifesting in different ways, was a certain affability, a whimsical quality, a perception of bar room agreeability. Biden's advancing age does little to dim that, perhaps the opposite.

Something in that, yet George Bush Senior mostly lacked that charm, and won. Trump entirely lacks it, and won

Biden is already unpopular and will grow less popular as he heads for serious, crotchetty old age

Bush Snr beat Dukakis who was rather less charming and charismatic than Bill Clinton who he didn't beat

Trump also beat Hillary who was far less charming than Bill but lost to Biden who has more charm

Nigelb

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

The efforts of their critics to weaponise the FOI email publication have been pretty desperate.
No doubt Leon will give a précis of the Twitter mob line.

Leon

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Andy_Cooke

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

pillsbury

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

Andy_Cooke

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

Leon

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

Here he is again. Your hero, Eddie Holmes



Yeah, he’s definitely the guy you’d go to for an authoritative and neutral opinion on lab leak

logical_song

Leon said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I’m reading, with interest, your enthusiastic descriptions of this sharp, fit, eager, vigorous US President with the hot younger wife… and then I look at Joe and Jill Biden

Once you've done that look at Donald and Melania.

MarqueeMark

Andy_JS said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

And some people have a massive mental decline between 80 and 82, let alone 86.

It's a gamble - and puts the Veep pick in sharper contrast.

ydoethur

logical_song said:

Leon said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I’m reading, with interest, your enthusiastic descriptions of this sharp, fit, eager, vigorous US President with the hot younger wife… and then I look at Joe and Jill Biden

Once you've done that look at Donald and Melania.

Bad advice, although I suppose he can afford the trauma therapy.

rkrkrk

A market to avoid. Betting on how Joe Biden will be feeling in a year or two doesn't feel like value to me - I simply have no idea.

Surprised to learn that Trump isn't the favourite for Republican nomination.

He's announced he is standing, obviously has incredible name recognition, RCP has him ahead in the polls for the nomination and he is currently trading at about 2/1 on betfair. I think he's a buy at those odds.

jamesdoyle

IanB2 said:

Verulamius said:

Lord Ashcroft has published detailed analysis of the state of the Conservative party.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2022/11/they-think-its-all-over-can-the-tories-turn-it-round

The best graphic is

It shows very clearly that the Tories have been driven right back to their core vote, those whose narrow mindedness cannot see beyond their culture war obsessions a la Leon.

Fascinating link, thanks.
I think it's worse than being 'driven
back to their core vote': I think the centre of gravity of their core vote has shifted rightward. While the core was more centrist, it was easier to pick up votes around the fringe because, frankly, there was more fringe. Some of the old Core vote has been lost, quite possibly, forever.

pillsbury

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

It's You can't believe HIM/HER because... Again, the lab leak theorists are saying because you did or said this highly inconsistent thing in the couple of years before the outbreak, their opponents are saying, because you're a conspiracy theorist and your mum smells funny.

Sandpit

Yes, the mid-term results have convinced the Dems that Biden is God. Unless the Republicans choose Trump again, Biden’s almost certainly going to lose. They managed to keep him hidden away in his basement last time, thanks to the pandemic. That’s not going to be an option in 2024.

The biggest question remains how the Dems can drop both Biden and Harris, with the VP polling even worse than the President.

Nigelb

The Royal Society presentation should be published this week.

Excited for the @FLFusion pulsed power workshop this morning. Fingers crossed @TfL Elizabeth Line doesn’t completely break and I can actually get to the thing!
https://twitter.com/_Jack_Halliday/status/1597147174407503873

Nigelb

We have partnered with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to begin the design of a pilot fusion plant.

The plant would generate 60MW of electricity and produce 2kg of excess tritium, enabling the rapid roll out of fusion power!
https://twitter.com/FLFusion/status/1597146210930143232

Nigelb

And in UK campaigners go to court to force Government to reveal the names of firms that got £47bn of Covid loans of which £3.5 billion, the Govt estimates, may have been taken fraudulently
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1597122408384974849

pillsbury

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."

Leon

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

The efforts of their critics to weaponise the FOI email publication have been pretty desperate.
No doubt Leon will give a précis of the Twitter mob line.

If Jeremy Farrar was 50/50 on whether it was a lab leak on February 1, 2020, why did he Co-sign a letter to the Lancet on February 19, 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a baseless conspiracy theory? What happened there? Why did him and all his friends rapidly change their minds, was the science that compelling?

If so, where is it?

Maybe Jeremy woke up on, say, February 13th and thought “Shit, I’ve been believing in a baseless conspiracy theory for a fortnight, I’d better warn the world not to believe in this, because it’s racist”

Nigelb

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

It's You can't believe HIM/HER because... Again, the lab leak theorists are saying because you did or said this highly inconsistent thing in the couple of years before the outbreak, their opponents are saying, because you're a conspiracy theorist and your mum smells funny.

You think the lab leak proponents have been consistent in their arguments ?

Nigelb

Ukraine's nuclear chief says there are signs Russia is about to leave occupied nuclear plant
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1597122367775457280

Sandpit

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."

There’s no kids being raped in Rotherham, because the only person trying to kick up a stink about it, is Nick Griffin.

Andy_Cooke

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

The efforts of their critics to weaponise the FOI email publication have been pretty desperate.
No doubt Leon will give a précis of the Twitter mob line.

If Jeremy Farrar was 50/50 on whether it was a lab leak on February 1, 2020, why did he Co-sign a letter to the Lancet on February 19, 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a baseless conspiracy theory? What happened there? Why did him and all his friends rapidly change their minds, was the science that compelling?

If so, where is it?

Maybe Jeremy woke up on, say, February 13th and thought “Shit, I’ve been believing in a baseless conspiracy theory for a fortnight, I’d better warn the world not to believe in this, because it’s racist”

This is where I came in with “it’s interesting to read the discussion between them all.”

Because if you are genuinely interested, read it all. Or you could just wave your hands around and ask what they said to each other when it’s right there.

pillsbury

Nigelb said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

It's You can't believe HIM/HER because... Again, the lab leak theorists are saying because you did or said this highly inconsistent thing in the couple of years before the outbreak, their opponents are saying, because you're a conspiracy theorist and your mum smells funny.

You think the lab leak proponents have been consistent in their arguments ?

PRIOR inconsistent actions. Inconsistencies within the argument itself are a separate point.

Dura_Ace

rkrkrk said:

A market to avoid. Betting on how Joe Biden will be feeling in a year or two doesn't feel like value to me - I simply have no idea.

Surprised to learn that Trump isn't the favourite for Republican nomination.

He's announced he is standing, obviously has incredible name recognition, RCP has him ahead in the polls for the nomination and he is currently trading at about 2/1 on betfair. I think he's a buy at those odds.

DJT would also have zero compunction about threatening to imperil the GOP by either threatening to run as an independent or actually running as an independent. That's a lot of leverage over the primary process.

Remember, he's only a Republican because he, quite astutely, judged the average member was stupider than the average Democrat and therefore easier to manipulate.

NickPalmer

MarqueeMark said:

Andy_JS said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

And some people have a massive mental decline between 80 and 82, let alone 86.

It's a gamble - and puts the Veep pick in sharper contrast.

I agree with Heathener and AndyJS in general - pushing 73, perhaps I'm biased - and think age is a lazy way to assess someone's capacity. But MarqueeMark is right that it makes the choice of VP more interesting than usual. What's the history of VPs wanting to stand again and NOT being selected? Henry Wallace under FDR, I think, but I'm struggling to think of more.

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

Ukraine's nuclear chief says there are signs Russia is about to leave occupied nuclear plant
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1597122367775457280

🇺🇦

The Russians are going to be back to Crimea by the end of the year. They’re already digging trenches there, and they are totally out of equipment.

Just think about that for a minute, the entire Russian army is out of equipment they can deploy in Ukraine. In only nine months. They have no more tanks, no more missiles, no more winter clothes, and no more proper soldiers willing to occupy their neighbour.

Leon

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

The efforts of their critics to weaponise the FOI email publication have been pretty desperate.
No doubt Leon will give a précis of the Twitter mob line.

If Jeremy Farrar was 50/50 on whether it was a lab leak on February 1, 2020, why did he Co-sign a letter to the Lancet on February 19, 2020, denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a baseless conspiracy theory? What happened there? Why did him and all his friends rapidly change their minds, was the science that compelling?

If so, where is it?

Maybe Jeremy woke up on, say, February 13th and thought “Shit, I’ve been believing in a baseless conspiracy theory for a fortnight, I’d better warn the world not to believe in this, because it’s racist”

This is where I came in with “it’s interesting to read the discussion between them all.”

Because if you are genuinely interested, read it all. Or you could just wave your hands around and ask what they said to each other when it’s right there.

I’ve read it all. It came from the lab AND they are fucking liars

Between Feb 1, 2020 and Feb 19, 2020 Jeremy Farrar went from thinking lab leak is 50/50 to thinking “lab leak” is an “evil conspiracy theory aimed at China”

How? What? Wtf? If you believe this is credible you’re an idiot

What happened is obvious. The scientists got together and realised Wow it really could have come from these Wild West labs, this could be really bad for science and scientists, we will get the blame - so let’s lie and pretend a lab leak is impossible, and talking about is Trumpite and racist. And for a year that worked

MarqueeMark

I note the Ukrainians claim near 600 more Russians killed yesterday, although very little by way of additional kit. Are they still sending WW1-waves over the top to face the guns?

I am also musing over whether Russia has learned any lessons from the Winter War with Finland, fought in temperatures below -40C. Finnish dead (military and civilian) were around 20,000.

Russian numbers remain contentious. The Supreme Soviet was informed on 26 March 1940, of 48,475 dead and 158,863 sick and wounded. In 2013, the Russian State Military Archive held a database confirming 167,976 killed or missing along with the soldiers' names, dates of birth and ranks.

It did ultimately lead to territorial gains, but at a very heavy cost. Could Putin survive similar losses in a Ukrainian winter campaign?

Nigelb

NickPalmer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Andy_JS said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

And some people have a massive mental decline between 80 and 82, let alone 86.

It's a gamble - and puts the Veep pick in sharper contrast.

I agree with Heathener and AndyJS in general - pushing 73, perhaps I'm biased - and think age is a lazy way to assess someone's capacity. But MarqueeMark is right that it makes the choice of VP more interesting than usual. What's the history of VPs wanting to stand again and NOT being selected? Henry Wallace under FDR, I think, but I'm struggling to think of more.

History’s not a great guide, though.
Would LBJ have won the nomination at the end of a Kennedy second term ?
RFK would very likely have been the nominee had he not been shot, etc.

There’s just not enough data, and particularly from the modern era, to draw general conclusions about VP’s chances.
It’s an advantage, certainly, but more important is the quality of the candidates, IMO.

Nigelb

pillsbury said:

Nigelb said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

It's You can't believe HIM/HER because... Again, the lab leak theorists are saying because you did or said this highly inconsistent thing in the couple of years before the outbreak, their opponents are saying, because you're a conspiracy theorist and your mum smells funny.

You think the lab leak proponents have been consistent in their arguments ?

PRIOR inconsistent actions. Inconsistencies within the argument itself are a separate point.

Jeffrey Sachs, for example ?
LOL.

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

I note the Ukrainians claim near 600 more Russians killed yesterday, although very little by way of additional kit. Are they still sending WW1-waves over the top to face the guns?

I am also musing over whether Russia has learned any lessons from the Winter War with Finland, fought in temperatures below -40C. Finnish dead (military and civilian) were around 20,000.

Russian numbers remain contentious. The Supreme Soviet was informed on 26 March 1940, of 48,475 dead and 158,863 sick and wounded. In 2013, the Russian State Military Archive held a database confirming 167,976 killed or missing along with the soldiers' names, dates of birth and ranks.

It did ultimately lead to territorial gains, but at a very heavy cost. Could Putin survive similar losses in a Ukrainian winter campaign?

Yes, the Russians are literally sending conscripts over the top to their deaths. Hundreds per day. Many of them don’t even make it ‘over the top’.

They’re digging trenches, in an era when their enemy has real-time satellite photography and precision guided missiles - guess how that plays out…

At some point, Putin will need to speak to actual mothers - not the actors and party officials he’s been talking to so far.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Andy_JS said:

Heathener said:

When 56 year old Walter Mondale went up against 73 year old Ronald Reagan, Reagan trounced him 525 to 13.

This age obsession is so un-American.

The bigger issue is whether Joe Biden keeps his marbles, which is not synonymous with age. He's physically fit. He'll run. He'll win.

I agree that age itself doesn't matter. Some 80 year olds are more alert than people 20 years younger.

And some people have a massive mental decline between 80 and 82, let alone 86.

It's a gamble - and puts the Veep pick in sharper contrast.

I agree with Heathener and AndyJS in general - pushing 73, perhaps I'm biased - and think age is a lazy way to assess someone's capacity. But MarqueeMark is right that it makes the choice of VP more interesting than usual. What's the history of VPs wanting to stand again and NOT being selected? Henry Wallace under FDR, I think, but I'm struggling to think of more.

History’s not a great guide, though.
Would LBJ have won the nomination at the end of a Kennedy second term ?
RFK would very likely have been the nominee had he not been shot, etc.

There’s just not enough data, and particularly from the modern era, to draw general conclusions about VP’s chances.
It’s an advantage, certainly, but more important is the quality of the candidates, IMO.

I think Nick was making a different point, relating to VPs who have been dropped by a President seeking re-election which is, as he suggested, very unusual.

BlancheLivermore

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

I note the Ukrainians claim near 600 more Russians killed yesterday, although very little by way of additional kit. Are they still sending WW1-waves over the top to face the guns?

I am also musing over whether Russia has learned any lessons from the Winter War with Finland, fought in temperatures below -40C. Finnish dead (military and civilian) were around 20,000.

Russian numbers remain contentious. The Supreme Soviet was informed on 26 March 1940, of 48,475 dead and 158,863 sick and wounded. In 2013, the Russian State Military Archive held a database confirming 167,976 killed or missing along with the soldiers' names, dates of birth and ranks.

It did ultimately lead to territorial gains, but at a very heavy cost. Could Putin survive similar losses in a Ukrainian winter campaign?

Yes, the Russians are literally sending conscripts over the top to their deaths. Hundreds per day. Many of them don’t even make it ‘over the top’.

They’re digging trenches, in an era when their enemy has real-time satellite photography and precision guided missiles - guess how that plays out…

"Russia's continuing occupation is inevitable at this point. Let's at least tell ourselves the truth. They aren't going to be rolled back to the 2014 or even January 2022 borders.

Giving VVP something he can market as a win (probably the Donetsk/Luhansk oblasts and a land bridge to Crimea) is the only way this ends short of the extremely unlikely Kremlin palace coup. The alternative is the total and probably permanent destruction of Ukraine."

lol

Sandpit

BlancheLivermore said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

I note the Ukrainians claim near 600 more Russians killed yesterday, although very little by way of additional kit. Are they still sending WW1-waves over the top to face the guns?

I am also musing over whether Russia has learned any lessons from the Winter War with Finland, fought in temperatures below -40C. Finnish dead (military and civilian) were around 20,000.

Russian numbers remain contentious. The Supreme Soviet was informed on 26 March 1940, of 48,475 dead and 158,863 sick and wounded. In 2013, the Russian State Military Archive held a database confirming 167,976 killed or missing along with the soldiers' names, dates of birth and ranks.

It did ultimately lead to territorial gains, but at a very heavy cost. Could Putin survive similar losses in a Ukrainian winter campaign?

Yes, the Russians are literally sending conscripts over the top to their deaths. Hundreds per day. Many of them don’t even make it ‘over the top’.

They’re digging trenches, in an era when their enemy has real-time satellite photography and precision guided missiles - guess how that plays out…

"Russia's continuing occupation is inevitable at this point. Let's at least tell ourselves the truth. They aren't going to be rolled back to the 2014 or even January 2022 borders.

Giving VVP something he can market as a win (probably the Donetsk/Luhansk oblasts and a land bridge to Crimea) is the only way this ends short of the extremely unlikely Kremlin palace coup. The alternative is the total and probably permanent destruction of Ukraine."

lol

Who said that? There’s plenty of suspects.

Andy_Cooke

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."

My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.

"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.

Leon

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Leon said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

I’m sorry, but this cannot pass. Here is your hero Edward Holmes on Twitter in May 2020. He’s just a fucking liar who does most of his work in China. Enough

Coming immediately on the heels of "To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem," that's actively funny.

You are a victim of the fallacy that ad hominem arguments are automatically fallacious. In some circumstances, say being presented with an investment proposal by Bernie Madoff, they are valid, legitimate and compelling. Or, say, Farrar describing the lab security at Wuhan as "wild west."

My issue is that they never address the questions, simply coming up with these ad hominems.

"How did you get multiple independent releases into the wet market and only the wet market and none of the other more likely super-spreader sites in Wuhan?" doesn't really get answered by ad hominems. Or provide much illumination to those who want to know what really happened.

You still haven’t explained why Jeremy Farrar went from “lab leak is 50/50” to “lab leak is evil conspiracy theory” in 18 days

CarlottaVance

JUST IN - Chinese government in Wuhan remotely switches all these protesters's COVID passport to code red.

Red code in China means you need to do your time in a quarantine camp and pay for it.

If you try to enter public place with a red QR code...immediately an alarm goes off.

Chinese govt can easily cut you off from society by remotely switch your health passport to code yellow or red.

A green QR code needed to access to transport, food...even residential complex.

https://twitter.com/songpinganq/status/1596942800964067328

numbertwelve

Imagine if in 2023 we actually see the end of the Chinese, Iranian and Russian regimes. What a different world it would look like.

pillsbury

Nigelb said:

pillsbury said:

Nigelb said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

pillsbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

On the Lab Leak thing - the underdacted email chains around this have been published following an FoI request.

Lengthy (174 pages), but here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23316400/farrar-fauci-comms.pdf

For those of us genuinely interested in what happened, it's quite fascinating to watch as experts who were originally leaning towards lab escape came around to zoonosis.

There were three who were most Lab Leak (Edward Holmes (self-described as 70/30 in favour of lab), Farrar ("50/50") and Kristian Anderson ("60/40")). Rather interestingly, two of those were lead authors on the article they got published in February 2020, which seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

You get to see them all considering hypotheses, ruling out deliberate bioengineering (wherever it came about, it evolved in the presence of an immune system), then considering deliberate "pass through" in lab animals (which could reconcile that). However, they then concluded that was unlikely, but also insisted in including it as a potential consideration in the article, even if only to show it had been seriously considered (there was a discussion on whether they'd spark off conspiracy theorists by including it, but insisted they had to cover it).

All of the three who had been leaning lab-leak have ended up coming down very firmly on the zoonosis side. To the point where the lab-leakers of the present dismiss them immediately by ad hominem.

I personally find it encouraging that not only did they very seriously consider it (and have those who most believed it plausible to lead the papers on it), but that my belief it was initially plausible wasn't completely out there.

It does end up damaging a nice story (simple - even simplistic - with convenient baddies and a two minute hate), but on the flip side, it does forewarn us of potential future SARS-like viruses (especially with the recent uncovering of so many bat coronaviruses: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.23.517609v1 )

You regard it as a sign of confidence in one's own argument, to dismiss opponents "immediately by ad hominem"? And you think zoonosis is incompatible with lab leak?

No, and no.

I find it detracts from the lab-leakers case to immediately dismiss their arguments by ad hominem. Don't you?

And that zoonosis could be compatible with lab leak has been looked at (you'd require multiple independent leaks to the same spot (in the wet market) only, with no leaks/super-spreader events at any of the many other more likely super-spreader locations in Wuhan).

Ah, sorry, misread you. But there's ad hominems and ad hominems. The mainstreamers are saying "hysterical conspiracy theorists," the lab leakers are saying "well, you condemned the appalling lab security at Wuhan, and you made research proposals about artificial furin cleavage sites in 2018." The second lot looks more compelling to me.

No, it's usually: "You can't believe HIM/HER!"

It's You can't believe HIM/HER because... Again, the lab leak theorists are saying because you did or said this highly inconsistent thing in the couple of years before the outbreak, their opponents are saying, because you're a conspiracy theorist and your mum smells funny.

You think the lab leak proponents have been consistent in their arguments ?

PRIOR inconsistent actions. Inconsistencies within the argument itself are a separate point.

Jeffrey Sachs, for example ?
LOL.

Just a name, and then LOL, is the most perfectly reductive example of the gormless ad hominem I can imagine.

Here's a tweet you linked to (approvingly) a couple of days ago

"It makes clear that the defeatist, knee-jerk, or gaslighting reactions surrounding this pandemic have to stop (& that includes very much the #lableak conspiracy myth)."

Don't know about you but I make that six content-free ad hominems in one sentence. And the guy is not even making the point you want him,to make. Pathetically, he does not even try to refute a lab leak. All he is saying is Yebbut a naturally evolved virus might be really really bad too.