Coronavirus COVID-19

[UNI88]

No, you have the right to fuck off you fucking Stalinist.

The Nazi’s would have been pro-covid too.

You might be right so I fixed Baldy's post.

[Baldy]

No, you have the right to fuck off you fucking Nazi.

The Nazi’s would have been pro-covid too.

Yeah...

[CID1990]

New NIH paper reinforces the lab leak theory -

https://www.city-journal.org/new-eviden ... osession=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

New NIH paper reinforces the lab leak theory -

https://www.city-journal.org/new-eviden ... osession=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that if you click on the "letter" link in the article then read the letter you might decide that this is a nothing burger. The main point of the letter appears to be that what went on had nothing to do with the SARS-COV-2 virus. The second paragraph of the letter, for instance, reads as follows:

It is important to state at the outset that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2.
Both the progress report and the analysis attached here again confirm that conclusion, as the sequences of viruses are genetically very distant.

There is something about EcoHealth not reporting something it should have reported. But there's no indication that anything that went on was related to the rise of SARS-CoV-2. But the main point of the letter is summarized in the second-to-last paragraph:

The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

I do not think the letter itself reinforces the lab leak theory at all. I mean, if one just read the letter and wasn't reading an article by someone spinning it that way, I don't think one would read the letter itself as doing that.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW I think a self selection bias in this kind of situation has the potential to be significant. I think there is a big difference, on average, between the attitudes of those who choose to be vaccinated and those who do not. It's not at all unreasonable for the authors to suggest that people who are vaccinated are more likely to show up as cases if they do get infected because they are more sensitive to the possibility that they could be cases. In any case, again, the authors clearly state:



And what they say is "not appropriate" is exactly what you have been doing.

Of course they would say that. If they really cared, they also wouldn't be using preprint data to make their case for their effectiveness as they have been doing. The old "you can't use this data in that way" cuts both ways.


So, what is your interpretation of the vaxxed absolutely dwarfing the unvaxxed in cases? Not to mention totals, but per 100k as well.

You think efficacy still sits at 80%?

There are numerous studies on the effectiveness of the vaccines at lowering the risk of infection. The authors of the report we are talking about who generated the table we are talking about estimate the effectiveness at around 80%. The people who produced the table say that you should not use the data in the table to estimate vaccine effectiveness. But there is all sorts of other stuff.

Like for instance: I follow the Louisiana Department of Health numbers on a fairly continuous basis. You can see them at https://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/. I have an Excel calculator where I plug in the percentages there and plug in the Louisiana fully vaccinatd rate. Doing that for October 20 (the week mentioned ended then), I get that a randomly selected person who was not fully vaccinated was 4 times as likely to be a case than a randomly selected person who was fully vaccinated was. If we just did the effectiveness calculation that would translate to about 75% effective.

But you can't do that because the "not fully vaccinated" group includes a whole bunch of people who have been naturally infected. It also includes a pretty good number of people who have had at least one dose. So the "75%" understates the true effectiveness to some unknown extent.

There is also stuff like this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... eople.html. It was last updated September 15. But it is very well referenced. It clearly indicates that vaccination significantly lowers the risk of becoming infected.

There is also stuff like this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 8/fulltext

It shows that the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection. It does show that the protection wanes over time. But that is fine. It's good to know that. We have ways to address that sort of thing. We now are moving into having booster shots.

With all due respect: There is information all over the place indicating that the vaccines are effective in reducing the risk of infection as well as in reducing the risk of transmission by those who do become infected. But you have fixed your attention on one table that appears in one report to try to argue against that when the authors of THAT report say that you should not be interpreting the data in that table in the way you are interpreting it. I'm not trying to be mean. But that is what you are doing.

I don't know why it is important to you to believe that the vaccines are not highly effective when they clearly are.

[CID1990]

New NIH paper reinforces the lab leak theory -

https://www.city-journal.org/new-eviden ... osession=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that if you click on the "letter" link in the article then read the letter you might decide that this is a nothing burger. The main point of the letter appears to be that what went on had nothing to do with the SARS-COV-2 virus. The second paragraph of the letter, for instance, reads as follows:

It is important to state at the outset that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2.
Both the progress report and the analysis attached here again confirm that conclusion, as the sequences of viruses are genetically very distant.

There is something about EcoHealth not reporting something it should have reported. But there's no indication that anything that went on was related to the rise of SARS-CoV-2. But the main point of the letter is summarized in the second-to-last paragraph:

The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

I do not think the letter itself reinforces the lab leak theory at all. I mean, if one just read the letter and wasn't reading an article by someone spinning it that way, I don't think one would read the letter itself as doing that.

Okey dokey

It’s been fun watching you lose your wits over the last few years and now you’ve abandoned any logical curiosity

You lean away from the lab leak theory purely because Donald Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Yet 6 of the top 7 states in total deaths voted blue.

Those were republicans.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that if you click on the "letter" link in the article then read the letter you might decide that this is a nothing burger. The main point of the letter appears to be that what went on had nothing to do with the SARS-COV-2 virus. The second paragraph of the letter, for instance, reads as follows:



There is something about EcoHealth not reporting something it should have reported. But there's no indication that anything that went on was related to the rise of SARS-CoV-2. But the main point of the letter is summarized in the second-to-last paragraph:



I do not think the letter itself reinforces the lab leak theory at all. I mean, if one just read the letter and wasn't reading an article by someone spinning it that way, I don't think one would read the letter itself as doing that.

Okey dokey

It’s been fun watching you lose your wits over the last few years and now you’ve abandoned any logical curiosity

You lean away from the lab leak theory purely because Donald Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you read the letter?

