Coronavirus Pandemic

[Niall_Quinn]

I wasn't talking about anything.
I simply posted a link to an article which responded to a range of conspiracy theories.

Oh right. You just posted up a random article that led with talk of bioweapons, carefully framing everything that followed. But you didn't choose the article for that. Not at all.

I'm guessing you have equated the term bioweapon with "engineered". Not realising that the term engineered covers a whole range of processes that can occur in a lab, such as artificially accelerating the rate of replication in order to produce enough material to effectively study. Indeed part of the process of testing for this virus uses such techniques. Shan-Lu Liu, ex-China CDC btw, obtained his data directly from China, we know this because he personally commended his colleagues in China for sharing their work with him. The Chinese claim the virus escaped wet markets in Wuhan, but the traders in that market counterclaim by stating they don't even sell the variety of bat this virus is supposed to have originated from. And other scientists have claimed it is far more likely this virus came from somewhere other than the market because a third of the initial infections had no connection with those markets, noting the nearby P4 facility was highest on the list of probabilities.

On the one side you have the CCP and its agencies, including the WHO, that have covered-up, misdirected and denied. They give one version of events. Then you have independent researchers who examine what evidence we have so far and give their own assessments, without being encumbered by the need to lie. It seems reasonable to favour the findings of unbiased sources at this point. Just as it's unreasonable to give credence to sources and claims that have already been proven in many other aspects to be suspect or fraudulent.

That doesn't mean we know for sure what happened, yet. But it does make your handful of paragraphs posing as a scientific article that simply states NO, NO, NO, look pretty dumb. But of course that wasn't your intention. Your intention was to educate, inform and encourage thought and questioning. As always. Which is why you chose that particular article. Well done.

[Niall_Quinn]

I’m surprised they ordered so many without knowing if they worked but then again its a slight catch 22 situation.

If they ordered a small amount, found they worked and then a delay in getting more, everyone would go mad saying why didnt they order all of them straight away.

Now if they order all of them straight away and they dont work, everyone moans about waste of money.

Normal times of course you would never order something you aren’t 100% sure on but these aren’t normal times. They need to move quickly to get things and i suppose take a bit of a risk at times.

and given it was USD 20m they spent, its pocket change given the amount we are borrowing to pay all the wages etc.

It helps fill column inches and B-roll. 200 billion to the banks, right out of the gate. No problem, no fuss. 20 million on testing kits that might have been a game changer (had the seller been in any way trustworthy), well that's big news. The media is thriving on every mistake, every failure, while downplaying or dismissing any success. They're like an enemy inside the gate during times of war. Sabotaging, spreading mayhem, disrupting.

[Niall_Quinn]

I didn’t really see much evidence in London yesterday of social distancing. I mean it was far quieter by London standards but still a huge amount of people out and about.

That's bad news. Don't much fancy the trip down to Coronavirus Central next week but it's unavoidable. What about the roads? Lots of traffic?

[Letters]

Oh right. You just posted up a random article that led with talk of bioweapons, carefully framing everything that followed. But you didn't choose the article for that. Not at all.

No. I actually didn't. I just Googled something like "did covid-19 come from a lab" and it was the first article which came up from what I'd consider to be a fairly reputable scientific publication. (I just Googled it again, it's the 4th result, the first from a scientific publication). This is the first result which comes up if that helps

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-mark-milley

The Pentagon’s top general has said that US intelligence has looked into the possibility that the coronavirus outbreak could have started in a Chinese laboratory, but that the “weight of evidence” so far pointed towards “natural” origins.

I'm guessing you have equated the term bioweapon with "engineered".

You guess incorrectly.

The Chinese claim the virus escaped wet markets in Wuhan, but the traders in that market counterclaim by stating they don't even sell the variety of bat this virus is supposed to have originated from. And other scientists have claimed it is far more likely this virus came from somewhere other than the market because a third of the initial infections had no connection with those markets, noting the nearby P4 facility was highest on the list of probabilities.

So we have claim and counter claim. Who is right?
I don't know. Nor do you.
But it's notable that you choose the side which means that "they" are up to something and declare the people who claim that are the independent researchers.

The article above says that US Intelligence (make up your own joke there, which must include the word "oxymoron") looked into it and concluded that it was most likely to have been of natural origin. Are they "in on it" too?

[Niall_Quinn]

No. I actually didn't. I just Googled something like "did covid-19 come from a lab" and it was the first article which came up from what I'd consider to be a fairly reputable scientific publication. (I just Googled it again, it's the 4th result, the first from a scientific publication). This is the first result which comes up if that helps

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...al-mark-milley





You guess incorrectly.



So we have claim and counter claim. Who is right?
I don't know. Nor do you.
But it's notable that you choose the side which means that "they" are up to something and declare the people who claim that are the independent researchers.

The article above says that US Intelligence (make up your own joke there, which must include the word "oxymoron") looked into it and concluded that it was most likely to have been of natural origin. Are they "in on it" too?

You're a slippery fish, aren't you?

"They", rather than being every target your shotgun just hit, are the Chinese. Specifically the CCP. Just to get things back on track. THEY say this originated from a wet market. THEY provided the data and samples to western labs, once their cover-up was exposed. And THEY have lied at every step of this crisis so far, so yes, I actually will listen to anyone else before them. Any rational person would do the same.

It was the same shit with their reporting of infections and mortality in China. Yesterday they announced they found some previously lost data. Right after Trump cut the funding of their mates at the WHO. Well maybe if we keep the pressure on, more data will be "found" that helps everyone to get to the bottom of this?

Leaving aside the hilarity of you bringing the US Intelligence services into this (any port in a storm, right?) - what's actually happening is they are currently in the process of investigating the source of the outbreak (among other related issues) and have reached no conclusions yet. The main driver of the wet market theory is the WHO, which is already discredited beyond repair. Any findings from US intelligence will be just as discredited. But eventually, peer reviewed and compelling science will tell us the answer. And the high probability is whatever the Chinese are saying, the opposite will be fact.

So going back to your "article", NO, it has zero validity at this point. And it's not a scientific article, regardless of how you found it. It's an editorial. Designed to "confirm" that's there's nothing to see here - move along. And anyone who wants a bit more than the assurances of proven liars and cover-up merchants is a conspiracy theorist, because that's what brainwashing central told you to call them.

[Letters]

So going back to your "article", NO, it has zero validity at this point.

As a wise man once said...

I think it's obvious to just about everyone else posting in this thread that it is thus:

What you agree with = news
What you disagree with = fake news.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I'm back working from home on Tuesday.

Having to fight the cat to get off my laptop.

[Niall_Quinn]

As a wise man once said...

You can't even manage a full sentence this time. Lightweight.

[Letters]

There's not much else to say.
This conversation has followed the pattern of most of our conversations.

1) You assert something as fact with no supporting evidence. In this instance you suggested people "look into it".
2) I look into it - in as much as I Googled it and looked at some of the results from what I see as credible sources.
They say that the thing you've asserted is not substantiated by the current investigations/known facts.
3) I post the links to those articles
4) You just basically say that those articles don't count because reasons. .
5) You generally then accuse me of being brainwashed as though you are somehow arriving at your conclusions based on any original thoughts or research you have done rather than simply repeating things from different sources.

Rinse and repeat.
I note you have provided no links at any point to the sources you have read.

[Niall_Quinn]

There's not much else to say.
This conversation has followed the pattern of most of our conversations.

1) You assert something as fact with no supporting evidence. In this instance you suggested people "look into it".
2) I look into it - in as much as I Googled it and looked at some of the results from what I see as credible sources.
They say that the thing you've asserted is not substantiated by the current investigations/known facts.
3) I post the links to those articles
4) You just basically say that those articles don't count because reasons. .
5) You generally then accuse me of being brainwashed as though you are somehow arriving at your conclusions based on any original thoughts or research you have done rather than simply repeating things from different sources.

Rinse and repeat.
I note you have provided no links at any point to the sources you have read.

You start with a lie and then knock it down. A very dishonest way to proceed.

So finally, we now hear the virus came out of a Chinese lab. Rather than the wet markets. Which is not an excuse for the disgusting wet markets.

Look into it.

There's no claim to fact there. It's even followed up with a suggestion to look into it, not accept it as read. Grubby liar, aren't you?

Then you pretend you've presented more than a single editorial. You also conclude the topic has been "looked into", and I believe in that respect because I suspect all your research is insubstantial, non-scientific, editorialised junk. As in this case.

Having explained to you whose water you are carrying (for free I might add), who "they" are, and why they are untrustworthy, based on events and not just opinion, you then lie again by saying my reasons for doubting Chinese propaganda is "because reasons".

And I'm not accusing you of being brainwashed, I'm stating you are brainwashed. I accuse you of lying. Two different things.

And that's the end of that one too. Not going around your pram racing circuit again.