What does it mean to graciously disagree about COVID?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I don’t travel anywhere near that much. But at least I know better. It sounds like you should too. You have even less excuse than I do for being taken in by this stuff.

I think the situation is just the opposite.

I have visited communist countries and countries that shook off communism. I have talked to people who lived under authoritarian rule where state censorship stifled communication.

So to see the government colluding with technology companies to stop discussions is troubling.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

That’s assuming they are using confidential information. Have they even said that they are using information that is not public?

I suppose you might be, but I can’t imagine any reasonable person would think the FBI is only using public information in its determination.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Much as I respect our law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies, the mindset they have is not scientific proof, but rather to decide if there is enough information to indict. No motive, but opportunity and suspicious behavior regarding information provided. It would only be expected to see their evidence before taking their conclusions as fact.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

Does this opinion also go for the national labs under the Department of Energy, which also found the lab leak the most likely source of Covid? They aren’t law enforcement.

We have the FBI, the national labs of the Department of Energy, and the former director of the CDC all agreeing — not just intelligence services and law enforcement. The former director of the CDC is not law enforcement nor intelligence agency either.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

But he is a former employee with no real access to information outside the public sphere, so while he may be smart and talented, why should his opinion matter? Again, the data should prevail. Without it, there is only opinion.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

Because he was there while things were happening and knew the processes and procedures.

This whole attitude—until we get the classified data we know nothing!—seems like a ruse, a hiding place to avoid facing reality.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

So nothing of substance. Processes and procedures. Classified information. Undocumented reports. Rumors. Reality?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

That’s funny, Phil.

I consider all those things substantial. And the former director of the CDC also had a counterpart in the Chinese government that he was in contact with.

Apparently the FBI considered what they found to be of substance. The fact that we don’t have the clearance or requisite need-to-know does not make things devoid of substance.

But with Congress’s vote for declassification, maybe we will know more in the next few months.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

But neither of these above have anything substantial for you to address.

It would not be incorrect to say that you engage in substance abuse.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

More important than dead horses and multiple :

Opinion | What if the Next Pandemic Happened Tomorrow?

Opinion | How to Prepare for the Next Pandemic

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@learningU

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except by the Way of Christ.

What path are you on?

In light of the original question of the thread, subtly suggesting that people you disagree with are on the wide and broad gate to destruction and are not on a path to the Father is probably not a good example of graciously disagreeing about COVID.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

On many social media platforms discussion was either deleted or stamped with “this has been debunked.”

Yes, because Twitter is the only place people can be heard. eye roll

[T_aquaticus]

Let’s say that we found the following evidence:

1. Nearly half of the earliest cases of COVID-19 came from the Wuhan lab, or lived very close to the Wuhan lab.

2. Testing of the surfaces at the lab tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including a cage that held lab animals known to be used for viral propagation. They even found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a brush used to remove fur from those lab animals.

How many people would consider this to be slam dunk evidence for a lab leak?

If so, why isn’t this slam dunk evidence for the virus originating at the Wuhan market since this evidence is what was found at the Wuhan market, especially given the fact that the first SARS outbreak, SARS-CoV-1, was also associated with a wet market?

[03Cobra (Vance)]

This conjecture is addressed here under the section “Lab leak and natural transmission.”

What the 'lab leak' theory report about COVID's origins does and doesn't mean

Of course, the lab is supposed to be an environment designed to avoid transmission of pathogens, so creating a scenario and interchanging the words “lab” and “market” is invalid. That is why your so-called slam dunk evidence for one spot is not for another. Another reason is that we don’t know how ubiquitous the disease was in the lab, as China is not cooperating—as if they have something to hide.

Just as church choir practice was disease spreader in the US, when a person infected elsewhere showed up, a lab worker or family member who went to the market (after a lab-originated infection) could have started the spread from the market.

Just as the choir practice was not the original source, the market may not have been the original source — just a place well suited to spreading the disease after the gain of function research in the lab (and the subsequent leak from the lab) had made the disease better adapted to human hosts and more transmissible.

Once the disease moved from the lab, into lab workers, to others outside the lab, the wet market became a “spread venue” just as church choir practice was.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

Of course, the lab is supposed to be an environment designed to avoid transmission of pathogens, so creating a scenario and interchanging the words “lab” and “market” is invalid. That is why your so-called slam dunk evidence for one spot is not for another.

It’s not invalid at all. If half of the first cases were lab personnel then everyone would consider this slam dunk evidence for a lab leak. Just look at the claims people are making about a handful of lab staff that had the flu. If a subsequent survey of the lab found surfaces contaminated with the virus and animal cages covered in the virus, wouldn’t this be considered even stronger evidence?

So why isn’t this same evidence strong evidence for a natural origin when it is found in the market?

@03Cobra

Just as church choir practice was disease spreader in the US, when a person infected elsewhere showed up, a lab worker or family member who went to the market (after a lab-originated infection) could have started the spread from the market.

That’s an awfully massive coincidence, isn’t it? Why not somewhere else besides the market, in a city with 11 million people? Why not at a university or a restaurant? Why would the lab leak just happen to take it just to the one spot that has known natural sources for outbreaks?

Would you accept the reverse argument? Would you accept a massive outbreak at the lab as someone getting the virus at the market, and only that person, and then have them spread it at the lab?

Let’s also not forget that the first SARS outbreak also came from a wet market.

The virus jumped into people right before the outbreak in the market

For example, our new genetic analysis tells us that this virus was not around for very long when the cases occurred at the market. For example, the earliest known patient at the market had an onset of symptoms on Dec. 10, 2019. And we can estimate that at that point in time, there were only about 10 people infected with the virus in the world and probably fewer than 70.

So if the pandemic didn’t start at the market, one of the first five or 10 people infected in the world was at the market. And how do you explain that?

You have to remember: Wuhan is a city of 11 million people. And the Huanan market is only 1 of 4 places in Wuhan that sold live animals susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, such as raccoon dogs.

It’s highly unlikely that the first COVID-19 outbreak would occur at the market if there weren’t a source of the virus there

Step back and think, “Where is the first cluster of a new respiratory infection going to appear in this city?” It could appear at a market. But it could also appear at a school, a university or a meatpacking plant.
Lab leak theory of pandemic resurfaces but evidence points to animal spillover : Goats and Soda : NPR

[03Cobra (Vance)]

@T_aquaticus

If half of the first cases were lab personnel then everyone would consider this slam dunk evidence for a lab leak.

And half of the first cases may have been lab personnel, but the CCP is keeping those data secret.
They aren’t cooperating at all. Can you guess why?

@T_aquaticus

Why not somewhere else besides the market, in a city with 11 million people?

Have you traveled enough to see these markets? I have. I was in Southeast Asia in January and toured many of these markets. They are packed tight with people in less than sanitary conditions.
The market is the logical place for the disease to spread after a lab leak.

@T_aquaticus

It’s highly unlikely that the first COVID-19 outbreak would occur at the market if there weren’t a source of the virus there

Yes, someone who came in contact with an infected lab employee would be a fine candidate as the source in the market.

[03Cobra (Vance)]

A market in an Asian communist country that I visited in January.

[T_aquaticus]

@03Cobra

And half of the first cases may have been lab personnel, but the CCP is keeping those data secret.

Conspiracy theories are not substitutes for evidence.

@03Cobra

Have you traveled enough to see these markets? I have. I was in Southeast Asia in January and toured many of these markets. They are packed tight with people in less than sanitary conditions.
The market is the logical place for the disease to spread after a lab leak.

There are many such places in Wuhan.

@03Cobra

Yes, someone who came in contact with an infected lab employee would be a fine candidate as the source in the market.

You can lead a horse to water . . .