All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[JRad]

The real question to me is why can’t people work together towards getting folks to wear masks? That would help so much here.

Because some loon had to politicize public health, followed by people whining about some nebulous right being violated by asking to help protect others.

 

[J-DONK]

I disagree with the characterization that the lab origin possibility was "dismissed out of hand" - the WHO report explains why they concluded it was "extremely unlikely" (which, by the way, isn't the same as being dismissed). The evidence on which that determination was made included genome evidence that pointed to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 matched no known virus under human control nor could it be cultured from known viral samples. It included other evidence (serological for example) as well. I don't see how this process can be characterized as dismissed out of hand, or even dismissed at all.

Of course these conclusions would have to change if there was evidence that the lab's inventory included viruses that were otherwise completely unknown to mankind. Sure there's all kinds of reasons to make conjecture about conspiracies, even ones that include Americans. There's a list of skeptical, cynical, or even fantastical questions one can ask, as you do, to suggest a different result. I say go for it, people should continue to investigate this.

But until there's some better evidence, I don't think people should characterize it as likely or having "a decent chance of being true." What does that even mean? How can you assess probability of a result that has no real evidence at this point? Sure, there's reasons why it would make sense if it were true. There are reasons why some involved would seek to suppress evidence that supports that result. But those two things don't give it objective probability of being true.

I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that the best analysis we have so far is from the viral genome and serological evidence. Yes, more information would be great. I suspect people will continue to dig on this and perhaps one day some persuasive (real) evidence will be presented. And not in some YouTube clip.

You are essentially arguing with a second set of virologist. Did you get a degree in microbiology to go along with your law degree?

Dr. David A. Relman, a professor of medicine and microbiology at Stanford University and a member of the intelligence community studies board at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, an advisory body to the federal government, said he was “quite supportive” of the open letter.

“I completely agree, based on what we know so far, that the W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient,”

I want to make this clear, my point is their is a lot more circumstantial evidence for a lab leak then zoonotic origin. It at the very least warrants a full investigation. Also, America's only member on the WHO team doing the origin investigation shouldn't be a man with a clear conflict of interest.

 

[MT15]

You are essentially arguing with a second set of virologist. Did you get a degree in microbiology to go along with your law degree?



I want to make this clear, my point is their is a lot more circumstantial evidence for a lab leak then zoonotic origin. It at the very least warrants a full investigation. Also, America's only member on the WHO team doing the origin investigation shouldn't be a man with a clear conflict of interest.

Donk, this is just unnecessary. If you can rebut the actual scientific evidence that tends to discredit the lab leak theory then do so. He didn’t make it up, your snark is just insulting and should be beneath you.

Chuck did a great job of summarizing the evidence that actual virologists used to come to the conclusion that the lab leak idea is less likely (a lot less likely, IMO) than the animal vector origin. You haven’t shown any real evidence at all.

 

[J-DONK]

Donk, this is just unnecessary. If you can rebut the actual scientific evidence that tends to discredit the lab leak theory then do so. He didn’t make it up, your snark is just insulting and should be beneath you.

Chuck did a great job of summarizing the evidence that actual virologists used to come to the conclusion that the lab leak idea is less likely (a lot less likely, IMO) than the animal vector origin. You haven’t shown any real evidence at all.

This is a bit if circular logic Chuck is using. My point "The WHO investigation hasn't properly investigated lab leak. We need a thorough investigation into lab leak." Chuck "The WHO investigation says lab leak isn't probable."

I literally quoted a microbiologist from Stanford " W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient,”. If Chuck wants to argue with the opinions of experts in the field, go ahead.

I'm going to get snarky when I see people start arguing their own personal opinion over those with PHD's. It should be derided.

I don't even understand how this is a debate:

Circumstantial evidence points towards lab leak, not zoonotic.

What does everyone want? An unbiased thorough investigation into all origin possibilities.

It sucks this became a partisan issue for the left. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that.

 

[insidejob]

I had about 8 hours of an overnight fever. My girlfriend ran a fever for about 48 hours. Both occurred after our second dose.

I lucked out and was just really tired/lazy. But that's typical for a weekend after a long workweek, so I don't think it was even vaccine related. First time in a long while that I can remember having something like this go my way. Not only did I not catch COVID (as far as I know) but I made it through both doses without getting really sick. T-minus like 11 days until I'm actually fully vaccinated and can ride in the car with family and friends who are also vaccinated without a friggin mask on. Really wasn't looking forward to another summer of masks 24/7.

 

[DaveXA]

There is an interesting question about what to do with Michigan. Whitmer is in a bad spot, the lunatics in her statehouse have taken away her ability to use emergency powers to set mask mandates and limit social gatherings and her state is experiencing a surge. She is begging for more vaccines than her allotment, but the administration is basically saying they cannot give her more right now because that would entail taking vaccines away from other states.

It‘s hard to justify taking away vaccine doses from other states, but at the same time Michigan could cause a surge to spread to other states. There’s no good answer.

The real question to me is why can’t people work together towards getting folks to wear masks? That would help so much here.

There are several states now with more needles than arms. The states with excess should go ahead and send their surplus to a state with shortages. There's no need to wait for the Administration to tell them what to do.

 

[MT15]

This is a bit if circular logic Chuck is using. My point "The WHO investigation hasn't properly investigated lab leak. We need a thorough investigation into lab leak." Chuck "The WHO investigation says lab leak isn't probable."

I literally quoted a microbiologist from Stanford " W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient,”. If Chuck wants to argue with the opinions of experts in the field, go ahead.

I'm going to get snarky when I see people start arguing their own personal opinion over those with PHD's. It should be derided.

I don't even understand how this is a debate:

Circumstantial evidence points towards lab leak, not zoonotic.

What does everyone want? An unbiased thorough investigation into all origin possibilities.

It sucks this became a partisan issue for the left. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that.

Chuck says to continue investigating. I’m not sure how you can read what he wrote and get all upset about it. It was measured and reasonable. He didn’t say it wasn’t a lab leak, he just said that with the evidence we have, it doesn’t look likely.

The genome sequencing does matter and with the evidence we have right now, it would seem to point away from a lab leak. It’s just that simple. As chuck points out, we may get further evidence. We may find out that there are lab viruses which weren’t disclosed.

if you want to further this discussion, it would be helpful to tell us exactly why the Stanford scientist thinks the study was skewed. Something other than these vague “circumstantial evidence” statements, and pointing fingers at reputable scientists with vague accusations of impropriety.

Don’t want to be called a “conspiracy theorist”? Then don’t act like one, bottom line. Sorry if that offends, but every conspiracy theory ever draws its lifeblood from circumstantial evidence and ulterior shadowy motives.

 

[J-DONK]

Chuck says to continue investigating. I’m not sure how you can read what he wrote and get all upset about it. It was measured and reasonable. He didn’t say it wasn’t a lab leak, he just said that with the evidence we have, it doesn’t look likely.

The genome sequencing does matter and with the evidence we have right now, it would seem to point away from a lab leak. It’s just that simple. As chuck points out, we may get further evidence. We may find out that there are lab viruses which weren’t disclosed.

if you want to further this discussion, it would be helpful to tell us exactly why the Stanford scientist thinks the study was skewed. Something other than these vague “circumstantial evidence” statements, and pointing fingers at reputable scientists with vague accusations of impropriety.

Don’t want to be called a “conspiracy theorist”? Then don’t act like one, bottom line. Sorry if that offends, but every conspiracy theory ever draws its lifeblood from circumstantial evidence and ulterior shadowy motives.

Are you somehow not aware of China's lack of access to the data, and evidence? The WHO didn't actually do the investigation, China did. The WHO was for the most part simply handed the results.

My "conspiracy theory" is layed out extremely well in this video by 60 minutes. Btw, this video even goes into refuting the genome sequencing.

In fact, you will hear almost every single point I've made in this thread. You will even hear pushback from Lesley Stahl of 60 minutes on the WHO findings.

What happened in Wuhan? Why questions still linger on the origin of the coronavirus

A lack of transparency from Chinese officials and looming geopolitical consequences have damaged the credibility of a WHO-led inquiry into how the virus that causes COVID-19 originated. Lesley Stahl reports.

www.cbsnews.com

P.S. Everyone who has actually taken the time to read through this thread should watch that video. It lays out the flaws in the WHO "investigation".

P.S.S. The Jamie Metzel in that video is the same guy Chuck disagrees with on the characterization of the WHO findings. He only happens to sit on the WHO advisory committee on genetic engineering. I'm still waiting for Chuck to provide his credentials.

 

[J-DONK]

SoS calling for transparency, and a full investigation.

Top U.S. diplomat criticizes China, says ‘need to get to the bottom’ of COVID-19 origin

China's failure to provide access to global health experts made the COVID-19 pandemic worse than it had to be, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said on Sunday, and it was important to "get to the bottom" of the origin of the novel coronavirus.

www.reuters.com

 

[superchuck500]

This is a bit if circular logic Chuck is using. My point "The WHO investigation hasn't properly investigated lab leak. We need a thorough investigation into lab leak." Chuck "The WHO investigation says lab leak isn't probable."

I literally quoted a microbiologist from Stanford " W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient,”. If Chuck wants to argue with the opinions of experts in the field, go ahead.

I'm going to get snarky when I see people start arguing their own personal opinion over those with PHD's. It should be derided.

I don't even understand how this is a debate:

Circumstantial evidence points towards lab leak, not zoonotic.

What does everyone want? An unbiased thorough investigation into all origin possibilities.

It sucks this became a partisan issue for the left. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that.

I think you have substantially misinterpreted my comments and have misconstrued my post as "arguing with virologists." There's no such argument and I'd like for you to point to where anything I said contradicts or challenges anything they have said. I'm not assuming to know virology of SARS-CoV-2 (which I have followed enthusiastically since January 2020 as evidenced on the SR thread), I am only assuming to be able to read and think.

What I said was that the WHO's conclusions about the lab are supported by what appear to me to be some substantive findings including two that I think appear important: (1) the viral genome doesn't match any known samples in any lab in the world nor could it be cultured from known samples, and (2) the serological analysis from lab employees did not suggest a degree of exposure greater than the general population.

I never said those conclusions were rock solid or that the lab origin didn't happen. You made a comment that you thought the lab leak theory had a decent chance of being true and I responded by contrasting that with the WHO's report (which is, like it or not, the most thorough that we have, to date). But I also never said I thought the investigation was as thorough as it needed to be or that China provided the access necessary to make those conclusions reliable.

What I am saying, however, is that the report does not simply dismiss the lab leak origin, it labeled it as unlikely and it did so based on substantive findings. And what I'm saying is that to get passed the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 matches no known viral sample nor is it close enough to any known sample to jump to humans or be cultured from them, there's going to need to be some evidence that the Wuhan lab was working with virus in total secrecy and had isolated SARS-CoV-2 or virus close enough to it to allow it to be cultured or to jump. I'm not naive enough to think that China wouldn't be doing something like this nor do I fail to recognize that China's less than full cooperation with the investigation makes conclusions on this issue unreliable.

This is not a personal opinion - I never said anything that was my personal opinion about the virus's origin because I don't know enough about what the evidence shows to have a personal opinion, I am simply thinking objectively about the report's findings. You can get as snarky as you want, just make sure it isn't based on a misinterpretation.

Now, moving beyond the report and into more personal opinion that does not require a professional or academic association with virology or viral epidemiology, I do think that the zoonotic origin has two elements that are quite strong: (1) SARS-CoV-2 is the third of a series of coronaviruses recently originating from Rhinolophus bats to infect humans and cause disease. These three join four others, making seven known coronaviruses that infect humans. There is no debate whatsoever that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are zoonotic in origin. Other potential pandemic viruses (Ebola for example) are zoonotic in origin. Has there ever been a lab originated viral outbreak in the general public? (2) Humankind's continued growth and expansion into previously remote, natural environments means that humans and the livestock and domesticated animals humans bring with them will continue to encounter new exposures that could (quickly or more evolutionarily) lead to new viral infections or other pathogens - and this is particularly true of places like Asia where humans regularly interact with a much broader range of animals (livestock, food, culture, etc.)

I think these realities make zoonotic origin the starting point - demonstrating that it is something different requires more than plausible or circumstantial evidence. So for me at least, I will remain skeptical (in the academic tradition, not in any biased way). But I fully agree that any reliable conclusion requires China's full transparent participation.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well, let the political backlash begin. The anti-vaxers are going to pounce big time on this.

CDC and FDA recommend US pause use of Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine over blood clot concerns | CNN

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration are recommending that the United States pause the use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine over six reported US cases of a “rare and severe” type of blood clot.

www.cnn.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Or we can use the same logic that the anti vaxers have about the virus that it only affects a small % so we can just ignore it..

 

[SystemShock]

I am only assuming to be able to read and think.

Your mistake is assuming others can too

 

[Optimus Prime]

Well, let the political backlash begin. The anti-vaxers are going to pounce big time on this.

CDC and FDA recommend US pause use of Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine over blood clot concerns | CNN

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration are recommending that the United States pause the use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine over six reported US cases of a “rare and severe” type of blood clot.

www.cnn.com

One blood clot per million doses?

are those odds enough to pause the vaccine? That seems miniscule

 

[Optimus Prime]

Cool infographic in the article
=========================
It’s easy to imagine the internal debate at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention upon learning that six cases of a rare, dangerous blood clot have been found in women who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Allowing the vaccine to be distributed while experts reviewed the cases risks exposing more people to the possible problem. Pausing distribution, though, runs a different risk: potentially reducing confidence in vaccines broadly, even the Pfizer and Moderna versions, which use different techniques for building immunity.

It’s a difficult choice, but the government has opted for the second option. The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are recommending that distribution of the vaccine be paused while its effects are studied and to “ensure that the health care provider community is aware of the potential for these adverse events and can plan for proper recognition and management due to the unique treatment required.”..................


The risk-reward calculus of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, visualized - The Washington Post

 

[MT15]

I saw a good explanation of this on line. The blood clots are a very specific type accompanied with low platelet counts. Traditional treatment with heparin for these clots carries some specific risks over routine blood clots. They need to get the medical community up to speed on this complication and how to treat it. There was one death, so let’s just take some time and get the facts straight.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

imagine if people died from taking Tylenol or Advil... oh wait...

 

[wardorican]

Rebekah Jones is a liar.

NPR describes Jones as a “top scientist” leading Florida’s pandemic response. In fact, Jones has held three jobs in her field; all three have ended in her being terminated and criminally charged. She has a Master’s in geography from Louisiana State University, where she worked until she was fired. She was arrested in 2016 while, reportedly, trespassing on campus and attempting to steal computer equipment from her former workplace. She then lectured at Florida State University (FSU) and began researching tropical storms for a dissertation, but never earned a Ph.D. as she was suspended and fired in 2018 after her former student accused her of sexual cyberharassment. Before her termination from the DoH, she was a geographic information systems manager, overseeing the COVID-19 web portal.

It’s therefore misleading to imply Jones has specialized knowledge of infectious disease. Florida’s top Democratic official calls her “Dr. Rebekah Jones,” but Jones is no doctor. Nor is she an epidemiologist, virologist, statistician, or public health professional; the DoH has a highly qualified team of those. A technical manager, Jones didn’t have the authority or expertise to decide unilaterally how to visualize data. But when experts disagreed with her, she assumed they were wrong—or deliberately deceiving the public.

After she was fired from the DoH for a pattern of insubordination, Jones claimed that Deputy Secretary for Health Shamarial Roberson had asked her to “manipulate data to mislead the public” about the safety of reopening rural counties. According to Dr. Roberson, this is “patently false.” Emails show a state epidemiologist told Jones to temporarily disable data export from the dashboard to verify dates against other official sources. The data was aggregated from local public health authorities in 67 counties; it couldn’t be falsified or hidden. In other words, Jones is no “whistleblower.” She’s a conspiracy theorist.

The ‘Florida Covid-19 whistleblower’ saga Is a big lie

Rebekah Jones, the narrative, and the truth.

humanevents.com

The Democrats must be terrified of DeSantis winning the Presidency in 2024. The memo has gone out to attack DeSantis as much as possible. Look at the revent hit job by CBS News and this ridiculous article:

Your sources are dubious. However, I do think she's a little whacked. There were issues in the initial story that seemed like she blew it way out of proportion, when I read the specific e-mail questions. If she never earned her PhD, and has a history of criminal behavior, then that furthers my original take.

I think the characterization from Cosmo, as a "Floridian Fauci" is comically bad and a real insult to medical doctors.