Vaccine

espola said:
Nonsense in service of an agenda.
Click to expand...
you sound like a paid advertisment for the chinese government. they (and those under their thumb/wallet) have danced around this issue since the beginning. Maybe this, maybe that, could be this, could be that, sounds like this, smells like that. Pretty soon the world will stop even thinking about trying to figure out the genesis - at this point it doesn't even matter...what it was then isn't what it is today.
 
Happened again said:
you sound like a paid advertisment for the chinese government. they (and those under their thumb/wallet) have danced around this issue since the beginning. Maybe this, maybe that, could be this, could be that, sounds like this, smells like that. Pretty soon the world will stop even thinking about trying to figure out the genesis - at this point it doesn't even matter...what it was then isn't what it is today.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
No, I haven't, but someone posted elsewhere, "Chinese CDC". Is that correct?
Click to expand...

To finish this from my end. You asked the provenance of the data. I suspect a lot of it will be from what the World Health Organization was able to obtain early on. But I don't know. If you want to know, the links to the supplementary information will tell you. For a short format journal like Science that is where most of that detailed information will be found. So I looked up the links to the supplements. For you, in case you wanted to find out for yourself.

But China. Yes, everybody knows. Any data that is available from the earliest events in the pandemic would necessarily come from China. The Chinese government could well have culpability or they may not want to be embarrassed. If they are culpable, they would have both motive and opportunity to cover stuff up, provide an incomplete picture, limit access etc. And obviously they have not been forthcoming. So, a question to ask yourself might be whether any on site data could be considered legitimate. And if not, than nothing will pass the sniff test and your work is done.

Formalism in the origin story and what is provable. This was my interest and so you don't need to read on if you don't care. Whatever the source of the virus, the second of the two Science papers does help show that the phylogeny of the virus can be backtracked to early genomes that were collected in the Wuhan market. The phylogeny can be rooted there. That was the point of that work, not to let China off the hook or prove natural origin. It helps limits the narrative space in ways that help refine this or that scenarios. One way or another the origins of the pandemic required human agency. Natural precursors to lineages A and B could have been transported to the market by wildlife traffickers. Alternatively, the virus could have been the product of a deliberate or accidental release from a lab source/stock, with the Wuhan Institute being the most likely suspect. Is either alternative formally provable? IMO, it will never be possible to prove that it was a spillover. Somebody could ultimately show "here is the cave with a viral population that aligns with A and here, 10 km away, is the cave with a viral population aligning with lineage B". But so what. The Wuhan Institute goes out and collects viral stocks. So maybe they had them to begin with and then covered it up. No way to disprove that, etc. With the correct smoking gun, intelligence product, whatever, it could be possible to prove a lab leak/release beyond what might constitute reasonable doubt. Short of that, for an origin story the simplest explanation will never be a satisfactory one. That was my point.
 
watfly said:
I read the Nature article and haven't read the studies, but based on all the caveats and qualifiers in the article it sounds like these studies are at best educated guesses. Particularly when they can't trace it to a species let alone a specific infected animal. A bigger knock may be the fact that 2 of the studies came from Scripps which doesnt have any Covid credibility after one of its experts claimed that water activities were dangerous because the virus would be carried by sea air. This falsehood led to policies that closed beaches and ocean activities. Scripps needs to stick with oceanography and avoid virology.

The good news is the pangolin seems to be off the hook. I had predicted it was just scapegoated because it was so ugly. The racoon dog is pretty cute.

At this point we have very little evidence to prove either a lab leak or the wet market source. Personally I doubt that we will ever know definitively since China blocked any timely and open investgation.

One thing Covid has exposed is the low bar that has been set for the definition of science.
Click to expand...

The papers getting tossed about come, in part, from the Scripps Research Institute, not Scripps Institute of Oceanography. I appreciate that is likely a distinction without a difference for you but they are administratively distinct. I don't know what beach thing you are talking about, but if you're sure it came from Scripps Oceanography and you want to provide your guidance beyond harrumphing I was recently looking at their organizational structure since my kid was considering UCSD. That structure can be found here.


I suspect if you wrote to the Associate Dean of Marine Sciences and Cced the Director/Dean you would get some response. Since they would both be seeing it they would have to deal with it in some kind of way I suspect. Even if they just redirected to their outreach person. You might get some free swag.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
But China. Yes, everybody knows. Any data that is available from the earliest events in the pandemic would necessarily come from China. The Chinese government could well have culpability or they may not want to be embarrassed. If they are culpable, they would have both motive and opportunity to cover stuff up, provide an incomplete picture, limit access etc. And obviously they have not been forthcoming. So, a question to ask yourself might be whether any on site data could be considered legitimate. And if not, than nothing will pass the sniff test and your work is done.
Click to expand...
The chinese government has moved on, they have bigger fish to fry, things to get after. They are happy to leave behind bits and pieces of disjointed information.
 
"Point being? The toothpaste is on the counter and well dried up by now." Quote from a nitwit



The administration continues to prostrate itself when it comes to China, be it Wuhan & Covid 19, Taiwan, giving it our petroleum reserves, or Hunter...
 
Lion Eyes said:
"Point being? The toothpaste is on the counter and well dried up by now." Quote from a nitwit



The administration continues to prostrate itself when it comes to China, be it Wuhan & Covid 19, Taiwan, giving it our petroleum reserves, or Hunter...
Click to expand...
Is that what's on the laptop? You never answered that question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top