All things CoronaVirus

[tech37]

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness

"Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself."

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-n ... n-illness/

Long-term, let's hope they're "safely encoded by vaccines."

[MDlaxfan76]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

[tech37]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

[MDlaxfan76]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

Sure, and this author simply has an opinion too...and he makes a reasonable case for why he leans in a particular direction. But he doesn't know and it sounds like he doesn't think we'll ever know definitively. And others have made reasonable cases for leaning the other way...and they don't know for sure either.

So, I move to what really should matter...in my opinion.

[tech37]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

Sure, and this author simply has an opinion too...and he makes a reasonable case for why he leans in a particular direction. But he doesn't know and it sounds like he doesn't think we'll ever know definitively. And others have made reasonable cases for leaning the other way...and they don't know for sure either.

So, I move to what really should matter...in my opinion.

"Reasonable cases"? Did you read evidence of what was done on a molecular level? That debunks your "reasonable cases" which are highly politicized, also spelled out clearly by the author.

You "move" nothing. The Chinese government must unseal WIV documentation that surely proves the evidence that this writer and a growing number in the scientific community believe, or others, whether politically motivated or not, can no longer avoid.

And once again, gain-of-function research must end.

[jhu72]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

[tech37]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

[MDlaxfan76]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

Sure, and this author simply has an opinion too...and he makes a reasonable case for why he leans in a particular direction. But he doesn't know and it sounds like he doesn't think we'll ever know definitively. And others have made reasonable cases for leaning the other way...and they don't know for sure either.

So, I move to what really should matter...in my opinion.

"Reasonable cases"? Did you read evidence of what was done on a molecular level? That debunks your "reasonable cases" which are highly politicized, also spelled out clearly by the author.

You "move" nothing. The Chinese government must unseal WIV documentation that surely proves the evidence that this writer and a growing number in the scientific community believe, or others, whether politically motivated or not, can no longer avoid.

And once again, gain-of-function research must end.

would you agree that what you write above is simply your opinion?
Sure, you're not alone.

However, I don't agree with you that this article proves anything at all, at the "molecular level" or anywhere else. Indeed, the author is clear that it doesn't prove anything. He merely makes the case, IMO a plausible, reasonable case, for this theory that the accident was connected to gain of function research.

I don't have any dog in the hunt of whether it was zoonotic or lab creation/accident.

However, I don't agree with the notion that the Chinese government "must" do anything. We can want them to, ask them to, but there's no "must"...imagine for a moment that the Chinese were demanding for the US to open its lab at Ft. Dietrich, or NIH for that matter or say a private US company. You think we'd roll over and say, sure, we "must" do so because that's the demand from China or WHO, for that matter?

Of course, I do agree that trust is only built with transparency and the Chinese gov't is quite opaque at times.

I also don't agree with your conclusion that gain of function research is stoppable, or even desirable, whether here in the US or anywhere else. What I DO think is that it needs a serious overview of safety processes!

So, where I come out is that we need to strengthen, not damage, international transparency and oversight. Whether something did go wrong or not, the risk of something going wrong is significant and deserves very serious attention.

[MDlaxfan76]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Do you not realize that your own "agenda" is quite clear in the series of posts above?

Not saying it isn't valid, but it's very definitely an agenda.

[JoeMauer89]

You are insufferable, do you ever maybe to stop think before you post some of the garbage that you do. It "seems" to you, you live in a fantasy world, so what seems to you is quite the opposite of the majority of people's reality.

JoeMauer89!

Joe, that's a personal attack. This is your one warning and then you're going back to the Penalty Box with a penalty time that'll be double whatever your last penalty time was.

Noted, I'll try my best to hold my tongue when it comes to him. Keep a close eye on his posts though, they often are subtle personal attacks on other posters. Thanks!

JoeMauer89!

[youthathletics]

You are insufferable, do you ever maybe to stop think before you post some of the garbage that you do. It "seems" to you, you live in a fantasy world, so what seems to you is quite the opposite of the majority of people's reality.

JoeMauer89!

Joe, that's a personal attack. This is your one warning and then you're going back to the Penalty Box with a penalty time that'll be double whatever your last penalty time was.

Noted, I'll try my best to hold my tongue when it comes to him. Keep a close eye on his posts though, they often are subtle personal attacks on other posters. Thanks!

JoeMauer89!

+1

[jhu72]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Not one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.

[tech37]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Not one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.

You've got nothing but the usual lies genius. Right wing media? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right wing media? And Wade, a Brit, who for years wrote for Nature, Science, and the NYT? Yeah, right wing media alright. No one said this was new information (straw man BS on your part) but it is new that a well known science writer is speaking out. And, it is probably the most comprehensive piece written to date in favor of a lab leak hypothesis.

But you keep on lying genius and keep on politicizing a virus. The agenda is obviously yours. Trump is long gone except in your fevered brain. I want the truth to be known one way or another. I believe the lab leak hypothesis. Yes, that's my opinion.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Not one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.

You've got nothing but the usual lies genius. Right wing media? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right wing media? And Wade, a Brit, who for years wrote for Nature, Science, and the NYT? Yeah, right wing media alright. No one said this was new information (straw man BS on your part) but it is new that a well known science writer is speaking out. And, it is probably the most comprehensive piece written to date in favor of a lab leak hypothesis.

But you keep on lying genius and keep on politicizing a virus. The agenda is obviously yours. Trump is long gone except in your fevered brain. I want the truth to be known one way or another. I believe the lab leak hypothesis. Yes, that's my opinion.

A fact will never change a belief.

[old salt]

...and with the change of leadership some remarkable success in improving the logistics of vaccinations, supply and delivery into arms.

Specifics plz. What would not have happened anyway ? What was changed ?

[MDlaxfan76]

...and with the change of leadership some remarkable success in improving the logistics of vaccinations, supply and delivery into arms.

Specifics plz. What would not have happened anyway ? What was changed ?

Focus on supply chain all the way to arms changed significantly and much larger forward volume commitments...which will extend beyond US demand to world distribution.

Presumably you know this?

I wasn't suggesting that what new Admin did was blindingly novel or could not have been done by the prior Admin, nor was I intending to overly complicate this with a critique of the prior Admin's efforts in vaccines as most of it was remarkably successful, but it's quite clear that new Admin saw what they inherited and improved upon it. Vaccines, from start to now have been a success story.

Now, if you really want to get into it on what the prior Admin could have done, should have done, better on vaccines, we can do so, but that wasn't my point.

That said, I think there was some absolutely miserable communication management from the prior Admin (and the right wing media world) that greatly exacerbated the divisiveness in the country, and the trajectory of virus spread, that really should have been done differently. However, we don't have to go into that here, again, as IMO it's quite well established what those errors were.

The point of my post was simply that various countries took different tacks to managing the virus transmission, some were remarkably successful, others like the US were way less successful.

On the other hand, vaccines have been a success story for the US. Hopefully that will continue, but again the right wing nutcases are making the challenge much harder than it should be.

[Peter Brown]

...and with the change of leadership some remarkable success in improving the logistics of vaccinations, supply and delivery into arms.

Specifics plz. What would not have happened anyway ? What was changed ?

Focus on supply chain all the way to arms changed significantly and much larger forward volume commitments...which will extend beyond US demand to world distribution.

Presumably you know this?

I wasn't suggesting that what new Admin did was blindingly novel or could not have been done by the prior Admin, nor was I intending to overly complicate this with a critique of the prior Admin's efforts in vaccines as most of it was remarkably successful, but it's quite clear that new Admin saw what they inherited and improved upon it. Vaccines, from start to now have been a success story.

Now, if you really want to get into it on what the prior Admin could have done, should have done, better on vaccines, we can do so, but that wasn't my point.

That said, I think there was some absolutely miserable communication management from the prior Admin (and the right wing media world) that greatly exacerbated the divisiveness in the country, and the trajectory of virus spread, that really should have been done differently. However, we don't have to go into that here, again, as IMO it's quite well established what those errors were.

The point of my post was simply that various countries took different tacks to managing the virus transmission, some were remarkably successful, others like the US were way less successful.

On the other hand, vaccines have been a success story for the US. Hopefully that will continue, but again the right wing nutcases are making the challenge much harder than it should be.

Is it possible for you to ONCE admit when called out on something that you simply got carried away with your claim? Just once?

Old Salt pointed out your baseless contention; he asked for specifics. Your answer is a War and Peace length novel of bad faith deflection.

[JoeMauer89]

...and with the change of leadership some remarkable success in improving the logistics of vaccinations, supply and delivery into arms.

Specifics plz. What would not have happened anyway ? What was changed ?

Focus on supply chain all the way to arms changed significantly and much larger forward volume commitments...which will extend beyond US demand to world distribution.

Presumably you know this?

I wasn't suggesting that what new Admin did was blindingly novel or could not have been done by the prior Admin, nor was I intending to overly complicate this with a critique of the prior Admin's efforts in vaccines as most of it was remarkably successful, but it's quite clear that new Admin saw what they inherited and improved upon it. Vaccines, from start to now have been a success story.

Now, if you really want to get into it on what the prior Admin could have done, should have done, better on vaccines, we can do so, but that wasn't my point.

That said, I think there was some absolutely miserable communication management from the prior Admin (and the right wing media world) that greatly exacerbated the divisiveness in the country, and the trajectory of virus spread, that really should have been done differently. However, we don't have to go into that here, again, as IMO it's quite well established what those errors were.

The point of my post was simply that various countries took different tacks to managing the virus transmission, some were remarkably successful, others like the US were way less successful.

On the other hand, vaccines have been a success story for the US. Hopefully that will continue, but again the right wing nutcases are making the challenge much harder than it should be.

Is it possible for you to ONCE admit when called out on something that you simply got carried away with your claim? Just once?

Old Salt pointed out your baseless contention; he asked for specifics. Your answer is a War and Peace length novel of bad faith deflection.

+10000

JoeMauer89!

[jhu72]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Not one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.

You've got nothing but the usual lies genius. Right wing media? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right wing media? And Wade, a Brit, who for years wrote for Nature, Science, and the NYT? Yeah, right wing media alright. No one said this was new information (straw man BS on your part) but it is new that a well known science writer is speaking out. And, it is probably the most comprehensive piece written to date in favor of a lab leak hypothesis.

But you keep on lying genius and keep on politicizing a virus. The agenda is obviously yours. Trump is long gone except in your fevered brain. I want the truth to be known one way or another. I believe the lab leak hypothesis. Yes, that's my opinion.

Washington Examiner headline on Friday (5/7) did say this was new, "More evidence that the Wuhan lab-leak theory is the correct one". They were clearly pushing this is new news, when all it is is a rehash of things known for months - when I read it, except not all the things known for months. The guy is not a scientist, he is a reporter. Perhaps he believes what he writes, perhaps he doesn't, I don't care. What I know is the right wing media organizations are pushing this as a big deal conclusive news. Not presenting any thing new. Just a rehash. It is not conclusive. Nothing has changed except right wingers (Trumpnistas) are falling for this "its new information" non-sense.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Another lab leak hypothesis convert?

https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-ori ... -at-wuhan/

"By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze."

Interesting explanation, though it remains a highly speculative, if plausible, theory. Indeed, he's quite correctly clear that they really don't know and won't know without data proving lab creation and accident that they are unlikely to ever see. Without that data, it remains highly subject to the biases and motivations of those debating the likely 'cause'.

Those who believe, accurately, that deadly viruses regularly jump species through zoonotic progressive transmission, and indeed that the risks of pandemics have accelerated as humans have grown denser and are more mobile across the world, believe that such research is absolutely critical to preparation to combat such viruses. Those in that camp will naturally be defensive about speculative efforts to blame the very research intended to prevent pandemics for the worst pandemic in a century...for fear that such critical research will be shut down by those with an anti-science bias.

Such defensiveness (in any field) can become over-defensive and prevent very necessary safety oversight reforms.

And, in this case, that defensiveness has been hugely magnified by the extreme claims of those whose agenda is political blame, especially the sorts of accusations that the research was for military purposes and/or the the virus was released on purpose rather than by accident.

My take on the human psychology of the debate is that identification of whatever was the factual reality of the initial cause of this pandemic is less important than recognizing that both paths are possible and that it is thus imperative that we utilize our best efforts to prevent both such routes going forward and/or be prepared to respond effectively when outbreaks do occur. Research is very important, but so too is the oversight of safety.

Your rationalized opinion

"Where we are so far. Neither the natural emergence nor the lab escape hypothesis can yet be ruled out. There is still no direct evidence for either. So no definitive conclusion can be reached.

That said, the available evidence leans more strongly in one direction than the other. Readers will form their own opinion. But it seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

... except for the facts Wade et. al. ignore. Nothing has moved on this origin debate in the period since the WHO report.

Facts? The WHO report = politicized trash. What difference does "nothing has moved" matter? Truth is not bound by an agenda.

Not one fact in the Wade article is new. There are a number of facts, he ignores. All this is, is an attempt by right wing media to act as if there is something new, when nothing is. Look at your own agenda there Trump boy.

You've got nothing but the usual lies genius. Right wing media? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is right wing media? And Wade, a Brit, who for years wrote for Nature, Science, and the NYT? Yeah, right wing media alright. No one said this was new information (straw man BS on your part) but it is new that a well known science writer is speaking out. And, it is probably the most comprehensive piece written to date in favor of a lab leak hypothesis.

But you keep on lying genius and keep on politicizing a virus. The agenda is obviously yours. Trump is long gone except in your fevered brain. I want the truth to be known one way or another. I believe the lab leak hypothesis. Yes, that's my opinion.

Washington Examiner headline on Friday (5/7) did say this was new, "More evidence that the Wuhan lab-leak theory is the correct one". They were clearly pushing this is new news, when all it is is a rehash of things known for months - when I read it, except not all the things known for months. The guy is not a scientist, he is a reporter. Perhaps he believes what he writes, perhaps he doesn't, I don't care. What I know is the right wing media organizations are pushing this as a big deal conclusive news. Not presenting any thing new. Just a rehash. It is not conclusive. Nothing has changed except right wingers (Trumpnistas) are falling for this "its new information" non-sense.

I can see that it has proven to be effective with the target audience.