All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Maxp

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    446
    Reaction score
    729
    Offline
    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?
     
    His responses reek of confirmation bias. It's apparent he decided long ago what he thought happened and has continued to push those beliefs as facts of the lab leak. He didn't really add anything new to the discussion.
    What a vague response by you in your effort to discredit him that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Will you ignore anyone who suggests it was or it could have been a lab leak despite their credentials?
     
    Ma

    Makary is not a virologist.
    Who is he and why is he testifying about the pandemic?

    Also, the scientific community has varying opinions. SFL posts one op-ed that says we are over counting Covid deaths and thinks it’s settled science. He should know better.
     
    What a vague response by you in your effort to discredit him that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Will you ignore anyone who suggests it was or it could have been a lab leak despite their credentials?
    What are his credentials? Confirmation bias is a serious issue that should be recognized. Pointing it out would definitely add to a discussion.

    You are promoting him, or his views. What made you decide he was correct? How do you know he isn’t biased?
     
    What a vague response by you in your effort to discredit him that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Will you ignore anyone who suggests it was or it could have been a lab leak despite their credentials?

    Lol, no. I just didn't find anything illuminating in his response. It was pretty clear he had an agenda.
     
    All of this is your usual circumstantial conspiracy theory nonsense. Scientists check each others’ work all the time.

    You are spamming the board with discredited sources. The Cochrane study has been completely discredited.

    I should be shocked that someone who works in healthcare actually thinks masks are useless. Do you decline to wear them on your job?
    Dr Marty Markary is a Professor at John Hopkins and graduated from Harvard has been discredited?

    The tweet about Kristin Anderson has been discredited? It's based off of emails.


    Scientists check each others work? Who discredited the Cochrane study? The same kind of scientists who change what they are saying publicly after getting 9 million in subsequent funding from the NIH?

    I wear an N95 if I go in a covid patients room. Nobody wears surgical masks in Covid rooms. I don't wear a surgical mask walking around the hospital unless it's required by the facility.

    You've done it many times before, but I see you and Coldseat are both making vague statements to try to discredit certain sources. Neither of you offered anything specific to refute what they said. I know that's the easiest way you can try to discredit someone when you don't have any facts on your side that show they aren't correct, but it's transparent and not believable.
     
    You've done it many times before, but I see you and Coldseat are both making vague statements to try to discredit certain sources. Neither of you offered anything specific to refute what they said. I know that's the easiest way you can try to discredit someone when you don't have any facts on your side that show they aren't correct, but it's transparent and not believable.

    How is my response vague? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    I listened to his responses, it just didn't give me any new information nor was it convincing as far as a conclusion. I don't know who he is, so I don't know why I need to extend credibility to his response. I just took it at face value.

    As for Covid, I don't know how it came about. I'm not a scientist, virologist or even an intelligence officer, so my opinion doesn't really matter at all. Giving everything equal weight, I'm more inclined to believe virologist than intelligence officials, just because they actually studied the genomic makeup of the virus. That lends more credibility in my eyes. But I don't know for sure and I don't really know when/if a virologist is misleading or lying to me. Being that there seems to be consensus among virologist as to how it came about, I'll go with that.

    In any case, to me the biggest problem here is the Chinese governments lack of transparency. For that reason alone, I'm on board with not funding any future virus research in China and having tighter control and scrutiny of gain of function research in other countries.

    Why do you believe that it had to be a lab leak and that is the only plausible explanation? Why is it so important to you that I believe that as well?
     
    Last edited:
    Dr Marty Markary is a Professor at John Hopkins and graduated from Harvard has been discredited?

    The tweet about Kristin Anderson has been discredited? It's based off of emails.


    Scientists check each others work? Who discredited the Cochrane study? The same kind of scientists who change what they are saying publicly after getting 9 million in subsequent funding from the NIH?

    I wear an N95 if I go in a covid patients room. Nobody wears surgical masks in Covid rooms. I don't wear a surgical mask walking around the hospital unless it's required by the facility.

    You've done it many times before, but I see you and Coldseat are both making vague statements to try to discredit certain sources. Neither of you offered anything specific to refute what they said. I know that's the easiest way you can try to discredit someone when you don't have any facts on your side that show they aren't correct, but it's transparent and not believable.

    If I have need for neurosurgery I do not talk to a gastroenterologist. The gastroenterologist may be extremely well qualified and work for the Cleveland Clinic which, iirc, is #1 for that specialty in the country but that is irrelevant to my need for neurosurgery.
     
    Dr Marty Markary is a Professor at John Hopkins and graduated from Harvard has been discredited?

    The tweet about Kristin Anderson has been discredited? It's based off of emails.


    Scientists check each others work? Who discredited the Cochrane study? The same kind of scientists who change what they are saying publicly after getting 9 million in subsequent funding from the NIH?

    I wear an N95 if I go in a covid patients room. Nobody wears surgical masks in Covid rooms. I don't wear a surgical mask walking around the hospital unless it's required by the facility.

    You've done it many times before, but I see you and Coldseat are both making vague statements to try to discredit certain sources. Neither of you offered anything specific to refute what they said. I know that's the easiest way you can try to discredit someone when you don't have any facts on your side that show they aren't correct, but it's transparent and not believable.

    What did Markary study? What are his virology credentials? I didn’t mention Anderson and honestly didn’t even read that one. You post these walls of tweets and don’t add to the discussion when you do, so I rarely bother to read them.

    I posted one thread about Cochrane, and Hotez said it was terrible. I saw another one on Twitter from a scientist who criticized the thread I posted, but he also said Cochrane had fatal flaws, just not the ones the first guy picked to criticize.

    Of course nobody wears a surgical mask in an isolation room. Is wearing a surgical mask required in your facilities? Around here they still are. They cut down on the casual spread of infections. Which is why they’re required.
     
    SFL, do you know how often researchers apply for grants, and how long it takes to prepare a grant request and go through the approval process? I do, my brother does basic research at a medical school in my state. He prepares grant proposals all the time. It takes a long, long time, and no one person can generally approve or disapprove these. Your assertions about these grants are just stupid.
     
    That Cochrane review discredited itself through how badly it was conducted. For one example, here is one of the authors of the review being asked about adding a sensitivity analysis to it with particular regard to the Bangladesh study, and replying saying that they'd need clarification first and that the study's "methods (and data!) are opaque":



    And here's the lead author of the Bangladesh study replying pointing out that all the data and code was posted publicly:



    That fact is also, of course, in the published paper which states, under data and materials availability, that "All data and code are provided in our online repository" and provides a link.

    That author also states they weren't contacted at all with regard to any questions:



    Note that the guidelines for these studies explicitly say that authors should be contacted: "Review authors often find that they are unable to obtain all the information they seek from available reports about the details of the study design, the full range of outcomes measured and the numerical results. In such circumstances, authors are strongly encouraged to contact the original investigators".

    This is one of the most relevant studies - one of only a couple assessing the impact of mask wearing during the Covid-19 pandemic - and they thought its "methods (and data!) are opaque" through their own ignorance, despite that information being in the published paper. I can't stress how big a red flag that is; if you're reviewing a paper and you're unaware of essential information contained in the paper, that's absolutely dire. A glaring error then compounded by failing to contact the authors.

    And it should go without saying, but none of this is at all contingent on who any of these authors are. The basic facts here indicate that Cochrane review is a bad review, done badly.
     
    Just like they fell in line in voting for their speaker of the house right? Oh wait that was the Democrats.
    Are you suggesting that the Republicans did not elect the person who was originally the front-runner? It took them awhile, but eventually...they fell in line.

    That's kinda how "falling in line" works.
     
    Something something don’t learn from history something something something repeat it.

    I would like to know the origins of Covid 19 as it changed my life (hell, it changed all of our lives) for the better part of the last 3 years (with no end in sight). If this did come from a lab, I would like to know to what end the creator(s) put together this cocktail of disaster.

    If this was created in a lab, I would love to have those associated with the lab caught and hung up by their Little Buster Browns.
    I think it is well known that the Chinese have been working on enhancing viruses. I believe it is called gain of function. I don’t think that is illegal. It’s only illegal if the release was intentional. Aside from that, the only reason to know is to setup better methods to avoid it recurring.
     
    I think it is well known that the Chinese have been working on enhancing viruses. I believe it is called gain of function. I don’t think that is illegal. It’s only illegal if the release was intentional. Aside from that, the only reason to know is to setup better methods to avoid it recurring.

    That's dishonest framing. It implies that the virus being released is a fact.
     
    Op-Ed from WaPo Editorial Board concerning the infamous Cochrane study ( spoiler: they recognized how flawed it is ). I didn’t realize Cochrane also disparaged the use of N-95s. Geesh. 🤦‍♀️

    “But the Cochrane study has been criticized for several big flaws. A commentarypublished by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota noted that it used the traditional definition of virus transmission through symptomatic coughing or sneezing that spreads larger droplets, and suggests it did not focus sufficiently on the key risks of small-particle, airborne transmission. The Cochrane authors also “incorrectly combined studies where people wore masks or respirators infrequently with those where they were worn all the time,” the commentary points out. There has also been separate criticism of a Bangladesh study on masks that comprises more than half the population data in the new trials examined by the Cochrane review.
    Here is the bottom line: Loose-fitting face masks and surgical masks have a purpose, but when it comes to covid transmission, they are like wearing goggles with holes. Respirators are far superior in a viral pandemic, given what is now clear about airborne particles and the role that asymptomatic infection has played in transmission. Wearing face masks — but especially respirators — in crowded public enclosed spaces with poor ventilation is undoubtedly better than nothing. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that “consistently wearing a face mask or respirator in indoor public settings reduces the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.””

     
    White House official John Kirby, standing at the podium where Donald Trump once railed against the “China virus” and praised the healing powers of bleach, faced questions on Monday about the origins of Covid-19.

    He had no choice but humility. “There is not a consensus right now in the US government about exactly how Covid started,” Kirby admitted. “There is just not an intelligence community consensus.”

    The renewed interest in a genuine scientific mystery followed a report in the Wall Street Journal that the US Department of Energy had determined the coronavirus most likely leaked by accident from a Chinese laboratory.

    This startling assessment appeared to have a solid foundation: according to the Washington Post, it was based on an analysis by experts from the national laboratory complex, including the “Z-Division”, known for carrying out some of the American government’s most secretive and technically challenging investigations of security threats from adversaries such as China and Russia.

    But the claim was not officially confirmed by the energy department or Kirby, and it came with a caveat: the department had “low confidence” in its assessment, which was provided to the White House and certain members of Congress, the Journal said.

    Even so, gleeful Republicans seized on the findings to claim vindication in their pursuit of the lab leak theory, triggering a fresh round of toxic debate in Washington and on social media.

    Opponents say there is still no hard evidence for a lab leak, as many scientists still believe the virus most probably came from animals, mutated and jumped into people.

    They note that the loudest champions of the lab leak hypothesis are often also trafficking in rightwing conspiracy theories, for example about the top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci.

    But the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Some scientists and other observers argue that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out and should be kept separate from the racist propaganda that often accompanies it. It demands careful investigation, not peremptory dismissal or acceptance, they contend.

    It is the latest chapter in a long fight over the origin of a virus that has caused close to 7m deaths worldwide, clouding efforts to pursue a neutral, fact-based inquiry.

    In its loud opinions, blue v red certainties and lack of nuance, the melee echoes clashes over pandemic lockdowns, masks and vaccines, as well as the investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia………

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom