I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Yes, they are
You come across as narrow minded and obsessed on this.
That's a genuine observation. Not seeking to provoke or irritate.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Yes, they are
You come across as narrow minded and obsessed on this.
That's a genuine observation. Not seeking to provoke or irritate.
Not narrow minded, very mildly obsessed, yes. Because it is screamingly obvious - to me - that it came from the lab, and I get frustrated by the slower or more cautious thinking of others
However it is only a mild obsession. How often have I brought it up in recent months as an actual debate? Almost never. I have long concluded that people like @bondegezou cannot and will not be convinced, they have a religious faith in zoonosis, as it is so important to their self regard or whatever, who cares
I DO bring up lab leak quite often - but as a useful, crucial example of the Establishment fradulently trying to suppress a genuine and plausible hypothesis as Fake News. And that undoubtedly happened. From the original Lancet letter to the bans from Facebook and Twitter, we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS this theory because it was a "racist conspiracy theory"
That happened. No one denies it. They tried to silence all dissent. And it is important to remember this, especially with our contemporary debate on misinfo and censorship
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
A New Statesman take on the meaning of populism. Remarkable for its stance. Labour have a problem if they don't hear what this line is saying. This is Matt Goodwin for centrists; recommended, though an editor should have noticed the crucial omission of 'alleged'.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
It is now convenient for conservative commentators to discover the dispossessed and poor as they are not now in government.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
She is not a blank slate though. She has been the VP in an unpopular Administration who, until recently, had very dire poll ratings and with justification - she did little and what she did, she did badly.
She is also bad on the stump. One of the core reasons why she bombed in the Democratic nomination is that she couldn’t deal well with anything remotely critical. She got smashed by Tulsi Gabbard FFS. She hasn’t done a single press interview or taken a question. Trump has asked for three debates with her and there is a reason for that.
Most Americans at the moment are engrossed with Simone Biles and watching their track athletes smash the rest of the world. Give it a month’s time, and there will be a lot more scrutiny.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
Vice President Kamala Harris leads former President Donald J. Trump in three crucial battleground states, according to new surveys by The New York Times and Siena College, the latest indication of a dramatic reversal in standing for Democrats after President Biden’s departure from the presidential race remade it.
Ms. Harris is ahead of Mr. Trump by four percentage points in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in each state. The surveys were conducted from Aug. 5 to 9.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
A survey of people who have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak
I think it's helpful to know what the expert consensus is. It doesn't prove who is right but it's nice to know.
But the expert consensus is a lie. A fabrication. While in public the scientists might say this, what do they say in private?
We know what they say in private because Freedom of Information requests eventually gouged out their emails, and we are able to read them. Here the true opinions of the leading virologists involved in this, through 2020:
"Ian Lipkin stressed the “nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess” regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Garry said, “[I] really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat virus, or one very similar to it, COVID–19 where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.’’ According to Garry, “it’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain of function research we know was happening in Wuhan.”
Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan’s Dr. Shi, admitted, “So they [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory. And so it’s—you know—proximity is a problem. It’s a problem.”
Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and “mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered” just days before he commissioned the Proximal Origin paper."
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
Having seen the average biological lab in UK universities... let's just say that even when playing with some fun stuff, it's not clean rooms and spacesuits.
I remember, when at uni, I used to visit people in their various places. Some of the tings that were sat in a pretty ordinary flask, with a stopper, was a bit startling.
As a student I worked in a Foot and Mouth research centre as a cleaner. We would clean the admin side then go across to the research side. To do so you had to remove your clothes and get temporary clothing to wear on the other side. On coming back you removed those clothes, took a shower and came back to your own clothes.
To clean the women's changing and shower area we would knock on a glass window between the two areas and someone would check the changing area was clear from the other side. One day I wandered in (having made the appropriate check) to find a lady standing there stark naked. Now before you get too excited she was almost as wide as she was tall. I apologised and made my exit
She obviously complained and we were called to some sort of manager's office and asked who had walked in on the lady. I owned up, expecting to get fired. He asked if I had seen anything to which I replied yes and then said that would be enough to put you off women for life and left it at that. Not sure that would be acceptable today.
The important point was that all the way through you were truthful. If the manager had had to indulge in detailed investigations of you and your colleagues he’d (I’m assuming he) have become irritated and taken things more seriously. But you’re right, I think it would have been taken somewhat more seriously today.
Either that or he didn’t like the complainant!
Agree. Though Management's own fault for not setting up a sensible system. Not KJH's. Union lawyer would make mince of any disciplinary action.
Leaving aside the polling, isn’t the story of actual elections over the last four years that MAGA republicans have significantly underperformed non-MAGA republicans? That added to the palpable enthusiasm the Harris Walz ticket has managed to generate is why I think Trump is going to be trounced.
There's a tendency to overrate Trump's chances on here. His best outcome is a razor fine EC win on a minority PV as per 2016. Harris otoh could either sneak it or win easily. I'll be looking to bet that view on the spreads when they come out (unless it's become consensus by then).
Whilst terrified of being wrong again and wishcasting, I'm coming round to this view.
Battleground polls looking good for Harris. Trump is a weaker than normal candidate in that many republicans won't vote for him.
Against that - the EC map still feels tricky for Dems... florida and ohio seem to be reliably R now, which is a lot of votes. Texas shift to purple is still a fair way off.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
They’ve always been aware of that, at least since Brexit.
They’ve just not been great at actually helping them.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
A survey of people who have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak
I think it's helpful to know what the expert consensus is. It doesn't prove who is right but it's nice to know.
But the expert consensus is a lie. A fabrication. While in public the scientists might say this, what do they say in private?
We know what they say in private because Freedom of Information requests eventually gouged out their emails, and we are able to read them. Here the true opinions of the leading virologists involved in this, through 2020:
"Ian Lipkin stressed the “nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess” regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Garry said, “[I] really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat virus, or one very similar to it, COVID–19 where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.’’ According to Garry, “it’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain of function research we know was happening in Wuhan.”
Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan’s Dr. Shi, admitted, “So they [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory. And so it’s—you know—proximity is a problem. It’s a problem.”
Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and “mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered” just days before he commissioned the Proximal Origin paper."
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
I think there's a difference between the poor and a more general underclass.
I doubt the rioters are all in the most deprived 15% in the country.
More likely more general criminal scum and weekend yobs who would have been football hooligans in a different era.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
A survey of people who have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak
I think it's helpful to know what the expert consensus is. It doesn't prove who is right but it's nice to know.
But the expert consensus is a lie. A fabrication. While in public the scientists might say this, what do they say in private?
We know what they say in private because Freedom of Information requests eventually gouged out their emails, and we are able to read them. Here the true opinions of the leading virologists involved in this, through 2020:
"Ian Lipkin stressed the “nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess” regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Garry said, “[I] really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat virus, or one very similar to it, COVID–19 where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.’’ According to Garry, “it’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain of function research we know was happening in Wuhan.”
Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan’s Dr. Shi, admitted, “So they [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory. And so it’s—you know—proximity is a problem. It’s a problem.”
Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and “mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered” just days before he commissioned the Proximal Origin paper."
It was an anonymous survey
That they knew would be publicised. What we need to know is what they think in private, when they believe they will not ever be overheard. And we can find this in those private emails, that I have just shown you. In private they all thought it probably came from the lab - "a nightmare of circumstantial evidence" - and, recall, these are the scientists who supposedly believe in zoonosis. In public, they lie
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
The bias is on this site.
This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.
Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.
I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
Kamala Harris did not lose the 2020 primary election because she was too left wing.
She lost because she didn't even make it to Iowa. She pulled out long before the first votes were cast, because she was unable to raise money.
Why?
Because she was neither a champion of the left, like Warren or Sanders. Nor a fresh face like Buttigieg. Nor an ex Vice President like Biden.
She was a dull, centrist former Prosecutor and Attorney General, who has earned the enmity of the Left by being pretty tough on crime. And who was unable to enthuse the center of the party to compensate.
She was dreadful.
And I thought @HYUFD's historic take was spot on: she was a poor candidate. And the Dems would likely lose with her as candidate.
But you know what: she said utterly ruthless in sewing up the nomination. She made a very smart VP pick. And she's proved herself to be both well organized, and a blank slate. And there's nothing better for getting elected than being a blank slate.
She is not a blank slate though. She has been the VP in an unpopular Administration who, until recently, had very dire poll ratings and with justification - she did little and what she did, she did badly.
She is also bad on the stump. One of the core reasons why she bombed in the Democratic nomination is that she couldn’t deal well with anything remotely critical. She got smashed by Tulsi Gabbard FFS. She hasn’t done a single press interview or taken a question. Trump has asked for three debates with her and there is a reason for that.
Most Americans at the moment are engrossed with Simone Biles and watching their track athletes smash the rest of the world. Give it a month’s time, and there will be a lot more scrutiny.
Trump asked for three debates with her because he realised she was embarrassing him by continually calling him out on his failure to commit to debates. That and the fact he’s realised he’s on the back foot.
It very much is early days but the last few days have shown the Trump campaign can’t rely on Harris crashing and burning. I’m afraid that take feels very much like Sunak’s Tories thinking SKS was going to get ‘found out’ when a campaign rolled around.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Yes, they are
You come across as narrow minded and obsessed on this.
That's a genuine observation. Not seeking to provoke or irritate.
Not narrow minded, very mildly obsessed, yes. Because it is screamingly obvious - to me - that it came from the lab, and I get frustrated by the slower or more cautious thinking of others
However it is only a mild obsession. How often have I brought it up in recent months as an actual debate? Almost never. I have long concluded that people like @bondegezou cannot and will not be convinced, they have a religious faith in zoonosis, as it is so important to their self regard or whatever, who cares
I DO bring up lab leak quite often - but as a useful, crucial example of the Establishment fradulently trying to suppress a genuine and plausible hypothesis as Fake News. And that undoubtedly happened. From the original Lancet letter to the bans from Facebook and Twitter, we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS this theory because it was a "racist conspiracy theory"
That happened. No one denies it. They tried to silence all dissent. And it is important to remember this, especially with our contemporary debate on misinfo and censorship
That's the scoop here, I think. In your eagerness to keep the (iyo) outrageous liberal censorship of 'lab leak' in memory you vastly overstate the probability of it being true.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.
In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.
Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.
As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.
Shapiro would have been the better choice.
The VP has rarely, in modern times, delivered their own state.
Shapiro had various negative issues with the base.
Walk has nearly no negatives, with a wide range of groups. That he was endorsed by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups is a particular example.
Presidential candidates too. If Gore had delivered his home state then Florida wouldn’t have mattered. And Trump is poisonously unpopular in New York.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
It doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone believes. The origin of COVID 19 is a fact. We should be assessing the available evidence to assign probabilities to the likely causes.
FWIW this is the kind of analysis I do in my day job in a completely different area. Having looked at the available evidence to moderate detail I think you can reasonably conclude it was probably zoonosis, or to decide there are too many unknowns and we should keep the verdict open. I don't think you can reasonably it was lab leak. The evidence just isn't there. It remains a possibility but no more than that.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
A lot would lose there jobs if GOF research for example were to be outlawed. I have worked as in being paid to work in labs. I have no doubt supression happens unless your results show a 100% connection and even sometimes then like for example tobacco companies supressed the reports on smoking causes cancer for years or the reports from scientists working for oil companies about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate. When your salary depends on you saying what the company what they want you to say rather than what you believe most choose their salary
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
And yet many who aren't certain it came from the lab are not morons and are not liars with an agenda.
So that was a bit silly saying that there at the end.
Yes, they are
You come across as narrow minded and obsessed on this.
That's a genuine observation. Not seeking to provoke or irritate.
Not narrow minded, very mildly obsessed, yes. Because it is screamingly obvious - to me - that it came from the lab, and I get frustrated by the slower or more cautious thinking of others
However it is only a mild obsession. How often have I brought it up in recent months as an actual debate? Almost never. I have long concluded that people like @bondegezou cannot and will not be convinced, they have a religious faith in zoonosis, as it is so important to their self regard or whatever, who cares
I DO bring up lab leak quite often - but as a useful, crucial example of the Establishment fradulently trying to suppress a genuine and plausible hypothesis as Fake News. And that undoubtedly happened. From the original Lancet letter to the bans from Facebook and Twitter, we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS this theory because it was a "racist conspiracy theory"
That happened. No one denies it. They tried to silence all dissent. And it is important to remember this, especially with our contemporary debate on misinfo and censorship
That's the scoop here, I think. In your eagerness to keep the (iyo) outrageous liberal censorship of 'lab leak' in memory you vastly overstate the probability of it being true.
Yes, happy with that. It's a wrap.
No, I don't overstate
I refer you to all the remarks of the actual virologists in private. There is a "nightmare of circumstantial evidence" pointing towards lab leak. Which makes lab leak "so frigging likely"
I agree with Kristian Andersen, the leading virologist who wrote Proximal Origin; I believe lab leak is "so frigging likely"
I also find this argument quite dull, now. It is settled, in my mind
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
It doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone believes. The origin of COVID 19 is a fact. We should be assessing the available evidence to assign probabilities to the likely causes.
FWIW this is the kind of analysis I do in my day job in a completely different area. Having looked at the available evidence to moderate detail I think you can reasonably conclude it was probably zoonosis, or to decide there are too many unknowns and we should keep the verdict open. I don't think you can reasonably it was lab leak. The evidence just isn't there. It remains a possibility but no more than that.
Personally I think either could be the truth I am not arguing from one side or the other
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
I'll go with "Mike Yarwood in Persons in the Theatre at the end of Southwold Pier."
Sometimes fun, but no single facet to be taken as comprehensive.
Leave Southwold alone. We don't want him and there is no theatre at the end or anywhere on Southwold pier.
Exactly - why do you think he's here .
I was looking for a middle-class recently-restored pier with a decent restaurant in a tourist haven with an arty tradition. Never having been to a restaurant on Southwold pier, I need advice on that point.
Saltburn Pier was tempting, but that's a bit windswept and Get Carter.
Is it really 4 years since I felt like I spent all day every day trying to convince HYUFD that relying solely on Trafalgar polls was not necessarily the way to win an argument. Feels like yesterday.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
Don’t forget scooping up bundles of Crocs! I fear that may indicate something recidivous.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
A lot would lose there jobs if GOF research for example were to be outlawed. I have worked as in being paid to work in labs. I have no doubt supression happens unless your results show a 100% connection and even sometimes then like for example tobacco companies supressed the reports on smoking causes cancer for years or the reports from scientists working for oil companies about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate. When your salary depends on you saying what the company what they want you to say rather than what you believe most choose their salary
I think you're wrong about that.
But most importantly, you're shifting the goalposts. @bondegezou said: "And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health."
That is a large sweep of people, and the idea that 'a lot' of them would lose their jobs if GOF research was outlawed is ridiculous.
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
A lot would lose there jobs if GOF research for example were to be outlawed. I have worked as in being paid to work in labs. I have no doubt supression happens unless your results show a 100% connection and even sometimes then like for example tobacco companies supressed the reports on smoking causes cancer for years or the reports from scientists working for oil companies about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate. When your salary depends on you saying what the company what they want you to say rather than what you believe most choose their salary
I think you're wrong about that.
But most importantly, you're shifting the goalposts. @bondegezou said: "And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health."
That is a large sweep of people, and the idea that 'a lot' of them would lose their jobs if GOF research was outlawed is ridiculous.
I didn't just say GOF research I also talked about tighter regulation. Both will shrink the number of jobs in the area
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
A lot would lose there jobs if GOF research for example were to be outlawed. I have worked as in being paid to work in labs. I have no doubt supression happens unless your results show a 100% connection and even sometimes then like for example tobacco companies supressed the reports on smoking causes cancer for years or the reports from scientists working for oil companies about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate. When your salary depends on you saying what the company what they want you to say rather than what you believe most choose their salary
I think you're wrong about that.
But most importantly, you're shifting the goalposts. @bondegezou said: "And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health."
That is a large sweep of people, and the idea that 'a lot' of them would lose their jobs if GOF research was outlawed is ridiculous.
I didn't just say GOF research I also talked about tighter regulation. Both will shrink the number of jobs in the area
Also, if it was ever "proven" that it came from the lab, there would be big trials and severe punishments, just as there would be if negligent engineering or shoddy architecture "accidentally" killed 28 million people and crashed the world economy
There is genuine fear in the scientific community. Also a major likelihood that people would take personal revenge - vigilante justice. For clarity, I think vigilante justice would be utterly appalling
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
I think there's a difference between the poor and a more general underclass.
I doubt the rioters are all in the most deprived 15% in the country.
More likely more general criminal scum and weekend yobs who would have been football hooligans in a different era.
It seems to me like bad judgement, wrong place, wrong time, in most cases; like a lot of crime.
I don't go with the 10-15% theory, my sense is that it is closer to 40% who are fundamentally opposed to immigration, beyond which there is an 'ambivalent centre', the polling for the Rwanda plan was always at 50% or close to it.
Britain Elects @BritainElects So far there has been disorder in about four in ten seats where Reform came second in July – that’s 38 of them. In these same areas, the Reform vote averaged 19 percent, compared to the 14 per cent they received nationally.
Interesting and unsurprising, in a “so far there have been more catholics in places the pope visits th
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
This is a useful way of quantifying the circumstantial evidence / coincidence of the virus starting in Wuhan.
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
This post is almost the perfect encapsulation of the problem - and the mistake that the established parties keep making.
The original post referred to 10-15% if the population. Andy then makes a perfectly benign, and reasonable comment.
And then the discussion immediately goes awry.
It is the same sort of issue as Hilary's 'deplorables' comment.
You don't gain a hearing by suggesting that an underclass are all rioting! You don't get people on side by telling them their views are wrong.
Reform are sweeping up these votes because they do politics differently. For a start, they don't seem to judge voters for their opinions in the way that so many others do....
There's a story going round that his plane diverted last night not because of a fault, but because the airport still had unpaid landing fees from four years ago.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
Which is the point I was making to mr Jessop he attacks Leon for his certainty (correctly in my view) but gives Bondezegu a free pass for his certainty (incorrectly in my view)
I think either could be the truth I doubt we will ever know and until either side brings compelling evidence then we should view any certainty about the origin as equally spurious
I think @bondegezou has, in the past, said that it is not certain. But if you read Leon's post, he goes much, much further.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
Bondezegu said in this very thread
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
Do you think he is lying, or wrong, when he says that is the consensus of people working in virology and public health?
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
I don't think he is either lying on wrong when he says that is the consensus. I just observe that they also have a vested interest in it not being a lab leak and are likely to plump in the abscence of compelling evidence either way (which I don't think there is) to a position that they prefer to be true.
*Why* is it in their interests in it not being a lab leak?
Because they work in virology research. What do you think the reaction among the general world populace to for example the act of virology research causing the death of 20 to 30 million? It would at a minimum result in a demand for an increase of regulation and a ban on gain of function research....why might people who do work in these area's feel its in there interest to say "Yeah that work I do could be what caused this"
That's very poor reasoning IMO.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
A lot would lose there jobs if GOF research for example were to be outlawed. I have worked as in being paid to work in labs. I have no doubt supression happens unless your results show a 100% connection and even sometimes then like for example tobacco companies supressed the reports on smoking causes cancer for years or the reports from scientists working for oil companies about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate. When your salary depends on you saying what the company what they want you to say rather than what you believe most choose their salary
I think you're wrong about that.
But most importantly, you're shifting the goalposts. @bondegezou said: "And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health."
That is a large sweep of people, and the idea that 'a lot' of them would lose their jobs if GOF research was outlawed is ridiculous.
I didn't just say GOF research I also talked about tighter regulation. Both will shrink the number of jobs in the area
Also, if it was ever "proven" that it came from the lab, there would be big trials and severe punishments, just as there would be if negligent engineering or shoddy architecture "accidentally" killed 28 million people and crashed the world economy
There is genuine fear in the scientific community. Also a major likelihood that people would take personal revenge - vigilante justice. For clarity, I think vigilante justice would be utterly appalling
Yes, I don't see why any scientists would point the finger at themselves, anonymously or otherwise. Using them as the arbiter of whether or not they fucked up is the same as asking Donald Trump to adjudicate on the January 6th attempt to overthrow the government.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
Redemption. She knows she’s going to lose anyway so wants to restore her reputation
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
@kinabalu: "This is a useful way of quantifying the circumstantial evidence / coincidence of the virus starting in Wuhan.
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number."
++++++++++++++
No it wasn't "40 minutes away". Jesus F Christ how many times do we have to go through this??
The "Wuhan lab" was actually a complex of different labs. One of them was the Wuhan CDC, which kept bats (despite initial denials).
"The Wuhan CDC collected and housed many bats in collaboration with the WIV. It issued a contract for the disposal of 2 tons of hazardous medical waste generated in its labs in June 2019. This waste ‘has not been effectively treated from 1994 to 2019’, the announcement conceded."
Where was the Wuhan CDC? About 280 metres from the wet market
"Researcher Xiao Botao suspects the origin of #WuhanCoronavirus is #Wuhan CDC laboratory, where S. China Seafood Wholesale Market is only 280m away and has a history of bats attacking staff.
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
A further observation. Scientists find problems. Engineers find solutions.
As an engineer, I say this to my scientist wife at every opportunity. It annoys her every time.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
Redemption. She knows she’s going to lose anyway so wants to restore her reputation
Suspect you are right. And probably angling for a job in the unlikely event that one of the Wets wins
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
I wonder how many of the deniers of lab leak would do so if it had been a lab in the USA or UK or Israel.
no, no, it didn't come from the Porton Down lab, it actually came from a farmers market in the village of Porton
That essentially happened, and conspiracy-wise it was pretty much a nothingburger:
A faulty drainage pipe was the most likely source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain on 3 August, official investigators concluded today.
The pipe connected two world class research facilities on the same Pirbright facility in Surrey. One, Merial Animal Health, is a manufacturer of foot and mouth and other animal vaccines. The second, the Institute of Animal Health (IAH), is the world’s foremost reference laboratory for identifying and monitoring outbreaks of foot and mouth.
There's multiple ways a lab leak could have occurred with covid:
Defective infrastructure - as above Other defective equipment Workers wrongly trained - 'nobody told me not to do that' Worker covering up a mistake - 'throw it down the sink and nobody will notice' Samples wrongly labelled
Or perhaps some combination or with added bad luck.
I don't think there was any secret conspiracy to release covid, it just happened by accident and/or mistake.
There's been no shortage of lab leaks around the world - and these are only the ones which we know about.
Indeed it could; but it could also be a totally natural event within the wet market. We don't - and can't - know, partly because of China's secrecy.
But we know the Chinese believed - or strongly suspected - it came from their lab because of all their behaviour. Deleting databases owned by the lab. Stopping journalists investigating the lab. Lying ceaselessly about the lab. Silencing - possibly killing - whistleblowers from the lab. Refusing WHO any real access to the lab
Why do all this if it came from the wet market??
It came from the lab, anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda
Your certainty is one of a religious zealot. A low-intelligence religious zealot, in fact.
Anyone who still claims otherwise is a moron or a liar with an agenda.
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
Scientists shouldn't be taken as an absolute source of truth, but science is a pretty good pointer towards reality. That's because the nature of science is such that you have to show your working for others to examine, which means that dishonest or corrupt scientists are usually revealed as such pretty quickly. It's not infallible, but it's the best system we have for making progress.
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
Scientists shouldn't be taken as an absolute source of truth, but science is a pretty good pointer towards reality. That's because the nature of science is such that you have to show your working for others to examine, which means that dishonest or corrupt scientists are usually revealed as such pretty quickly. It's not infallible, but it's the best system we have for making progress.
I was not saying its not true, however citing a scientific consensus on something where it is in there interest not to accept something I don't regard as compulsive. It has been remarked often theories get accepted only when the old guard dies off as an example
A New Statesman take on the meaning of populism. Remarkable for its stance. Labour have a problem if they don't hear what this line is saying. This is Matt Goodwin for centrists; recommended, though an editor should have noticed the crucial omission of 'alleged'.
2019 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted Boris Johnson. I hear you. Would you like some cash? Redwall voters: we will vote for you
2022 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Liz Truss. Fuck you. BRITANNIA UNCHAINED! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2023 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Rishi Sunak. Fuck you. Ai. Chess. Trans. Fifteen minute cities. Cancel HS2! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2024 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Keir Starmer. Fuck you. FAR-RIGHT AGITATORS! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
A further observation. Scientists find problems. Engineers find solutions.
As an engineer, I say this to my scientist wife at every opportunity. It annoys her every time.
Deliberately antagonising one's spouse looks a heck of a lot more like finding a problem than finding a solution, so you've fatally undermined your own point there.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
I think there's a difference between the poor and a more general underclass.
I doubt the rioters are all in the most deprived 15% in the country.
More likely more general criminal scum and weekend yobs who would have been football hooligans in a different era.
In the 1980s, the left was vehement that football violence was down to unemployment.
I can recall some attempts to howl down people who pointed out that the costs of travel, accommodation and huge quantities of alcohol meant that the yobs smashing bits of Italy were not the unemployed.
They were, of a level where there was employment and even a fair bit of money. But not much prospects beyond that. The kind of jobs where (unless you become the boss - and with that kind of personality that wouldn't be likely) no progress, year after year.
Another debate victory Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign Fire Vance Fire himself Another assassination attempt. A social media storm/riot Dirt on his opponents Economic crash
SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
That would elevate Walz though, as the Vice-President elect takes office if the President can't.
They find an excuse to make neither eligible and pass it to the next in line which is the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who just coincidentally happens to be a Republican.
* Warns that leaving ECHR would be divisive and impractical. ‘It is a divisive policy at a time when we need to unite’
* Says ‘perception’ of two-tier policing risks undermining confidence
* Nigel Farage will never be allowed to join Tory party under her leadership
* Says record migration figures were justified in ‘context’ of pandemic and helping people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong
* Rejects suggestion she is right wing. ‘I just don’t think labels like that are relevant or helpful right now. We cannot keep on tacking left or right. I think that’s part of the reason why we’ve been in the mess we’ve been in’
* Says she has ‘100%’ confidence that she will win the contest
She’s just blown it. Even if she gets to the final two (unlikely) the members won’t vote for that
There's a Talleyrand "I wonder what she means by that?" thing going on with that list. They are the points a serious politician would make when Patel doesn't need to be serious and could be deeply unserious like all the other candidates and stand a good chance of being selected.
Redemption. She knows she’s going to lose anyway so wants to restore her reputation
Suspect you are right. And probably angling for a job in the unlikely event that one of the Wets wins
Perhaps that she think this is what is needed to win an election. Therefore she will sell this until the party joins her.
If the party doesn't agree, they will lose - why be the loser. If they agree, she has a chance at winning the real prize. Government.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
This post is almost the perfect encapsulation of the problem - and the mistake that the established parties keep making.
The original post referred to 10-15% if the population. Andy then makes a perfectly benign, and reasonable comment.
And then the discussion immediately goes awry.
It is the same sort of issue as Hilary's 'deplorables' comment.
You don't gain a hearing by suggesting that an underclass are all rioting! You don't get people on side by telling them their views are wrong.
Reform are sweeping up these votes because they do politics differently. For a start, they don't seem to judge voters for their opinions in the way that so many others do....
Reform certainly do judge voters for their opinions. They are extremely judgemental about people with alternative lifestyles, of religious diversity and of the cardinal sin of immigrating here to improve their lives.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
This is a useful way of quantifying the circumstantial evidence / coincidence of the virus starting in Wuhan.
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number.
Er... shouldn't you divide X by the number of labs in the world, since an initial outbreak near any of 100s of labs working on virology would have caused the 'lab leak theories to spring up?
Although why bother, this is all a cod-science formula in the mould of OK magazine's 'Calculate your chances of finding true love'.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
This post is almost the perfect encapsulation of the problem - and the mistake that the established parties keep making.
The original post referred to 10-15% if the population. Andy then makes a perfectly benign, and reasonable comment.
And then the discussion immediately goes awry.
It is the same sort of issue as Hilary's 'deplorables' comment.
You don't gain a hearing by suggesting that an underclass are all rioting! You don't get people on side by telling them their views are wrong.
Reform are sweeping up these votes because they do politics differently. For a start, they don't seem to judge voters for their opinions in the way that so many others do....
Reform certainly do judge voters for their opinions. They are extremely judgemental about people with alternative lifestyles, of religious diversity and of the cardinal sin of immigrating here to improve their lives.
Have you ever read comment is free, you want judgemental about people who vote differently to them?
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
It doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone believes. The origin of COVID 19 is a fact. We should be assessing the available evidence to assign probabilities to the likely causes.
FWIW this is the kind of analysis I do in my day job in a completely different area. Having looked at the available evidence to moderate detail I think you can reasonably conclude it was probably zoonosis, or to decide there are too many unknowns and we should keep the verdict open. I don't think you can reasonably it was lab leak. The evidence just isn't there. It remains a possibility but no more than that.
I don’t believe that they have reliably proven the chain of transmission that resulted in the virus arriving in the wet market.
Whereas there are a lot of links in the chain that lead directly to the lab.
We will never know for certain, but balance of probabilities suggests to me that it was an accidental lab leak
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
I suggest you - and any truly interested PB-er - watch this debate. It is two highly intelligent, well-informed people arguing freely and openly, and marshalling all the facts on both sides. Matt Ridley versus a renowned Virologist. It is the best actual debate out there, that I can find. It's a long watch, 90 minutes, but educational, and recent
In my opinion, any sane intelligent person - such as yourself - watching all of this, will conclude it is probable if not very probable it came from the lab. But you may conclude differently, and fair enough
I offer it for your elucidation. I agree the argument cannot advance much further now. Most people think it came from the lab (as polls show), some hardcore virologists and academics disagree and will never be reconciled to the lab leak idea probably - IMHO - because it is too distressing or menacing for them. As China has refused any further investigation - especially of the lab - we will never get 100% proof
Very interesting article. Fairly weird, unsupported headline.
The Telegraph thesis is that zonal pricing (ie divide country into 12 zones) will "drive up Home Counties" prices. Yet the zone with the Home Counties runs up to a line from the Bristol Channel to the North side of The Wash, and then includes 1/3 of Wales, which will all have the same prices. Then the entire South of London from Kent to Cornwall is a single zone. Modelling is that the grid will improve and prices will fall.
Their claim requires that there be choke points in electricity reaching these zones great enough to cause big price differences in the Home Counties, which requires a combination of network not being built, supplies not being developed, a crunch in supply/demand, and interconnectors not smoothing prices enough.
I'd say - far-fetched. Landing on one low probability outcome and shouting about it. Here's the map (my daily quota):
Very interesting article. Fairly weird, unsupported headline.
The Telegraph thesis is that zonal pricing (ie divide country into 12 zones) with "drive up Home Counties" prices. Yet the zone with the Home Counties runs up to a line from the Bristol Channel to the North side of The Wash, and then includes 1/3 of Wales, which will all have the same prices. Then the entire South of London from Kent to Cornwall is a single zone.
Their claim requires that there be choke points in electricity reaching these zones great enough to cause big price differences in the Home Counties, which requires a combination of network not being built, supplies not being developed, a crunch in supply/demand, and interconnectors not smoothing prices enough.
I'd say - far-fetched. Here's the map (my daily quota):
I was also puzzled. AIUI the Scottish (Welsh, Cornish etc) generators pay *more* to export power to (eg) London than a solar farm in Hemel Hempstead would. That didn't seem to be discussed in the article, though it's potentially possible in flat rate pricing of the finished product, obviously.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
A New Statesman take on the meaning of populism. Remarkable for its stance. Labour have a problem if they don't hear what this line is saying. This is Matt Goodwin for centrists; recommended, though an editor should have noticed the crucial omission of 'alleged'.
2019 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted Boris Johnson. I hear you. Would you like some cash? Redwall voters: we will vote for you
2022 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Liz Truss. Fuck you. BRITANNIA UNCHAINED! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2023 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Rishi Sunak. Fuck you. Ai. Chess. Trans. Fifteen minute cities. Cancel HS2! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2024 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Keir Starmer. Fuck you. FAR-RIGHT AGITATORS! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Nigel Farage: Fuck you. Boats. Immigrants. Foreigners. Islam. Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
The problem here is that the epidemiological evidence such as it is ties the source of the epidemic to the inside of the market. There is no similar evidence linking the start of the epidemic to an any specific lab, even a nearby one.
We can challenge the evidence in its entirely but to the extent it shows anything at all it's market not lab. There's no factor to apply to the probability.
20% of the electorate voted Labour at the election. What percentage of the white working class electorate voted Labour? Probably around 15%. Although both of those percentages would be slightly lower if the voting-age population were used instead of the electorate because a few million people are not registered to vote despite being eligible.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
They do indeed. That conspiracy theorists bombard us all with their ideas unreplied doesn't mean we agree. It just means that you cannot debate them because they do not listen.
It's not about racism. The Chinese government is on the hook for allowing cruel and dangerous wet markets at least as much as Lab work on viruses.
I've given up arguing about this one, as the vast majority of the discourse is free of any scientific evidence. But Max's "most sensible people agree" is a) wrong, b) unscientific, and c) really disappointing from one of our more sensible posters.
Neither side has come close to proving their case. Though certain accounts - a deliberately engineered virus, for example - are deeply implausible.
I suggest you - and any truly interested PB-er - watch this debate. It is two highly intelligent, well-informed people arguing freely and openly, and marshalling all the facts on both sides. Matt Ridley versus a renowned Virologist. It is the best actual debate out there, that I can find. It's a long watch, 90 minutes, but educational, and recent
In my opinion, any sane intelligent person - such as yourself - watching all of this, will conclude it is probable if not very probable it came from the lab. But you may conclude differently, and fair enough
I offer it for your elucidation. I agree the argument cannot advance much further now. Most people think it came from the lab (as polls show), some hardcore virologists and academics disagree and will never be reconciled to the lab leak idea probably - IMHO - because it is too distressing or menacing for them. As China has refused any further investigation - especially of the lab - we will never get 100% proof
Ca suffit
Unfortunately the debate transcript was too large for ahrefs summarizer. But I can quickly extract that:
The debate proposition read "it is likely that the SARS CO2 virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory in China"
The debater for the affirmative was Matt Ridley, the bestselling author and science writer.
The debater for the negative was Dr Steven Goldstein, a biologist at the University of Utah where he studies the evolution of Corona virus
Each debater had 17.5 mins to make his case
Votes were taken at the beginning of the debate before either had spoke, and another vote was taken at the end after both had spoken
The vote at the beginning was yes 51.43%, no 15.24% to the proposition
The vote at the end was yes 64.76%, no 12.38% to the proposition
So the audience were predisposed to accept the lab-leak hypothesis and the speakers did not dissuade them from that view, instead further affirming it.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
The problem here is that the epidemiological evidence such as it is ties the source of the epidemic to the inside of the market. There is no similar evidence linking the start of the epidemic to an any specific lab, even a nearby one.
We can challenge the evidence in its entirely but to the extent it shows anything at all it's market not lab. There's no factor to apply to the probability.
One good thing about the Farage Riots is that conservative commentators have suddenly noticed that there's an underclass of around 10%-15% who feel cut off from the rest of society. I'm not sure how they didn't notice that before but that's besides the point.
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Labour could start by not looking down their nose at them.
I am perfectly comfortable looking down my nose at people who loot Gregga and Lush, throw bricks at mosques and burn libraries.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
This post is almost the perfect encapsulation of the problem - and the mistake that the established parties keep making.
The original post referred to 10-15% if the population. Andy then makes a perfectly benign, and reasonable comment.
And then the discussion immediately goes awry.
It is the same sort of issue as Hilary's 'deplorables' comment.
You don't gain a hearing by suggesting that an underclass are all rioting! You don't get people on side by telling them their views are wrong.
Reform are sweeping up these votes because they do politics differently. For a start, they don't seem to judge voters for their opinions in the way that so many others do....
Reform certainly do judge voters for their opinions. They are extremely judgemental about people with alternative lifestyles, of religious diversity and of the cardinal sin of immigrating here to improve their lives.
Have you ever read comment is free, you want judgemental about people who vote differently to them?
I didn't say other people are not judgemental, just that Reform certainly are, so what's your point?
Do you not think we should be judgemental about criminal acts and those that condone them?
A New Statesman take on the meaning of populism. Remarkable for its stance. Labour have a problem if they don't hear what this line is saying. This is Matt Goodwin for centrists; recommended, though an editor should have noticed the crucial omission of 'alleged'.
2019 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted Boris Johnson. I hear you. Would you like some cash? Redwall voters: we will vote for you
2022 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Liz Truss. Fuck you. BRITANNIA UNCHAINED! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2023 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Rishi Sunak. Fuck you. Ai. Chess. Trans. Fifteen minute cities. Cancel HS2! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2024 Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Keir Starmer. Fuck you. FAR-RIGHT AGITATORS! Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash? Nigel Farage: Fuck you. Boats. Immigrants. Foreigners. Islam. Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
Is it really 4 years since I felt like I spent all day every day trying to convince HYUFD that relying solely on Trafalgar polls was not necessarily the way to win an argument. Feels like yesterday.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
The problem here is that the epidemiological evidence such as it is ties the source of the epidemic to the inside of the market. There is no similar evidence linking the start of the epidemic to an any specific lab, even a nearby one.
We can challenge the evidence in its entirely but to the extent it shows anything at all it's market not lab. There's no factor to apply to the probability.
I'd like to remind everyone that during COVID the lab leak theory was dismissed as fake news, yet here we are and most sensible people agree that COVID came from a lab leak, not what the Chinese told us that it was zoonotic transmission.
Regulating "fake news" is a truly sinister idea and is just a polite way of pushing through mass censorship. I expected nothing less from a Labour government, I'm just surprised they're doing it so early. I guess they're taking full advantage of the current opportunity and people willing to throw away their freedoms in the name of "community relations".
Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing.
No they don't. People who rely on public funding and want to appear not racist still state it might be what the Chinese told us. Everyone else with more than one brain cell can see what happened. You are the establishment, you are the censor and it is little wonder that you would back state censorship of speech. It's everything you've dreamed of, no dissent from what you and your masters deem acceptable or "truth". Anyone who says otherwise sees the inside of a jail cell.
Here's an anonymous survey of expert virologist, epidemiologists etc. showing that they think the most likely explanation is zoonosis.
"People doing dangerous science that killed 28 million people deny that science killed 28 million people and instead it was a pangolin in a hat"
Let us say that the probability of a lab leak is X.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
The problem here is that the epidemiological evidence such as it is ties the source of the epidemic to the inside of the market. There is no similar evidence linking the start of the epidemic to an any specific lab, even a nearby one.
We can challenge the evidence in its entirely but to the extent it shows anything at all it's market not lab. There's no factor to apply to the probability.
Lab worker gets a sniffle, goes shopping.
And goes shopping in the market which is 280 metres away. Not “10km”
Very interesting article. Fairly weird, unsupported headline.
The Telegraph thesis is that zonal pricing (ie divide country into 12 zones) with "drive up Home Counties" prices. Yet the zone with the Home Counties runs up to a line from the Bristol Channel to the North side of The Wash, and then includes 1/3 of Wales, which will all have the same prices. Then the entire South of London from Kent to Cornwall is a single zone.
Their claim requires that there be choke points in electricity reaching these zones great enough to cause big price differences in the Home Counties, which requires a combination of network not being built, supplies not being developed, a crunch in supply/demand, and interconnectors not smoothing prices enough.
I'd say - far-fetched. Here's the map (my daily quota):
I was also puzzled. AIUI the Scottish (Welsh, Cornish etc) generators pay *more* to export power to (eg) London than a solar farm in Hemel Hempstead would. That didn't seem to be discussed in the article, though it's potentially possible in flat rate pricing of the finished product, obviously.
You know what I'm going to say after the summer, and especially the last 24 hours. They are looking for lines to excite rump-Tory voters in the South East; shit-stirring is an appropriate activity for a newspaper fit only to be toilet paper.
BTW you recall their 16 May 2024 article about 'killer cyclists doing 50mph in London turning it all into killing zones', based on 'data' that could have been seen as false by an 8 year old, and where they slathered the lies across the front page as well? That one has been ruled on as dodgy by iPSO.
I feel like I've already read about 2 or 3 articles by Tanya Gold about St Ives and how tourists are ruining the town.
She lives down there. She’s a good writer but some of those claims are daft
Prettiest town in Britain is quite a stretch. St ives has a really scenic seaside location but quite a few ugly buildings. I can think of towns in the Cotswolds or the marches that are easily as nice
Comments
That's a genuine observation. Not seeking to provoke or irritate.
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1822117798094729461
Given a bipartisan inclination to heal this divide in our society, what could this Parliament do to help this 10%-15% have a stake in our country again? Particularly asking PB_Tories here, what could Labour do that you would support them with?
Trump is retreating into his comfort zone.
What is more: if the evidence changes, I have zero doubt that @bondegezou would change his views. I have zero doubt that @Leon would not, because his conspiracy theory is the most dramatic theory (and is a short step away from a deliberate release...)
My own view, for what it matters, is that we do not know; but I think natural is more likely than lab-leak. I would not be surprised by either. But Leon's cast-iron certainty is hilarious.
However it is only a mild obsession. How often have I brought it up in recent months as an actual debate? Almost never. I have long concluded that people like @bondegezou cannot and will not be convinced, they have a religious faith in zoonosis, as it is so important to their self regard or whatever, who cares
I DO bring up lab leak quite often - but as a useful, crucial example of the Establishment fradulently trying to suppress a genuine and plausible hypothesis as Fake News. And that undoubtedly happened. From the original Lancet letter to the bans from Facebook and Twitter, we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS this theory because it was a "racist conspiracy theory"
That happened. No one denies it. They tried to silence all dissent. And it is important to remember this, especially with our contemporary debate on misinfo and censorship
"Most sensible people agree that COVID-19 came from zoonotic events. And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health. The study of early genomic variation in the virus is particularly convincing"
There doesn't appear to be much doubt in his mind and cites as authority those who have a lot to lose by it being a lab leak. He is the anti leon
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/08/hatred-and-division-in-deep-england?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
If he is right, then I can think of far worse people to trust the views of on this matter.
Who do you trust on this?
She is also bad on the stump. One of the core reasons why she bombed in the Democratic nomination is that she couldn’t deal well with anything remotely critical. She got smashed by Tulsi Gabbard FFS. She hasn’t done a single press interview or taken a question. Trump has asked for three debates with her and there is a reason for that.
Most Americans at the moment are engrossed with Simone Biles and watching their track athletes smash the rest of the world. Give it a month’s time, and there will be a lot more scrutiny.
Whereas the probability of a 'natural' cause is:
Y, the probability of zoonosis, multiplied by Z, the probability that the zoonosis would happen so near the lab.
Now people can debate what X and Y might be.
But Z has to be something like 0.0000001 or less.
So for Y*Z to be more likely than X then Y, zoonosis, needs to be about 1,000,000 more likely than X, lab leak.
Ms. Harris is ahead of Mr. Trump by four percentage points in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in each state. The surveys were conducted from Aug. 5 to 9.
NY Times
We know what they say in private because Freedom of Information requests eventually gouged out their emails, and we are able to read them. Here the true opinions of the leading virologists involved in this, through 2020:
"Ian Lipkin stressed the “nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess” regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.
Bob Garry said, “[I] really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat virus, or one very similar to it, COVID–19 where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.’’ According to Garry, “it’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain of function research we know was happening in Wuhan.”
Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan’s Dr. Shi, admitted, “So they [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory. And so it’s—you know—proximity is a problem. It’s a problem.”
Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and “mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered” just days before he commissioned the Proximal Origin paper."
What happens if someone is deaf?
Battleground polls looking good for Harris. Trump is a weaker than normal candidate in that many republicans won't vote for him.
Against that - the EC map still feels tricky for Dems... florida and ohio seem to be reliably R now, which is a lot of votes. Texas shift to purple is still a fair way off.
They’ve just not been great at actually helping them.
I doubt the rioters are all in the most deprived 15% in the country.
More likely more general criminal scum and weekend yobs who would have been football hooligans in a different era.
It very much is early days but the last few days have shown the Trump campaign can’t rely on Harris crashing and burning. I’m afraid that take feels very much like Sunak’s Tories thinking SKS was going to get ‘found out’ when a campaign rolled around.
Yes, happy with that. It's a wrap.
If a programmer hacks into a system and kills three people, I condemn the programmer, not other programmers or myself.
The fields of virology and public health are also massively wide, and far wider than the work done in these sorts of labs - even more so if you mean 'gain of function' research.
Most of all, these people who work in virology and public health are also people, who will not want this sort of thing to happen again.
It doesn't mean that they are irretrievably lost to society, but there should be no equivocation in condemning such actions.
FWIW this is the kind of analysis I do in my day job in a completely different area. Having looked at the available evidence to moderate detail I think you can reasonably conclude it was probably zoonosis, or to decide there are too many unknowns and we should keep the verdict open. I don't think you can reasonably it was lab leak. The evidence just isn't there. It remains a possibility but no more than that.
I refer you to all the remarks of the actual virologists in private. There is a "nightmare of circumstantial evidence" pointing towards lab leak. Which makes lab leak "so frigging likely"
I agree with Kristian Andersen, the leading virologist who wrote Proximal Origin; I believe lab leak is "so frigging likely"
I also find this argument quite dull, now. It is settled, in my mind
I was looking for a middle-class recently-restored pier with a decent restaurant in a tourist haven with an arty tradition. Never having been to a restaurant on Southwold pier, I need advice on that point.
Saltburn Pier was tempting, but that's a bit windswept and Get Carter.
But most importantly, you're shifting the goalposts. @bondegezou said: "And by sensible people, I mean people working in virology and public health."
That is a large sweep of people, and the idea that 'a lot' of them would lose their jobs if GOF research was outlawed is ridiculous.
This idea that scientists always tell the truth is bollocks they are as venal and corrupt as the general population. Witness all the drug trials where they have falsified data. Scientists should not necessarily be taken as an absolute source of truth
Trump 2.24
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/10/how-ed-miliband-preparing-bill-home-counties-more-power/
Paywalled I'm afraid.
There is genuine fear in the scientific community. Also a major likelihood that people would take personal revenge - vigilante justice. For clarity, I think vigilante justice would be utterly appalling
I don't go with the 10-15% theory, my sense is that it is closer to 40% who are fundamentally opposed to immigration, beyond which there is an 'ambivalent centre', the polling for the Rwanda plan was always at 50% or close to it.
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
So far there has been disorder in about four in ten seats where Reform came second in July – that’s 38 of them. In these same areas, the Reform vote averaged 19 percent, compared to the 14 per cent they received nationally.
Interesting and unsurprising, in a “so far there have been more catholics in places the pope visits th This is a useful way of quantifying the circumstantial evidence / coincidence of the virus starting in Wuhan.
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number.
The original post referred to 10-15% if the population. Andy then makes a perfectly benign, and reasonable comment.
And then the discussion immediately goes awry.
It is the same sort of issue as Hilary's 'deplorables' comment.
You don't gain a hearing by suggesting that an underclass are all rioting! You don't get people on side by telling them their views are wrong.
Reform are sweeping up these votes because they do politics differently. For a start, they don't seem to judge voters for their opinions in the way that so many others do....
When Trump comes to town, he brings excitement, leaves unpaid bills
https://dailymontanan.com/2024/08/08/when-trump-comes-to-town-he-brings-excitement-leaves-unpaid-bills/
There's a story going round that his plane diverted last night not because of a fault, but because the airport still had unpaid landing fees from four years ago.
(Corrected)
Trump is a colossus.
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number."
++++++++++++++
No it wasn't "40 minutes away". Jesus F Christ how many times do we have to go through this??
The "Wuhan lab" was actually a complex of different labs. One of them was the Wuhan CDC, which kept bats (despite initial denials).
"The Wuhan CDC collected and housed many bats in collaboration with the WIV. It issued a contract for the disposal of 2 tons of hazardous medical waste generated in its labs in June 2019. This waste ‘has not been effectively treated from 1994 to 2019’, the announcement conceded."
https://x.com/mattwridley/status/1630863112411783170
Where was the Wuhan CDC? About 280 metres from the wet market
"Researcher Xiao Botao suspects the origin of #WuhanCoronavirus is #Wuhan CDC laboratory, where S. China Seafood Wholesale Market is only 280m away and has a history of bats attacking staff.
Source: ResearchGate (deleted)"
The deletion was by the Chinese authorities, btw
https://x.com/BakaChocolate/status/1228664818405523458
As an engineer, I say this to my scientist wife at every opportunity. It annoys her every time.
The guy from Huddersfield poached his way into the taekwondo semifinal in the last seconds of the third round.
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted
Boris Johnson. I hear you. Would you like some cash?
Redwall voters: we will vote for you
2022
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash?
Liz Truss. Fuck you. BRITANNIA UNCHAINED!
Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2023
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash?
Rishi Sunak. Fuck you. Ai. Chess. Trans. Fifteen minute cities. Cancel HS2!
Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
2024
Redwall voters: we're fed up with being taken for granted. Where's the cash?
Keir Starmer. Fuck you. FAR-RIGHT AGITATORS!
Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
I can recall some attempts to howl down people who pointed out that the costs of travel, accommodation and huge quantities of alcohol meant that the yobs smashing bits of Italy were not the unemployed.
They were, of a level where there was employment and even a fair bit of money. But not much prospects beyond that. The kind of jobs where (unless you become the boss - and with that kind of personality that wouldn't be likely) no progress, year after year.
If the party doesn't agree, they will lose - why be the loser. If they agree, she has a chance at winning the real prize. Government.
A lot of Republicans could agree with it, too.
https://x.com/AmandiOnAir/status/1822088431104569505
I’d probably go with a more prudent estimate of Z. Wuhan has a population of about 12 million. Contrary to some stories the actual lab was about 40 minutes away from the market, not just round the corner. So I think we can take 12m as the numerator over global population of 8bn as the denominator. That gives Z of 0.0015. So zoonosis would have to be roughly 666 times as likely. Still a big number.
Er... shouldn't you divide X by the number of labs in the world, since an initial outbreak near any of 100s of labs working on virology would have caused the 'lab leak theories to spring up?
Although why bother, this is all a cod-science formula in the mould of OK magazine's 'Calculate your chances of finding true love'.
Whereas there are a lot of links in the chain that lead directly to the lab.
We will never know for certain, but balance of probabilities suggests to me that it was an accidental lab leak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVj1awTgb1s
In my opinion, any sane intelligent person - such as yourself - watching all of this, will conclude it is probable if not very probable it came from the lab. But you may conclude differently, and fair enough
I offer it for your elucidation. I agree the argument cannot advance much further now. Most people think it came from the lab (as polls show), some hardcore virologists and academics disagree and will never be reconciled to the lab leak idea probably - IMHO - because it is too distressing or menacing for them. As China has refused any further investigation - especially of the lab - we will never get 100% proof
Ca suffit
The only risk for Harris is that he bigfoots her.
The Telegraph thesis is that zonal pricing (ie divide country into 12 zones) will "drive up Home Counties" prices. Yet the zone with the Home Counties runs up to a line from the Bristol Channel to the North side of The Wash, and then includes 1/3 of Wales, which will all have the same prices. Then the entire South of London from Kent to Cornwall is a single zone. Modelling is that the grid will improve and prices will fall.
Their claim requires that there be choke points in electricity reaching these zones great enough to cause big price differences in the Home Counties, which requires a combination of network not being built, supplies not being developed, a crunch in supply/demand, and interconnectors not smoothing prices enough.
I'd say - far-fetched. Landing on one low probability outcome and shouting about it. Here's the map (my daily quota):
Nigel Farage: Fuck you. Boats. Immigrants. Foreigners. Islam.
Redwall voters: we will not vote for you
We can challenge the evidence in its entirely but to the extent it shows anything at all it's market not lab. There's no factor to apply to the probability.
20% of the electorate voted Labour at the election. What percentage of the white working class electorate voted Labour? Probably around 15%. Although both of those percentages would be slightly lower if the voting-age population were used instead of the electorate because a few million people are not registered to vote despite being eligible.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-election
The debate proposition read "it is likely that the SARS CO2 virus originated in the Wuhan laboratory in China"
- The debater for the affirmative was Matt Ridley, the bestselling author and science writer.
- The debater for the negative was Dr Steven Goldstein, a biologist at the University of Utah where he studies the evolution of Corona virus
- Each debater had 17.5 mins to make his case
- Votes were taken at the beginning of the debate before either had spoke, and another vote was taken at the end after both had spoken
- The vote at the beginning was yes 51.43%, no 15.24% to the proposition
- The vote at the end was yes 64.76%, no 12.38% to the proposition
So the audience were predisposed to accept the lab-leak hypothesis and the speakers did not dissuade them from that view, instead further affirming it.Do you not think we should be judgemental about criminal acts and those that condone them?
This is Redwall.
I will never let this go.
“St Ives is the prettiest town in Britain”. Really?!
Even more: “after the war St Ives was the world centre of western art” - lol
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/10/its-just-a-rich-mans-playground-now-how-st-ives-became-patient-zero-of-british-overtourism
BTW you recall their 16 May 2024 article about 'killer cyclists doing 50mph in London turning it all into killing zones', based on 'data' that could have been seen as false by an 8 year old, and where they slathered the lies across the front page as well? That one has been ruled on as dodgy by iPSO.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/telegraph-cyclists-ipso/
The original article is here:
https://archive.ph/YPMud
Prettiest town in Britain is quite a stretch. St ives has a really scenic seaside location but quite a few ugly buildings. I can think of towns in the Cotswolds or the marches that are easily as nice