Coronavirus

[Bryn]

Impossible not to infer a cover up.

You can bet your life that probing epidemiological investigations are going on in China, even if they are keeping the results to themselves.

[Bryn]

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2023/ofcom-finds-the-mark-steyn-programme-on-gb-news-in-breach-of-broadcasting-rules

[french frank]

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...dcasting-rules

Wikipedia elucidates on Mark Steyn somewhat. "In the US he has guest-hosted the nationally syndicated Rush Limbaugh Show, as well as Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, on which he regularly appears as a guest ..." "In October 2021, Steyn began covering for Nigel Farage on his prime time show Farage on GB News on Fridays and was a relief presenter for Farage on other days."

What a surprise.

[Bryn]

Not conclusive but tending to support the wet market hypothesis.:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00827-2?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=193e0cdd5c-briefing-dy-20230321&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-193e0cdd5c-46900426

[Bryn]

Happy to have been invited to receive a booster jab, later this month. I thought I would just miss out but it turns out I qualify by just over 2 months, the crucial date being 30th June 2023. I've booked mine for 2 days before my 75th birthday, though I could have booked it for an earlier date. Unfortunately, my birthday itself was not included among the offered dates.

[richardfinegold]

The Russian Roulette part of this is so hard to fathom. Last Sunday we met my son, his wife, and and his 7 and 10 year old kids for brunch. We were all crammed into a restaurant booth for over an hour, and afterwards the kids were being playful and kissing us incessantly for 20 minutes, with the 10 year old positively slobbering on my wife . The next day our daughter in law calls, sounding terrible, all 4 of them have Covid and are sick. We spend all week testing but now after a week seem to be in the clear.
Last summer I was infected after talking outside for an hour with someone who tested positive the following day. My wife has never had despite the same exposures.

[Frances_iom]

Not conclusive but tending to support the wet market hypothesis.:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...cdd5c-46900426

I've long believed that Wuhan Labs were the origin - the Wet market I suspect was just the main vector - the Chinese are too tight lipped for something not to be being deliberately hidden - I wonder if the labs used wild mammals in their research and possibly these somehow landed up at the wet market?

[Bryn]

I've long believed that Wuhan Labs were the origin - the Wet market I suspect was just the main vector - the Chinese are too tight lipped for something not to be being deliberately hidden - I wonder if the labs used wild mammals in their research and possibly these somehow landed up at the wet market?

I didn't have you down as another conspiracy theorist. It's certainly unfortunate that the Chinese government, for whatever reasons, wants to keep its cards close to its chest, but to fall in with the Trump school of thinking? Ah well . . .

[Frances_iom]

never argue ad hominen - instant sign that you have a weak thesis.

[Bryn]

never argue ad hominen - instant sign that you have a weak thesis.

Far better to be a believer, eh? As Robert Anton Wilson put it, “Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” The item featured in Nature Briefing was careful to avoid any implication of certainty. It pointed to the current state of evidence, rather than speculative 'belief'.

[richardfinegold]

So if Trumpsays something, for you it’s Prima facile false?

[Bryn]

So if Trumpsays something, for you it’s Prima facile false?

That's a non-sequitur. The particular conspiracy theory regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology was strongly touted by Trump. This was long before any serious investigation into the likely source o the outbreak. It is now known that the early cases were all associated with close geographical location to the wet market. That, in itself, is no more conclusive evidence of the point of initial transmission than is the WIV conjecture. With the Chinese government's reticence regarding an internationally based investigation (quite understandable, if possibly counterproductive, when one considers the proliferation of anti-Chinese racism whipped up by the likes of Trump) the door was pushed open for further conspiracy theorising. The point of the piece in Nature Briefing was that there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence supporting the wet markets hypothesis. To believe in one of these conjectures over the other is contrary to scientific investigation. That is the thrust of my argument. There is no clear conclusion to be drawn on the basis of the current stage of investigation. To favour one or the other as a "belief" undermines serious scientific investigation as much as Chinese government obscuration does.

[Frances_iom]

One point that was argued against the WIV origin was the suggestion, apparently based on rate of change of the virus, was that the virus was a few decades old - if so then searching for a host animal population would be worthwhile though initial searches found no suspects - there was a paper recently that however posited that the virus was in fact at most only a few months old when it started to infect humans - if this is the case then IMO the situation becomes similar to the outbreak of Foot and Mouth in Surrey about a decade or so ago - traced to a leaking drain at a now closed research lab that spread via the tyres of a builders lorry.
I don't know whether the WIV is also home to a military research establishment or whether because of the nature of the Chinese Society there is no real barrier between movement of staff and material between WIV and the Chinese equivalents of the UK's Porton Down. I'm not claiming the virus was deliberately leaked, or even deliberately developed, tho that might be attractive to a nation that had developed an effective vaccine (which China had not) but only that there was some connection possibly akin to the Surrey F& M outbreak.

[richardfinegold]

That's a non-sequitur. The particular conspiracy theory regarding the Wuhan Institute of Virology was strongly touted by Trump. This was long before any serious investigation into the likely source o the outbreak. It is now known that the early cases were all associated with close geographical location to the wet market. That, in itself, is no more conclusive evidence of the point of initial transmission than is the WIV conjecture. With the Chinese government's reticence regarding an internationally based investigation (quite understandable, if possibly counterproductive, when one considers the proliferation of anti-Chinese racism whipped up by the likes of Trump) the door was pushed open for further conspiracy theorising. The point of the piece in Nature Briefing was that there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence supporting the wet markets hypothesis. To believe in one of these conjectures over the other is contrary to scientific investigation. That is the thrust of my argument. There is no clear conclusion to be drawn on the basis of the current stage of investigation. To favour one or the other as a "belief" undermines serious scientific investigation as much as Chinese government obscuration does.

Regarding Trump, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and it takes a certain type of ideological zealotry to ignore something that is as obvious as a nose on one’s face because the theory is espoused by people whom one cannot abide. There never will be the kind of proof that would stand up in the court of law because of the efforts of the Chinese Government to forbid any inquiry. However, the Virus started in Wuhan, China. And of all the cities in the World, Wuhan just happened to have the one laboratory that was working on enhanced function of Coronavirus, without the kind of oversight that would be routine in the West

[Bryn]

Regarding Trump, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and it takes a certain type of ideological zealotry to ignore something that is as obvious as a nose on one’s face because the theory is espoused by people whom one cannot abide. There never will be the kind of proof that would stand up in the court of law because of the efforts of the Chinese Government to forbid any inquiry. However, the Virus started in Wuhan, China. And of all the cities in the World, Wuhan just happened to have the one laboratory that was working on enhanced function of Coronavirus, without the kind of oversight that would be routine in the West

There were early claims of US direct involvement in research in "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan lab. Such claims have since been dismissed as false. See https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/th...-disagreement/ for instance. The claims were part of the usual to and fro of Republican and Democrat mud-slinging. Please state your evidence that gain-of-function research regarding coronavirus was actually going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.