Otherwise: I do not lean away from the lab leak theory because of Trump. I lean way from the lab leak theory because as far as I can tell the consensus among virologists is to lean away from the lab leak theory. From what I can tell the idea is that it cannot be ruled out but it is not considered to be likely. See https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-lab-leak for an example of discussion of the matter.

But what we are talking about is that letter. I mean, read the letter. Do you think it lends credence to the lab leak theory?

[CID1990]

Okey dokey

It’s been fun watching you lose your wits over the last few years and now you’ve abandoned any logical curiosity

You lean away from the lab leak theory purely because Donald Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you read the letter?

Otherwise: I do not lean away from the lab leak theory because of Trump. I lean way from the lab leak theory because as far as I can tell the consensus among virologists is to lean away from the lab leak theory. From what I can tell the idea is that it cannot be ruled out but it is not considered to be likely. See https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-lab-leak for an example of discussion of the matter.

But what we are talking about is that letter. I mean, read the letter. Do you think it lends credence to the lab leak theory?

Of course I read it.

Viruses were, in fact, being manipulated at the WIV. That confirms that there were, in fact, coronavirus strains in existence in the WIV that are not found in nature.

It is still a circumstantial case, but there were a portion of lab leak theory deniers claiming that GOF research was not being done at the WIV - and therefore we only need to find the naturally occurring virus out there, somewhere.

I guess as long as we never find this naturally occurring virus actually out there somewhere, you and the steadily shrinking zoonotic transfer crowd will continue to have top cover ..... from the massive and highly unlikely coincidence that you seem to subscribe to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

College Students Keep Blowing Up Mask Mandates

While several Iowa K-12 school districts cling to dubious regarding the effectiveness of mask mandates, Iowa’s
regents university students continue to blow up the arguments in favor of mask mandates.

Data as of 11-2-21 is as follows:

In Story County, home to Iowa State University, no one under the age of 40 is currently hospitalized for COVID-19.

In Black Hawk County, home to the University of Northern Iowa, no one under the age of 20 is currently hospitalized
for COVID-19 and only 3 people under the age of 50 are hospitalized for COVID-19.

In Johnson County, home to the University of Iowa, five people under the age of 30 are currently hospitalized for
COVID-19. Just three are between the ages of 18 and 29.

The lack of a mask mandate on college campuses is having no effect on hospitalization rates among college students.

[89Hen]

In Black Hawk County, home to the University of Northern Iowa

[89Hen]

[HI54UNI]

In Black Hawk County, home to the University of Northern Iowa

[AZGrizFan]

[UNI88]

Fauxi is damaged goods. Giving him a role as spokesperson hurts the government's cause. They need to cut him loose.

[UNI88]

In Black Hawk County, home to the University of Northern Iowa

I didn't realize how much 89 liked black hawk.

[AZGrizFan]

I didn't realize how much 89 liked black hawk.

To each his own, I suppose....

[JohnStOnge]

Did you read the letter?

Otherwise: I do not lean away from the lab leak theory because of Trump. I lean way from the lab leak theory because as far as I can tell the consensus among virologists is to lean away from the lab leak theory. From what I can tell the idea is that it cannot be ruled out but it is not considered to be likely. See https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-lab-leak for an example of discussion of the matter.

But what we are talking about is that letter. I mean, read the letter. Do you think it lends credence to the lab leak theory?

Of course I read it.

Viruses were, in fact, being manipulated at the WIV. That confirms that there were, in fact, coronavirus strains in existence in the WIV that are not found in nature.

It is still a circumstantial case, but there were a portion of lab leak theory deniers claiming that GOF research was not being done at the WIV - and therefore we only need to find the naturally occurring virus out there, somewhere.

I guess as long as we never find this naturally occurring virus actually out there somewhere, you and the steadily shrinking zoonotic transfer crowd will continue to have top cover ..... from the massive and highly unlikely coincidence that you seem to subscribe to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That letter does not describe gain of function reasearch.

[JohnStOnge]

Fauxi is damaged goods. Giving him a role as spokesperson hurts the government's cause. They need to cut him loose.

Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.

To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.

[UNI88]

Fauxi is damaged goods. Giving him a role as spokesperson hurts the government's cause. They need to cut him loose.

Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.

To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.

Did Fauxi lie about funding gain of function type research at the Wuhan Lab?

[JohnStOnge]

Paul made a total buffoon of himself.

[JohnStOnge]

Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.

To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.

Did Fauxi lie about funding gain of function type research at the Wuhan Lab?

No because it wasn't gain of function research. That is the point. Faucci pretty much nuked Paul on that point but it apparently went right over Paul's head.

[JohnStOnge]

Rand Paul claiming it was gain of function research doesn't make it gain of function research.

[JohnStOnge]

See https://www.science.org/content/article ... ice-sicker.

The incident does not at all show that the NIH funded "gain of function" research. Paul is very intellectually dishonest.

[CID1990]

Of course I read it.

Viruses were, in fact, being manipulated at the WIV. That confirms that there were, in fact, coronavirus strains in existence in the WIV that are not found in nature.

It is still a circumstantial case, but there were a portion of lab leak theory deniers claiming that GOF research was not being done at the WIV - and therefore we only need to find the naturally occurring virus out there, somewhere.

I guess as long as we never find this naturally occurring virus actually out there somewhere, you and the steadily shrinking zoonotic transfer crowd will continue to have top cover ..... from the massive and highly unlikely coincidence that you seem to subscribe to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That letter does not describe gain of function reasearch.

OK you are officially ill, JSO.

Since you are obviously impaired of in some weird fugue state, here is the first paragraph of the letter:

“A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Kentucky congressman James Comer confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans—the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.”

^^^^ that is PRECISELY gain of function research. Maybe you should tell us (and me with just a biology degree with an emphasis on microbiology) what YOU think GOF research is if not what is described above?

Whatever the hell is wronge with you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk