Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Yeah that makes sense.
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
I'm not sure the first part of that logic is terribly logical. It is surely far more likely that two differing samples of the virus were leaked (either on the same occasion or different occasions) than that lightning struck twice in the wet market.
The WIV is a high biosecurity lab. They're not just splashing virus samples around all the time. One leak is already unlikely. Expecting two leaks close in time is preposterous.
However, if the virus is circulating in a group of animals kept at the wet market, we know those animals are in close proximity with humans. Getting the virus from the animals to humans is then easy, not a lightning striking rarity.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
There are many accidents in laboratories. Do they think it was a manufactured virus or natural? Did someone drop a flask? Did a monkey bite someone? Not a hard question to answer. And my real query was the bit about being certain it came from Wuhan. We all know that.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
That's great for low -throughput facilities without crowds.
For crowded places, urinals ensure a much faster turnaround of people able to go to the toilet in a minimal amount of space.
See eg the queues for toilets at the intermission in a theatre.
Replace urinals and combined facilities with unisex cubicles with washrooms in the same space and you'll slash the amount of throughput capabilities from those spaces.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
There seem to be some tricky edge cases on sex, which normally don't matter at all because it's assumed men and women compete equally. But not boxing, which raises as many questions about the female version of the sport as it does about the participants.
Regardless of whether Khelif should be allowed or disallowed on a technicality, which to be clear is what we're talking about here, she was shabbily treated as she was allowed to take part, did so in good faith, only to have her motives trashed after winning the event.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
I first encountered unisex toilets in 1998 at Auckland uni. Was a bit odd at first but you get used to it. Sports and safeguarding are the much harder questions. Most people are decent kind and caring but there are always some malign characters who will take advantage of anything. Don’t want to be in a male prison? Become trans and get moved. No requirement to lop your bits off.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
There seem to be some tricky edge cases on sex, which normally don't matter at all because it's assumed men and women compete equally. But not boxing, which raises as many questions about the female version of the sport as it does about the participants.
Regardless of whether Khelif should be allowed or disallowed on a technicality, which to be clear is what we're talking about here, she was shabbily treated as she was allowed to take part, did so in good faith, only to have her motives trashed after winning the event.
Indeed: I find the attitudes of @malcolmg and @CharlieShark to be pretty disgusting. Whether she should be allowed to compete or not, there is exactly zero evidence that at any point she behaved with anything other than good faith.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
That's great for low -throughput facilities without crowds.
For crowded places, urinals ensure a much faster turnaround of people able to go to the toilet in a minimal amount of space.
See eg the queues for toilets at the intermission in a theatre.
Replace urinals and combined facilities with unisex cubicles with washrooms in the same space and you'll slash the amount of throughput capabilities from those spaces.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the stadium pal. Also great if you're in a middle or window seat on a plane and you want to get pissed.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
That's a fair point, but what you really want to know is how the BND arrived at their conclusion. As a foreign intelligence service they likely aren't making a judgement about the chain of transmission, they are more likely to be reporting what the intelligence from Chinese and other sources say. It could simply be that they are privy to signals intercepts from China where Chinese officials themselves say "we have a lab leak".
FWIW my personal hunch is that the Americans have known what the Chinese government were saying from day one, but they can't go "well we have intecepted communications of the politburo and they were talking about it being a lab leak". So you end up with all these flimisier explanations from parallel construction rather than the real proof.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
You understand that some people who to all intents and purposes present as a woman, have internal testes that pump out testosterone? Without medical investigation how would you know? Said person would present as a rather masculine woman.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
To be pedantic, why are you squaring Oxygen?
CO₂
I didn't do anything, I just wrote it. I don't know how to do a small 2, think it did that automatically.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
Actually, there was a facility; it's never really been proven that the CDC facility in office block near the wet market was actually a laboratory. It's one of those "it's obvious innit" things.
If we're looking for a place where it is most likely a bat virus would escape from, it's the WIV.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
To be pedantic, why are you squaring Oxygen?
CO₂
I didn't do anything, I just wrote it. I don't know how to do a small 2, think it did that automatically.
Ah autocorrect did it wrong?
Yet another reason why AI is not taking over the world, we still can't get a working version of autocorrect.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
See Jonathan Reynolds finally apologies in commons today for his lies about being a solicitor in a speech in HoC.
Won't stop the review by the SRA. He should resign.
Meanwhile LibDem Rachel Gilmour is in hot water. (Is she one of these great LD MPs I keep hearing about?)
Said to have called a security guard at EDF a 'c**t' and 'obnoxious t**t' and 'bet he votes f***** Tory'. When shown a film there, asked 'why are you showing me this s**t' and 'don't show me this s**t again'. When asked a question by a constituent, was said to have told them that she wasn't going to 'chat s**t' with them. Charmer.
A bit outrageous she called the security card that, rather than the management where everyone would be nodding in agreement.
She must be extremely stupid. The lowest ranked people (and security guards are right at the bottom) have to act exactly according to management dictates. Or be fired.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Yeah that makes sense.
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
The temptation to make a joke about all meat diets is... almost... overwhelming...
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
To be pedantic, why are you squaring Oxygen?
CO₂
I didn't do anything, I just wrote it. I don't know how to do a small 2, think it did that automatically.
Ah autocorrect did it wrong?
Yet another reason why AI is not taking over the world, we still can't get a working version of autocorrect.
Chemistry has a subscript not a superscript.
Um, yes? Mine would also have been wrong, as it would have looked like this: CO2
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
There are many accidents in laboratories. Do they think it was a manufactured virus or natural? Did someone drop a flask? Did a monkey bite someone? Not a hard question to answer. And my real query was the bit about being certain it came from Wuhan. We all know that.
Something nearly no one seems to understand is that biology labs are not like in the movies.
No space suits. Remote handling. Most labs are “Don’t mouth pipette. Don’t put your lunch in the lab fridges. Wipe the worktops twice a day.”
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Yeah that makes sense.
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
The temptation to make a joke about all meat diets is... almost... overwhelming...
But wrong. As a matter of fact a vegetarian diet doubles the size of your turds I believe.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
To be pedantic, why are you squaring Oxygen?
CO₂
One of my all time pet hates. Even the illustrious BBC do this, the parts. I think it betrays the lack of science education in the media.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
To be pedantic, why are you squaring Oxygen?
CO₂
I didn't do anything, I just wrote it. I don't know how to do a small 2, think it did that automatically.
Ah autocorrect did it wrong?
Yet another reason why AI is not taking over the world, we still can't get a working version of autocorrect.
Chemistry has a subscript not a superscript.
Um, yes? Mine would also have been wrong, as it would have looked like this: CO2
That's more commonly written electronically as doing the sub/superscripts isn't easy and wouldn't stand out.
Ironically the CO² stood out as it would be more effort to type out if deliberately typed that way, yet wrong.
Anyway, I know how much you love pedantically calling out things, so I thought you'd appreciate the favour being returned.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
You need to subscript, not superscript, your 2.
Also, if you're spending seconds at a sink, you might be a source of viral spread. Wash your hands properly!
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
You understand that some people who to all intents and purposes present as a woman, have internal testes that pump out testosterone? Without medical investigation how would you know? Said person would present as a rather masculine woman.
A practical consideration in all this is who is supposed to check at sports events. Very few outside the Olympics and professional sport are going to be able to afford a doctor (which would still seem disproportionate to the problem). So it would have to be the referee or coach at most amateur events. I think we can be pretty confident that women will be less safe in sport if they have to undergo genital checks from the officials and coaches than they are now.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
There are quite a lot of external genitalia on the Internet. Have you checked them all?
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
So why have they completely failed to identify the transmission chain, something which the managed quickly in previous zoonotic events.
And why did the Chinese stop people even looking.
The most likely cause was an accidental escape from the lab - that happens frequently - with the wet market being simply an early superspreader event
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
There are many accidents in laboratories. Do they think it was a manufactured virus or natural? Did someone drop a flask? Did a monkey bite someone? Not a hard question to answer. And my real query was the bit about being certain it came from Wuhan. We all know that.
Something nearly no one seems to understand is that biology labs are not like in the movies.
No space suits. Remote handling. Most labs are “Don’t mouth pipette. Don’t put your lunch in the lab fridges. Wipe the worktops twice a day.”
Oh come on! Mouth pippetting is just easier, right? And as for your lunch - where else are you going to put it? Twice a day? Twice a year more like…
As someone who works in a life sciences department I have more insight than most and sadly not all lab practice is optimum. But yes, it’s not like the movies.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Yeah that makes sense.
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
The temptation to make a joke about all meat diets is... almost... overwhelming...
But wrong. As a matter of fact a vegetarian diet doubles the size of your turds I believe.
I wasn't looking for accuracy, I was looking for a cheap and easy gag.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
We are missing most early data and will never get it now.
You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. Its not a conspiracy theory, there is a lack of evidence because (a) people weren't looking early on and (b) the Chinese deliberately distorted/suppressed the data. That's not a conspiracy, its fact.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Indeed. That's how new buildings at my uni work. You get this nice little mini-room to yourself with a loo, a sink, a bin etc. It's calm and relaxing!
It's also very wasteful of materials and work. We need seconds at a sink, and rather longer on the loo, so adding a sink to every cubicle is overprovision and adding to the pressure on the world's finite resources and the CO² in the atmosphere.
You need to subscript, not superscript, your 2.
Also, if you're spending seconds at a sink, you might be a source of viral spread. Wash your hands properly!
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
You understand that some people who to all intents and purposes present as a woman, have internal testes that pump out testosterone? Without medical investigation how would you know? Said person would present as a rather masculine woman.
A practical consideration in all this is who is supposed to check at sports events. Very few outside the Olympics and professional sport are going to be able to afford a doctor (which would still seem disproportionate to the problem). So it would have to be the referee or coach at most amateur events. I think we can be pretty confident that women will be less safe in sport if they have to undergo genital checks from the officials and coaches than they are now.
I believe @Leon has offered to check female genitalia at college sporting events. He's even said he'd be willing to do it for airmiles.
As predicted on here regarding the impossibility of cutting federal US spending much without reforming Medicaid and Medicare, via the FT:
"Elon Musk’s hyperactive efficiency drive failed to prevent US federal spending rising to a record $603bn last month, new Treasury data has revealed, highlighting the Trump administration’s difficulty in cutting the size of government.
Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency claims to have already made more than $100bn of savings but only a handful of departments registered any decreases in the first full month of the new administration.
Spending rose by $40bn compared with the same month last year on a like-for-like basis, a 7 per cent increase.
“Doge savings are so small as not to be identifiable in monthly spending totals,” said Jessica Riedl, an economic policy expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank, who has been analysing the initiative’s efforts.
Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, oversaw a cut in spending at the US Agency for International Development, whose monthly outlay was revealed to have been halved to $226mn, compared with $547mn in the same month last year.
However, this saving was dwarfed by the consequences of a mere 3 per cent rise in monthly healthcare spending, which cost an additional $5bn. A 6 per cent rise in social security outlays cost an additional $8bn."
A family member (the one that kills rats) worked on prescription drugs pricing. The US doesn't have competitive bidding so prices in the US are whatever they ask. Appears the same drugs are 3 times the price in the US compared to elsewhere. Everyone in the US knows why Medicare costs are high but who is going to tackle big pharma when they can kick people who can't kick back.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The Chinese did not suppress "all the early data". There is lots of data.
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
Telegraph: According to Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, the BND* concluded in 2020 that an accident in a laboratory in Wuhan led to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report, based on public records, data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a German intelligence operation known as “Saaremaa”, found an “80 to 95 per cent” probability that Covid-19 came from Wuhan.
The BND presented the findings to Mrs Merkel, who chose to keep the information “under lock and key”, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung’s report.
*BND = Germany’s foreign intelligence agency
Odd reporting. I don't think many doubt it came from Wuhan so what's that 80 to 95 percent bollocks. I'd be interested to no what kind of accident they think it was.
They think it was an accident in a laboratory. As it says right there ..
There are many accidents in laboratories. Do they think it was a manufactured virus or natural? Did someone drop a flask? Did a monkey bite someone? Not a hard question to answer. And my real query was the bit about being certain it came from Wuhan. We all know that.
Something nearly no one seems to understand is that biology labs are not like in the movies.
No space suits. Remote handling. Most labs are “Don’t mouth pipette. Don’t put your lunch in the lab fridges. Wipe the worktops twice a day.”
But WIV is a high biosecurity lab. It ain't a regular lab. They're not stupid.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
You understand that some people who to all intents and purposes present as a woman, have internal testes that pump out testosterone? Without medical investigation how would you know? Said person would present as a rather masculine woman.
A practical consideration in all this is who is supposed to check at sports events. Very few outside the Olympics and professional sport are going to be able to afford a doctor (which would still seem disproportionate to the problem). So it would have to be the referee or coach at most amateur events. I think we can be pretty confident that women will be less safe in sport if they have to undergo genital checks from the officials and coaches than they are now.
I believe @Leon has offered to check female genitalia at college sporting events. He's even said he'd be willing to do it for airmiles.
I worry that that poster has been apprehended stalking Emma Raducanu. Certainly expressed ‘admiration’ for her during her breakthrough tournament in NY.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The Chinese did not suppress "all the early data". There is lots of data.
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
There is some data, but we have large amounts of data missing as the Chinese suppressed it deliberately. Especially most early data on human transmission which was suppressed as a matter of policy that is on the record.
How many of your prior new diseases in humans originated "by coincidence" from a city with a lab it could leak out of?
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The Chinese did not suppress "all the early data". There is lots of data.
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
Do you believe the Chinese data regarding deaths with Covid (ie. a few thousand from a population of over 1 billion)?
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We'll, not all transmissions propogate, and it is possible that when the lab worker picked it up it was more likely to transmit to a non-human animal. And I am assuming the wet market is a superspreader event. Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
So why have they completely failed to identify the transmission chain, something which the managed quickly in previous zoonotic events.
And why did the Chinese stop people even looking.
The most likely cause was an accidental escape from the lab - that happens frequently - with the wet market being simply an early superspreader event
(While I obviously liked this comment because I think the conclusion is correct, I would note that the zoonotic origin for Ebola has never been found*, and it took 14 years to find the zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-1 (the virus causing the 2003 SARS outbreak).
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
So why have they completely failed to identify the transmission chain, something which the managed quickly in previous zoonotic events.
And why did the Chinese stop people even looking.
The most likely cause was an accidental escape from the lab - that happens frequently - with the wet market being simply an early superspreader event
Accidental escapes from the lab of novel viruses do not happen frequently. Lab leaks do occur and they are nearly always of well-know and commonly studied things. Look at past pandemics: how many came from lab leaks? Maybe 1977 Russian flu and that's it. The others, zoonosis after zoonosis after zoonosis. Zoonotic events happen frequently. Wet markets and other consumption of "bush meat" have long been known to be a problem area.
Identifying the exact transmission chain is difficult. Sometimes we can pin down the exact event: this dead animal to this person. However, with many previous zoonotic events, we haven't identified the transmission chain. HIV came from a zoonotic event, most probably eating bust meat, but we don't know precisely where or when. Ditto MERS. Ditto SARS. Ditto swine flu.
In previous lab leaks, we have usually identified the transmission chain, so the lack of one having been identified here does not prove it's a lab leak. The failure to identify a specific transmission chain doesn't tell us anything really. These things are hard to determine. Sometimes we can work it out and often we can't.
The WIV is a high biosecurity lab. They're not just splashing virus samples around all the time. One leak is already unlikely. Expecting two leaks close in time is preposterous.
However, if the virus is circulating in a group of animals kept at the wet market, we know those animals are in close proximity with humans. Getting the virus from the animals to humans is then easy, not a lightning striking rarity.
The woman was admitted to hospital on April 4, but the man apparently became infected independently 2 weeks later, being hospitalized on April 17. Both worked at the Chinese Institute of Virology in Beijing, part of China's Center for Disease Control.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
We are missing most early data and will never get it now.
You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. Its not a conspiracy theory, there is a lack of evidence because (a) people weren't looking early on and (b) the Chinese deliberately distorted/suppressed the data. That's not a conspiracy, its fact.
We have some data, we are missing some data. You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. You are ignoring the evidence we do have.
People were looking early on. I remember reading the early reports at the end of 2019. Plenty of stuff was coming out in real time.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
We are missing most early data and will never get it now.
You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. Its not a conspiracy theory, there is a lack of evidence because (a) people weren't looking early on and (b) the Chinese deliberately distorted/suppressed the data. That's not a conspiracy, its fact.
We have some data, we are missing some data. You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. You are ignoring the evidence we do have.
People were looking early on. I remember reading the early reports at the end of 2019. Plenty of stuff was coming out in real time.
I'm not filling in any blanks, I'm keeping an open mind and saying we'll likely never know the truth so both options are plausible.
You're the closed-minded one filling in blanks that aren't filled in.
We are missing too much data to know for certain. By the time stuff was coming out at the end of 2019, it had already spread to humans, by whichever mechanism.
People who claimed "It's not a Nazi salute" are busy rebadging their Swastikars so they can tell people "It's not a Tesla"...
No they're not.
On a Venn diagram 'People who claimed "It's not a Nazi salute"' and 'people busy rebadging their Swastikars' are two entirely separate circles with no overlap.
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
'You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage.'
Sorry, no you can't. Sport categories are male and female. Anyone trying to avoid that, especially knowingly, is cheating. Being nice is great. Cheating isn't.
How would you know that person was not a normal woman?
What is a normal woman? Is a normal woman equipped with testes?
You understand that some people who to all intents and purposes present as a woman, have internal testes that pump out testosterone? Without medical investigation how would you know? Said person would present as a rather masculine woman.
A cheek swab will solve this. All athletes should undergo this.
This boxer failed various sex tests, they came back male, but still carried on hitting women, encouraged by supporting men. Not sure how you think this boxer presents as a woman?
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Sydney botanic gardens ... and doing tight orbits to get the moths around the street lights in Durham cathedral close.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
There are quite a lot of external genitalia on the Internet. Have you checked them all?
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The Chinese did not suppress "all the early data". There is lots of data.
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
There is some data, but we have large amounts of data missing as the Chinese suppressed it deliberately. Especially most early data on human transmission which was suppressed as a matter of policy that is on the record.
How many of your prior new diseases in humans originated "by coincidence" from a city with a lab it could leak out of?
Swine flu was first picked up in a city, a city like most cities that had research labs in it.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
The Chinese did not suppress "all the early data". There is lots of data.
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
Do you believe the Chinese data regarding deaths with Covid (ie. a few thousand from a population of over 1 billion)?
You ask me that every time. I have answered multiple times: see my previous answers.
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Me too. There is a joy of heading out at dusk and seeing them flying around. Longleat have also opened a new bat cave this year which I hope to visit soon.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We'll, not all transmissions propogate, and it is possible that when the lab worker picked it up it was more likely to transmit to a non-human animal. And I am assuming the wet market is a superspreader event. Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?
Many things are possible. We are looking at likelihoods. What is more likely? If you accept the (overwhelming) evidence that it came from the wet market, given we have evidence of viral genome associated with animal genome in the wet market, why invent some complicated chain of events to get the virus from the WIV to the wet market when we know wild animals often carry diseases that can then infect humans?
"Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?" Because most novel infectious diseases come by jumping from another species.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
It's not on the other side of the city, an eligible lab was yards away - please stop dissembling.
The lab that conspiracy theorists spent years claiming was the source, the infamous WIV, is on the other side of the city. All the stuff about Fauci and US funds supporting a study, that's all WIV. If you drop that as a source, those conspiracies evaporate even more quickly.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
How do you know they didn't? The Chinese suppressed all the early data and originally it would have been circulating around not very many people - and most people who did have it would not be showing as exceptionally ill or tested for it anyway as would be either asymptomatic or showing symptoms of other illnesses.
You can work backwards because the R rate was consistent across the epidemic, which means the Wet Market cases were amongst the first ones. There is specific evidence linking those first cases to the Wet Market; there is no similar epidemiology linking the epidemic to any lab. This doesn't mean definitively it didn't come from a lab; just that there's no specific evidence for it in the public domain.
The other main evidence for zoonosis as @bondegezou points out is the virology strongly suggests the virus entered the human chain on at least two separate dates with slightly different variations of the virus. This is consistent with a virus brewing in an animal population before entering the human chain. It is harder to explain as multiple lab leaks where the virus in the first leak is a derivative of the virus in the second leak, all incubated in the lab.
That's basically the evidence. We can draw our conclusions from this evidence.
The WIV is a high biosecurity lab. They're not just splashing virus samples around all the time. One leak is already unlikely. Expecting two leaks close in time is preposterous.
However, if the virus is circulating in a group of animals kept at the wet market, we know those animals are in close proximity with humans. Getting the virus from the animals to humans is then easy, not a lightning striking rarity.
The woman was admitted to hospital on April 4, but the man apparently became infected independently 2 weeks later, being hospitalized on April 17. Both worked at the Chinese Institute of Virology in Beijing, part of China's Center for Disease Control.
Yes. Stuff does leak from labs. But that's not how SARS started in humans. Once a disease has been identified, then lots of labs will study it and leaks can happen. But how often does a pandemic or epidemic start with a lab leak? Maybe 1977 Russian flu and that's it.
Can we catch diseases from wild animals? Yes. Happens all the time. I can match your stories with zoonoses easily.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
Well, her birth certificate might be a bit of a giveaway. Also her passport. Also everyone she went to school with who shared a changing room with her. Also, her family.
Unless you're going to claim that they had this secret plan to tell a boy they were actually a girl in order to win an Olympic Medal, and that *everyone* was going to go along with this.
So, you go find me some evidence that she has external male genitalia. Because the burden of proof is rather on you, given that her assigned sex at birth was female.
(And for what it's worth, it's not even like the "various tests that came back saying he is male" are even that conclusive given "the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later criticized the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitrary," affirming that Khelif met all eligibility criteria for female competitors.")
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We'll, not all transmissions propogate, and it is possible that when the lab worker picked it up it was more likely to transmit to a non-human animal. And I am assuming the wet market is a superspreader event. Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?
Many things are possible. We are looking at likelihoods. What is more likely? If you accept the (overwhelming) evidence that it came from the wet market, given we have evidence of viral genome associated with animal genome in the wet market, why invent some complicated chain of events to get the virus from the WIV to the wet market when we know wild animals often carry diseases that can then infect humans?
"Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?" Because most novel infectious diseases come by jumping from another species.
Well indeed. It jumped species at WIV and then again at the wet market. It's hardly a complicated chain of events. Homo sapiens is a species just as a bat species is
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Me too. There is a joy of heading out at dusk and seeing them flying around. Longleat have also opened a new bat cave this year which I hope to visit soon.
I like sitting outside in the summer after dinner with the bats flitting overhead. And then I think "you c"***s tried to kill us"
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We'll, not all transmissions propogate, and it is possible that when the lab worker picked it up it was more likely to transmit to a non-human animal. And I am assuming the wet market is a superspreader event. Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?
Many things are possible. We are looking at likelihoods. What is more likely? If you accept the (overwhelming) evidence that it came from the wet market, given we have evidence of viral genome associated with animal genome in the wet market, why invent some complicated chain of events to get the virus from the WIV to the wet market when we know wild animals often carry diseases that can then infect humans?
"Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?" Because most novel infectious diseases come by jumping from another species.
Well indeed. It jumped species at WIV and then again at the wet market. It's hardly a complicated chain of events. Homo sapiens is a species just as a bat species is
WIV -> human -> animals in wet marks -> humans is a more complicated chain of events than animals in wet marks -> humans. Occam's razor applies. Nothing is gained by complicating the explanation, except a desire to preserve the lab leak hypothesis that some people got invested in.
Wrong, I literally said in the line you quoted that there is "missing" data, not "no" data. Indeed I said there is "some" data. Some != no.
Which your first link confirms. "The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded ..."
... because of the lack of sufficient data.
That is very selective quoting, Bart. I thought you were better than that!
The full sentence reads: "The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019."
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
Lol. You really are so up your own arse aren't you. Intelligence services all over the world say it came from a lab to a 90% degree of likelihood, buy you, a minor failed bureaucrat think you know better. It's laughable.
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Me too. There is a joy of heading out at dusk and seeing them flying around. Longleat have also opened a new bat cave this year which I hope to visit soon.
I like sitting outside in the summer after dinner with the bats flitting overhead. And then I think "you c"***s tried to kill us"
You know, Ebola, SARS, and Covid are all attributed to bats.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
Well, her birth certificate might be a bit of a giveaway. Also her passport. Also everyone she went to school with who shared a changing room with her. Also, her family.
Unless you're going to claim that they had this secret plan to tell a boy they were actually a girl in order to win an Olympic Medal, and that *everyone* was going to go along with this.
So, you go find me some evidence that she has external male genitalia. Because the burden of proof is rather on you, given that her assigned sex at birth was female.
(And for what it's worth, it's not even like the "various tests that came back saying he is male" are even that conclusive given "the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later criticized the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitrary," affirming that Khelif met all eligibility criteria for female competitors.")
The lengths that some blokes go to try and support men cheating in women's sport and the cheerleaders they attract on places like this will never cease to astound me. Vile.
The attempts to discredit the three approved laboratories who conducted the tests (not the IBA) are appalling. These are CAS approved laboratories that you are dismissing.
The IOC were (they won't be) basing their entire arbitrary decision on his passport. That was allocated based on someone looking at him when he was born, once given it is unchangeable in Algeria. You think his family his going to come forward with this, you think they were sharing changing rooms at the school. Deluded.
Yes his coaches and his federation all understand exactly what he is.
You deny the science and are basing your entire argument on a bit of paper written when he was born. You have no other evidence.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
Well, her birth certificate might be a bit of a giveaway. Also her passport. Also everyone she went to school with who shared a changing room with her. Also, her family.
Unless you're going to claim that they had this secret plan to tell a boy they were actually a girl in order to win an Olympic Medal, and that *everyone* was going to go along with this.
So, you go find me some evidence that she has external male genitalia. Because the burden of proof is rather on you, given that her assigned sex at birth was female.
(And for what it's worth, it's not even like the "various tests that came back saying he is male" are even that conclusive given "the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later criticized the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitrary," affirming that Khelif met all eligibility criteria for female competitors.")
The lengths that some blokes go to try and support men cheating in women's sport and the cheerleaders they attract on places like this will never cease to astound me. Vile.
The attempts to discredit the three approved laboratories who conducted the tests (not the IBA) are appalling. These are CAS approved laboratories that you are dismissing.
The IOC were (they won't be) basing their entire arbitrary decision on his passport. That was allocated based on someone looking at him when he was born, once given it is unchangeable in Algeria. You think his family his going to come forward with this, you think they were sharing changing rooms at the school. Deluded.
Yes his coaches and his federation all understand exactly what he is.
You deny the science and are basing your entire argument on a bit of paper written when he was born. You have no other evidence.
So, you have no evidence of external male genitalia at all then?
By the way, I have expressed on several occasions that they should not be competing. So - if you wish to remain unbanned - please do not deliberately misstate my position.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
We have unisex toilets at my work, but the sinks are in the cubicles.
Keir Starmer will tomorrow announce that AI will replace the work of civil servants if it can do a better job
The approach will be guided by the mantra: "No person’s substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker & to the same high quality and standard"
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Me too. There is a joy of heading out at dusk and seeing them flying around. Longleat have also opened a new bat cave this year which I hope to visit soon.
I like sitting outside in the summer after dinner with the bats flitting overhead. And then I think "you c"***s tried to kill us"
You know, Ebola, SARS, and Covid are all attributed to bats.
You could be onto something here.
Plus Nipah virus, Hendra virus, Menangle virus and bat rabies (like but a bit different to regular rabies).
Keir Starmer will tomorrow announce that AI will replace the work of civil servants if it can do a better job
The approach will be guided by the mantra: "No person’s substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker & to the same high quality and standard"
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
I think a lot of the problem with Rowling is she's not a very kind person. You can hold very strong opinions while respecting others who have different views or in different circumstances.
I think neither of those things (whilst they may or may not both be true) account for the growingly strident tone and philosophy of JK Rowling. I think that's largely due to the polarisation of the debate. As trans activists have become more extreme in their demands, and sought completely to delegitimise and dehumanise their opponents, an equal and opposite reaction has occurred within 'TERF' culture. One would not and could not exist without the other.
My personal opinion is that whilst sex is immutable, it is reasonable, polite and kind to treat someone who has transitioned both legally and surgically as their assumed gender. But with hindsight, it's probably not surprising that there has been a hardening of opinion amongst people like our own Cyclefree, because what's the point of trying to retain some moderacy, when your opponents are painting you as beyond the pale anyway?
Many things can resolved simply. Unisex toilets. Single cubicle changing rooms and so on. Sport is harder. You could solve all the issues by getting rid of women's sport entirely - just have one category (human). But I don't think that will really work for reasons. Sport is also set up unfairly. You only need to look at which athletes succeed in sports to see that they have a genetic advantage. You can argue that a woman born with internal male testes and thus with high testosterone is just another variant of a genetic advantage. Throughout all the struggles with us people could generally be a bit nicer. I have no idea what it feels like to be a man who believes he ought to be a woman. Frankly it sounds a bit shit. But I also don't believe that a man can become a woman and vice versa. But I wouldn't want to be mean to others on that basis.
My workplace replaced it's toilets all with unisex ones, I don't like it, I feel uncomfortable stepping out of a cubicle and seeing a woman by the sink, it just feels weird.
However my female colleagues dislike it much, much more.
It is mainly a relatively trivial comfort thing though, whereas sport and safeguarding for women's single sex spaces etc is far more a safety/fairness thing so far more serious.
IMHO unisex toilets work best where each cubicle contains washing/drying facilities as well. Each cubicle opening onto general space rather than 'personal' space.
Yeah that makes sense.
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
The temptation to make a joke about all meat diets is... almost... overwhelming...
But wrong. As a matter of fact a vegetarian diet doubles the size of your turds I believe.
Yes, that is one reason that they protect against bowel cancer. They are also of a different, less sticky consistency, so less noxious.
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
This is all beginning to feel like an excuse to do google image searches of genitalia in the name of 'research'.
Keir Starmer will tomorrow announce that AI will replace the work of civil servants if it can do a better job
The approach will be guided by the mantra: "No person’s substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker & to the same high quality and standard"
Probably not the best place to begin your manoeuvres. Weren't they the clowns who left Fraser Nelson speechless when they said Rishi Sunak could never be English?
I don't know about the other dude, but Kisin is inching his way to Magahood every day. He reversed ferreted when they didn't like his initial take on the Zelensky White House clash and laughably tried to act as though he didn't, now he is in the tricky position of supporting Ukraine (family connections among other reasons) but a lot of his new audience despising them.
My understanding was that he thought Zelensky was wrong over the Oval Office incident. At the same time he's corrected a lot of the lies about the war. Disappointing if he sells out for the $$$.
It's not dollars.
It's that people respond to stimuli.
If you have thousands of followers, and they yell at you being wrong, then you will try and correct your behaviour to maintain your standing with your followers.
That feedback loop - which social media encourages and amplifies - is why people find themselves going down crazy rabbit holes.
Take JK Rowling. She had some perfectly sensible, considered remarks about trans people back in 2020. But that attracted a lot of followers who were virulently anti-trans, and so she found that comments and tweets she made that were anti-trans got lots of likes. And those which had nuance, did not. She did more of the things that got likes.
And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans.
'And she ended up in a situation where she's yelling at a poor Algerian boxer who is definitely not trans'
FFS. That boxer is a man, fighting women, stealing their medals and money, knowingly covered by other men and apparently cheered on by another group of men on here.
There is nothing 'poor' about a vile cheat.
That woman has female genitalia, and was brought up as a woman.
Now, she may have internal testes, that were discovered later, but that doesn't make her a "vile cheat" because how the fuck was she supposed to know?
How the fuck do you know he has female genitalia and not underdeveloped male genitalia? He's a man. He underwent a test - it came back male. He wears male protection. He's a man. He's a vile cheat, surrounded by vile cheats who know exactly what they are doing. The fact you think he has testes, found out beforehand and should still be fighting as a woman is telling. He could have been brought up as a cat, it makes no difference, he's a cheat. I think it's vile that people cheer him on and still make excuses.
Because at the time they were born, the people who looked at said person saw a vagina and nothing else.
Which bathrooms do you think this person with external female genitals should use?
At no point in their life, did this person ever think they were a man.
Personally, I feel really sorry for her. I don't think she should be competing in female boxing, for which she should have our pity.
They didn't see a vagina, they made a mistake. There are no external female genitals for anyone to see.
Now because one person made a mistake, why should that mistake be compounded upon others many times over.
That person should not be in a ring hitting other women. They did know beforehand they were male, as did all of their coaches and federations. Yet they still let this man go in a ring, hitting women. And you feel sorry for him. Sympathy left the building the moment they starting fighting.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external male genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
Could you please let me know what evidence you are using that she has visible external female genitalia, because I've searched the internet and can find none.
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
Well, her birth certificate might be a bit of a giveaway. Also her passport. Also everyone she went to school with who shared a changing room with her. Also, her family.
Unless you're going to claim that they had this secret plan to tell a boy they were actually a girl in order to win an Olympic Medal, and that *everyone* was going to go along with this.
So, you go find me some evidence that she has external male genitalia. Because the burden of proof is rather on you, given that her assigned sex at birth was female.
(And for what it's worth, it's not even like the "various tests that came back saying he is male" are even that conclusive given "the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later criticized the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitrary," affirming that Khelif met all eligibility criteria for female competitors.")
The lengths that some blokes go to try and support men cheating in women's sport and the cheerleaders they attract on places like this will never cease to astound me. Vile.
The attempts to discredit the three approved laboratories who conducted the tests (not the IBA) are appalling. These are CAS approved laboratories that you are dismissing.
The IOC were (they won't be) basing their entire arbitrary decision on his passport. That was allocated based on someone looking at him when he was born, once given it is unchangeable in Algeria. You think his family his going to come forward with this, you think they were sharing changing rooms at the school. Deluded.
Yes his coaches and his federation all understand exactly what he is.
You deny the science and are basing your entire argument on a bit of paper written when he was born. You have no other evidence.
This is completely daft. @rcs1000 specifically said she shouldn't be competing in female boxing. He also did not dismiss the tests. You just made all of that up. However you immediately jump to the conclusion she had visable male genitalia based on no evidence whatsoever. Plenty of athletes fail these tests and I can guarantee none whatsoever have visible male genitalia for the simple reason that there would not need to be a test in the first place if they did. It would be obvious
These people are born as visibly girls, are bought up as girls. Unfortunately life isn't as simple as Trump would have it and medically some girls and boys have chromosome issues. Those girls will have an unfair advantage over other girls in physical sports and therefore should not be allowed to compete in female sports, but the idea that it isn't that and she really has a cock and balls is not likely yet you state it as fact based upon absolutely nothing.
I think the by-election will be 1,000 votes either way. Tories may struggle to save their deposit, although probably more likely they just about will.
Interesting call to lose their deposit when new statesman prediction is at 20%.
If the Tories lose their deposit, I dread to think what the LD and Green vote share will be, as they are currently below the Workers Party of Great Britain in the betting.
Does anyone believe the Tory share will increase from 18% to 20% in a mainly two way fight between Lab and Ref?
No.
In a two horse race between Reform and Labour, then the Conservatives are going to get mullered. Now: I don't think they'll lose their deposit, but the reality is that these byelections see relentless squeezing of non-competitive parties. I think the LDs will end up on 4%, and the Conservatives on maybe 7%.
The dark horses here are the Greens. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do remarkably well, picking up disaffected Labour voters who don't want to support any of the other options.
Reform Green Labour ... Big Gap ... Conservative LD
Would be my guess.
Labour Reform Conservative Green LD
Would be my guess. Voters are often not attuned to local subtleties, and I think there are a lot of never-Reform Tory voters.
Keir Starmer will tomorrow announce that AI will replace the work of civil servants if it can do a better job
The approach will be guided by the mantra: "No person’s substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker & to the same high quality and standard"
At work, we’re ~12 months into trying to get permissions to test some AI on some govt data.
We're 12 months into negotiating with central IT to negotiate with a 'compliant' provider to offer the same service for x10 the cost that we developed in-house a year ago, which is when we foolishly asked about making it 'official'.
The thing I find irritating is that "lab leak" covers an absolutely massive range of scenarios, with different levels of culpability.
It has been obvious for a long time that lab leak is the most likely hypothesis.
But I find myself struggling to get particularly angry about a low level lab worker getting bitten by a bat, and then infecting his wife that happens to work at the wet market.
On the other hand, if there was a biocontainment leak of a modified virus, then that would (given the Chinese governments behaviour) be 1,000x more serious.
We know early cases came from two different genomic variants of the virus. That is very, very difficult to explain in terms of a lab leak. A leak would be of one variant. It is, however, consistent with the virus circulating in animals in the wet market before jumping to humans on two occasions, thus explaining the early genetic variability.
The attempt at a combination theory of lab leak to the wet market is preposterous, piling unlikely event on top of unlikely event. If it came from the market, and all the evidence says it did, then how did it get to the market? Would that be through an infected wild animal being brought to the market, a potential route we've been worrying about for years, or would that be from a lab leak from a lab on the other side of the city, a leak that managed not to infect anyone else we know about until it got to the market, where it jumped back into an animal???
The evidence is in. It is consistent with a zoonotic event, an animal with the virus being brought to the wet market and infecting other animals it was in close contact with.
Why is lab leak + wet market "preposterous"? Lab worker gets a snotty nose, goes shopping at the wet market like she usually does.
In your scenario, the lab worker with the snotty nose manages not to transmit COVID-19 to anyone else on their way to the wet market, which is on the other side of a large city. While at the market, they transmit the virus to an animal, but not to anyone else. They then go on with their life, not transmitting the virus to anyone else. Is that likely? No.
If it came from animals at the market, as the evidence points to, then what's the most likely way it got into those animals? It's from an animal caught in the wild. This is much more likely than a lab->human->animal->humans chain. This attempt at a compromise lab+market theory gains nothing; it just combines improbable events.
We don't know how many people had the virus in its early days as the Chinese deliberately destroyed/suppressed any legitimate data.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
We have genetic samples from the wet market. Those would be pretty much impossible to fake.
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
Lol. You really are so up your own arse aren't you. Intelligence services all over the world say it came from a lab to a 90% degree of likelihood, buy you, a minor failed bureaucrat think you know better. It's laughable.
But, as bonegezou says, most scientists working in the field think a zoonotic origin is more likely. I suppose it comes down to who you prefer to give credence to: intelligence agencies or scientists.
For comparison this the rental costs in various cities in Europe, which doesn't align to the chart in the header. eg Vienna is cheap in comparison, livable city and wages are higher than in the UK
I rented in Vienna when I lived there. Elegant spacious city centre apartment for what a Rigsby type bedsit would have cost in an equivalent part of London.
In part it is the British obsession with owning property, and historically you rarely went wrong investing in Bricks and mortar. That may no longer be true, as there is potential for a house price crash with higher interest rates making lower affordability, and increasing supply.
I note that countries with abundant land and few building restrictions like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of the USA also have an affordability crisis. I think that the affordability issue is in large part due to the asset inflation during post GFC rock bottom rates, which is now unwinding.
Almost entirely unrelated, but one of the LLM bots I have, which is supposed to write out the occasional random bit of chat in our Slack organisation just said :
"The clock strikes 11:21, marking another day closer to the equinox when the veil thins enough for them to crawl through the cracks in reality and into our world."
Just to say I really like bats. Whether it's Pipistrelles under the trees while I'm on a cycle/run, or flying foxes clouding the Australian skies, I still get a childish delight every time I see one.
Me too. There is a joy of heading out at dusk and seeing them flying around. Longleat have also opened a new bat cave this year which I hope to visit soon.
I like sitting outside in the summer after dinner with the bats flitting overhead. And then I think "you c"***s tried to kill us"
You know, Ebola, SARS, and Covid are all attributed to bats.
You could be onto something here.
Plus Nipah virus, Hendra virus, Menangle virus and bat rabies (like but a bit different to regular rabies).
Plus vampires ,(or am I getting a bit confused about reality)
Comments
Though it won't deal with the complaint of some women I know that they dislike using a cubicle after men as men are smellier. Again, at least that's a relatively trivial complaint not a safeguarding one though.
However, if the virus is circulating in a group of animals kept at the wet market, we know those animals are in close proximity with humans. Getting the virus from the animals to humans is then easy, not a lightning striking rarity.
So you're trying to claim "evidence" that does not exist.
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-pandemic-likely-unleashed-by-lab-mishap-germanys-bnd/a-71897701
For crowded places, urinals ensure a much faster turnaround of people able to go to the toilet in a minimal amount of space.
See eg the queues for toilets at the intermission in a theatre.
Replace urinals and combined facilities with unisex cubicles with washrooms in the same space and you'll slash the amount of throughput capabilities from those spaces.
Regardless of whether Khelif should be allowed or disallowed on a technicality, which to be clear is what we're talking about here, she was shabbily treated as she was allowed to take part, did so in good faith, only to have her motives trashed after winning the event.
Sports and safeguarding are the much harder questions. Most people are decent kind and caring but there are always some malign characters who will take advantage of anything. Don’t want to be in a male prison? Become trans and get moved. No requirement to lop your bits off.
CO₂
FWIW my personal hunch is that the Americans have known what the Chinese government were saying from day one, but they can't go "well we have intecepted communications of the politburo and they were talking about it being a lab leak". So you end up with all these flimisier explanations from parallel construction rather than the real proof.
There is another lab, which was never doing the sort of specialist coronavirus research that happens at the WIV, near the wet market. I have seen zero evidence that activities were going on there that would have involved a novel coronavirus. Even with a nearer lab, even if you abandon all the stuff about WIV as a top coronavirus research centre, the very core of the lab leak theory originally, you still end up with a less plausible chain of person->animals->people rather than just animals->people. You still have to explain why this person in the lab didn't infect other people elsewhere.
If we're looking for a place where it is most likely a bat virus would escape from, it's the WIV.
Yet another reason why AI is not taking over the world, we still can't get a working version of autocorrect.
Chemistry has a subscript not a superscript.
No space suits. Remote handling. Most labs are “Don’t mouth pipette. Don’t put your lunch in the lab fridges. Wipe the worktops twice a day.”
We have data on early viral genomic variety. Again, you can't fake that stuff.
We have data on early cases. The Chinese acted badly and there may be problems with that data, but it's the best data we have. I'm not aware of any proof that these data are unreliable.
We can't rule out that there is some significant data that has been lost/destroyed. We are never going to have 100% certainty what happened. Even if the Chinese had behaved perfectly, there are always unknowns with such things.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that they posit a conspiracy. So if you try to argue against a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy theory is used by those who believe in the conspiracy to try to prove that there is a conspiracy, because the conspiracy destroyed the evidence. This a rather circular argument.
We have some data. That data points to a zoonotic event from wild animals brought to the wet market. That's the view of a large majority of virologists and epidemiologists.
Ironically the CO² stood out as it would be more effort to type out if deliberately typed that way, yet wrong.
Anyway, I know how much you love pedantically calling out things, so I thought you'd appreciate the favour being returned.
Also, if you're spending seconds at a sink, you might be a source of viral spread. Wash your hands properly!
And why did the Chinese stop people even looking.
The most likely cause was an accidental escape from the lab - that happens frequently - with the wet market being simply an early superspreader event
As someone who works in a life sciences department I have more insight than most and sadly not all lab practice is optimum. But yes, it’s not like the movies.
You are filling in the blanks to suit your own agenda. Its not a conspiracy theory, there is a lack of evidence because (a) people weren't looking early on and (b) the Chinese deliberately distorted/suppressed the data. That's not a conspiracy, its fact.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/comparing-prescription-drugs
If you believe there is a conspiracy and we can't rely on any of the data we have, then nothing can be concluded from that. All we are left with are our Bayesian priors. New diseases in humans are nearly always from zoonotic transmission and very rarely from lab leaks. MERS, SARS, HIV, swine flu, ebola, all zoonoses. Great, same conclusion reached. QED.
People who claimed "It's not a Nazi salute" are busy rebadging their Swastikars so they can tell people "It's not a Tesla"...
How many of your prior new diseases in humans originated "by coincidence" from a city with a lab it could leak out of?
Ran into a couple of veteran PBers. Even had a winner
* Albeit fruitbats are strongly suspected
Identifying the exact transmission chain is difficult. Sometimes we can pin down the exact event: this dead animal to this person. However, with many previous zoonotic events, we haven't identified the transmission chain. HIV came from a zoonotic event, most probably eating bust meat, but we don't know precisely where or when. Ditto MERS. Ditto SARS. Ditto swine flu.
In previous lab leaks, we have usually identified the transmission chain, so the lack of one having been identified here does not prove it's a lab leak. The failure to identify a specific transmission chain doesn't tell us anything really. These things are hard to determine. Sometimes we can work it out and often we can't.
SARS escaped Beijing lab twice
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7096887/
People were looking early on. I remember reading the early reports at the end of 2019. Plenty of stuff was coming out in real time.
You're the closed-minded one filling in blanks that aren't filled in.
We are missing too much data to know for certain. By the time stuff was coming out at the end of 2019, it had already spread to humans, by whichever mechanism.
On a Venn diagram 'People who claimed "It's not a Nazi salute"' and 'people busy rebadging their Swastikars' are two entirely separate circles with no overlap.
Here is more data: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590053623000186?via=ihub
Look: data! https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/15/3/684
This boxer failed various sex tests, they came back male, but still carried on hitting women, encouraged by supporting men. Not sure how you think this boxer presents as a woman?
I can find the evidence of various tests that came back saying he is male.
@jamesjohnson252
We showed a nationally representative sample of British adults a picture of Rupert Lowe and asked them to identify him
86% of the public - and 71% of Reform UK voters - failed to do so or do not know who Rupert Lowe is
@JLPartnersPolls poll of 2,065 UK adults for @gbnews"
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1899873358444970216
"Why is an animal caught in the wild an obvious vector and not a human animal?" Because most novel infectious diseases come by jumping from another species.
The other main evidence for zoonosis as @bondegezou points out is the virology strongly suggests the virus entered the human chain on at least two separate dates with slightly different variations of the virus. This is consistent with a virus brewing in an animal population before entering the human chain. It is harder to explain as multiple lab leaks where the virus in the first leak is a derivative of the virus in the second leak, all incubated in the lab.
That's basically the evidence. We can draw our conclusions from this evidence.
Which your first link confirms. "The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded ..."
... because of the lack of sufficient data.
Can we catch diseases from wild animals? Yes. Happens all the time. I can match your stories with zoonoses easily.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx85y07jz9o
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/human-case-of-avian-flu-detected-in-england
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn01xjp0yq4o
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irv.12934
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.24.2100439
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/human-infection-with-avian-influenza-a(h10n3)-china
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/influenza/human-animal-interface-risk-assessments/influenza_summary_ira_ha_interface_june_2021.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/human-cases-cambodia.html
... and I'm still just on bird flu.
Unless you're going to claim that they had this secret plan to tell a boy they were actually a girl in order to win an Olympic Medal, and that *everyone* was going to go along with this.
So, you go find me some evidence that she has external male genitalia. Because the burden of proof is rather on you, given that her assigned sex at birth was female.
(And for what it's worth, it's not even like the "various tests that came back saying he is male" are even that conclusive given "the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later criticized the IBA's decision as "sudden and arbitrary," affirming that Khelif met all eligibility criteria for female competitors.")
The full sentence reads: "The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019."
You could be onto something here.
The attempts to discredit the three approved laboratories who conducted the tests (not the IBA) are appalling. These are CAS approved laboratories that you are dismissing.
The IOC were (they won't be) basing their entire arbitrary decision on his passport. That was allocated based on someone looking at him when he was born, once given it is unchangeable in Algeria. You think his family his going to come forward with this, you think they were sharing changing rooms at the school. Deluded.
Yes his coaches and his federation all understand exactly what he is.
You deny the science and are basing your entire argument on a bit of paper written when he was born. You have no other evidence.
By the way, I have expressed on several occasions that they should not be competing. So - if you wish to remain unbanned - please do not deliberately misstate my position.
Has he found his voice? Tough on welfare and tough on the "state"?
Starmerism is quite different to New Labour.
The approach will be guided by the mantra: "No person’s substantive time should be spent on a task where digital or AI can do it better, quicker & to the same high quality and standard"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1899956887006679499
Jesus.
These people are born as visibly girls, are bought up as girls. Unfortunately life isn't as simple as Trump would have it and medically some girls and boys have chromosome issues. Those girls will have an unfair advantage over other girls in physical sports and therefore should not be allowed to compete in female sports, but the idea that it isn't that and she really has a cock and balls is not likely yet you state it as fact based upon absolutely nothing.
Reform
Conservative
Green
LD
Would be my guess. Voters are often not attuned to local subtleties, and I think there are a lot of never-Reform Tory voters.
I note that countries with abundant land and few building restrictions like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of the USA also have an affordability crisis. I think that the affordability issue is in large part due to the asset inflation during post GFC rock bottom rates, which is now unwinding.
"The clock strikes 11:21, marking another day closer to the equinox when the veil thins enough for them to crawl through the cracks in reality and into our world."
Which is probably fine.