by russell
our friends the tardigrades are in the news again.
the little water bears have survived extreme heat and cold (-328 F to 304 F), extended periods (years) with no water or food, extreme pressure (6x the water pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench), radiation at levels 1,000x a lethal dose for humans, and direct exposure to the vacuum of outer space.
they are tough little buggers.
an Israeli spacecraft loaded up with some hibernating tardigrades recently crashed into the moon. oopsie!! scientists wondered if they little critters might still be alive. would they survive the crash?
so they froze some, loaded them into bullets, and shot them into sand targets. the bullets traveled about 2,000 mph, pressure at impact was 1.14 gigapascals, which apparently is like having 40,000 people stand on you at the same time.
this was not your average game of johnny-on-a-pony.
sadly, our little friends did not make it. "They just mush," Traspas told Science magazine. I, for one, cannot hold this against them, there's only so much you can expect from tiny proto-arthropods.
open thread to discuss microbiota, strangely violent children's games, surprising feats of resilience, or the usual.
Your tax dollars at work.
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Under the supervision of Constable Alan Rosenat the Harris County Constable’s Office, Precinct One, young female deputies were handpicked for “undercover operations” under the guise of legitimate police work were molested and traumatized by their intoxicated male commanding officers for their own sexual gratification. What began as an idea for “bachelor party” prostitution stings soon grew into a booze-fueled playground for sexual exploitation in which young, untrained deputies were subject to disgusting abuse. Both Constable Rosen and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office have known about this abuse for months, but they refused to take any action and rebuffed anyone who complained. Constable Alan Rosen attended at least one of these ‘parties’ personally. Three of the young deputies spoke up about their abuse to their supervisors at the Constable’s Office, including Constable Rosen’s chief of staff, but they were ridiculed by their commanders, retaliated against by their abusers, and quietly reassigned to less prestigious duties.”
Liz Gomez, et al. v Harris County, Texas, et al.
Your tax dollars at work.
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Under the supervision of Constable Alan Rosenat the Harris County Constable’s Office, Precinct One, young female deputies were handpicked for “undercover operations” under the guise of legitimate police work were molested and traumatized by their intoxicated male commanding officers for their own sexual gratification. What began as an idea for “bachelor party” prostitution stings soon grew into a booze-fueled playground for sexual exploitation in which young, untrained deputies were subject to disgusting abuse. Both Constable Rosen and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office have known about this abuse for months, but they refused to take any action and rebuffed anyone who complained. Constable Alan Rosen attended at least one of these ‘parties’ personally. Three of the young deputies spoke up about their abuse to their supervisors at the Constable’s Office, including Constable Rosen’s chief of staff, but they were ridiculed by their commanders, retaliated against by their abusers, and quietly reassigned to less prestigious duties.”
Liz Gomez, et al. v Harris County, Texas, et al.
Your tax dollars at work.
Odd, I didn’t get the impression that the female deputies were getting paid for their “service” here. Which doesn’t make the abuse any less bad, but….
Your tax dollars at work.
Odd, I didn’t get the impression that the female deputies were getting paid for their “service” here. Which doesn’t make the abuse any less bad, but….
an Israeli spacecraft loaded up with some hibernating tardigrades recently crashed into the moon. oopsie!! scientists wondered if they little critters might still be alive. would they survive the crash?
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors. Be a great verification test for our procedures for looking for evidence of life on other worlds, too.
an Israeli spacecraft loaded up with some hibernating tardigrades recently crashed into the moon. oopsie!! scientists wondered if they little critters might still be alive. would they survive the crash?
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors. Be a great verification test for our procedures for looking for evidence of life on other worlds, too.
sounds like Harris County needs a new constable.
we got one like that here in Boston, too. although he’s probably on his way out, and quite likely to jail.
damned tax dollars!! if it weren’t for them, we’d all be angels.
sounds like Harris County needs a new constable.
we got one like that here in Boston, too. although he’s probably on his way out, and quite likely to jail.
damned tax dollars!! if it weren’t for them, we’d all be angels.
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors.
I will admit that the idea of a moon overrun by bands of free-roaming tardigrades is strangely appealing.
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors.
I will admit that the idea of a moon overrun by bands of free-roaming tardigrades is strangely appealing.
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors.
as a first test, take some to IIS, put them in a cup, open the door and let them sit on the front porch for a couple of days.
I’d really like to see someone send a craft to the moon to check for actual survivors.
as a first test, take some to IIS, put them in a cup, open the door and let them sit on the front porch for a couple of days.
ISS would work too. they’d probably crash IIS.
ISS would work too. they’d probably crash IIS.
Odd, I didn’t get the impression that the female deputies were getting paid for their “service” here.
But they were using federal funds for human trafficking stings turned sex parties.
Odd, I didn’t get the impression that the female deputies were getting paid for their “service” here.
But they were using federal funds for human trafficking stings turned sex parties.
they were using federal funds for human trafficking stings turned sex parties.
I suppose it says something that my instant reaction (without even checking) was: Well, it was the Trump administration, so what else would you expect?
they were using federal funds for human trafficking stings turned sex parties.
I suppose it says something that my instant reaction (without even checking) was: Well, it was the Trump administration, so what else would you expect?
From my point of view, even if the sting operations were completely above board, they are still an egregious misuse of tax money.
From my point of view, even if the sting operations were completely above board, they are still an egregious misuse of tax money.
Liz Gomez, et al. v Harris County, Texas, et al.
Interesting. This is in Houston, for those of you who aren’t current on TX geography. The lead plaintiff lawyer is a good friend and former law partner of mine. His son, Cordt, is his law partner. I refer cases to both them regularly. They both know their way around the block. This will be interesting. It is not Jamie Lee Jones redux, I am confident of that.
Liz Gomez, et al. v Harris County, Texas, et al.
Interesting. This is in Houston, for those of you who aren’t current on TX geography. The lead plaintiff lawyer is a good friend and former law partner of mine. His son, Cordt, is his law partner. I refer cases to both them regularly. They both know their way around the block. This will be interesting. It is not Jamie Lee Jones redux, I am confident of that.
This will be interesting. It is not Jamie Lee Jones redux, I am confident of that.
Hoping you mean Jamie Leigh Jones and her case against KBR/Haliburton, McKinney. If so, I hope your confidence is justified (given your knowledge of the plaintiff lawyers, my hopes are high).
This will be interesting. It is not Jamie Lee Jones redux, I am confident of that.
Hoping you mean Jamie Leigh Jones and her case against KBR/Haliburton, McKinney. If so, I hope your confidence is justified (given your knowledge of the plaintiff lawyers, my hopes are high).
Not sure why these two are what came to mind.
Bertrand Russell
(Same goes for you, tardigrade!)
SNL, featuring Will Ferrell and Jeff Goldblum
Not sure why these two are what came to mind.
Bertrand Russell
(Same goes for you, tardigrade!)
SNL, featuring Will Ferrell and Jeff Goldblum
Okay, so which UC campus has a tardigrade as a mascot? Because they’re all *required* to have some variety of “bear” as a mascot, right?
Which are the “drop bears” also, too?
Okay, so which UC campus has a tardigrade as a mascot? Because they’re all *required* to have some variety of “bear” as a mascot, right?
Which are the “drop bears” also, too?
Because they’re all *required* to have some variety of “bear” as a mascot, right?”
Actually, no. For example, the UC Santa Cruz mascot is . . . wait for it . . . the Banana Slug. (My recollection is that the UCSC students were making a statement about how seriously they took the whole mascot thing.)
Because they’re all *required* to have some variety of “bear” as a mascot, right?”
Actually, no. For example, the UC Santa Cruz mascot is . . . wait for it . . . the Banana Slug. (My recollection is that the UCSC students were making a statement about how seriously they took the whole mascot thing.)
Another limit reached.
Asahi daily, an official Tokyo Olympics partner, calls for cancellation of Games
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=309418
Another limit reached.
Asahi daily, an official Tokyo Olympics partner, calls for cancellation of Games
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=309418
You have to wonder what the folks in Japan, both government officials and the members of the Olympic Committee, are thinking. Are the benefits of hosting the Olympics really so enormous as to warrant going forward? Or is it entirely about the egos of those involved?
Of course, the International Olympic Committee ought to have cancelled, on its own authority, long since.
You have to wonder what the folks in Japan, both government officials and the members of the Olympic Committee, are thinking. Are the benefits of hosting the Olympics really so enormous as to warrant going forward? Or is it entirely about the egos of those involved?
Of course, the International Olympic Committee ought to have cancelled, on its own authority, long since.
Stanford republicans, Peter Thiel, Tom Cotton and the bullshit hypocrisy of their cancel culture snowflaking:
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/25/journalist_emily_wilder_ap_firing
Stanford republicans, Peter Thiel, Tom Cotton and the bullshit hypocrisy of their cancel culture snowflaking:
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/5/25/journalist_emily_wilder_ap_firing
@ wj:
UC Irvine’s mascot is not really much of a bear either. An anteater, in fact. Back in the days when this was new, it was reported that their war cry was ZOT! ZOT! (From the comic strip BC which was actually funny in those long-gone days)
@ wj:
UC Irvine’s mascot is not really much of a bear either. An anteater, in fact. Back in the days when this was new, it was reported that their war cry was ZOT! ZOT! (From the comic strip BC which was actually funny in those long-gone days)
anteaters are also known as “ant bears”, IIRC.
Yeah, banana slugs. Isn’t that just an “unofficial” mascot, though? I applaud the mockery of the “mascot must be a bear” standard, but think it’s better (like UCI) when there is some non-ursus-related program activity that still has “bear” in it.
If there was a UC campus that was primarily an engineering school, they should have “ball bearings” as their mascot. Works for *-ball games!
anteaters are also known as “ant bears”, IIRC.
Yeah, banana slugs. Isn’t that just an “unofficial” mascot, though? I applaud the mockery of the “mascot must be a bear” standard, but think it’s better (like UCI) when there is some non-ursus-related program activity that still has “bear” in it.
If there was a UC campus that was primarily an engineering school, they should have “ball bearings” as their mascot. Works for *-ball games!
You have to wonder what the folks in Japan, both government officials and the members of the Olympic Committee, are thinking. Are the benefits of hosting the Olympics really so enormous as to warrant going forward? Or is it entirely about the egos of those involved?
I don’t have any ‘inside’ information, but some observations. Because the IOC basically holds all the cards, there is little that Japan can do
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57097853
Now, Japan could have pressured the IOC by pointing out how serious the situation was, but that would undercut their claims that everything was under control, even though (imo) they just got lucky, cultural quirks helped slow the spread without the kind of top down dictated measures that other East Asian countries did (this is exacerbated by the fact that Japan is much more willing to imitate the West/the US than to look to Asia, thanks for nothing Yukichi Fukuzawa!)
A lot of people here have seized on a recent poll that said that 80% of the Japanese public was either for cancelling or postponing the games. This is a bit misleading, because it gives the appearance of a binary choice, but actually, the postpone option was a way of splitting the difference, so it’s not really clear what public opinion actually is. And regardless what it is, the Japanese public is remarkably gormless when it comes to holding the government to account for, well, anything. But it does seem like a reckoning is coming, the party in power (the LDP) has essentially held power since 1955, except for a brief interregnum in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_System
However, I don’t think anyone has ever lost money betting that the Japanese public will fail to make any kind of protest, and I’m afraid I don’t see the odds are good of it happening, even for this mess of an Olympic Games.
You have to wonder what the folks in Japan, both government officials and the members of the Olympic Committee, are thinking. Are the benefits of hosting the Olympics really so enormous as to warrant going forward? Or is it entirely about the egos of those involved?
I don’t have any ‘inside’ information, but some observations. Because the IOC basically holds all the cards, there is little that Japan can do
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57097853
Now, Japan could have pressured the IOC by pointing out how serious the situation was, but that would undercut their claims that everything was under control, even though (imo) they just got lucky, cultural quirks helped slow the spread without the kind of top down dictated measures that other East Asian countries did (this is exacerbated by the fact that Japan is much more willing to imitate the West/the US than to look to Asia, thanks for nothing Yukichi Fukuzawa!)
A lot of people here have seized on a recent poll that said that 80% of the Japanese public was either for cancelling or postponing the games. This is a bit misleading, because it gives the appearance of a binary choice, but actually, the postpone option was a way of splitting the difference, so it’s not really clear what public opinion actually is. And regardless what it is, the Japanese public is remarkably gormless when it comes to holding the government to account for, well, anything. But it does seem like a reckoning is coming, the party in power (the LDP) has essentially held power since 1955, except for a brief interregnum in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_System
However, I don’t think anyone has ever lost money betting that the Japanese public will fail to make any kind of protest, and I’m afraid I don’t see the odds are good of it happening, even for this mess of an Olympic Games.
Yeah, banana slugs. Isn’t that just an “unofficial” mascot, though?
From the UC Santa Cruz website (https://www.ucsc.edu/about/mascot.html ) regarding Sammy the Slug:
“In June 2011, Sammy celebrated 25 years as the official mascot of UC Santa Cruz.”
Don’t get much more official than that.
Yeah, banana slugs. Isn’t that just an “unofficial” mascot, though?
From the UC Santa Cruz website (https://www.ucsc.edu/about/mascot.html ) regarding Sammy the Slug:
“In June 2011, Sammy celebrated 25 years as the official mascot of UC Santa Cruz.”
Don’t get much more official than that.
And isn’t it amazing the obscure bits of knowledge we get into here?
And isn’t it amazing the obscure bits of knowledge we get into here?
Meanwhile, at UCI…
Zot! Zot! Zot! \m/
Meanwhile, at UCI…
Zot! Zot! Zot! \m/
Apropos of nothing; and everything: https://xkcd.com/2468/
Apropos of nothing; and everything: https://xkcd.com/2468/
UCB and UCLA have bears, but it’s not just banana slug and anteater; UCSD has the “Triton” which is not at all bear-natured, and it looks like UC Davis has a horse?
(Triton athlete 1991-94, back when it was Division 3)
UCB and UCLA have bears, but it’s not just banana slug and anteater; UCSD has the “Triton” which is not at all bear-natured, and it looks like UC Davis has a horse?
(Triton athlete 1991-94, back when it was Division 3)
It’s time once again for…The Return of the Repressed. Boston Review article by David Theo Goldberg about the right wing attacks on Critical Race Theory (which seems, in this post-Gorge Floyd era, to have replaced Cultural Marxism as the official leftist specter haunting America).
http://bostonreview.net/race-politics/david-theo-goldberg-war-critical-race-theory
Worth a quick read both for its quick history of Critical Race Theory (and Critical Race Studies), and to see the shade he throws towards Robin DiAngelo.
It’s time once again for…The Return of the Repressed. Boston Review article by David Theo Goldberg about the right wing attacks on Critical Race Theory (which seems, in this post-Gorge Floyd era, to have replaced Cultural Marxism as the official leftist specter haunting America).
http://bostonreview.net/race-politics/david-theo-goldberg-war-critical-race-theory
Worth a quick read both for its quick history of Critical Race Theory (and Critical Race Studies), and to see the shade he throws towards Robin DiAngelo.
From the article nous links: Kendi’s popularizing of some work on race shares little with DiAngelo’s reductive account of what she calls “white fragility.”
Snarky of me, but I’m glad to see I’m not the only person on earth who doesn’t care much for DiAngelo.
From the article nous links: Kendi’s popularizing of some work on race shares little with DiAngelo’s reductive account of what she calls “white fragility.”
Snarky of me, but I’m glad to see I’m not the only person on earth who doesn’t care much for DiAngelo.
It’s probably just me, but whenever I see “critical race theory”, I think it needs some phase diagrams.
Then maybe some path integrals also, too.
It’s probably just me, but whenever I see “critical race theory”, I think it needs some phase diagrams.
Then maybe some path integrals also, too.
It’s probably just me, but whenever I see “critical race theory”, I think it needs some phase diagrams…. Then maybe some path integrals also, too.
I admit, my immediate response is to try to wedge such sentences into something pertaining to race conditions in real-time software. How did English end up with “race” meaning both (a) skin coloration or (b) a competition about which of two entities will complete a task first?
BLM gives me a similar problem. I worked too many years for a western state legislature, where BLM have been the bad guys for most of the last 75 years.
It’s probably just me, but whenever I see “critical race theory”, I think it needs some phase diagrams…. Then maybe some path integrals also, too.
I admit, my immediate response is to try to wedge such sentences into something pertaining to race conditions in real-time software. How did English end up with “race” meaning both (a) skin coloration or (b) a competition about which of two entities will complete a task first?
BLM gives me a similar problem. I worked too many years for a western state legislature, where BLM have been the bad guys for most of the last 75 years.
Acronyms have this ability to slip by faculties of critical thinking. Tons of jokes about military acronyms but the reliance on them is to create a group think.
My own field, EFL, loves acronyms, in part because it doesn’t feel it is science-y enough.
Acronyms have this ability to slip by faculties of critical thinking. Tons of jokes about military acronyms but the reliance on them is to create a group think.
My own field, EFL, loves acronyms, in part because it doesn’t feel it is science-y enough.
“Who has more TLAs, IBM or DOD?”
TLA = Three Letter Acronym
“Who has more TLAs, IBM or DOD?”
TLA = Three Letter Acronym
My own field, EFL, loves acronyms, in part because it doesn’t feel it is science-y enough.
I was originally a mathematician, and acronyms are relatively rare. Some of that is the tendency to say, “G is an Abelian group” and then assume that everyone reading will remember what G is three pages later, and all the properties that go with that.
My own field, EFL, loves acronyms, in part because it doesn’t feel it is science-y enough.
I was originally a mathematician, and acronyms are relatively rare. Some of that is the tendency to say, “G is an Abelian group” and then assume that everyone reading will remember what G is three pages later, and all the properties that go with that.
Capacity constraints are forcing my field to move towards TLA/Es.
TLA/E = Three Letter Acronym / Extended, i.e. a 4 letter acronym.
Capacity constraints are forcing my field to move towards TLA/Es.
TLA/E = Three Letter Acronym / Extended, i.e. a 4 letter acronym.
Nobody can beat Congress.
“With the passage of the REINS Act earlier today, the House of Representatives got to talk about a piece of legislation that is referred to by a dumb acronym. Congress loves this. Here are the 240 times it has created such bills this year alone.”
All the Silly Legislative Acronyms Congress Came Up with This Year: August 2, 2013
“Ten of the worst (or possibly greatest) congressional backronyms—intentional acronyms created by attention-seeking lawmakers, or more likely, their poor staffers:”
10 of the Worst Congressional Acronyms Ever: August 25, 2014
“WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced the Accountability and Congressional Responsibility On Naming Your Motions (ACRONYM) Act — legislation that would prohibit the addition of words to the title of a bill just to create an acronym.”
Congressman Introduces ACRONYM Act To Clean Up Bill Names: Apr 01, 2015
“On Friday, in the grand tradition of politicians seeking to capitalize on a cultural moment, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced a bill aimed at reducing the number of “trophy killings” of African wildlife. This, of course, was in response to last week’s news that a Minnesota dentist had killed a lion in Zimbabwe after it was lured out of its habitat — the killing that launched a million think pieces.
Menendez cobbled together an apt acronym for his measure. The bill is titled, “Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large Animal Trophies Act.” Or, the CECIL Act.
Get it? Of course, you get it. (Oh, you actually don’t? It was the name of the lion. And welcome back to Earth.)
…
Update: The office of Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) points out that we missed one of his bills: The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act, or KOCH Act.
We regret the omission, because it was good, and award it a Top 25 ranking after the fact.”
364 bills that have been introduced in Congress, ranked by acronym quality: August 3, 2015
Congressional acronym abuse, 1973-2013: An overly in-depth analysis of congressional acronym usage in bill names.
Nobody can beat Congress.
“With the passage of the REINS Act earlier today, the House of Representatives got to talk about a piece of legislation that is referred to by a dumb acronym. Congress loves this. Here are the 240 times it has created such bills this year alone.”
All the Silly Legislative Acronyms Congress Came Up with This Year: August 2, 2013
“Ten of the worst (or possibly greatest) congressional backronyms—intentional acronyms created by attention-seeking lawmakers, or more likely, their poor staffers:”
10 of the Worst Congressional Acronyms Ever: August 25, 2014
“WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced the Accountability and Congressional Responsibility On Naming Your Motions (ACRONYM) Act — legislation that would prohibit the addition of words to the title of a bill just to create an acronym.”
Congressman Introduces ACRONYM Act To Clean Up Bill Names: Apr 01, 2015
“On Friday, in the grand tradition of politicians seeking to capitalize on a cultural moment, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced a bill aimed at reducing the number of “trophy killings” of African wildlife. This, of course, was in response to last week’s news that a Minnesota dentist had killed a lion in Zimbabwe after it was lured out of its habitat — the killing that launched a million think pieces.
Menendez cobbled together an apt acronym for his measure. The bill is titled, “Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large Animal Trophies Act.” Or, the CECIL Act.
Get it? Of course, you get it. (Oh, you actually don’t? It was the name of the lion. And welcome back to Earth.)
…
Update: The office of Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) points out that we missed one of his bills: The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act, or KOCH Act.
We regret the omission, because it was good, and award it a Top 25 ranking after the fact.”
364 bills that have been introduced in Congress, ranked by acronym quality: August 3, 2015
Congressional acronym abuse, 1973-2013: An overly in-depth analysis of congressional acronym usage in bill names.
If the worst thing about the Congress was stupid/vapid acronyms in naming bills, the nation would be in far better shape than it actually is.
If the worst thing about the Congress was stupid/vapid acronyms in naming bills, the nation would be in far better shape than it actually is.
Capacity constraints are forcing my field to move towards TLA/Es.
Many years ago I remember reading a humorous piece about a hypothetical acronym gap between the US and the Soviet Union. The argument went that having a Cyrillic alphabet of 33 letters for Russian, the bad guys had many more possibilities for three-letter acronyms.
Capacity constraints are forcing my field to move towards TLA/Es.
Many years ago I remember reading a humorous piece about a hypothetical acronym gap between the US and the Soviet Union. The argument went that having a Cyrillic alphabet of 33 letters for Russian, the bad guys had many more possibilities for three-letter acronyms.
Michael Cain: If (as I remember it) you were the person who recommended the Alex Verus books to me, I just wanted to say thanks, I am three in and finding them rather enjoyable.
Michael Cain: If (as I remember it) you were the person who recommended the Alex Verus books to me, I just wanted to say thanks, I am three in and finding them rather enjoyable.
Good link, nous. I wonder if reading that piece would have any effect on the outlook of someone like our friend McKinney.
Good link, nous. I wonder if reading that piece would have any effect on the outlook of someone like our friend McKinney.
Open thread, so… It looks like hometown fans of the Denver Nuggets will be unable to legally view on TV two of the Nuggets’ first five playoff games this year, because a couple of billionaires are in a pissing contest over amounts of money that don’t matter to either of them. This was the second regular season that Denver viewers have not had local channel coverage of the team. This year has been particularly frustrating as Nikola Jokic has had a dominating season that will almost certainly get him the MVP award.
In the seemingly-forever “the rules get called differently in the playoffs” NBA saga, the league office conceded that there were between four and eight fouls on the Joker that should have been called but weren’t in the first game. Rumors are that the NBA league office has communicated with the officiating crews that Jokic should be treated like other superstars in the playoffs, ie, defenders don’t get to touch him when he’s got the ball, and barely touch him when he doesn’t.
Open thread, so… It looks like hometown fans of the Denver Nuggets will be unable to legally view on TV two of the Nuggets’ first five playoff games this year, because a couple of billionaires are in a pissing contest over amounts of money that don’t matter to either of them. This was the second regular season that Denver viewers have not had local channel coverage of the team. This year has been particularly frustrating as Nikola Jokic has had a dominating season that will almost certainly get him the MVP award.
In the seemingly-forever “the rules get called differently in the playoffs” NBA saga, the league office conceded that there were between four and eight fouls on the Joker that should have been called but weren’t in the first game. Rumors are that the NBA league office has communicated with the officiating crews that Jokic should be treated like other superstars in the playoffs, ie, defenders don’t get to touch him when he’s got the ball, and barely touch him when he doesn’t.
Michael, didn’t realize you were a basketball fan. That disjunction between the playoffs and the regular season, I’d say is because of the structure of having essentially two seasons, because the regular season eliminates so few teams and you have so much more viewership focussed on the playoffs. Not sure if it is inevitable, but it feels like the structure affects that. You contrast that with baseball in the good old days with no notion of wild cards. This isn’t to say that sports should be like one or the other, just that they get affected by a lot of things off the ball.
If you didn’t see this, this Campos post at LGM also has some food for thought on basketball and systems
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/05/three-point-shooting-in-the-nba-and-the-meritocracy
Michael, didn’t realize you were a basketball fan. That disjunction between the playoffs and the regular season, I’d say is because of the structure of having essentially two seasons, because the regular season eliminates so few teams and you have so much more viewership focussed on the playoffs. Not sure if it is inevitable, but it feels like the structure affects that. You contrast that with baseball in the good old days with no notion of wild cards. This isn’t to say that sports should be like one or the other, just that they get affected by a lot of things off the ball.
If you didn’t see this, this Campos post at LGM also has some food for thought on basketball and systems
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/05/three-point-shooting-in-the-nba-and-the-meritocracy
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tom-cotton-once-again-makes-media-look-foolish/ar-AAKx0Jy
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tom-cotton-once-again-makes-media-look-foolish/ar-AAKx0Jy
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco
Choi’s piece is one of those things that happens on the internet when the story is totally accurate but also doing a lot of sensationalization for clicks. What Cotton said at the hearing is that the Chinese government’s official story about the seafood market was wrong, which was something that was at the time also being floated in Vox and The New York Times and Science and the Lancet. Where Cotton differed from the consensus is that he attributed this to malice, which is not what the scientific articles said (but also isn’t a scientific question) and was not the NYT’s preferred interpretation of events.
But that was the actual parameter of the debate; Fisher thought this illustrated a point about the abstract functioning of systems while Cotton thought it illustrated a point about the malign intent of a foreign adversary. Belluz, a science journalist rather than a foreign policy writer, entertained both interpretations as consistent with the facts. And it seemed like a fairly classic foreign policy sort of argument. Throughout history, hawks see malice and threat behind everything that happens, while more dovish people tend to see misunderstanding and confusion. You can imagine the Tom Cotton of 1914 talking somewhere in Vienna about the Serbian government’s obvious complicity in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand while the Max Fisher of the time says the difficulty controlling the Black Hand and its operations reveals the fundamental weakness of the Serbian state.
This is why I ask folks here to post where they find stuff. I realize the sensationalistic tendencies of stuff on the web are not going to be swayed by this tiny corner of the internet, but it would be nice to have a bit of a quiet space to talk these things out a bit.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco
Choi’s piece is one of those things that happens on the internet when the story is totally accurate but also doing a lot of sensationalization for clicks. What Cotton said at the hearing is that the Chinese government’s official story about the seafood market was wrong, which was something that was at the time also being floated in Vox and The New York Times and Science and the Lancet. Where Cotton differed from the consensus is that he attributed this to malice, which is not what the scientific articles said (but also isn’t a scientific question) and was not the NYT’s preferred interpretation of events.
But that was the actual parameter of the debate; Fisher thought this illustrated a point about the abstract functioning of systems while Cotton thought it illustrated a point about the malign intent of a foreign adversary. Belluz, a science journalist rather than a foreign policy writer, entertained both interpretations as consistent with the facts. And it seemed like a fairly classic foreign policy sort of argument. Throughout history, hawks see malice and threat behind everything that happens, while more dovish people tend to see misunderstanding and confusion. You can imagine the Tom Cotton of 1914 talking somewhere in Vienna about the Serbian government’s obvious complicity in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand while the Max Fisher of the time says the difficulty controlling the Black Hand and its operations reveals the fundamental weakness of the Serbian state.
This is why I ask folks here to post where they find stuff. I realize the sensationalistic tendencies of stuff on the web are not going to be swayed by this tiny corner of the internet, but it would be nice to have a bit of a quiet space to talk these things out a bit.
I’m not sure that’s the quote I would take from it, but a very good link lj. I suspect the “telephone” aspect of Twitter is a fairly common occurrence, plus the discussion toward the end on how little value there is in defending a minority position on Twitter and the negative effects of that was really interesting.
I’m not sure that’s the quote I would take from it, but a very good link lj. I suspect the “telephone” aspect of Twitter is a fairly common occurrence, plus the discussion toward the end on how little value there is in defending a minority position on Twitter and the negative effects of that was really interesting.
Thanks Marty, is was tough to choose one quote, I thought the piece was one of those ‘read the whole things’.
I don’t know precisely what Cotton has said, but if one wants to laud Cotton for his prescience, one also has to note how obsequious he was to Trump in regards to the travel ban and failing to criticize him in relation to what he was arguing (as the article cites, Trump expressed his confidence in China, even after he kneecapped US participation in WHO
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-trump-who-idUSKBN2352YJ ), but I pull this up here not to score points, just to say that there is a lot in the article to consider. Very few people come out looking too good.
Thanks Marty, is was tough to choose one quote, I thought the piece was one of those ‘read the whole things’.
I don’t know precisely what Cotton has said, but if one wants to laud Cotton for his prescience, one also has to note how obsequious he was to Trump in regards to the travel ban and failing to criticize him in relation to what he was arguing (as the article cites, Trump expressed his confidence in China, even after he kneecapped US participation in WHO
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-trump-who-idUSKBN2352YJ ), but I pull this up here not to score points, just to say that there is a lot in the article to consider. Very few people come out looking too good.
The media needs to up their game in who they pick to make them look foolish…
The media needs to up their game in who they pick to make them look foolish…
From The Hill article on Tom Cotton’s prescience:
Prophetic Tom Cotton voted against a congressional inquiry into the Jan 6 riot.
Does anyone here think Cotton’s advocacy of the Wuhan Lab claims is motivated by a simple desire to discover the truth?
From The Hill article on Tom Cotton’s prescience:
Prophetic Tom Cotton voted against a congressional inquiry into the Jan 6 riot.
Does anyone here think Cotton’s advocacy of the Wuhan Lab claims is motivated by a simple desire to discover the truth?
So, my point wasn’t about Tom Cotton. My point was that media, mainstream and otherwise, has decided that pretty much any minority view can be tagged “debunked” and ridiculed.
It is a real risk that these “debunked” notions that turn out to be not so debunked only allow the crazies to say I told you so.
There are lots of things that have been debunked but getting people to bite it just gets harder.
My least favorite phrase over the last year has been “claimed, without evidence” which in most political contexts goes without saying. And in other contexts is more the norm than the exception. It was just lazy journalism meant to dismiss the claim, also without evidence.
So, my point wasn’t about Tom Cotton. My point was that media, mainstream and otherwise, has decided that pretty much any minority view can be tagged “debunked” and ridiculed.
It is a real risk that these “debunked” notions that turn out to be not so debunked only allow the crazies to say I told you so.
There are lots of things that have been debunked but getting people to bite it just gets harder.
My least favorite phrase over the last year has been “claimed, without evidence” which in most political contexts goes without saying. And in other contexts is more the norm than the exception. It was just lazy journalism meant to dismiss the claim, also without evidence.
Open thread, so: Janie, I know you are interested in most things GBS, so I thought you might want to look at this if you haven’t already seen it.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/29/his-fair-lady-how-george-bernard-shaws-wife-played-a-vital-role-in-his-masterworks
Open thread, so: Janie, I know you are interested in most things GBS, so I thought you might want to look at this if you haven’t already seen it.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/may/29/his-fair-lady-how-george-bernard-shaws-wife-played-a-vital-role-in-his-masterworks
My point was that media, mainstream and otherwise, has decided that pretty much any minority view can be tagged “debunked” and ridiculed.
“Media” does not speak with one voice. Express any view whatsoever, and somebody somewhere will tag it “debunked” and will ridicule it.
And FWIW a headline stating “Tom Cotton makes the media seem foolish” seems like a pretty good example of a point of view being “debunked and ridiculed”.
Everyone should take public statements, by anyone about anything, with a grain of salt. Everyone should consider who is speaking, and what the interests of the speaker are relative to the topic under consideration. Everyone should also consider the qualifications of whoever is speaking to hold and render an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Regarding the whole Wuhan Lab thing, I have no idea what the actual source of the virus is, nor do I have the technical chops to know which of the various theories are more likely to be true. Nor does it seem particularly relevant to me in any practical way whether it came from a bat or a pangolin or if it escaped from a lab. It is, perhaps, alarming that states might sponsor labs whose purpose is designing tools of mass murder, but it’s surely not news.
What is obvious to me is that people want to use the various theories about where it came from to score points over other people who they consider to be their opponents, and who they consider to be their opponents for reasons completely unrelated to the epidemiological sources of COVID.
So I tune it out. There is no particular need for me to even have an opinion about it, I don’t have the skill set to have an informed opinion about it, so I don’t have an opinion about it.
Saves me a lot of time.
Maybe it came from a lab, maybe it didn’t. In either case, Cotton is not a virologist so he’s just parroting sh*t he heard somewhere for purposes that have nothing to do with dealing with the virus. Maybe he’s a prophet without honor in his own country, or maybe he’s just another blind squirrel who found a nut. Or maybe he’s just another full of sh*t politician looking for a way to wind people up. And The Hill touting him as a prescient genius is just another example of the thing you seem to find objectionable.
And sometimes the “crazies” are just f***ing crazy. Nothing you or I are gonna do to change that, so I don’t waste my time worrying about what they are going to think or do.
FWIW, there actually are reliable, responsible sources of information. Reuters is pretty good, Christian Science Monitor. The AP is not bad. Folks who listen to partisan voices generally do so because they say what those folks want to hear. It’s a business model.
Crazies are gonna be crazy. I mostly just try to avoid them.
My point was that media, mainstream and otherwise, has decided that pretty much any minority view can be tagged “debunked” and ridiculed.
“Media” does not speak with one voice. Express any view whatsoever, and somebody somewhere will tag it “debunked” and will ridicule it.
And FWIW a headline stating “Tom Cotton makes the media seem foolish” seems like a pretty good example of a point of view being “debunked and ridiculed”.
Everyone should take public statements, by anyone about anything, with a grain of salt. Everyone should consider who is speaking, and what the interests of the speaker are relative to the topic under consideration. Everyone should also consider the qualifications of whoever is speaking to hold and render an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Regarding the whole Wuhan Lab thing, I have no idea what the actual source of the virus is, nor do I have the technical chops to know which of the various theories are more likely to be true. Nor does it seem particularly relevant to me in any practical way whether it came from a bat or a pangolin or if it escaped from a lab. It is, perhaps, alarming that states might sponsor labs whose purpose is designing tools of mass murder, but it’s surely not news.
What is obvious to me is that people want to use the various theories about where it came from to score points over other people who they consider to be their opponents, and who they consider to be their opponents for reasons completely unrelated to the epidemiological sources of COVID.
So I tune it out. There is no particular need for me to even have an opinion about it, I don’t have the skill set to have an informed opinion about it, so I don’t have an opinion about it.
Saves me a lot of time.
Maybe it came from a lab, maybe it didn’t. In either case, Cotton is not a virologist so he’s just parroting sh*t he heard somewhere for purposes that have nothing to do with dealing with the virus. Maybe he’s a prophet without honor in his own country, or maybe he’s just another blind squirrel who found a nut. Or maybe he’s just another full of sh*t politician looking for a way to wind people up. And The Hill touting him as a prescient genius is just another example of the thing you seem to find objectionable.
And sometimes the “crazies” are just f***ing crazy. Nothing you or I are gonna do to change that, so I don’t waste my time worrying about what they are going to think or do.
FWIW, there actually are reliable, responsible sources of information. Reuters is pretty good, Christian Science Monitor. The AP is not bad. Folks who listen to partisan voices generally do so because they say what those folks want to hear. It’s a business model.
Crazies are gonna be crazy. I mostly just try to avoid them.
Sometimes people do claim things with evidence, though the evidence may fall short of proving the claim. Just making sh*t up, even if the sh*t is possible, has been too common at the highest levels of government for several years now. The standards for making public claims from positions of authority are at or near a local minimum.
It’s possible to simply make no claim one way or the other if there’s no particular reason to think a specific possibility is particularly likely. You don’t even have to make suggestive speculations of the form “maybe this happened; I don’t know, but some people think so.”
It’s possible to be careful about what you say publicly from a position of trust and power. It’s also possible to say whatever you think is in your narrow political interests without regard to any sort of factual basis. They are not the same and shouldn’t be treated the same.
Sometimes people do claim things with evidence, though the evidence may fall short of proving the claim. Just making sh*t up, even if the sh*t is possible, has been too common at the highest levels of government for several years now. The standards for making public claims from positions of authority are at or near a local minimum.
It’s possible to simply make no claim one way or the other if there’s no particular reason to think a specific possibility is particularly likely. You don’t even have to make suggestive speculations of the form “maybe this happened; I don’t know, but some people think so.”
It’s possible to be careful about what you say publicly from a position of trust and power. It’s also possible to say whatever you think is in your narrow political interests without regard to any sort of factual basis. They are not the same and shouldn’t be treated the same.
All of that is true, hsh. None of it changes the media shortcomings.
All of that is true, hsh. None of it changes the media shortcomings.
The current media business model seems to be that it’s better to be first than to be right.
The current media business model seems to be that it’s better to be first than to be right.
The media tells us that the 2020 election was a fraud, and that Donald Trump is really the POTUS.
The media tells us that D’s operate a global child prostitution ring out of a pizzeria.
There is no “media” that speaks with one voice. About anything.
How are “the media’s” shortcomings different from any other institutions?
The media tells us that the 2020 election was a fraud, and that Donald Trump is really the POTUS.
The media tells us that D’s operate a global child prostitution ring out of a pizzeria.
There is no “media” that speaks with one voice. About anything.
How are “the media’s” shortcomings different from any other institutions?
The media tells us that the 2020 election was a fraud, and that Donald Trump is really the POTUS.
The media tells us that D’s operate a global child prostitution ring out of a pizzeria.
There is no “media” that speaks with one voice. About anything.
How are “the media’s” shortcomings different from any other institutions?
The media tells us that the 2020 election was a fraud, and that Donald Trump is really the POTUS.
The media tells us that D’s operate a global child prostitution ring out of a pizzeria.
There is no “media” that speaks with one voice. About anything.
How are “the media’s” shortcomings different from any other institutions?
When a politician makes poorly evidenced claims which suits their political viewpoint, occasionally they’ll be right. This is not an argument for paying more heed to poorly evidenced claims. But it does mean that not everything a Trumpist says is necessarily wrong.
In the case of the origins of Covid-19 however, it seemed to me, fairly early on (I said so on here) that the claims from virologists that Covid-19 could not plausibly have come from the Wuhan lab were themselves based on distinctly shaky evidence. “They would say that, wouldn;t they”, I thought.
When a politician makes poorly evidenced claims which suits their political viewpoint, occasionally they’ll be right. This is not an argument for paying more heed to poorly evidenced claims. But it does mean that not everything a Trumpist says is necessarily wrong.
In the case of the origins of Covid-19 however, it seemed to me, fairly early on (I said so on here) that the claims from virologists that Covid-19 could not plausibly have come from the Wuhan lab were themselves based on distinctly shaky evidence. “They would say that, wouldn;t they”, I thought.
COVID originated from Wuhan lab – could be. Evidence, either way, does not yet appear to be dispositive. Could have been sloppy or inadequate lab procedures that enabled an “escape”. Who knows?
COVID was “created” in Wuhan lab – nope. No evidence for this as far as I am aware.
Trump Administration response to the pandemic was a ham handed politically driven fucking disaster. YEP.
COVID originated from Wuhan lab – could be. Evidence, either way, does not yet appear to be dispositive. Could have been sloppy or inadequate lab procedures that enabled an “escape”. Who knows?
COVID was “created” in Wuhan lab – nope. No evidence for this as far as I am aware.
Trump Administration response to the pandemic was a ham handed politically driven fucking disaster. YEP.
Reading LJ’s Yglesias article, it seems like there have been many media sources presenting the idea that the virus originated in the Wuhan BSL lab.
Some sources, e.g. the NYT, presented both points of view at various times.
Some sources unfairly conflated Cotton’s actual statements with those of others, which actually were nutty conspiracy theories.
So I’m not seeing a media conspiracy to suppress minority points of view. I’m seeing a mixture of points of view, presented in the absence of perfect information. Some unfairness to Cotton, specifically, which is balanced by his own belligerence and commie-baiting.
Cotton, specifically, appears to see not just malfeasance, but malice, in the idea that the virus began in the lab. Which is not only a point of view for which there is no evidence, it’s profoundly counterintuitive. It strikes me that Cotton’s contribution to the discussion is more about stirring up animus toward China, and less about safeguarding the public health.
People – including the crazies of the world – are not the passive victims of what “the media” feeds them. Everybody makes choices about what they read and listen to, and everyone makes choices about what they accept as true. To the degree that people embrace nonsense, much of the responsibility for that belongs to them.
And the fact that the media business model is all about being first to market is nothing new.
Reading LJ’s Yglesias article, it seems like there have been many media sources presenting the idea that the virus originated in the Wuhan BSL lab.
Some sources, e.g. the NYT, presented both points of view at various times.
Some sources unfairly conflated Cotton’s actual statements with those of others, which actually were nutty conspiracy theories.
So I’m not seeing a media conspiracy to suppress minority points of view. I’m seeing a mixture of points of view, presented in the absence of perfect information. Some unfairness to Cotton, specifically, which is balanced by his own belligerence and commie-baiting.
Cotton, specifically, appears to see not just malfeasance, but malice, in the idea that the virus began in the lab. Which is not only a point of view for which there is no evidence, it’s profoundly counterintuitive. It strikes me that Cotton’s contribution to the discussion is more about stirring up animus toward China, and less about safeguarding the public health.
People – including the crazies of the world – are not the passive victims of what “the media” feeds them. Everybody makes choices about what they read and listen to, and everyone makes choices about what they accept as true. To the degree that people embrace nonsense, much of the responsibility for that belongs to them.
And the fact that the media business model is all about being first to market is nothing new.
The current media business model seems to be that it’s better to be first than to be right.
Please tell the peanut gallery here when it was different. Thank you.
The current media business model seems to be that it’s better to be first than to be right.
Please tell the peanut gallery here when it was different. Thank you.
my attitude is: prove it was a leak, or STFU.
none of this trial-by-conjecture, “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” bullshit.
otherwise, no, your idiot god-king is still an idiot and you’re a dumb-ass cultist simp who should be mocked rather than consulted for reasons of forensic epidemiology.
ahem
my attitude is: prove it was a leak, or STFU.
none of this trial-by-conjecture, “They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” bullshit.
otherwise, no, your idiot god-king is still an idiot and you’re a dumb-ass cultist simp who should be mocked rather than consulted for reasons of forensic epidemiology.
ahem
Michael, didn’t realize you were a basketball fan.
I read the Campos piece and agreed with both of his major points: the league had to do something to turn around what the Detroit Bad Boys had done to style of play, and it took the coaching staffs a long time to adjust to the 3-point line. I follow the Nuggets, but wouldn’t say that I’m a fan overall. It’s particularly frustrating this year, with so few televised games, since Denver is benefiting from the game opening up again. In that previous era, Jokic would be an NBA bust. With the floor opened up, he’s a passing wizard who can also shoot from outside (and if given MVP treatment, is more than adequate in the paint).
Michael, didn’t realize you were a basketball fan.
I read the Campos piece and agreed with both of his major points: the league had to do something to turn around what the Detroit Bad Boys had done to style of play, and it took the coaching staffs a long time to adjust to the 3-point line. I follow the Nuggets, but wouldn’t say that I’m a fan overall. It’s particularly frustrating this year, with so few televised games, since Denver is benefiting from the game opening up again. In that previous era, Jokic would be an NBA bust. With the floor opened up, he’s a passing wizard who can also shoot from outside (and if given MVP treatment, is more than adequate in the paint).
cleek: *those* people should be given exactly as much respect as their advocacy of hydroxychloroquine has earned them.
cleek: *those* people should be given exactly as much respect as their advocacy of hydroxychloroquine has earned them.
What is obvious to me is that people want to use the various theories about where it came from to score points over other people who they consider to be their opponents, and who they consider to be their opponents for reasons completely unrelated to the epidemiological sources of COVID.
So I tune it out. There is no particular need for me to even have an opinion about it, I don’t have the skill set to have an informed opinion about it, so I don’t have an opinion about it.
I realise that, without stopping to think about it, this has been exactly the reason I have paid almost no attention to the various theories about where the virus originated. If there is ever a definitive answer, it might help to, for example in the case of a lab escape, tighten up lab procedures. Or in the case of mutation from wildlife, tighten up regulation of wild food markets. If either of these remedial attempts is even feasible. But apart from this, the people who are actually qualified to investigate the cause should just be allowed to get on with it, and the grandstanding idiot pols and pundits should just be ignored.
Or, as Snarki so wisely says: *those* people should be given exactly as much respect as their advocacy of hydroxychloroquine has earned them.
What is obvious to me is that people want to use the various theories about where it came from to score points over other people who they consider to be their opponents, and who they consider to be their opponents for reasons completely unrelated to the epidemiological sources of COVID.
So I tune it out. There is no particular need for me to even have an opinion about it, I don’t have the skill set to have an informed opinion about it, so I don’t have an opinion about it.
I realise that, without stopping to think about it, this has been exactly the reason I have paid almost no attention to the various theories about where the virus originated. If there is ever a definitive answer, it might help to, for example in the case of a lab escape, tighten up lab procedures. Or in the case of mutation from wildlife, tighten up regulation of wild food markets. If either of these remedial attempts is even feasible. But apart from this, the people who are actually qualified to investigate the cause should just be allowed to get on with it, and the grandstanding idiot pols and pundits should just be ignored.
Or, as Snarki so wisely says: *those* people should be given exactly as much respect as their advocacy of hydroxychloroquine has earned them.
many media sources presenting the idea that the virus originated in the Wuhan BSL lab.
“many media source” as cited by Yglesias include Lancet, NYT, Science magazine, Vox, Joe Biden (!) in USA Today, Boston Magazine, New York Magazine.
Not cited in the article, but cited in links from the article are the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Medium, and National Review.
The folks piling on Cotton were the NYT (again), the WaPo, and Choi in Business Insider.
What I’m pushing back on here is the idea that there is a “mainstream media” that somehow colludes to suppress minority opinions. Or even one that speaks with one voice about anything at all.
As far as Twitter goes, it’s not a news source. It’s a social media platform. Anybody can say any random thing they like on Twitter, without the normal journalistic discipline of fact-checking or even bearing any responsibility at all for anything you say. It’s people shooting the breeze. Same with blogs.
Don’t get your news from Twitter.
The term “mainstream media” is basically a right-wing catch-all for any news organ whose political stance they don’t like. Fox News is never lumped into “mainstream media”, even though they dominate cable news as a medium. The WSJ somehow doesn’t get tagged as “mainstream media”, even though they have millions of daily readers and have a op-ed page that is basically a megaphone for the interests of finance capital and the business community.
There are relatively reliable sources of information. There are people writing and speaking in public who can address issues like the sources of COVID with some degree of authority. You might have to seek them out, they might not be the voices blaring away at you on the TV sets at they gym or hospital waiting room or airport terminal. But they are there. You may have to make a tiny effort, and apply a rudimentary level of critical thought to what comes at you through the puke funnel, but it’s do-able.
People are responsible for what they consume, and for who and what they believe. Good information is available, and in the absence of good information you can always choose to simply not have an opinion.
many media sources presenting the idea that the virus originated in the Wuhan BSL lab.
“many media source” as cited by Yglesias include Lancet, NYT, Science magazine, Vox, Joe Biden (!) in USA Today, Boston Magazine, New York Magazine.
Not cited in the article, but cited in links from the article are the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Medium, and National Review.
The folks piling on Cotton were the NYT (again), the WaPo, and Choi in Business Insider.
What I’m pushing back on here is the idea that there is a “mainstream media” that somehow colludes to suppress minority opinions. Or even one that speaks with one voice about anything at all.
As far as Twitter goes, it’s not a news source. It’s a social media platform. Anybody can say any random thing they like on Twitter, without the normal journalistic discipline of fact-checking or even bearing any responsibility at all for anything you say. It’s people shooting the breeze. Same with blogs.
Don’t get your news from Twitter.
The term “mainstream media” is basically a right-wing catch-all for any news organ whose political stance they don’t like. Fox News is never lumped into “mainstream media”, even though they dominate cable news as a medium. The WSJ somehow doesn’t get tagged as “mainstream media”, even though they have millions of daily readers and have a op-ed page that is basically a megaphone for the interests of finance capital and the business community.
There are relatively reliable sources of information. There are people writing and speaking in public who can address issues like the sources of COVID with some degree of authority. You might have to seek them out, they might not be the voices blaring away at you on the TV sets at they gym or hospital waiting room or airport terminal. But they are there. You may have to make a tiny effort, and apply a rudimentary level of critical thought to what comes at you through the puke funnel, but it’s do-able.
People are responsible for what they consume, and for who and what they believe. Good information is available, and in the absence of good information you can always choose to simply not have an opinion.
I’m entirely ambivalent on the whole media squabble. There are things that matter in the search for where and when the virus originated, but the battle over that narrative really isn’t concerned with the substantive things (lab safety protocols, virology ethics, scientific reporting standards, the actual science of how the virus took on its highly infectious form) at all.
Nope. All of that takes a back seat to the Culture Wars.
What can actually be done to change the nature of the 24-hour-news-cycle (especially when it is already playing catch-up with the constantly changing tides of social media bullshit)? It’s all Gish Gallop in the name of Our Side, and the media has no power to either break that cycle or to ignore it. Every time they try to slow down the gallop they get attacked for it.
Like right now. That’s what this is.
Journalism is only as good as its audience forces it to be. It’s stuck inside the media ecology just as much as the rest of us are.
So what can be done to change this that isn’t a limitation on freedom of speech and information? Concrete suggestions?
I’ve supported EFF and the ACLU for over a decade. I’ve been following the media studies and political science research on the subject since around 2005. I’m not seeing much to be done other than persuading people to slow their roll and be willing to trust the experts and follow shifts in best practices while we wait for better answers.
And I am far from convinced that such an approach is at all likely to work.
I’m entirely ambivalent on the whole media squabble. There are things that matter in the search for where and when the virus originated, but the battle over that narrative really isn’t concerned with the substantive things (lab safety protocols, virology ethics, scientific reporting standards, the actual science of how the virus took on its highly infectious form) at all.
Nope. All of that takes a back seat to the Culture Wars.
What can actually be done to change the nature of the 24-hour-news-cycle (especially when it is already playing catch-up with the constantly changing tides of social media bullshit)? It’s all Gish Gallop in the name of Our Side, and the media has no power to either break that cycle or to ignore it. Every time they try to slow down the gallop they get attacked for it.
Like right now. That’s what this is.
Journalism is only as good as its audience forces it to be. It’s stuck inside the media ecology just as much as the rest of us are.
So what can be done to change this that isn’t a limitation on freedom of speech and information? Concrete suggestions?
I’ve supported EFF and the ACLU for over a decade. I’ve been following the media studies and political science research on the subject since around 2005. I’m not seeing much to be done other than persuading people to slow their roll and be willing to trust the experts and follow shifts in best practices while we wait for better answers.
And I am far from convinced that such an approach is at all likely to work.
What I’m pushing back on here is the idea that there is a “mainstream media” that somehow colludes to suppress minority opinions
forget it. it’s conservative dogma.
What I’m pushing back on here is the idea that there is a “mainstream media” that somehow colludes to suppress minority opinions
forget it. it’s conservative dogma.
If the Fox News Channel is not part of the “mainstream media” I’d like to know WTF “mainstream” means.
Here in America, if you have a cable TV subscription, you’re almost certainly paying money to the FNC whether you watch it or not, because of “bundling”. I bet there isn’t a single cable TV “package” on offer anywhere in the country which includes any sort of news channel but does NOT include Fox News. I call that pretty goddam mainstream.
–TP
If the Fox News Channel is not part of the “mainstream media” I’d like to know WTF “mainstream” means.
Here in America, if you have a cable TV subscription, you’re almost certainly paying money to the FNC whether you watch it or not, because of “bundling”. I bet there isn’t a single cable TV “package” on offer anywhere in the country which includes any sort of news channel but does NOT include Fox News. I call that pretty goddam mainstream.
–TP
Fox can’t be mainstream because their entire business model depends on them being the alternative to the mainstream. they have to be outsiders or else they can’t preach their litany of suppression and victim-hood at the hands of the evil oppressive liberal elites.
it’s a cult.
Fox can’t be mainstream because their entire business model depends on them being the alternative to the mainstream. they have to be outsiders or else they can’t preach their litany of suppression and victim-hood at the hands of the evil oppressive liberal elites.
it’s a cult.
In the case of the origins of Covid-19 however, it seemed to me, fairly early on (I said so on here) that the claims from virologists that Covid-19 could not plausibly have come from the Wuhan lab were themselves based on distinctly shaky evidence. “They would say that, wouldn;t they”, I thought.
I’m not sure who you’re talking about, exactly, or what they said, but I would say it’s the opposite. Any hypothesis that the virus came from a lab, whether accidentally or intentionally, is on extremely shaky ground and always has been.
The null hypothesis here, meaning the only reasonable position to take unless overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary emerges at some point — and it certainly hasn’t to-date — is that this virus simply spilled over from an animal reservoir. The same way viruses have entered the human population literally thousands (or millions) of times previously, and is becoming, if anything, more likely as human populations increase and we encroach on more wild areas.
Or you could believe that for the first time in recorded history, a lab accident somehow went unnoticed, uncontained, and allowed a virus to gain sufficient foothold in the general population.
Nevermind that no evidence for this virus ever having been in a lab exists. That the virus, the place it was collected from, its genetic sequences, etc., somehow went completely unpublished, unrecorded and un-noted by the academic institution it’s supposed to have leaked from, and all the workers there. (Nevermind that there’s no record of any of those workers being sick.)
Nevermind that most of the proponents of this claim invariably employ a weak motte and bailey argumentation strategy. Vacillating between the unlikely, unevidenced, but at least hypothetically plausible hypothesis of an accidental leak of a wild sample — and a completely discredited and contrary to evidence conspiracy hypothesis that the Wuhan lab is a secret biological warfare laboratory.
In the case of the origins of Covid-19 however, it seemed to me, fairly early on (I said so on here) that the claims from virologists that Covid-19 could not plausibly have come from the Wuhan lab were themselves based on distinctly shaky evidence. “They would say that, wouldn;t they”, I thought.
I’m not sure who you’re talking about, exactly, or what they said, but I would say it’s the opposite. Any hypothesis that the virus came from a lab, whether accidentally or intentionally, is on extremely shaky ground and always has been.
The null hypothesis here, meaning the only reasonable position to take unless overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary emerges at some point — and it certainly hasn’t to-date — is that this virus simply spilled over from an animal reservoir. The same way viruses have entered the human population literally thousands (or millions) of times previously, and is becoming, if anything, more likely as human populations increase and we encroach on more wild areas.
Or you could believe that for the first time in recorded history, a lab accident somehow went unnoticed, uncontained, and allowed a virus to gain sufficient foothold in the general population.
Nevermind that no evidence for this virus ever having been in a lab exists. That the virus, the place it was collected from, its genetic sequences, etc., somehow went completely unpublished, unrecorded and un-noted by the academic institution it’s supposed to have leaked from, and all the workers there. (Nevermind that there’s no record of any of those workers being sick.)
Nevermind that most of the proponents of this claim invariably employ a weak motte and bailey argumentation strategy. Vacillating between the unlikely, unevidenced, but at least hypothetically plausible hypothesis of an accidental leak of a wild sample — and a completely discredited and contrary to evidence conspiracy hypothesis that the Wuhan lab is a secret biological warfare laboratory.
Please tell the peanut gallery here when it was different. Thank you.
The time horizon is very much shorter and 24/7.
Please tell the peanut gallery here when it was different. Thank you.
The time horizon is very much shorter and 24/7.
Check your current messaging. Fox News fell to the forces of the MSM during The Steal and the Battle of Arizona. Only Hannity and Carlson remain loyal to the Forces of Truth. All hail Newsmax and OAN.
Check your current messaging. Fox News fell to the forces of the MSM during The Steal and the Battle of Arizona. Only Hannity and Carlson remain loyal to the Forces of Truth. All hail Newsmax and OAN.
As far as Twitter goes, it’s not a news source.
But more than a few journalists seem to watch it like hawks watching for breaking news. And they sometimes run with whatever appears without checking its validity first.
As far as Twitter goes, it’s not a news source.
But more than a few journalists seem to watch it like hawks watching for breaking news. And they sometimes run with whatever appears without checking its validity first.
Part of the trend towards metacommentary in the media. Reporting news gets one accused of bias, especially if there is any whiff of judgment involved in the analysis of the information. Much safer just to find out what people are saying and what is trending and report that.
It’s also a lot easier and faster and it relies on the basic drama of the sporting contest or soap opera to keep readers engaged.
Part of the trend towards metacommentary in the media. Reporting news gets one accused of bias, especially if there is any whiff of judgment involved in the analysis of the information. Much safer just to find out what people are saying and what is trending and report that.
It’s also a lot easier and faster and it relies on the basic drama of the sporting contest or soap opera to keep readers engaged.
If the Fox News Channel is not part of the “mainstream media” I’d like to know WTF “mainstream” means.
“mainstream media” == “any media outlet which publishes stuff that I disagree with”
It’s part of a worldview which requires members to see themselves as part of an embattled minority. After all, if your media sources are “mainstream”, how can you be a minority? Let alone a critically threatened and embattled one?
If the Fox News Channel is not part of the “mainstream media” I’d like to know WTF “mainstream” means.
“mainstream media” == “any media outlet which publishes stuff that I disagree with”
It’s part of a worldview which requires members to see themselves as part of an embattled minority. After all, if your media sources are “mainstream”, how can you be a minority? Let alone a critically threatened and embattled one?
It does not even account for the other assumption (or is that presumption?) that they actually are the (silent) majority that gets suppressed by a minority controlled by the enemy du jour (and behind that usually the Jews, although that part is better kept implicit. You know what happens to those who dare to speak the truth about that).
It reminds me of the ants in The Once and Future King.
It does not even account for the other assumption (or is that presumption?) that they actually are the (silent) majority that gets suppressed by a minority controlled by the enemy du jour (and behind that usually the Jews, although that part is better kept implicit. You know what happens to those who dare to speak the truth about that).
It reminds me of the ants in The Once and Future King.
Or you could believe that for the first time in recorded history, a lab accident somehow went unnoticed, uncontained, and allowed a virus to gain sufficient foothold in the general population.
I think that’s slightly overstating the case.
There’s at the very least reasonable suspicion amongst virologists that the H1N1 flu pandemic back in the 70s resulted from a lab leak:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/covid-19-and-lab-leak-history-smallpox-h1n1-sars
Stating that the current pandemic resulted from a lab leak is of course nonsense. Admitting the possibility that it did, as do a large number of virologists who still think it unlikely, is entirely rational.
Anyone who claims that they know its origins for sure is either ignorant or lying.
Or you could believe that for the first time in recorded history, a lab accident somehow went unnoticed, uncontained, and allowed a virus to gain sufficient foothold in the general population.
I think that’s slightly overstating the case.
There’s at the very least reasonable suspicion amongst virologists that the H1N1 flu pandemic back in the 70s resulted from a lab leak:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-27/covid-19-and-lab-leak-history-smallpox-h1n1-sars
Stating that the current pandemic resulted from a lab leak is of course nonsense. Admitting the possibility that it did, as do a large number of virologists who still think it unlikely, is entirely rational.
Anyone who claims that they know its origins for sure is either ignorant or lying.
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
You mean like this one?
enjoy the long weekend.
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
You mean like this one?
enjoy the long weekend.
But more than a few journalists seem to watch it like hawks watching for breaking news. And they sometimes run with whatever appears without checking its validity first.
“eager reporter rushes to get his half-a-nugget of info to the presses in time” has been a trope in movies forever.
it’s just people. they never fail to live up to an ideal.
Anyone who claims that they know its origins for sure is either ignorant or lying.
I think I’d amend that to “Anyone outside China . . . .” It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin. Even if they aren’t willing to share.
But more than a few journalists seem to watch it like hawks watching for breaking news. And they sometimes run with whatever appears without checking its validity first.
“eager reporter rushes to get his half-a-nugget of info to the presses in time” has been a trope in movies forever.
it’s just people. they never fail to live up to an ideal.
Anyone who claims that they know its origins for sure is either ignorant or lying.
I think I’d amend that to “Anyone outside China . . . .” It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin. Even if they aren’t willing to share.
It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin.
Or they quietly disappeared anyone who did. Check the date on this.
“There has been an underlying conspiracy theory suggesting that the origin of the deadly coronavirus was from a virology lab in Wuhan. That was previously speculation, but now Chinese scientists have released new findings that link the laboratory in Wuhan and COVID-19.
…
However, the new report states that the lethal respiratory disease was more likely to start in a laboratory instead of the market. The South China University of Technology released a new paper on the origins of the coronavirus, and concluded that the disease was probably created by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (WCDC) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Chinese Scientists Believe Coronavirus Came From Virology Lab In Wuhan (February 17, 2020)
It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin.
Or they quietly disappeared anyone who did. Check the date on this.
“There has been an underlying conspiracy theory suggesting that the origin of the deadly coronavirus was from a virology lab in Wuhan. That was previously speculation, but now Chinese scientists have released new findings that link the laboratory in Wuhan and COVID-19.
…
However, the new report states that the lethal respiratory disease was more likely to start in a laboratory instead of the market. The South China University of Technology released a new paper on the origins of the coronavirus, and concluded that the disease was probably created by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (WCDC) and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Chinese Scientists Believe Coronavirus Came From Virology Lab In Wuhan (February 17, 2020)
It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin. Even if they aren’t willing to share.
If it was a lab leak of a certain type, then yes, it’s quite possible that the Chinese government (or at least lab management) knows how it happened. Because there would be a “paper” trail: sequencing of the viral RNA, at least in vitro experiments, etc. Hard to get rid of that trail entirely, since it would largely be in the databases and their backups, difficult to change without leaving some footprints.
Other types of lab leak, like workers being careless handling bats while extracting samples would be harder to pin down. That would probably come down to being able to definitively identify patient zero.
This seems obvious enough that I have to believe the WHO team the lab cooperated with raised all these questions.
I also believe that if the “intelligence community” has sources inside China good enough to pin those things down, they are going to be extremely reluctant to show the evidence and compromise those sources.
It seems entirely possible that the Chinese government has a handle on its origin. Even if they aren’t willing to share.
If it was a lab leak of a certain type, then yes, it’s quite possible that the Chinese government (or at least lab management) knows how it happened. Because there would be a “paper” trail: sequencing of the viral RNA, at least in vitro experiments, etc. Hard to get rid of that trail entirely, since it would largely be in the databases and their backups, difficult to change without leaving some footprints.
Other types of lab leak, like workers being careless handling bats while extracting samples would be harder to pin down. That would probably come down to being able to definitively identify patient zero.
This seems obvious enough that I have to believe the WHO team the lab cooperated with raised all these questions.
I also believe that if the “intelligence community” has sources inside China good enough to pin those things down, they are going to be extremely reluctant to show the evidence and compromise those sources.
If they know and do not say, they’re not claiming. If they know (that it came from their lab) and claim the opposite (which they do), they’re lying.
In neither way does it invalidate your original statment. So, the amendment is superfluous.
Btw, I would expect most governments to lie, if it came from their labs either as a result of an accident or deliberately.
[I do not make a claim about the real origin but the wet market is at least a very plausible source since it would not be the first time that something bad came from such a place]
If they know and do not say, they’re not claiming. If they know (that it came from their lab) and claim the opposite (which they do), they’re lying.
In neither way does it invalidate your original statment. So, the amendment is superfluous.
Btw, I would expect most governments to lie, if it came from their labs either as a result of an accident or deliberately.
[I do not make a claim about the real origin but the wet market is at least a very plausible source since it would not be the first time that something bad came from such a place]
That paper is being stretched pretty thin by the Bro Bible and The Daily Mail. It’s a two-page, preprint report with literally nothing but a couple of possible bat infections and a bit of speculation.
https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/114720192-5eb8307f-017c-4075-a697-348628da0204.pdf
I figured that if the paper were as incriminating as the sources were implying, that they would want to link directly to the paper, so I was suspicious when there were no links given.
Not much there.
That paper is being stretched pretty thin by the Bro Bible and The Daily Mail. It’s a two-page, preprint report with literally nothing but a couple of possible bat infections and a bit of speculation.
https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/114720192-5eb8307f-017c-4075-a697-348628da0204.pdf
I figured that if the paper were as incriminating as the sources were implying, that they would want to link directly to the paper, so I was suspicious when there were no links given.
Not much there.
and concluded that the disease was probably created
prove it, or STFU with the conspiracy theories.
and concluded that the disease was probably created
prove it, or STFU with the conspiracy theories.
and concluded that the disease was probably created
… i mean, aren’t you, right on this very thread, moaning about reporters going off without having the full story?
christ.
and concluded that the disease was probably created
… i mean, aren’t you, right on this very thread, moaning about reporters going off without having the full story?
christ.
My point was that over a year ago some people inside China were suggesting that the virus may have come from a lab. You can bet that they are now well hidden if still alive.
My point was that over a year ago some people inside China were suggesting that the virus may have come from a lab. You can bet that they are now well hidden if still alive.
i’m suggesting suggestion isn’t proof of anything.
i’m suggesting suggestion isn’t proof of anything.
My point was that over a year ago some people inside China were suggesting that the virus may have come from a lab. You can bet that they are now well hidden if still alive.
Eh. More likely they just put them on a list of problem citizens. Competition is fierce enough that could sink a career. Disappearing them just lends credence to what they wrote.
I have former students whose friends have gone to jail in China for protest activity, so I’m not imagining China as a benign and forgiving place. I just don’t think that they would need to take drastic measures against someone for such a weak paper with no actual secrets being leaked.
My point was that over a year ago some people inside China were suggesting that the virus may have come from a lab. You can bet that they are now well hidden if still alive.
Eh. More likely they just put them on a list of problem citizens. Competition is fierce enough that could sink a career. Disappearing them just lends credence to what they wrote.
I have former students whose friends have gone to jail in China for protest activity, so I’m not imagining China as a benign and forgiving place. I just don’t think that they would need to take drastic measures against someone for such a weak paper with no actual secrets being leaked.
I also believe that if the “intelligence community” has sources inside China good enough to pin those things down, they are going to be extremely reluctant to show the evidence and compromise those sources.
If they’d had such information while Trump was in office, such reluctance wouldn’t have made any difference.
AFAICS, all they have is some (dubious) satellite analysis about hospital traffic, and the recent “exquisite” (sic) intelligence about 3 lab workers being “hospitalised” at the end of 2019 with unspecified viral illness.
The latter report is actually talks about hospital “visits”, which could cover anything from an outpatient visit to full hospitalisation.
I also believe that if the “intelligence community” has sources inside China good enough to pin those things down, they are going to be extremely reluctant to show the evidence and compromise those sources.
If they’d had such information while Trump was in office, such reluctance wouldn’t have made any difference.
AFAICS, all they have is some (dubious) satellite analysis about hospital traffic, and the recent “exquisite” (sic) intelligence about 3 lab workers being “hospitalised” at the end of 2019 with unspecified viral illness.
The latter report is actually talks about hospital “visits”, which could cover anything from an outpatient visit to full hospitalisation.
If they’d had such information while Trump was in office, such reluctance wouldn’t have made any difference.
On the contrary, given Trump’s demonstrated (utter lack of) concern for intelligence sources, they would have been even more reluctant to admit that they had any. Especially to him, or anyone who would likely tell him.
If they’d had such information while Trump was in office, such reluctance wouldn’t have made any difference.
On the contrary, given Trump’s demonstrated (utter lack of) concern for intelligence sources, they would have been even more reluctant to admit that they had any. Especially to him, or anyone who would likely tell him.
I want a
I visited the
Wuhan Wet Market,
but all I got was
this cute pangolin
T-shirt.
I want a
I visited the
Wuhan Wet Market,
but all I got was
this cute pangolin
T-shirt.
Bro Bible is certainly my go-to source for information on virology and the protocols of bio-safety labs.
Bro Bible is certainly my go-to source for information on virology and the protocols of bio-safety labs.
I want a … T-shirt.
OK…
I want a … T-shirt.
OK…
… i mean, aren’t you, right on this very thread, moaning about reporters going off without having the full story?
That libertarian ‘do as I say, not as I do’ ethos strikes again…
… i mean, aren’t you, right on this very thread, moaning about reporters going off without having the full story?
That libertarian ‘do as I say, not as I do’ ethos strikes again…
Stating that the current pandemic resulted from a lab leak is of course nonsense. Admitting the possibility that it did, as do a large number of virologists who still think it unlikely, is entirely rational.
Yeah, it’s certainly possible. But:
1) In order to come from mishandling a lab sample, the sample itself had to come from somewhere — i.e., it was a sample taken from a bat or a weasel or a pangolin or sth. out in the woods somewhere. A creature that would have been part of a reservoir of thousands or millions of fellow carrier animals sharing a virome, and ranging across some (possibly significant) geographic swathe of central or south China somewhere.
A range it probably shares substantially with…humans. Not researchers, just people blundering around in the same woods collecting mushrooms or firewood, or milking bats or whatever. Maybe even hunting or raising the reservoir animals for food or pelts or as pests. ‘Wild’ interactions are bound to significantly outnumber the lab ones, especially considering that the latter is much more likely to include proper handling precautions.
If it didn’t come from a wild spillover event, the fact that a sample could be collected in the first place meant it was out there, and probably only a matter of time.
2) It beggars belief to think that there’s no paper trail.
The thing about this virus is that it’s only ~95% similar to the closest known samples — a virus called RaTG13 found in bat populations in S. China and SE Asia. As far as we know, nothing closer has ever been sampled or sequenced in a lab.
It’s likely that nCoV2019 does count that virus as a relative, but not actually a super close one. That missing 5% is still several decades worth of mutations. The branching off point was, best guess, some time in the 1950s. The evolution since must have taken place in some as-yet-unknown reservoir animal.
So, if nCoV2019 leaked from a lab, some researcher must have found that reservoir at some point. Maybe sometime in 2018 or early 2019. They wouldn’t have known they had the scourge of 2020 on their hands, of course, but they would have been excited to discover a new reservoir of potentially deadly coronaviruses. They would have sequenced it. Published a preliminary paper announcing the heretofore undiscovered new animal coronavirus host they had found. Or at least sent an email to an overseas colleague or three.
It’s all very well to say that Chinese officials covered it up, but for them to have been able to, I think you have to suppose either a) that the leak happened as soon as the sample was in the lab, and that officials found out almost before the researchers did, or b) a really unreasonable level of retroactive cover-up efficiency on the part of Chinese officialdom.
(Or, I suppose, c) a secret lab that didn’t keep normal records, or publish and correspond with the outside scientific community. But that’d be a different lab than the one everyone’s talking about. And starts to look a lot more like the much less reasonable secret weapons lab theory.)
Stating that the current pandemic resulted from a lab leak is of course nonsense. Admitting the possibility that it did, as do a large number of virologists who still think it unlikely, is entirely rational.
Yeah, it’s certainly possible. But:
1) In order to come from mishandling a lab sample, the sample itself had to come from somewhere — i.e., it was a sample taken from a bat or a weasel or a pangolin or sth. out in the woods somewhere. A creature that would have been part of a reservoir of thousands or millions of fellow carrier animals sharing a virome, and ranging across some (possibly significant) geographic swathe of central or south China somewhere.
A range it probably shares substantially with…humans. Not researchers, just people blundering around in the same woods collecting mushrooms or firewood, or milking bats or whatever. Maybe even hunting or raising the reservoir animals for food or pelts or as pests. ‘Wild’ interactions are bound to significantly outnumber the lab ones, especially considering that the latter is much more likely to include proper handling precautions.
If it didn’t come from a wild spillover event, the fact that a sample could be collected in the first place meant it was out there, and probably only a matter of time.
2) It beggars belief to think that there’s no paper trail.
The thing about this virus is that it’s only ~95% similar to the closest known samples — a virus called RaTG13 found in bat populations in S. China and SE Asia. As far as we know, nothing closer has ever been sampled or sequenced in a lab.
It’s likely that nCoV2019 does count that virus as a relative, but not actually a super close one. That missing 5% is still several decades worth of mutations. The branching off point was, best guess, some time in the 1950s. The evolution since must have taken place in some as-yet-unknown reservoir animal.
So, if nCoV2019 leaked from a lab, some researcher must have found that reservoir at some point. Maybe sometime in 2018 or early 2019. They wouldn’t have known they had the scourge of 2020 on their hands, of course, but they would have been excited to discover a new reservoir of potentially deadly coronaviruses. They would have sequenced it. Published a preliminary paper announcing the heretofore undiscovered new animal coronavirus host they had found. Or at least sent an email to an overseas colleague or three.
It’s all very well to say that Chinese officials covered it up, but for them to have been able to, I think you have to suppose either a) that the leak happened as soon as the sample was in the lab, and that officials found out almost before the researchers did, or b) a really unreasonable level of retroactive cover-up efficiency on the part of Chinese officialdom.
(Or, I suppose, c) a secret lab that didn’t keep normal records, or publish and correspond with the outside scientific community. But that’d be a different lab than the one everyone’s talking about. And starts to look a lot more like the much less reasonable secret weapons lab theory.)
Bro Bible is certainly my go-to source for information on virology and the protocols of bio-safety labs.
LOL.
And I have to admit, I thought something similar, but less witty.
Bro Bible is certainly my go-to source for information on virology and the protocols of bio-safety labs.
LOL.
And I have to admit, I thought something similar, but less witty.
From the ‘brobible’ (really?) linke:
The Wuhan Center for Disease Control is located only 900 feet from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and is near the local hospital.
It seems like this ‘suspicious’ proximity does a lot of work in some of these “lab origin” theories.
It doesn’t hold up so well now that earlier cases have been uncovered, miles away from the wet market, which is no longer considered a likely origin point.
And yet, somehow, none of the proponents are inspired to re-evaluate any of their conclusions…
From the ‘brobible’ (really?) linke:
The Wuhan Center for Disease Control is located only 900 feet from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and is near the local hospital.
It seems like this ‘suspicious’ proximity does a lot of work in some of these “lab origin” theories.
It doesn’t hold up so well now that earlier cases have been uncovered, miles away from the wet market, which is no longer considered a likely origin point.
And yet, somehow, none of the proponents are inspired to re-evaluate any of their conclusions…
Remember, it’s Bro Bible linking to The Daily Mail, mentioning, but not linking to the paper that I linked to above.
So much journalistic integrity being passed along here…
Remember, it’s Bro Bible linking to The Daily Mail, mentioning, but not linking to the paper that I linked to above.
So much journalistic integrity being passed along here…
Bro Bible says 900 feet. Cotton says within a few miles.
Somebody needs a new measuring tape.
Bro Bible says 900 feet. Cotton says within a few miles.
Somebody needs a new measuring tape.
If BB is right, then Cotton is right. It’s like the director of the CDC saying that the outdoor transition of COVID is less than 10%.
If BB is right, then Cotton is right. It’s like the director of the CDC saying that the outdoor transition of COVID is less than 10%.
Cotton says within a few miles.
Wow. That’s a pretty useless claim.
It’s one thing if you could really pin down the first cases right next door to a lab. Close enough that an infected lab worker might have regularly stopped for lunch or something. It’d still be completely circumstantial, and not in agreement with the facts we have, but it’d be something at least.
But the entire city of Wuhan is only about 10 miles across. Saying “within a few miles” isn’t saying anything at all. Everything in Wuhan is “within a few miles”.
Cotton says within a few miles.
Wow. That’s a pretty useless claim.
It’s one thing if you could really pin down the first cases right next door to a lab. Close enough that an infected lab worker might have regularly stopped for lunch or something. It’d still be completely circumstantial, and not in agreement with the facts we have, but it’d be something at least.
But the entire city of Wuhan is only about 10 miles across. Saying “within a few miles” isn’t saying anything at all. Everything in Wuhan is “within a few miles”.
These may or may not be the exact locations, but if so, Google thinks they’re over 8 miles apart.
That’s a little more than 900 feet. It doesn’t look like the lab and the market are even on the same side of the river. (I understand there are several lab spaces, but my impression was that they were all part of the same campus. One way or another, the Virology Institute and the wet market appear to be in entirely different districts.)
These may or may not be the exact locations, but if so, Google thinks they’re over 8 miles apart.
That’s a little more than 900 feet. It doesn’t look like the lab and the market are even on the same side of the river. (I understand there are several lab spaces, but my impression was that they were all part of the same campus. One way or another, the Virology Institute and the wet market appear to be in entirely different districts.)
If BB is right, then Cotton is right. It’s like the director of the CDC saying that the outdoor transition of COVID is less than 10%.
Except usually, the CDC director has a medical degree and a number of years experience. Of course, that’s not foolproof, you can still appoint someone who did this
On April 9, 1988, the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) sponsored a “Scientific Forum on the Etiology of AIDS”. One of the presenters, William Haseltine showed a slide called “AIDS Virus and Antibody” purporting to reflect the serology model of AIDS. Two of the audience members, both professors of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of California Berkeley asked why Haseltine’s graph had no units on it on the y axis and gibberish on the x-axis. Haseltine remarked the graph had been created by Redfield, who muttered, “different measures were used”. Later at a post-conference party, Redfield admitted he had made the slide up—it was not based on any data at all.[41] Haseltine later published two additional fake graphs by Redfield in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
But that’s down on who appointed them imo…
If BB is right, then Cotton is right. It’s like the director of the CDC saying that the outdoor transition of COVID is less than 10%.
Except usually, the CDC director has a medical degree and a number of years experience. Of course, that’s not foolproof, you can still appoint someone who did this
On April 9, 1988, the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) sponsored a “Scientific Forum on the Etiology of AIDS”. One of the presenters, William Haseltine showed a slide called “AIDS Virus and Antibody” purporting to reflect the serology model of AIDS. Two of the audience members, both professors of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of California Berkeley asked why Haseltine’s graph had no units on it on the y axis and gibberish on the x-axis. Haseltine remarked the graph had been created by Redfield, who muttered, “different measures were used”. Later at a post-conference party, Redfield admitted he had made the slide up—it was not based on any data at all.[41] Haseltine later published two additional fake graphs by Redfield in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
But that’s down on who appointed them imo…
Except usually, the CDC director has a medical degree and a number of years experience.
And politicians and government functionaries lie to us while telling the truth.
“An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.
That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.
Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.”
A Misleading C.D.C. Number: We have a special edition of the newsletter on a misleading C.D.C. statistic.
Except usually, the CDC director has a medical degree and a number of years experience.
And politicians and government functionaries lie to us while telling the truth.
“An even bigger issue is the extreme caution of C.D.C. officials, who picked a benchmark — 10 percent — so high that nobody could reasonably dispute it.
That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.
Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.”
A Misleading C.D.C. Number: We have a special edition of the newsletter on a misleading C.D.C. statistic.
I have mentioned potholer54 before. He is the YouTube persona of one Peter Hadfield, originally a geologist but for decades a science journalist . Over 10+ years, he has been debunking and gently ridiculing bad science reporting, young Earth creationism, climate change denialism, etc. His method is to track down the original sources behind sensational news stories, blog posts, and YouTube videos. And to show those sources in his videos.
Although he doesn’t post as frequently as he used to, back when he was giving out his Golden Crocoduck Awards, he has of course addressed Covid-19, including the following couple of videos on its origins:
From May 2020 (a year ago):
Did SARS-Cov-2 start in a Chinese lab?
From May 2021 (a couple of weeks ago):
Unravelling China’s “sinister plan” to “unleash coronavirus”.
I offer them without comment from me. Whether he’s mainstream or fringe, serious or wacko, definitive or pretentious, well … you be the judge.
–TP
I have mentioned potholer54 before. He is the YouTube persona of one Peter Hadfield, originally a geologist but for decades a science journalist . Over 10+ years, he has been debunking and gently ridiculing bad science reporting, young Earth creationism, climate change denialism, etc. His method is to track down the original sources behind sensational news stories, blog posts, and YouTube videos. And to show those sources in his videos.
Although he doesn’t post as frequently as he used to, back when he was giving out his Golden Crocoduck Awards, he has of course addressed Covid-19, including the following couple of videos on its origins:
From May 2020 (a year ago):
Did SARS-Cov-2 start in a Chinese lab?
From May 2021 (a couple of weeks ago):
Unravelling China’s “sinister plan” to “unleash coronavirus”.
I offer them without comment from me. Whether he’s mainstream or fringe, serious or wacko, definitive or pretentious, well … you be the judge.
–TP
And politicians and government functionaries lie to us while telling the truth.
But not Bro Bible!!
And politicians and government functionaries lie to us while telling the truth.
But not Bro Bible!!
Tony, thanks for the video links.
Tony, thanks for the video links.
Yes. Excellent videos.
The first video clears up the confusion about distances. Looks like people are conflating the actual Virology Institute (a dozen km away, on the other side of the city) with a location labeled “Wuhan Center for Disease Control” nearer the market. They merge into this singular, sinister “Wuhan lab” in the popular accounts.
I’d seen the ‘CDC’ one on the map poking around earlier, but similar looking ‘Disease Control and Prevention’ offices are actually all over the city, indeed, all over China. Usually next to (or in) clinics and hospitals, just as the one near the market is. It looks to me like they’re probably just liaison offices for the national health department or something.
It’s not clear to me that anyone has any actual reason to think that anything like live bat samples was ever being studied at the site near the market at all. Being attached to a hospital, I guess there might well be a “lab” in there somewhere, but probably just a normal clinical one for testing sick humans. Not an exotic zoonotic virology research site.
Looking at how these ignorant rumors spiral out of control, right up into the very halls of power, is equal parts fascinating, frustrating, and terrifying.
Yes. Excellent videos.
The first video clears up the confusion about distances. Looks like people are conflating the actual Virology Institute (a dozen km away, on the other side of the city) with a location labeled “Wuhan Center for Disease Control” nearer the market. They merge into this singular, sinister “Wuhan lab” in the popular accounts.
I’d seen the ‘CDC’ one on the map poking around earlier, but similar looking ‘Disease Control and Prevention’ offices are actually all over the city, indeed, all over China. Usually next to (or in) clinics and hospitals, just as the one near the market is. It looks to me like they’re probably just liaison offices for the national health department or something.
It’s not clear to me that anyone has any actual reason to think that anything like live bat samples was ever being studied at the site near the market at all. Being attached to a hospital, I guess there might well be a “lab” in there somewhere, but probably just a normal clinical one for testing sick humans. Not an exotic zoonotic virology research site.
Looking at how these ignorant rumors spiral out of control, right up into the very halls of power, is equal parts fascinating, frustrating, and terrifying.
It’s easy to poke holes in the wilder lab-leak theories. But:
That missing 5% is still several decades worth of mutations. The branching off point was, best guess, some time in the 1950s. The evolution since must have taken place in some as-yet-unknown reservoir animal.
Massive scientific effort has gone into trying to find this mysterious reservoir. And, nothing.
On of two unlikely things has happened. The question is, which is less unlikely.
It’s easy to poke holes in the wilder lab-leak theories. But:
That missing 5% is still several decades worth of mutations. The branching off point was, best guess, some time in the 1950s. The evolution since must have taken place in some as-yet-unknown reservoir animal.
Massive scientific effort has gone into trying to find this mysterious reservoir. And, nothing.
On of two unlikely things has happened. The question is, which is less unlikely.
Massive scientific effort has gone into trying to find this mysterious reservoir. And, nothing.
I’m not sure this is true at all. IIRC, it took years to identify the proximate hosts in prior MERS and SARS outbreaks with any confidence.
It’s easy to imagine that scientists have sampled and sequenced literally every population of potential hosts already, so drawing a blank in the big cloud database of virus genomes means this is some huge mystery..
But the fact is, only a tiny fraction of the relevant animal populations has really been studied or surveyed in the kind of detail you’d need to say “nope, definitely wasn’t them”. Even with the increased urgency from the major CoV outbreaks in the last decades, the field is still probably woefully underfunded and under-researched compared to what would be worthwhile.
With the limited resources available, my impression is that a lot of research effort over the last 10 or 20 years has gone into bats, which are widely considered to be the ultimate reservoirs for the kinds of corona viruses most compatible with humans. That’s probably why they were able to point almost immediately to at least a relatively similar ancestral virus that’s known from a bat populations. Even so, there are thousands of bat species, in all kinds of habitats, and it’s virtually impossible to comprehensively survey them all.
Relatively less research has been done into the various possible intermediate hosts. Partly because those possibilities explode. It’s possible to put forward some candidates based on analysis of receptor proteins and so forth, but the field is still pretty wide. Pangolins, mink, ferrets, turtles, and snakes have all been mooted as potential intermediates. There’s also been some relatively recent research into beta-CoV infections in fish and crustaceans, though I don’t know whether they’ve been considered potentials sources for SARS-CoV-2 specifically.
It’s just really not that surprising that the specific reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been found yet. I’d guess it’ll be about another year or two, unless somebody gets lucky.
Massive scientific effort has gone into trying to find this mysterious reservoir. And, nothing.
I’m not sure this is true at all. IIRC, it took years to identify the proximate hosts in prior MERS and SARS outbreaks with any confidence.
It’s easy to imagine that scientists have sampled and sequenced literally every population of potential hosts already, so drawing a blank in the big cloud database of virus genomes means this is some huge mystery..
But the fact is, only a tiny fraction of the relevant animal populations has really been studied or surveyed in the kind of detail you’d need to say “nope, definitely wasn’t them”. Even with the increased urgency from the major CoV outbreaks in the last decades, the field is still probably woefully underfunded and under-researched compared to what would be worthwhile.
With the limited resources available, my impression is that a lot of research effort over the last 10 or 20 years has gone into bats, which are widely considered to be the ultimate reservoirs for the kinds of corona viruses most compatible with humans. That’s probably why they were able to point almost immediately to at least a relatively similar ancestral virus that’s known from a bat populations. Even so, there are thousands of bat species, in all kinds of habitats, and it’s virtually impossible to comprehensively survey them all.
Relatively less research has been done into the various possible intermediate hosts. Partly because those possibilities explode. It’s possible to put forward some candidates based on analysis of receptor proteins and so forth, but the field is still pretty wide. Pangolins, mink, ferrets, turtles, and snakes have all been mooted as potential intermediates. There’s also been some relatively recent research into beta-CoV infections in fish and crustaceans, though I don’t know whether they’ve been considered potentials sources for SARS-CoV-2 specifically.
It’s just really not that surprising that the specific reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 hasn’t been found yet. I’d guess it’ll be about another year or two, unless somebody gets lucky.
I’d guess it’ll be about another year or two..
by which time It Was A Leak will have become a tenet of “conservative” faith, right up there with Trump Won and There Were WMD In Iraq.
I’d guess it’ll be about another year or two..
by which time It Was A Leak will have become a tenet of “conservative” faith, right up there with Trump Won and There Were WMD In Iraq.
Following up on jack lecou’s comment
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-016-0544-0
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a novel coronavirus discovered in 2012 and is responsible for acute respiratory syndrome in humans. Though not confirmed yet, multiple surveillance and phylogenetic studies suggest a bat origin. The disease is heavily endemic in dromedary camel populations of East Africa and the Middle East. It is unclear as to when the virus was introduced to dromedary camels, but data from studies that investigated stored dromedary camel sera and geographical distribution of involved dromedary camel populations suggested that the virus was present in dromedary camels several decades ago. Though bats and alpacas can serve as potential reservoirs for MERS-CoV, dromedary camels seem to be the only animal host responsible for the spill over human infections.
Not trying to bust anyone here, but the question of which animal did it (Bats, alpacas and camels would be a great Jeopardy answer, eh?) is always going to be pretty fraught
Following up on jack lecou’s comment
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-016-0544-0
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a novel coronavirus discovered in 2012 and is responsible for acute respiratory syndrome in humans. Though not confirmed yet, multiple surveillance and phylogenetic studies suggest a bat origin. The disease is heavily endemic in dromedary camel populations of East Africa and the Middle East. It is unclear as to when the virus was introduced to dromedary camels, but data from studies that investigated stored dromedary camel sera and geographical distribution of involved dromedary camel populations suggested that the virus was present in dromedary camels several decades ago. Though bats and alpacas can serve as potential reservoirs for MERS-CoV, dromedary camels seem to be the only animal host responsible for the spill over human infections.
Not trying to bust anyone here, but the question of which animal did it (Bats, alpacas and camels would be a great Jeopardy answer, eh?) is always going to be pretty fraught
Yup, cleek.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/05/lies/
The vectors of deadly viral conservative republican fascism in America are multiplying apace, and the epidemiology points to subhuman reservoirs in plain sight, none of them mysterious or masked in the least.
“The question is, which is less unlikely.”
Well, that is the epidemiological question, but as Butch Cassidy pointed out, hell, it’s the fall that is going to kill us.
Neither the fascist Chinese government nor the fascist American Republican Party will permit elections to get to the rational bottom of the political questions:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/29/politics/texas-voting-rights-senate-bill-7/index.html
Both the Chinese and all-American conservative movement fascist laws apply to everyone, however, so what’s to worry?
Camels?
Therefore, Cotton will announce soon that we must murder all of the camel jockeys.
Wait, he already did that the last election cycle.
He’s on to other game now.
Yup, cleek.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/05/lies/
The vectors of deadly viral conservative republican fascism in America are multiplying apace, and the epidemiology points to subhuman reservoirs in plain sight, none of them mysterious or masked in the least.
“The question is, which is less unlikely.”
Well, that is the epidemiological question, but as Butch Cassidy pointed out, hell, it’s the fall that is going to kill us.
Neither the fascist Chinese government nor the fascist American Republican Party will permit elections to get to the rational bottom of the political questions:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/29/politics/texas-voting-rights-senate-bill-7/index.html
Both the Chinese and all-American conservative movement fascist laws apply to everyone, however, so what’s to worry?
Camels?
Therefore, Cotton will announce soon that we must murder all of the camel jockeys.
Wait, he already did that the last election cycle.
He’s on to other game now.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
Interesting interview with Mary Beard in the NYT. Insightful about the contextualisation of many contemporary (and historical) issues:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/31/magazine/mary-beard-rome-interview.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=The%20New%20York%20Times%20Magazine
Interesting interview with Mary Beard in the NYT. Insightful about the contextualisation of many contemporary (and historical) issues:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/31/magazine/mary-beard-rome-interview.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=The%20New%20York%20Times%20Magazine
by which time It Was A Leak will have become a tenet of “conservative” faith, right up there with Trump Won and There Were WMD In Iraq.
In case of doubt it will be claimed that the scientists put it into some wild animals in order to ‘find’ it there.
I have to admit though that in the case of Iraqi WMD I would have suspected any findings after the invasion by US forces to be planted for that purpose. And it says even more about Rumsfeld’s stupidity (or his opinion of the stupidity of USians) that he tried to crow “We have found them!!!” without doing that.
by which time It Was A Leak will have become a tenet of “conservative” faith, right up there with Trump Won and There Were WMD In Iraq.
In case of doubt it will be claimed that the scientists put it into some wild animals in order to ‘find’ it there.
I have to admit though that in the case of Iraqi WMD I would have suspected any findings after the invasion by US forces to be planted for that purpose. And it says even more about Rumsfeld’s stupidity (or his opinion of the stupidity of USians) that he tried to crow “We have found them!!!” without doing that.
Huh – I missed this in the WaPo on May 21, but since this was one of the actions I urged most strongly in our recent discussion on Carville, and what the Dems should do, I was delighted to see this, and only hope it has a serious impact (I wanted it to be 364/24/7 – don’t know if the DNC is up to that):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/21/technology-202-online-disinformation-has-changed-now-dnc-is-updating-its-response-unit/
Huh – I missed this in the WaPo on May 21, but since this was one of the actions I urged most strongly in our recent discussion on Carville, and what the Dems should do, I was delighted to see this, and only hope it has a serious impact (I wanted it to be 364/24/7 – don’t know if the DNC is up to that):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/21/technology-202-online-disinformation-has-changed-now-dnc-is-updating-its-response-unit/
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
With special reference to bats conspiracy theorists.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
With special reference to bats conspiracy theorists.
Some have a taste for bats.
In America, guano, the fertilizer of conservative movement freedumb, is what’s for dinner.
Some have a taste for bats.
In America, guano, the fertilizer of conservative movement freedumb, is what’s for dinner.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
It’s possible that North American bats should stay away from us. (Results of a preliminary study on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from humans to bats in the US and Canada. And vice versa, of course, if the virus becomes endemic in the bat population.)
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
It’s possible that North American bats should stay away from us. (Results of a preliminary study on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from humans to bats in the US and Canada. And vice versa, of course, if the virus becomes endemic in the bat population.)
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab. Not just from conspiracy theorists. There’s just too much evidence pointing to the possibility.
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab. Not just from conspiracy theorists. There’s just too much evidence pointing to the possibility.
It’s possible that North American bats should stay away from us.
Not just bats. There are already confirmed cases of human->animal transmission in domestic pets, farmed mink, big cats in zoos…
It’s possible that North American bats should stay away from us.
Not just bats. There are already confirmed cases of human->animal transmission in domestic pets, farmed mink, big cats in zoos…
“from serious people”
Fine.
“from serious people”
Fine.
There’s just too much evidence pointing to the possibility.
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility”. If that counts as “too much” in your book, it’s a weird book.
Granted, it’s impossible to completely rule out at this point — the only way to do that is probably to find the natural source — so it’s remains a possibility.
A very remote one, though. And that’s exactly as much as I’d expect “serious people” to concede. Speculation is not something serious people should be doing on this topic. At all.
There’s just too much evidence pointing to the possibility.
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility”. If that counts as “too much” in your book, it’s a weird book.
Granted, it’s impossible to completely rule out at this point — the only way to do that is probably to find the natural source — so it’s remains a possibility.
A very remote one, though. And that’s exactly as much as I’d expect “serious people” to concede. Speculation is not something serious people should be doing on this topic. At all.
This is a long-form article on the lab escape possibility. I hadn’t posted it until now because I had it in my head that someone else had already posted the link. But, if they did, I can’t find it.
“In what follows I will sort through the available scientific facts, which hold many clues as to what happened, and provide readers with the evidence to make their own judgments. I will then try to assess the complex issue of blame, which starts with, but extends far beyond, the government of China.
By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”
The Origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
This is a long-form article on the lab escape possibility. I hadn’t posted it until now because I had it in my head that someone else had already posted the link. But, if they did, I can’t find it.
“In what follows I will sort through the available scientific facts, which hold many clues as to what happened, and provide readers with the evidence to make their own judgments. I will then try to assess the complex issue of blame, which starts with, but extends far beyond, the government of China.
By the end of this article, you may have learned a lot about the molecular biology of viruses. I will try to keep this process as painless as possible. But the science cannot be avoided because for now, and probably for a long time hence, it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”
The Origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
What’s the difference between standing next to Donald Trump, suicide pandemic bomber Herman Cain, and any number of deliberately self-infected republican conservatives, including governors, during this murderous pandemic, and entering a bat cave for lunch, snuggling with a pangolin, and deliberately or accidentally releasing a SARS virus from a biological weapons lab into a populated environment?
It doesn’t take a Chinaman to observe none of the above share a shred of human commonality.
What’s the difference between standing next to Donald Trump, suicide pandemic bomber Herman Cain, and any number of deliberately self-infected republican conservatives, including governors, during this murderous pandemic, and entering a bat cave for lunch, snuggling with a pangolin, and deliberately or accidentally releasing a SARS virus from a biological weapons lab into a populated environment?
It doesn’t take a Chinaman to observe none of the above share a shred of human commonality.
I’ve read Charles’ link, but it bears reading again.
And again, the question I’m concerned with is what dangerously unserious batty people will make of whatever serious conclusions are reached regarding the origins of Covid-19 in Wuhan.
By which I mean batty conservatives in both America and China. After all, it is the fundamental conservatism of the Middle Kingdom’s culture that leans them heavily toward secrecy and saving face throughout their history, no matter which economic principles they adhere to from time to time.
Both Chinese and American conservatives are ready and willing to make a mess of the world as they go at each other, regardless of what epidemiological conclusions are reached conclusively because their survival in power depends on sowing malignant doubt about all conclusions, good or ill, that do not not serve their fascist power interests.
Both, I expect, would like to see Dr. Fauci murdered, depending on what bogus blame they can assign to him:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/29/fact-check-u-s-government-did-not-intentionally-engineer-covid-19/3216066001/
I’ve read Charles’ link, but it bears reading again.
And again, the question I’m concerned with is what dangerously unserious batty people will make of whatever serious conclusions are reached regarding the origins of Covid-19 in Wuhan.
By which I mean batty conservatives in both America and China. After all, it is the fundamental conservatism of the Middle Kingdom’s culture that leans them heavily toward secrecy and saving face throughout their history, no matter which economic principles they adhere to from time to time.
Both Chinese and American conservatives are ready and willing to make a mess of the world as they go at each other, regardless of what epidemiological conclusions are reached conclusively because their survival in power depends on sowing malignant doubt about all conclusions, good or ill, that do not not serve their fascist power interests.
Both, I expect, would like to see Dr. Fauci murdered, depending on what bogus blame they can assign to him:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/29/fact-check-u-s-government-did-not-intentionally-engineer-covid-19/3216066001/
“I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility”. ”
This statement should read, ” I have discounted any evidence that could point to the possibility, therefore there is none.”
Just as blind eyed as saying it’s proven.
Pick your side, pick your facts. It is the world we live in.
“I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility”. ”
This statement should read, ” I have discounted any evidence that could point to the possibility, therefore there is none.”
Just as blind eyed as saying it’s proven.
Pick your side, pick your facts. It is the world we live in.
Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
Nicholas Wade is a marginally more sophisticated crank than some of his parrots, but he is still a crank.
(It’s worth noting that the guy is not a virologist. He’s a writer, with an undergrad in biology. His best prior claim to fame was managing to write a weird book about genetics and race that managed to get approvingly cited by Charles Murray, while being openly denounced as a work of selective citation, misrepresentation and pseudoscience by virtually everyone else in the field of population genetics, including (especially?) the scientists whose papers he claimed to be referencing to support his arguments.)
Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?
Nicholas Wade is a marginally more sophisticated crank than some of his parrots, but he is still a crank.
(It’s worth noting that the guy is not a virologist. He’s a writer, with an undergrad in biology. His best prior claim to fame was managing to write a weird book about genetics and race that managed to get approvingly cited by Charles Murray, while being openly denounced as a work of selective citation, misrepresentation and pseudoscience by virtually everyone else in the field of population genetics, including (especially?) the scientists whose papers he claimed to be referencing to support his arguments.)
Yup.
Too bad Tom Cotton hadn’t concluded the Chinese and Covid-19 were at the root of the attempted violent overthrow of the duly elected US government on January 6, 2021, so that maybe he would have permitted a full Congressional inquiry into the treason.
Yup.
Too bad Tom Cotton hadn’t concluded the Chinese and Covid-19 were at the root of the attempted violent overthrow of the duly elected US government on January 6, 2021, so that maybe he would have permitted a full Congressional inquiry into the treason.
Ok, Wade is batshit.
They have an inexhaustible bench.
Ok, Wade is batshit.
They have an inexhaustible bench.
This statement should read, ” I have discounted any evidence that could point to the possibility, therefore there is none.”
If you mean I have discounted things like “the virus lab is next to the wet market” or “an intern at the lab infected her boyfriend and subsequently disappeared” or “secret chinese military documents talk about creating bioweapons” etc., then, yes. I have ceased to use incorporate that noise as part of my reasoning.
And you should too. Because those stupid rumors are not true.
Maybe you can correct me, but AFAICT the only remaining thing that could even remotely be considered positive evidence for a lab release is “a lab exists in Wuhan”.
And that’s pretty weak tea.
It reeks of post-hoc reasoning, for one. There are over 50 BSL-3 facilities in China certified for doing CoV work, all across the country. Nevermind smaller field collection sites and so forth. I doubt there are many cities an outbreak could have started in where you couldn’t have, retrospectively, pointed to a lab across town and whispered “suspicious”.
This statement should read, ” I have discounted any evidence that could point to the possibility, therefore there is none.”
If you mean I have discounted things like “the virus lab is next to the wet market” or “an intern at the lab infected her boyfriend and subsequently disappeared” or “secret chinese military documents talk about creating bioweapons” etc., then, yes. I have ceased to use incorporate that noise as part of my reasoning.
And you should too. Because those stupid rumors are not true.
Maybe you can correct me, but AFAICT the only remaining thing that could even remotely be considered positive evidence for a lab release is “a lab exists in Wuhan”.
And that’s pretty weak tea.
It reeks of post-hoc reasoning, for one. There are over 50 BSL-3 facilities in China certified for doing CoV work, all across the country. Nevermind smaller field collection sites and so forth. I doubt there are many cities an outbreak could have started in where you couldn’t have, retrospectively, pointed to a lab across town and whispered “suspicious”.
apparently it’s vitally important for “conservatives” to prove Trump was right about something.
apparently it’s vitally important for “conservatives” to prove Trump was right about something.
Jesus, can anything be discussed without you bringing up Trump? It’s today’s WH saying it’s an open question.
Jesus, can anything be discussed without you bringing up Trump? It’s today’s WH saying it’s an open question.
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility” [of a lab origin]
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly the same amount of evidence pointing to the possibility of a zoonotic origin.
That is, we know that zoonosis happens. We know that lab experiments (“gain of function”) can increase host range. What else?
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly zero evidence “pointing to the possibility” [of a lab origin]
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly the same amount of evidence pointing to the possibility of a zoonotic origin.
That is, we know that zoonosis happens. We know that lab experiments (“gain of function”) can increase host range. What else?
I agree, Marty.
But in the interests of everlasting bothsidism and eternally open questions, I have two words: Hillary Clinton.
Besides, Trump will be back soon enough without cleek jumping the, uh, gun.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/06/trump-telling-people-he-expects-to-be-reinstated-as-president-in-august
I mean, look, you roll a couple of Wuhan smoke bombs into the room way up open thread, and then when folks cough and their eyes begin watering you assume an all facts are equal and should be equally considered in perpetuity innocent face inside your gas mask.
Yes, this White House wants to shed some illumination on the matter, perhaps believing a little light is the best disinfectant, but I don’t think they quite yet grasp the nettle that ratf*ckers like Cotton, whose name you invoked and then said never mind, run inTO the light, the brighter the better, for nothing but malignant reasons.
I agree, Marty.
But in the interests of everlasting bothsidism and eternally open questions, I have two words: Hillary Clinton.
Besides, Trump will be back soon enough without cleek jumping the, uh, gun.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/06/trump-telling-people-he-expects-to-be-reinstated-as-president-in-august
I mean, look, you roll a couple of Wuhan smoke bombs into the room way up open thread, and then when folks cough and their eyes begin watering you assume an all facts are equal and should be equally considered in perpetuity innocent face inside your gas mask.
Yes, this White House wants to shed some illumination on the matter, perhaps believing a little light is the best disinfectant, but I don’t think they quite yet grasp the nettle that ratf*ckers like Cotton, whose name you invoked and then said never mind, run inTO the light, the brighter the better, for nothing but malignant reasons.
jack lecou, thanks for the Medika Life article.
jack lecou, thanks for the Medika Life article.
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly the same amount of evidence pointing to the possibility of a zoonotic origin.
That is, we know that zoonosis happens. We know that lab experiments (“gain of function”) can increase host range. What else?
Nope. Likelihood and past experience is also a big consideration.
Suppose you leave some fresh-baked cookies out on the counter, with the kids playing in the next room. Then lie down for a nap. What’s your null hypothesis when you wake up and the cookies are gone:
– That the kids ate them — like they have dozens of times before?
– Or that communists from the local cookie factory took them for nefarious experiments?
Both are possible, I guess. But I know which one I’d put the most energy into investigating, at least until I find some other clues.
This is roughly where we’re at. The evidence is, to a degree, consistent with both hypotheses. But one is and was always a lot more likely to be productive.
(But only to a degree – read the debunk I linked above. The evidence we have isn’t conclusive, of course, but it does tilt quite a bit against any kind of lab origin. No record of relevant experiments. No record of samples having been collected. No molecular evidence for a lab-hosted evolution. Nor is there anything about this virus, or the RaTG13 predecessor, that would have lent them to the hypothetical research or weaponisation purposes proposed.)
I think we’ve established that there’s exactly the same amount of evidence pointing to the possibility of a zoonotic origin.
That is, we know that zoonosis happens. We know that lab experiments (“gain of function”) can increase host range. What else?
Nope. Likelihood and past experience is also a big consideration.
Suppose you leave some fresh-baked cookies out on the counter, with the kids playing in the next room. Then lie down for a nap. What’s your null hypothesis when you wake up and the cookies are gone:
– That the kids ate them — like they have dozens of times before?
– Or that communists from the local cookie factory took them for nefarious experiments?
Both are possible, I guess. But I know which one I’d put the most energy into investigating, at least until I find some other clues.
This is roughly where we’re at. The evidence is, to a degree, consistent with both hypotheses. But one is and was always a lot more likely to be productive.
(But only to a degree – read the debunk I linked above. The evidence we have isn’t conclusive, of course, but it does tilt quite a bit against any kind of lab origin. No record of relevant experiments. No record of samples having been collected. No molecular evidence for a lab-hosted evolution. Nor is there anything about this virus, or the RaTG13 predecessor, that would have lent them to the hypothetical research or weaponisation purposes proposed.)
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab.
The issue has moved well beyond anything that can be proven or disproven at this point. It’s now an article of faith.
The level of proof required to dislodge the Wuhan Lab Conspiracy from the minds of folks who want to believe it is unlikely to be available.
Maybe if we found the actual bat and questioned it under oath?
Also, whatever happened to the pangolin hypothesis? Who let scaly anteaters off the hook?
My prediction is that people who actually have the required level of expert knowledge in areas like virology and epidemiology will spend a couple of years looking at this, and will come to a conclusion that is maybe 80-90% sure of being accurate.
And by that time the Tom Cottons of the world will have moved on to some new thing to be outraged about.
In other COVID related news, I ran down to the lumberyard to pick up a door my wife ordered for our guest bathroom. I wore a mask, because even though I’m vaxed it seems like a basically polite thing to do, because not everyone is vaxed and nobody really knows who is or isn’t.
I’m standing in line and the guy in front of me is chatting with the guy behind the counter about how all the do-gooder ninnies at Whole Foods are still running around in masks, but the average Joe’s and Jane’s at Market Basket are mostly not.
Everything about this fucking virus is now fodder for the culture wars.
Who knows, I might just keep wearing a mask for another couple of years, just to annoy dudes like the boyos at the lumberyard. I have a big collection of them now, it would be a shame for them to go to waste.
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab.
The issue has moved well beyond anything that can be proven or disproven at this point. It’s now an article of faith.
The level of proof required to dislodge the Wuhan Lab Conspiracy from the minds of folks who want to believe it is unlikely to be available.
Maybe if we found the actual bat and questioned it under oath?
Also, whatever happened to the pangolin hypothesis? Who let scaly anteaters off the hook?
My prediction is that people who actually have the required level of expert knowledge in areas like virology and epidemiology will spend a couple of years looking at this, and will come to a conclusion that is maybe 80-90% sure of being accurate.
And by that time the Tom Cottons of the world will have moved on to some new thing to be outraged about.
In other COVID related news, I ran down to the lumberyard to pick up a door my wife ordered for our guest bathroom. I wore a mask, because even though I’m vaxed it seems like a basically polite thing to do, because not everyone is vaxed and nobody really knows who is or isn’t.
I’m standing in line and the guy in front of me is chatting with the guy behind the counter about how all the do-gooder ninnies at Whole Foods are still running around in masks, but the average Joe’s and Jane’s at Market Basket are mostly not.
Everything about this fucking virus is now fodder for the culture wars.
Who knows, I might just keep wearing a mask for another couple of years, just to annoy dudes like the boyos at the lumberyard. I have a big collection of them now, it would be a shame for them to go to waste.
In the meantime, I’m still having a laugh about Bro Bible.
It’s like if Jeff Spicoli or the guys from Pineapple Express had a blog.
In the meantime, I’m still having a laugh about Bro Bible.
It’s like if Jeff Spicoli or the guys from Pineapple Express had a blog.
“My prediction is that people who actually have the required level of expert knowledge in areas like virology and epidemiology will spend a couple of years looking at this, and will come to a conclusion that is maybe 80-90% sure of being accurate.”
yeah but
Also, they’ve spent years of their lives and commie grant money knowing a few things, which makes them deep state coastal elitists and whatever they conclude will be dismissed in America …. and what is this talk about “required expert levels”? … the land of know nothings who know everything, except how to do THEIR jobs, because the rest of us know their expertise better than they do because we say so, and we have the little league soccer trophies to prove it.
“My prediction is that people who actually have the required level of expert knowledge in areas like virology and epidemiology will spend a couple of years looking at this, and will come to a conclusion that is maybe 80-90% sure of being accurate.”
yeah but
Also, they’ve spent years of their lives and commie grant money knowing a few things, which makes them deep state coastal elitists and whatever they conclude will be dismissed in America …. and what is this talk about “required expert levels”? … the land of know nothings who know everything, except how to do THEIR jobs, because the rest of us know their expertise better than they do because we say so, and we have the little league soccer trophies to prove it.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
I’ll amend this.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from Tom Cotton.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from bats.
I’ll amend this.
What I take away from all of this is this: stay away from Tom Cotton.
the rest of us know their expertise better than they do because we say so
Hey, a bat flew into my house once!!
the rest of us know their expertise better than they do because we say so
Hey, a bat flew into my house once!!
How plausible the lab escape evidence seems to the audience strikes me as being inversely proportional to the audiences’ experience with large scale research and the international scientific community.
Also, “debunking” and “disproving” are not synonyms.
How plausible the lab escape evidence seems to the audience strikes me as being inversely proportional to the audiences’ experience with large scale research and the international scientific community.
Also, “debunking” and “disproving” are not synonyms.
I wore a mask, because even though I’m vaxed it seems like a basically polite thing to do, because not everyone is vaxed and nobody really knows who is or isn’t.
At this point, even more than a public health effort, mask wearing is a way to make a culture wars statement. Refusing to wear a mask is basically, for a lot of people, a way to say “I don’t give a sh*t about anybody but myself and my personal convenience.”
Not a statement I wish to make, so the mask will likely be around for a while.
I wore a mask, because even though I’m vaxed it seems like a basically polite thing to do, because not everyone is vaxed and nobody really knows who is or isn’t.
At this point, even more than a public health effort, mask wearing is a way to make a culture wars statement. Refusing to wear a mask is basically, for a lot of people, a way to say “I don’t give a sh*t about anybody but myself and my personal convenience.”
Not a statement I wish to make, so the mask will likely be around for a while.
How plausible the lab escape evidence seems to the audience strikes me as being inversely proportional to the audiences’ experience with large scale research and the international scientific community.
If you think about it, there is a striking parallel with the people who have never, ever worked an election, actually worked the polls. But are sure that totally routine procedures, which have functioned flawlessly for decades, are absolute evidence of sudden fraud and other misdeeds. Simply because they have no clue.
How plausible the lab escape evidence seems to the audience strikes me as being inversely proportional to the audiences’ experience with large scale research and the international scientific community.
If you think about it, there is a striking parallel with the people who have never, ever worked an election, actually worked the polls. But are sure that totally routine procedures, which have functioned flawlessly for decades, are absolute evidence of sudden fraud and other misdeeds. Simply because they have no clue.
At this point, even more than a public health effort, mask wearing is a way to make a culture wars statement.
“I continue to wear a mask outdoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican.”
“I refuse to wear a mask indoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Democrat.”
At this point, even more than a public health effort, mask wearing is a way to make a culture wars statement.
“I continue to wear a mask outdoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican.”
“I refuse to wear a mask indoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Democrat.”
I continue to wear a mask outdoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican.
not my reason for doing it, but it is a nice side benefit.
I continue to wear a mask outdoors because I don’t want to be mistaken for a Republican.
not my reason for doing it, but it is a nice side benefit.
la la la, nothing to see here.
la la la, nothing to see here.
From cleek’s link:
I wonder if any of them can identify Trump’s position on policy issues. Besides objecting to immigration, I’d be hard pressed to identify his position on any issue. Even if he’s made a statement on it in the last 24 hours, I wouldn’t want to bet on him still thinking the same today.
From cleek’s link:
I wonder if any of them can identify Trump’s position on policy issues. Besides objecting to immigration, I’d be hard pressed to identify his position on any issue. Even if he’s made a statement on it in the last 24 hours, I wouldn’t want to bet on him still thinking the same today.
I don’t know about bats in Ohio but it looks like one should keep away from that place for their ruling party is..eh..bedsheet crazy:
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2021/06/01/the-gop-has-become-a-death-cult-the-ohio-vaccination-edition/
I don’t know about bats in Ohio but it looks like one should keep away from that place for their ruling party is..eh..bedsheet crazy:
https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2021/06/01/the-gop-has-become-a-death-cult-the-ohio-vaccination-edition/
Of course, at the same time that they are looking at prohibiting businesses, etc. from giving incentives for people to get vaccinated, the (Republican-led) Ohio state government is giving lottery tickets to people who get vaccinated. An incentive, one might say, just a government one rather than a private sector one.
Of course, at the same time that they are looking at prohibiting businesses, etc. from giving incentives for people to get vaccinated, the (Republican-led) Ohio state government is giving lottery tickets to people who get vaccinated. An incentive, one might say, just a government one rather than a private sector one.
I wonder if any of them can identify Trump’s position on policy issues.
there is only one policy that really matters to Republicans. there’s only one policy that they won’t forget all about at the snap of Trump’s greasy little fingers: performative hatred of Democrats.
I wonder if any of them can identify Trump’s position on policy issues.
there is only one policy that really matters to Republicans. there’s only one policy that they won’t forget all about at the snap of Trump’s greasy little fingers: performative hatred of Democrats.
cleek has the GOP wrapped around his finger, it’s true.
I’ve been chased out of caves by bats that objected to my light (and I was in the way for them to exit, late afternoon).
Not a virologist, me, but I’ve heard that bats have an extraordinary immunity from the effects of viral infections, which both makes them a huge reservoir of viruses, but also a creature that could really, really, REALLY teach us some useful tricks.
Well, aside from flying. We learned that on our own.
cleek has the GOP wrapped around his finger, it’s true.
I’ve been chased out of caves by bats that objected to my light (and I was in the way for them to exit, late afternoon).
Not a virologist, me, but I’ve heard that bats have an extraordinary immunity from the effects of viral infections, which both makes them a huge reservoir of viruses, but also a creature that could really, really, REALLY teach us some useful tricks.
Well, aside from flying. We learned that on our own.
I will visit Ohio this fall to attend a memorial service for my last uncle who died last year near NYC, he was 93 or 94, and whose wife, my aunt, who barely survived polio when she was kid in the 1930s, has been interred in the cemetery in Middletown since the early 2000, Ohio, which is also my birthplace.
Also where fake hillbilly and corrupt vote-stealing JD Vance plans to run for the US Senate to pursue his fake bizarro Christian bullshit conservative goal of destroying the Federal Government.
Polio, smallpox, SARs viruses, and tuberculosis don’t work fast enough to kill off the forces of evil driving this country to savagely violent civil war.
I will visit Ohio this fall to attend a memorial service for my last uncle who died last year near NYC, he was 93 or 94, and whose wife, my aunt, who barely survived polio when she was kid in the 1930s, has been interred in the cemetery in Middletown since the early 2000, Ohio, which is also my birthplace.
Also where fake hillbilly and corrupt vote-stealing JD Vance plans to run for the US Senate to pursue his fake bizarro Christian bullshit conservative goal of destroying the Federal Government.
Polio, smallpox, SARs viruses, and tuberculosis don’t work fast enough to kill off the forces of evil driving this country to savagely violent civil war.
West Virginia gummint, where they can’t tell the difference between getting a drive-up shot and a drive-by shooting is giving away guns to those who agree to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Get shot to live to shoot someone else.
What do those who agree to be vaccinated against polio get?
A tactical nuclear weapon?
West Virginia gummint, where they can’t tell the difference between getting a drive-up shot and a drive-by shooting is giving away guns to those who agree to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
Get shot to live to shoot someone else.
What do those who agree to be vaccinated against polio get?
A tactical nuclear weapon?
The names of people who get vaccinated in California should be put in drawings for anywhere in the country rental payments for U-Haul trucks…
The names of people who get vaccinated in California should be put in drawings for anywhere in the country rental payments for U-Haul trucks…
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-19/covid-19-california-militia-fueling-civic-revolt
Pack the Zapatas among them up in U-Haul trucks with their fertilizer and ignition devices and send ’em down the road to Texas, vaccinated or not.
They don’t like voting anyway, so no loss.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-19/covid-19-california-militia-fueling-civic-revolt
Pack the Zapatas among them up in U-Haul trucks with their fertilizer and ignition devices and send ’em down the road to Texas, vaccinated or not.
They don’t like voting anyway, so no loss.
Almost missed this. Over the weekend, Texas Democrats foiled the latest Jim Crow legislation by walking out, thus denying the legislature a quorum. In response, the Governor says he will defund the legislature — that is, veto the part of the budget which funds the legislature.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/31/texas-greg-abbott-funding-legislature/
Amazing.
Almost missed this. Over the weekend, Texas Democrats foiled the latest Jim Crow legislation by walking out, thus denying the legislature a quorum. In response, the Governor says he will defund the legislature — that is, veto the part of the budget which funds the legislature.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/31/texas-greg-abbott-funding-legislature/
Amazing.
At the last walkout, the governor sent the Texas Rangers to arrest them. Not the baseball team…
At the last walkout, the governor sent the Texas Rangers to arrest them. Not the baseball team…
I once had some GOP on my finger. A little Gojo took it right off.
I once had some GOP on my finger. A little Gojo took it right off.
WRT JT’s LA Times link – California is America, only sooner.
This is what our low-intensity conflict subbing in for a civil war is going to look like. Reminds me of when I was a kid and you’d hear about how the KKK was in charge of local areas.
So yes, this is our future, but it is also the bad parts of 1972 revisited.
WRT JT’s LA Times link – California is America, only sooner.
This is what our low-intensity conflict subbing in for a civil war is going to look like. Reminds me of when I was a kid and you’d hear about how the KKK was in charge of local areas.
So yes, this is our future, but it is also the bad parts of 1972 revisited.
Not the baseball team…
Well, the current team couldn’t catch anything if it tried…
Not the baseball team…
Well, the current team couldn’t catch anything if it tried…
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab.
The issue has moved well beyond anything that can be proven or disproven at this point. It’s now an article of faith…
Which was the point of my original reply to jack.
While I agree with almost all of the points he made, it’s almost as much an article of faith amongst liberals that a leak from the lab was impossible (granted, with rather more evidence to support it), as it is amongst Republicans that it definitely happened.
FWIW, I believe that the administration’s approach of taking the lab leak hypothesis seriously, however unlikely it might be, is more productive than ridicule.
Here’s one of the virologists who co-authored the Nature paper on the likely origins of the virus back in March last year (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) engaging politely with some of the conspiracy theorists:
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1399914011869597701
While it’s unlikely that any 100% definitive evidence will completely disprove the lab leak stuff any time soon, particularly given the Chinese restrictions on investigation, I disagree that it’s gone beyond anything that can be proven. Though probably after everyone has moved on.
In any event, it will at least spur interest in funding research into zoonotic viruses, and also in better lab biosecurity. Neither of those things are bad.
Paper of interest just published…
Spike mutation T403R allows bat coronavirus RaTG13 to use human ACE2
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.446386v1.full.pdf
Although the S protein of the closest related bat virus, RaTG13, shows high similarity to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein it does not efficiently interact with the human ACE2 receptor2. Here, we show that a single T403R mutation allows the RaTG13 S to utilize the human ACE2 receptor for infection of human cells and intestinal organoids…
Until there’s proof that COVID-19 was caused by a virus from a natural source, there’s going to be continued speculation from serious people that the virus could have escaped from a lab.
The issue has moved well beyond anything that can be proven or disproven at this point. It’s now an article of faith…
Which was the point of my original reply to jack.
While I agree with almost all of the points he made, it’s almost as much an article of faith amongst liberals that a leak from the lab was impossible (granted, with rather more evidence to support it), as it is amongst Republicans that it definitely happened.
FWIW, I believe that the administration’s approach of taking the lab leak hypothesis seriously, however unlikely it might be, is more productive than ridicule.
Here’s one of the virologists who co-authored the Nature paper on the likely origins of the virus back in March last year (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) engaging politely with some of the conspiracy theorists:
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1399914011869597701
While it’s unlikely that any 100% definitive evidence will completely disprove the lab leak stuff any time soon, particularly given the Chinese restrictions on investigation, I disagree that it’s gone beyond anything that can be proven. Though probably after everyone has moved on.
In any event, it will at least spur interest in funding research into zoonotic viruses, and also in better lab biosecurity. Neither of those things are bad.
Paper of interest just published…
Spike mutation T403R allows bat coronavirus RaTG13 to use human ACE2
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.446386v1.full.pdf
Although the S protein of the closest related bat virus, RaTG13, shows high similarity to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein it does not efficiently interact with the human ACE2 receptor2. Here, we show that a single T403R mutation allows the RaTG13 S to utilize the human ACE2 receptor for infection of human cells and intestinal organoids…
…it’s almost as much an article of faith amongst liberals that a leak from the lab was impossible (granted, with rather more evidence to support it), as it is amongst Republicans that it definitely happened.
I think this is one of those tricky things in our truth-y times.
The problem is, it’s really not as simple as possible vs. impossible. There are many different lab leak theories.
Platonically, there is undoubtedly a lab leak hypothesis that is possible (if unlikely) and presented reasonably. In practice, most of the ones actually out there churning around in the media, the mouths of politicians, etc., are… Not that.
A lot of those specific theories really are just wrong. Impossible. Or, often, not even wrong.
I think it’s irresponsible not to push back on those, and if some people push a little too hard and make it sound like a lab leak is actually impossible (rather than merely unlikely and not a great fit for what we’re seeing), well, I’m really not going to lose any sleep over it.
Of course, I also don’t really have the impression that ‘liberals’ are as firmly on the anti-lab leak side as you’re making out. When not arguing against one of the dumb conspiracy versions, I suspect most would be prepared to acknowledge the possibility.
And some of them are perfectly happy to embrace those theories — they can tickle a ‘suspicion of authority’ reflex that liberals tend to have in spades.
…it’s almost as much an article of faith amongst liberals that a leak from the lab was impossible (granted, with rather more evidence to support it), as it is amongst Republicans that it definitely happened.
I think this is one of those tricky things in our truth-y times.
The problem is, it’s really not as simple as possible vs. impossible. There are many different lab leak theories.
Platonically, there is undoubtedly a lab leak hypothesis that is possible (if unlikely) and presented reasonably. In practice, most of the ones actually out there churning around in the media, the mouths of politicians, etc., are… Not that.
A lot of those specific theories really are just wrong. Impossible. Or, often, not even wrong.
I think it’s irresponsible not to push back on those, and if some people push a little too hard and make it sound like a lab leak is actually impossible (rather than merely unlikely and not a great fit for what we’re seeing), well, I’m really not going to lose any sleep over it.
Of course, I also don’t really have the impression that ‘liberals’ are as firmly on the anti-lab leak side as you’re making out. When not arguing against one of the dumb conspiracy versions, I suspect most would be prepared to acknowledge the possibility.
And some of them are perfectly happy to embrace those theories — they can tickle a ‘suspicion of authority’ reflex that liberals tend to have in spades.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-thoughts-on-the-covid-lab-leak-theory
On balance, this isn’t true. What happened is that from the outset China-hawks who were largely out to defend Donald Trump made a series of baseless accusations about COVID either being a bioweapon or the accidental release of a Chinese biological warfare weapon. When that got shot down (there’s strong genomic evidence against this), they retreated to a more conventional lab accident as their pet theory. The best one can say is that most journalists became reflexively skeptical to all such claims since they were mainly coming from people who are professional liars with obvious axes to grind.
This pattern continues even up until today. Over the weekend The Washington Post ran this report, which was originally headlined as some version of ‘Biden picks up on research done during the Trump administration’. Who are these Trump administration experts? One of the two quoted is David Feith, Trump’s deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. If that name rings a bell, yes, David is the son of Doug Feith, perhaps the most central figure in spreading disinformation about WMD and Iraq and al Qaida in the lead up to the Iraq War. Lest you think I’m simply judging Feith on the basis of his family … well, he came to the State Department via The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Even today the mainstream press seems unable to wrangle this story without keeping readers abreast of the propagandists and liars who are pushing much of it.
The problem is that if ‘liberals’ (since we all march in step and say the same things) were to acknowledge any possibility, the right would simply take it as their due and move on to the next ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ question.
The question of how we know things about viruses is an interesting one and it gives you some insight into how effective vaccines (plural!) were made so quickly, but trying to engage in discussion that actually moves the ball down the field, well, not really worth the effort.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/some-thoughts-on-the-covid-lab-leak-theory
On balance, this isn’t true. What happened is that from the outset China-hawks who were largely out to defend Donald Trump made a series of baseless accusations about COVID either being a bioweapon or the accidental release of a Chinese biological warfare weapon. When that got shot down (there’s strong genomic evidence against this), they retreated to a more conventional lab accident as their pet theory. The best one can say is that most journalists became reflexively skeptical to all such claims since they were mainly coming from people who are professional liars with obvious axes to grind.
This pattern continues even up until today. Over the weekend The Washington Post ran this report, which was originally headlined as some version of ‘Biden picks up on research done during the Trump administration’. Who are these Trump administration experts? One of the two quoted is David Feith, Trump’s deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. If that name rings a bell, yes, David is the son of Doug Feith, perhaps the most central figure in spreading disinformation about WMD and Iraq and al Qaida in the lead up to the Iraq War. Lest you think I’m simply judging Feith on the basis of his family … well, he came to the State Department via The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Even today the mainstream press seems unable to wrangle this story without keeping readers abreast of the propagandists and liars who are pushing much of it.
The problem is that if ‘liberals’ (since we all march in step and say the same things) were to acknowledge any possibility, the right would simply take it as their due and move on to the next ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ question.
The question of how we know things about viruses is an interesting one and it gives you some insight into how effective vaccines (plural!) were made so quickly, but trying to engage in discussion that actually moves the ball down the field, well, not really worth the effort.
Also, meant to respond to this a while back, but it got lost:
There’s at the very least reasonable suspicion amongst virologists that the H1N1 flu pandemic back in the 70s resulted from a lab leak:
This is a useful correction. I really should have qualified that this is a unique instance of a novel virus escaping.
Lab leaks happen all the time, actually. Usually they’re fairly well contained, but it’s possible some of them have gotten out of hand or will in the future.
But the thing about all of those leaks is that what leaks out is a previously known pathogen. That’s why the stuff was being studied in a lab in the first place. That’s what made the H1N1 outbreak suspicious: “hey, we’ve seen this before.”
There’s no known case, AFAIK, of what we’re talking about here, a novel pathogen, one that’s this ready to make the leap into humans, being found first by a field researcher — instead of the thousands of villagers or other humans living nearby — then taken all the way back to a lab, and mishandled in a way that results in transmission.
In this case, it’d all also have to have happened on a very tight timeline, such that none of the lab’s many overseas collaborators could find out about the samples before a cover up could take place…
(And of course, if this is what happened, why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence, then immediately send some new researchers out to collect “new” samples from the same reservoir, and throw off suspicion by “discovering” the wild source of the virus…)
Also, meant to respond to this a while back, but it got lost:
There’s at the very least reasonable suspicion amongst virologists that the H1N1 flu pandemic back in the 70s resulted from a lab leak:
This is a useful correction. I really should have qualified that this is a unique instance of a novel virus escaping.
Lab leaks happen all the time, actually. Usually they’re fairly well contained, but it’s possible some of them have gotten out of hand or will in the future.
But the thing about all of those leaks is that what leaks out is a previously known pathogen. That’s why the stuff was being studied in a lab in the first place. That’s what made the H1N1 outbreak suspicious: “hey, we’ve seen this before.”
There’s no known case, AFAIK, of what we’re talking about here, a novel pathogen, one that’s this ready to make the leap into humans, being found first by a field researcher — instead of the thousands of villagers or other humans living nearby — then taken all the way back to a lab, and mishandled in a way that results in transmission.
In this case, it’d all also have to have happened on a very tight timeline, such that none of the lab’s many overseas collaborators could find out about the samples before a cover up could take place…
(And of course, if this is what happened, why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence, then immediately send some new researchers out to collect “new” samples from the same reservoir, and throw off suspicion by “discovering” the wild source of the virus…)
H1N1 in the *70’s*? Sure about that?
Because back then I a friend was subscribed to a (CDC?) newsletter (paper! yeah 70’s) and I recall an interesting article about flu variants originating in Mongolia because that was one of the few remaining places where humans lived in enclosed close-proximity to livestock over harsh winters.
Subsequent transmission via China, Hong Kong, etc. where the variants were detected and named.
Rewind back to 1917 flu, starting in Kansas. I blame Genghis Khan. Guy really got around.
H1N1 in the *70’s*? Sure about that?
Because back then I a friend was subscribed to a (CDC?) newsletter (paper! yeah 70’s) and I recall an interesting article about flu variants originating in Mongolia because that was one of the few remaining places where humans lived in enclosed close-proximity to livestock over harsh winters.
Subsequent transmission via China, Hong Kong, etc. where the variants were detected and named.
Rewind back to 1917 flu, starting in Kansas. I blame Genghis Khan. Guy really got around.
(And of course, if this is what happened, why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence, then immediately send some new researchers out to collect “new” samples from the same reservoir, and throw off suspicion by “discovering” the wild source of the virus…)
Because, as is always the case, the conspirators are highly competent and terribly incompetent at the same time. I mean, duh…
(And of course, if this is what happened, why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence, then immediately send some new researchers out to collect “new” samples from the same reservoir, and throw off suspicion by “discovering” the wild source of the virus…)
Because, as is always the case, the conspirators are highly competent and terribly incompetent at the same time. I mean, duh…
Because, as is always the case, the conspirators are highly competent and terribly incompetent at the same time.
I point this out regularly to a friend who occasionally seems to fall for a conspiracy theory. “Believing that requires that the people you routinely accuse of being dumber than dirt are also capable of building an extensive undetectable secret network and defeating all sorts of security measures.”
Because, as is always the case, the conspirators are highly competent and terribly incompetent at the same time.
I point this out regularly to a friend who occasionally seems to fall for a conspiracy theory. “Believing that requires that the people you routinely accuse of being dumber than dirt are also capable of building an extensive undetectable secret network and defeating all sorts of security measures.”
Jack, I think that’s a well constructed narrative based on no information and your confidence in the openness and trustworthiness of the lab in question. It represents your willingness to trust certain types of people. It also makes a lot of unproven assumptions about a timeline and the order of events.
I don’t mean this as a criticism, you “did your own research”, built a narrative and believe it to be the most likely explanation.
It is just not supported by any more facts than any other narrative.
Jack, I think that’s a well constructed narrative based on no information and your confidence in the openness and trustworthiness of the lab in question. It represents your willingness to trust certain types of people. It also makes a lot of unproven assumptions about a timeline and the order of events.
I don’t mean this as a criticism, you “did your own research”, built a narrative and believe it to be the most likely explanation.
It is just not supported by any more facts than any other narrative.
H1N1 in the *70’s*? Sure about that?
H1N1 swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix in 1976, Congress passed a large budget (and indemnification of various parties) for a vaccination program, then the whole Guillain-Barré syndrome thing. I remember because a friend of mine spent six weeks in intensive care with severe Guillain-Barré earlier that year (unrelated to the vaccine).
H1N1 in the *70’s*? Sure about that?
H1N1 swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix in 1976, Congress passed a large budget (and indemnification of various parties) for a vaccination program, then the whole Guillain-Barré syndrome thing. I remember because a friend of mine spent six weeks in intensive care with severe Guillain-Barré earlier that year (unrelated to the vaccine).
I don’t mean this as a criticism, you “did your own research”, built a narrative and believe it to be the most likely explanation.
The narrative I’ve built is one where Jack appears to be more familiar with how pathogen research is conducted than you and I are, Marty. Either that or he has a very vivid imagination that allows him to go into a number of specific aspects on the topic that don’t actually exist (and he’s a big fat liar who’s trying to fool us).
I don’t mean this as a criticism, you “did your own research”, built a narrative and believe it to be the most likely explanation.
The narrative I’ve built is one where Jack appears to be more familiar with how pathogen research is conducted than you and I are, Marty. Either that or he has a very vivid imagination that allows him to go into a number of specific aspects on the topic that don’t actually exist (and he’s a big fat liar who’s trying to fool us).
why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence
Because the Wuhan collection of bat coronaviruses was already documented.
why wouldn’t the authorities finish destroying all the evidence
Because the Wuhan collection of bat coronaviruses was already documented.
Congress passed a large budget (and indemnification of various parties) for a vaccination program
Trump flubbed a lot of things. And the vaccine rollout has had its problems. But Trump’s prepurchasing millions of doses of vaccines has left the US in better circumstances than most countries.
Congress passed a large budget (and indemnification of various parties) for a vaccination program
Trump flubbed a lot of things. And the vaccine rollout has had its problems. But Trump’s prepurchasing millions of doses of vaccines has left the US in better circumstances than most countries.
such a strange thing to prepurchase vaccines for a Dem hoax flu (which was over last Easter), when we have plenty of cheap hydroxychloroquine and bleach, my cross-fit covfefe.
such a strange thing to prepurchase vaccines for a Dem hoax flu (which was over last Easter), when we have plenty of cheap hydroxychloroquine and bleach, my cross-fit covfefe.
Jack, I think that’s a well constructed narrative based on no information and your confidence in the openness and trustworthiness of the lab in question. It represents your willingness to trust certain types of people. It also makes a lot of unproven assumptions about a timeline and the order of events.
It’s not just a narrative. It’s also an analysis of all of the places where the person who constructed the counternarrative has shown himself to be misrepresenting research and claiming things that are just not true.
And no one here is claiming that China is being open or that we should trust that they are cooperating fully. The argument being made is that, even with the amount of uncertainty and the lack of cooperation, the more likely scenario based on everything we know about virus research is that the virus came from the wild, and that if the virus had been collected, that some record of it would exist outside of the one specific lab (and likely also outside of China).
And those conclusions were based not on trust of China, but on people’s experience with how virology research actually gets conducted.
So yes, y’all believe different things based on narratives that you find convincing. But one of those narratives seems to have a much more thorough understanding of how the information in question actually gets produced, and the other misrepresents the actual research that it cites.
Jack, I think that’s a well constructed narrative based on no information and your confidence in the openness and trustworthiness of the lab in question. It represents your willingness to trust certain types of people. It also makes a lot of unproven assumptions about a timeline and the order of events.
It’s not just a narrative. It’s also an analysis of all of the places where the person who constructed the counternarrative has shown himself to be misrepresenting research and claiming things that are just not true.
And no one here is claiming that China is being open or that we should trust that they are cooperating fully. The argument being made is that, even with the amount of uncertainty and the lack of cooperation, the more likely scenario based on everything we know about virus research is that the virus came from the wild, and that if the virus had been collected, that some record of it would exist outside of the one specific lab (and likely also outside of China).
And those conclusions were based not on trust of China, but on people’s experience with how virology research actually gets conducted.
So yes, y’all believe different things based on narratives that you find convincing. But one of those narratives seems to have a much more thorough understanding of how the information in question actually gets produced, and the other misrepresents the actual research that it cites.
CharlesWT,
Mitch McConnell would have blocked pre-purchase of vaccines if President Hillary had tried to do it.
That’s my theory. It’s based on no evidence, but is it totally impossible?
–TP
CharlesWT,
Mitch McConnell would have blocked pre-purchase of vaccines if President Hillary had tried to do it.
That’s my theory. It’s based on no evidence, but is it totally impossible?
–TP
Politicians don’t often do what’s best unless it’s also good for them, and their political and special interest associations.
Politicians don’t often do what’s best unless it’s also good for them, and their political and special interest associations.
The British government did a good job of ordering vaccines early because it’s deeply relaxed about shovelling public cash to the private sector, with as little regard for procurement rules as it can get away with.
The EU was rather the opposite.
The British government did a good job of ordering vaccines early because it’s deeply relaxed about shovelling public cash to the private sector, with as little regard for procurement rules as it can get away with.
The EU was rather the opposite.
nous, I don’t believe any of the current popular narratives over any other, well some are a bridge too far.
I started this pointing out how poorly the media reported the various possibilities back in March 2020, and that reporting became “theories were debunked”.
Now the WH and credible virilogists are saying there isn’t enough information to know, just as others were for the last 14 months.
So the media is now not using the word debunked to describe any narrative that includes a leak.
Jack uses cookies disappearing to support his narrative, I’m not sure that counts as a factual basis. It’s his way of saying he believes that nothing unusual happened here. So if only usual stuff happened his narrative is quite believable.
If something unusual happened one of the other narratives could be accurate.
I think that sums up what he is sayinG AFAICT.
nous, I don’t believe any of the current popular narratives over any other, well some are a bridge too far.
I started this pointing out how poorly the media reported the various possibilities back in March 2020, and that reporting became “theories were debunked”.
Now the WH and credible virilogists are saying there isn’t enough information to know, just as others were for the last 14 months.
So the media is now not using the word debunked to describe any narrative that includes a leak.
Jack uses cookies disappearing to support his narrative, I’m not sure that counts as a factual basis. It’s his way of saying he believes that nothing unusual happened here. So if only usual stuff happened his narrative is quite believable.
If something unusual happened one of the other narratives could be accurate.
I think that sums up what he is sayinG AFAICT.
I think that sums up what he is sayinG AFAICT.
I think what Jack’s saying is that some scenarios are far more likely than others, not anything about what he “believes.”
You think “the media” (whatever that means on any given day) sucks. Message received.
I think that sums up what he is sayinG AFAICT.
I think what Jack’s saying is that some scenarios are far more likely than others, not anything about what he “believes.”
You think “the media” (whatever that means on any given day) sucks. Message received.
I swear to tell the narrative, and nothing but the narrative, so help me whatever narrative of God the Court narrates.
Amen …..
….. unless someone has a better narrative tomorrow, because only the narrative of time will tell an acceptable narrative.
And I swear it on a narrative stack of bound Judeo-Christian narratives.
Bob’s yer narrative uncle.
I swear to tell the narrative, and nothing but the narrative, so help me whatever narrative of God the Court narrates.
Amen …..
….. unless someone has a better narrative tomorrow, because only the narrative of time will tell an acceptable narrative.
And I swear it on a narrative stack of bound Judeo-Christian narratives.
Bob’s yer narrative uncle.
“conservatives” complaining about media narratives?
conservatives ?
the same people who convinced themselves that Trump Won based on a steady stream of fact-free “reporting” from Fox, Twitter and OAN ?
those people?
GTFO
“conservatives” complaining about media narratives?
conservatives ?
the same people who convinced themselves that Trump Won based on a steady stream of fact-free “reporting” from Fox, Twitter and OAN ?
those people?
GTFO
I think what Jack’s saying is that some scenarios are far more likely than others, not anything about what he “believes.”
Yes. Exactly. We can actually “believe” many things at once. It’s the appropriate way to approach a situation like this where we have more missing information than facts. That doesn’t mean all those things are equally believable, though.
People on this thread (and elsewhere) keep talking about “possible”. But “possible” is just not a very useful way to analyse the situation. “Possible” is too low a bar.
Like, it’s possible I could find an unclaimed winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk tomorrow. I’m not going to base my retirement plans on it.
Jack uses cookies disappearing to support his narrative, I’m not sure that counts as a factual basis. It’s his way of saying he believes that nothing unusual happened here. So if only usual stuff happened his narrative is quite believable.
No, it was just a way to illustrate the above idea, to try to get people to think about how some possibilities can be more likely than others.
If something unusual happened one of the other narratives could be accurate.
That’s exactly right. But “unusual” is just a different way of saying “unlikely”, isn’t it?
Something unusual should also require a correspondingly unusual level of proof before we accept it.
It might also help if you actually specified concretely what you mean by “unusual”.
That’s what the narrative above is meant to stimulate — it’s all very well to say “a lab leak was covered up”, but to test that hypothesis, or at least figure out what you’d need to test it, it’s clarifying to think through the actual mechanics of what that would mean, and see if it adds up.
I think what Jack’s saying is that some scenarios are far more likely than others, not anything about what he “believes.”
Yes. Exactly. We can actually “believe” many things at once. It’s the appropriate way to approach a situation like this where we have more missing information than facts. That doesn’t mean all those things are equally believable, though.
People on this thread (and elsewhere) keep talking about “possible”. But “possible” is just not a very useful way to analyse the situation. “Possible” is too low a bar.
Like, it’s possible I could find an unclaimed winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk tomorrow. I’m not going to base my retirement plans on it.
Jack uses cookies disappearing to support his narrative, I’m not sure that counts as a factual basis. It’s his way of saying he believes that nothing unusual happened here. So if only usual stuff happened his narrative is quite believable.
No, it was just a way to illustrate the above idea, to try to get people to think about how some possibilities can be more likely than others.
If something unusual happened one of the other narratives could be accurate.
That’s exactly right. But “unusual” is just a different way of saying “unlikely”, isn’t it?
Something unusual should also require a correspondingly unusual level of proof before we accept it.
It might also help if you actually specified concretely what you mean by “unusual”.
That’s what the narrative above is meant to stimulate — it’s all very well to say “a lab leak was covered up”, but to test that hypothesis, or at least figure out what you’d need to test it, it’s clarifying to think through the actual mechanics of what that would mean, and see if it adds up.
I started this pointing out how poorly the media reported the various possibilities back in March 2020, and that reporting became “theories were debunked”.
Many theories were debunked, though. Like the ignorant rumors about leaked Chinese bioweapon plans. Or the pseudoscience about how furin cleavage sites proved it was made in a lab. Or the million and one other bad “theories” being pushed by liars with agendas.
There was plenty of “poor reporting” there, to be sure, but it wasn’t the debunking. It was the fact that any of those stories made it into print in the first place.
Now the WH and credible virilogists are saying there isn’t enough information to know, just as others were for the last 14 months.
Of course there isn’t enough information to know. That’s why there’s an ongoing investigation.
And yeah, it’s always been possible that there was a leak. Requires kind of a Rube Goldberg chain of events, but sure. Possible. And a lot of scientists, particularly ones without media training, have been happy to acknowledge that all along. As I keep trying to hammer though, possible and likely are not the same thing at all.
I don’t think the WH or the press have been particularly responsible in the way they’ve framed that fact either. It’s one thing to say, “The source of the virus hasn’t been found yet and we’re actively investigating all the possibilities”, it’s another very different thing to say something like “Intelligence experts divided about whether virus originated in lab”.
I started this pointing out how poorly the media reported the various possibilities back in March 2020, and that reporting became “theories were debunked”.
Many theories were debunked, though. Like the ignorant rumors about leaked Chinese bioweapon plans. Or the pseudoscience about how furin cleavage sites proved it was made in a lab. Or the million and one other bad “theories” being pushed by liars with agendas.
There was plenty of “poor reporting” there, to be sure, but it wasn’t the debunking. It was the fact that any of those stories made it into print in the first place.
Now the WH and credible virilogists are saying there isn’t enough information to know, just as others were for the last 14 months.
Of course there isn’t enough information to know. That’s why there’s an ongoing investigation.
And yeah, it’s always been possible that there was a leak. Requires kind of a Rube Goldberg chain of events, but sure. Possible. And a lot of scientists, particularly ones without media training, have been happy to acknowledge that all along. As I keep trying to hammer though, possible and likely are not the same thing at all.
I don’t think the WH or the press have been particularly responsible in the way they’ve framed that fact either. It’s one thing to say, “The source of the virus hasn’t been found yet and we’re actively investigating all the possibilities”, it’s another very different thing to say something like “Intelligence experts divided about whether virus originated in lab”.
Today Arizona Gov. Ducey (R) vetoed the bill that would have eliminated the state’s longstanding permanent mail ballot list. The (R)s in the assembly lack the votes to override the veto.
Ducey doesn’t have to worry about being primaried. He’s term-limited out this time.
Today Arizona Gov. Ducey (R) vetoed the bill that would have eliminated the state’s longstanding permanent mail ballot list. The (R)s in the assembly lack the votes to override the veto.
Ducey doesn’t have to worry about being primaried. He’s term-limited out this time.
Of course it’s *possible* that COVID-19 was delivered to China by aliens from Mars, in UFOs, in collusion with still-living Elvis.
The Weekly World News would be all over that theory, except that they relocated to the interior of the Hollow Earth.
I haz a sad.
Of course it’s *possible* that COVID-19 was delivered to China by aliens from Mars, in UFOs, in collusion with still-living Elvis.
The Weekly World News would be all over that theory, except that they relocated to the interior of the Hollow Earth.
I haz a sad.
In a few water cooler discussions here, conversation partners have opined that of course China is doing something, so we have to consider that possibility. I aimably nod my head in agreement, not because I agree but because taking a deep dive into the topic is not what water cooler conversation is about.
However, I was willing to consider the possibilities until going thru jack lecou’s comments and links here. I repeat one here
https://medika.life/debunking-nicholas-wades-origin-of-covid-conspiracy-theory/
So now, I wonder why Wade would write in such a way as to obliterate any shred of credibility he might have? While I would think Sinclair’s quote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” might get at it, and the whole epistemic bubble thing, I have to think another strand to it is the idea that he is smarter than everyone else.
In a few water cooler discussions here, conversation partners have opined that of course China is doing something, so we have to consider that possibility. I aimably nod my head in agreement, not because I agree but because taking a deep dive into the topic is not what water cooler conversation is about.
However, I was willing to consider the possibilities until going thru jack lecou’s comments and links here. I repeat one here
https://medika.life/debunking-nicholas-wades-origin-of-covid-conspiracy-theory/
So now, I wonder why Wade would write in such a way as to obliterate any shred of credibility he might have? While I would think Sinclair’s quote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” might get at it, and the whole epistemic bubble thing, I have to think another strand to it is the idea that he is smarter than everyone else.
And with regard to the Wade debunking, I say again that “debunk” and “disprove” are not synonyms. Let me unpack that a bit.
Wade’s narrative outlines a possibility that we all accept, which is that the outbreak could have originated in a lab leak. That part has nothing whatsoever to do with the “debunking.” Nothing can be proven either way because we lack an origin for this particular variant.
What that article does, and what the other articles linked to here whenever the “arguments supporting a lab leak hypothesis” do, is go through the arguments and point out which parts of those arguments are bunk. If you pay attention to the substance of the arguments – the actual grounds, warrants and backing involved that support the claim, you’ll find that once the bunk is removed, all that is left is the initial premise and suspicion grounded in China not being cooperative. That’s pretty much what we had before the argument was put forth. We knew both of those things already.
Where is the bunk in the other narrative? What part of the “likely to be naturally occurring” argument is based on bunk? Wade attempted to claim that the “likely naturally occurring” was based on bunk, but his debunking was rebutted and shown to be bunk.
That does not put both arguments on equal footing as having been rebutted and debunked. That puts one argument as having been defended against an attempted debunking that itself proved to be full of bunk, and leaves us with one side having proven to have both a deeper understanding and a stronger ethos.
That doesn’t argue for either premise, but it does argue for which party is more worthy of trust.
And with regard to the Wade debunking, I say again that “debunk” and “disprove” are not synonyms. Let me unpack that a bit.
Wade’s narrative outlines a possibility that we all accept, which is that the outbreak could have originated in a lab leak. That part has nothing whatsoever to do with the “debunking.” Nothing can be proven either way because we lack an origin for this particular variant.
What that article does, and what the other articles linked to here whenever the “arguments supporting a lab leak hypothesis” do, is go through the arguments and point out which parts of those arguments are bunk. If you pay attention to the substance of the arguments – the actual grounds, warrants and backing involved that support the claim, you’ll find that once the bunk is removed, all that is left is the initial premise and suspicion grounded in China not being cooperative. That’s pretty much what we had before the argument was put forth. We knew both of those things already.
Where is the bunk in the other narrative? What part of the “likely to be naturally occurring” argument is based on bunk? Wade attempted to claim that the “likely naturally occurring” was based on bunk, but his debunking was rebutted and shown to be bunk.
That does not put both arguments on equal footing as having been rebutted and debunked. That puts one argument as having been defended against an attempted debunking that itself proved to be full of bunk, and leaves us with one side having proven to have both a deeper understanding and a stronger ethos.
That doesn’t argue for either premise, but it does argue for which party is more worthy of trust.
nous, good point. I was a bit worried I used debunk in my comment, but fortunately I didn’t. I can’t say that I have never used it, but it is not a very interesting word on first glance and sounds rather imprecise, but now, I’m thinking of it like ‘gruntled’ is ‘disgruntled’, in that what was the bunk and who got it taken away. This is a fun read, though painfully a propos to current politics.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/debunk
It also points to another aspect, which is that if you point out the fallacy in someone else’s argument, it actually doesn’t necessarily make your argument stronger except by reducing the field of potential explanations. I think we have a visceral understanding of this, and when someone like Wade is shown to be full of shit, some may think ‘well, you’ve disproved that, but I still think your idea is on shaky ground’. When you are at that point, you can show the flaws in a whole parade of arguments, but it won’t affect the view of the person, who will just discard one and move on to the next.
nous, good point. I was a bit worried I used debunk in my comment, but fortunately I didn’t. I can’t say that I have never used it, but it is not a very interesting word on first glance and sounds rather imprecise, but now, I’m thinking of it like ‘gruntled’ is ‘disgruntled’, in that what was the bunk and who got it taken away. This is a fun read, though painfully a propos to current politics.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/debunk
It also points to another aspect, which is that if you point out the fallacy in someone else’s argument, it actually doesn’t necessarily make your argument stronger except by reducing the field of potential explanations. I think we have a visceral understanding of this, and when someone like Wade is shown to be full of shit, some may think ‘well, you’ve disproved that, but I still think your idea is on shaky ground’. When you are at that point, you can show the flaws in a whole parade of arguments, but it won’t affect the view of the person, who will just discard one and move on to the next.
That doesn’t argue for either premise, but it does argue for which party is more worthy of trust.
This.
The situation we’re in is one where a bunch of fabulists and fearmongers have spent a year and a half putting forth a million and one theories and insinuations, every single one of which has been, in its turn, comprehensively dismantled and debunked, shorn of every specific falsifiable claim, leaving only the same bare kernel of possibility we all conceded at the outset.
You don’t have to be a nerd with “I 🖤 Bayes” tattooed on your forearm to work out how much credence to give when the same liars come out with a million-and-second version of their pet theory.
Especially when zero new actual facts have been unearthed in the interval.
That doesn’t argue for either premise, but it does argue for which party is more worthy of trust.
This.
The situation we’re in is one where a bunch of fabulists and fearmongers have spent a year and a half putting forth a million and one theories and insinuations, every single one of which has been, in its turn, comprehensively dismantled and debunked, shorn of every specific falsifiable claim, leaving only the same bare kernel of possibility we all conceded at the outset.
You don’t have to be a nerd with “I 🖤 Bayes” tattooed on your forearm to work out how much credence to give when the same liars come out with a million-and-second version of their pet theory.
Especially when zero new actual facts have been unearthed in the interval.
There we go.
There we go.
You don’t have to be a nerd with “I 🖤 Bayes” tattooed on your forearm to work out how much credence to give when the same liars come out with a million-and-second version of their pet theory.
Reality is just a nasty plot by “those people”**, intended to confuse the (self)righteous. Everybody knows this.
** whatever label you routinely apply to them.
You don’t have to be a nerd with “I 🖤 Bayes” tattooed on your forearm to work out how much credence to give when the same liars come out with a million-and-second version of their pet theory.
Reality is just a nasty plot by “those people”**, intended to confuse the (self)righteous. Everybody knows this.
** whatever label you routinely apply to them.
At the heart of your argument is the assumption that a leak “Requires kind of a Rube Goldberg chain of events”. Which is simply not true. Based on your assumption about how the individual actors usually do things, if I read correctly you don’t know how these actors usually do things, a fanciful Rube Goldberg scenario can be constructed to demean the possibilities.
That a human being made a mistake in the lab, got sick, infected others, the Chinese government did what it could to contain it, lied about the origin and a pandemic resulted is not fanciful or far beyond usual. And the science is not inconsistent with that scenario. Or yours.
But, in the end, like the media you don’t believe it because of who said it, without evidence.
At the heart of your argument is the assumption that a leak “Requires kind of a Rube Goldberg chain of events”. Which is simply not true. Based on your assumption about how the individual actors usually do things, if I read correctly you don’t know how these actors usually do things, a fanciful Rube Goldberg scenario can be constructed to demean the possibilities.
That a human being made a mistake in the lab, got sick, infected others, the Chinese government did what it could to contain it, lied about the origin and a pandemic resulted is not fanciful or far beyond usual. And the science is not inconsistent with that scenario. Or yours.
But, in the end, like the media you don’t believe it because of who said it, without evidence.
This Newsweek article has a lot of details on the search for evidence of a lab leak. But it doesn’t seem to have any conclusions beyond what we’ve already seen.
“The reason for the sudden shift in attitudes is clear: over the weeks and months of the pandemic, the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore.
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues. Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen or so correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter—in a kind of open-source, collective brainstorming session that was part forensic science, part citizen journalism, and entirely new. They call themselves DRASTIC, for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19.”
Exclusive: How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media
This Newsweek article has a lot of details on the search for evidence of a lab leak. But it doesn’t seem to have any conclusions beyond what we’ve already seen.
“The reason for the sudden shift in attitudes is clear: over the weeks and months of the pandemic, the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore.
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues. Throughout the pandemic, about two dozen or so correspondents, many anonymous, working independently from many different countries, have uncovered obscure documents, pieced together the information, and explained it all in long threads on Twitter—in a kind of open-source, collective brainstorming session that was part forensic science, part citizen journalism, and entirely new. They call themselves DRASTIC, for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19.”
Exclusive: How Amateur Sleuths Broke the Wuhan Lab Story and Embarrassed the Media
Marty,
Which is “the” lab you’re theorizing about?
If the “mistake” was careless handling of, say, blood from a bat collected in the wild, I would not hesitate to call that a case of the virus “leaking from the lab”, but it would obviously be very different from the virus being concocted in “the” lab.
And if the “mistake” was of that nature, one would have to wonder: how likely is it that that the lab worker was the very first person who got infected by this natural virus?
How unlikely is it that such a virus first infected a mailman, say? And would it be fair to say, in that case, that the virus “leaked” from the Wuhan post office?
–TP
Marty,
Which is “the” lab you’re theorizing about?
If the “mistake” was careless handling of, say, blood from a bat collected in the wild, I would not hesitate to call that a case of the virus “leaking from the lab”, but it would obviously be very different from the virus being concocted in “the” lab.
And if the “mistake” was of that nature, one would have to wonder: how likely is it that that the lab worker was the very first person who got infected by this natural virus?
How unlikely is it that such a virus first infected a mailman, say? And would it be fair to say, in that case, that the virus “leaked” from the Wuhan post office?
–TP
They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues.
I wonder if they found that the lab had marble countertops…
They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues.
I wonder if they found that the lab had marble countertops…
The Newsweek article is interesting and informative, and it points to a lot of interesting questions. It also engages in a lot of the sort of behavior that CharlesWT and Marty have been criticizing The Media for, with their breathless reporting of the search for information and casting the group as plucky amateur sleuths out to solve a puzzle. I noted several times where the article claims that the sleuths found information and then declared that the sleuths had gotten closer to the heart of the mystery while also putting in a bare minimum of mention that all of this is still supposition and speculation.
I mean, it’s also entirely possible that there was no lab leak, but that the outbreak was the product of some genetic relative of the viruses that were being studied at the lab, and that the coverup was happening because the lab was trying to distance itself to protect its reputation – only to have that backfire when the rumors persisted.
Both scenarios would look the same absent the intermediate steps linking the earlier virus to our current problem.
Are Newsweek good journalists opposing the bad journalists who were duped by Daszak, or are they just another group of journalists chasing a story and making guesses and trying to sex up the details to give their story traction?
I think I agree with how Jesse Bloom typifies part of this: “I don’t agree [with] all of it, but some parts seem important & correct.” He says it is “plausible” (and not “probable,” which seems another important distinction to keep in mind here, “plausible” is a much more cautious qualifier). It’s worth digging into in order to see what is going on, but that does not mean that the amateur sleuths or the public are any closer to the heart of the COVID mystery, just that they have found evidence that there is more going on with the SARS research than we know.
The Newsweek article is interesting and informative, and it points to a lot of interesting questions. It also engages in a lot of the sort of behavior that CharlesWT and Marty have been criticizing The Media for, with their breathless reporting of the search for information and casting the group as plucky amateur sleuths out to solve a puzzle. I noted several times where the article claims that the sleuths found information and then declared that the sleuths had gotten closer to the heart of the mystery while also putting in a bare minimum of mention that all of this is still supposition and speculation.
I mean, it’s also entirely possible that there was no lab leak, but that the outbreak was the product of some genetic relative of the viruses that were being studied at the lab, and that the coverup was happening because the lab was trying to distance itself to protect its reputation – only to have that backfire when the rumors persisted.
Both scenarios would look the same absent the intermediate steps linking the earlier virus to our current problem.
Are Newsweek good journalists opposing the bad journalists who were duped by Daszak, or are they just another group of journalists chasing a story and making guesses and trying to sex up the details to give their story traction?
I think I agree with how Jesse Bloom typifies part of this: “I don’t agree [with] all of it, but some parts seem important & correct.” He says it is “plausible” (and not “probable,” which seems another important distinction to keep in mind here, “plausible” is a much more cautious qualifier). It’s worth digging into in order to see what is going on, but that does not mean that the amateur sleuths or the public are any closer to the heart of the COVID mystery, just that they have found evidence that there is more going on with the SARS research than we know.
That a human being made a mistake in the lab, got sick, infected others, the Chinese government did what it could to contain it, lied about the origin and a pandemic resulted is not fanciful or far beyond usual. And the science is not inconsistent with that scenario. Or yours.
No, you’re not actually thinking it through.
Sure, it’s easy to believe a lab worker fumbled up somehow. Like I said before: this happens all the time.
The problem is: wholly novel human-pathogenic viruses don’t just magically appear in labs, ready for hapless lab workers to make innocent mistakes with. This virus still had to come from somewhere.
And that’s the part where our buddy Rube comes into play.
Because if we go with a lab leak theory, then there are two possibilities for the source of the virus:
1. It was a sample collected in the wild.
2. It was ‘engineered’ in the lab, perhaps in a so-called Gain of Function experiment.
And each of these has their own problems.
Case 1:
A) Sample collection implies there’s already a reservoir of this virus out in the woods somewhere. So a virus that’s apparently completely ripe for making a crossover and infecting humans, hosted in an animal that’s almost certainly cohabiting those woods with thousands of local villagers, maybe is even a food source for them, or a household pest, etc.
What are the chances that it infects poor Lucy Lab-Assistant first, rather than any of those villagers its been living with for years? (At which point it’d just be a bog-standard zoonotic crossover.) It will have had way more chances to do that.
Is it impossible that Lucy just got unlucky? Of course not. But it’s immensely unlikely.
B) There is a time element to this. It’s hard to say what time, exactly, but it’s there, and adds an extra level of chance needed to make the theory work.
The Wuhan Virology Institute is not a secret Chinese military facility or something. It was set up with foreign help. It publishes open papers. It collaborates on almost everything with a sister institution in Texas. It receives US govt. grant money. And it hosts dozens of researchers, none of whom, as far as anyone can tell, have been disappeared by the secret police yet.
If someone collected SARS-CoV-2 samples from the wild, and anyone at the institute ever had a chance to do even a preliminary analysis, it would have raised some eyebrows. A new virus with features that might make it compatible with humans is exactly the kind of thing these coronavirus surveillance programs are looking for. And remember, there’d be no reason to cover anything up at that point — quite the opposite, it’d have been quite a coup.
Eventually, it would have been published. Physical samples shared with the world. But even before that, before formal collaboration or paper drafting, someone would have mentioned it — probably breathlessly — to their colleagues, including overseas colleagues, in an email or a zoom meeting or something.
So the fact that no one seems to have any record or awareness of these supposed wild samples of a human-ready coronavirus means they must have been pretty new. Like, maybe not “just arrived on the loading dock, haven’t even been signed in” new — obviously the conspirators could have simply destroyed those records. But, you know, pretty new.
Case 2:
I’d encourage you to read the Nicholas Wade takedown link above, or even the original Anderson et al. paper Wade was trying to criticize.
Beyond even questions about biochemical evolution markers and stuff, the basic problem here is that SARS-CoV-2 just doesn’t make any sense from a research standpoint. Even if they were doing unannounced, unauthorized GoF experiments in Wuhan — and there’s no evidence for that — something like BaTG13 (which presumably would have been the predecessor) isn’t what you’d start with. It’s not a well characterized virus with existing tooling, and so it’d make a lot of extra work, for no purpose. And then SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the direction you’d aim for.
It’s like seeing a souped-up Yugo, with hydraulics and a V8, and concluding that it’s probably a top-secret Tesla prototype. That just…doesn’t add up. On any level. It’s not where they’d start. It’s not where they’d end up.
That a human being made a mistake in the lab, got sick, infected others, the Chinese government did what it could to contain it, lied about the origin and a pandemic resulted is not fanciful or far beyond usual. And the science is not inconsistent with that scenario. Or yours.
No, you’re not actually thinking it through.
Sure, it’s easy to believe a lab worker fumbled up somehow. Like I said before: this happens all the time.
The problem is: wholly novel human-pathogenic viruses don’t just magically appear in labs, ready for hapless lab workers to make innocent mistakes with. This virus still had to come from somewhere.
And that’s the part where our buddy Rube comes into play.
Because if we go with a lab leak theory, then there are two possibilities for the source of the virus:
1. It was a sample collected in the wild.
2. It was ‘engineered’ in the lab, perhaps in a so-called Gain of Function experiment.
And each of these has their own problems.
Case 1:
A) Sample collection implies there’s already a reservoir of this virus out in the woods somewhere. So a virus that’s apparently completely ripe for making a crossover and infecting humans, hosted in an animal that’s almost certainly cohabiting those woods with thousands of local villagers, maybe is even a food source for them, or a household pest, etc.
What are the chances that it infects poor Lucy Lab-Assistant first, rather than any of those villagers its been living with for years? (At which point it’d just be a bog-standard zoonotic crossover.) It will have had way more chances to do that.
Is it impossible that Lucy just got unlucky? Of course not. But it’s immensely unlikely.
B) There is a time element to this. It’s hard to say what time, exactly, but it’s there, and adds an extra level of chance needed to make the theory work.
The Wuhan Virology Institute is not a secret Chinese military facility or something. It was set up with foreign help. It publishes open papers. It collaborates on almost everything with a sister institution in Texas. It receives US govt. grant money. And it hosts dozens of researchers, none of whom, as far as anyone can tell, have been disappeared by the secret police yet.
If someone collected SARS-CoV-2 samples from the wild, and anyone at the institute ever had a chance to do even a preliminary analysis, it would have raised some eyebrows. A new virus with features that might make it compatible with humans is exactly the kind of thing these coronavirus surveillance programs are looking for. And remember, there’d be no reason to cover anything up at that point — quite the opposite, it’d have been quite a coup.
Eventually, it would have been published. Physical samples shared with the world. But even before that, before formal collaboration or paper drafting, someone would have mentioned it — probably breathlessly — to their colleagues, including overseas colleagues, in an email or a zoom meeting or something.
So the fact that no one seems to have any record or awareness of these supposed wild samples of a human-ready coronavirus means they must have been pretty new. Like, maybe not “just arrived on the loading dock, haven’t even been signed in” new — obviously the conspirators could have simply destroyed those records. But, you know, pretty new.
Case 2:
I’d encourage you to read the Nicholas Wade takedown link above, or even the original Anderson et al. paper Wade was trying to criticize.
Beyond even questions about biochemical evolution markers and stuff, the basic problem here is that SARS-CoV-2 just doesn’t make any sense from a research standpoint. Even if they were doing unannounced, unauthorized GoF experiments in Wuhan — and there’s no evidence for that — something like BaTG13 (which presumably would have been the predecessor) isn’t what you’d start with. It’s not a well characterized virus with existing tooling, and so it’d make a lot of extra work, for no purpose. And then SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the direction you’d aim for.
It’s like seeing a souped-up Yugo, with hydraulics and a V8, and concluding that it’s probably a top-secret Tesla prototype. That just…doesn’t add up. On any level. It’s not where they’d start. It’s not where they’d end up.
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues.
I am indeed extremely impressed with these amateur sleuths and their ability to pierce the veil of a sophisticated, apparently years-in-the-making cover up of…something(?) by…reading published academic papers? Hmm.
Remember what I said up thread about million-and-second? This is like million-and-second through million-and-twelfth.
Just, really, really silly stuff.
Like:
Some problems here, but ok. Let’s go with it.
Hmm. “Avoided connecting it.” That sounds suspicious! What’s the bat lady hiding? Let’s she what she has to to say for herself:
Oh. She mentions potentially infectious coronaviruses are all over the mine? Some cover up.
I find myself thinking, though, I wonder what DRASTIC makes of this!
Right! I forgot! Obviously those miners really died of COVID-19 back in 2012, so WIV and Shi’s have been covering up its existence this whole time, because they knew the lab would leak the virus out in 2019. Smart.
But. No doubt DRASTIC will cut through this conspiracy. Shi’s definitely lying through her face hole, and I’m sure we’ve got incontrovertibly clear cut evidence that this was COVID-12 or a direct precursor, and no fungus in sight.
Hmm. Well, ok, let’s give it a shot. My Chinese isn’t worth crap these days, but I’m sure I can google translate every bit as well as “The Seeker”. Let’s check the diagnoses for the three who died:
So, these poor fellows were clearly pretty messed up. And respiratory and organ failure checks out. “Inhalation lung injury” doesn’t sound very COVID like, though. Almost sounds like maybe they had an accident down there. There’s also mention of “inhalation of noxious gases” in on or two of them as well. And what’s that last one? Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. That’s a funny name. Sounds…almost…fungal.
There were some secondary bacterial infections as well.
Any mention of viruses in there at all? Well, yes, in the followup discussion at the end:
So, that’s a little garbled, but sounds like there might have been some kind of a positive, general coronavirus antibody test performed by WIV. The second thesis, which I’m not going to bother digging into, said only 4 of the 6 tested positive.
Was a coronavirus the primary infection here? Maaaaybe. It sort of sounds like these guys just about drowned in bat guano somehow, so there was a lot going on. Obviously, coronaviruses were a concern for everyone, but there’s really no smoking gun, and I don’t think it would have been responsible for anyone to claim there was. Certainly there’s no indication any specific virus was or could be identified, and the antibody test isn’t very conclusive. There might indeed have been no way to determine much of anything conclusively, not once the survivors had recovered and autopsies had been refused by all three families of the deceased. It sounds like WIV also followed up with tests around the area, to check for any kind of general outbreak or crossover. (Though DRASTIC spins this as nefarious somehow, natch.)
This is definitely kind of all hat, no cattle when it comes to backing up the dramatic claims made by DRASTIC and Newsweek about a WIV coverup. Saying they died of a fungus infection could very well be Shi’s honest recollection of the affair — and she isn’t necessarily wrong.
I’ll admit I was cracking up at the over the top phrases like “The Seeker revealed his research powers to the group,” though.
The rest of is just more dreck along the same lines, or worse. I mean,
Spoiler: none of the research plans are damning.
Same old stuff. More of the stupid insinuation and conspiratorialism that we’ve already been having to swat down for far too long already.
Hint for the people talking about how “circumstantial evidence is stacking up”. It’s not a “stack” if the bottom layers keep getting debunked and disappearing out from under you. It’s true that that’s the way you win at Tetris, but it’s not so great for building an honest argument for anything.
The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths, with few resources except curiosity and a willingness to spend days combing the internet for clues.
I am indeed extremely impressed with these amateur sleuths and their ability to pierce the veil of a sophisticated, apparently years-in-the-making cover up of…something(?) by…reading published academic papers? Hmm.
Remember what I said up thread about million-and-second? This is like million-and-second through million-and-twelfth.
Just, really, really silly stuff.
Like:
Some problems here, but ok. Let’s go with it.
Hmm. “Avoided connecting it.” That sounds suspicious! What’s the bat lady hiding? Let’s she what she has to to say for herself:
Oh. She mentions potentially infectious coronaviruses are all over the mine? Some cover up.
I find myself thinking, though, I wonder what DRASTIC makes of this!
Right! I forgot! Obviously those miners really died of COVID-19 back in 2012, so WIV and Shi’s have been covering up its existence this whole time, because they knew the lab would leak the virus out in 2019. Smart.
But. No doubt DRASTIC will cut through this conspiracy. Shi’s definitely lying through her face hole, and I’m sure we’ve got incontrovertibly clear cut evidence that this was COVID-12 or a direct precursor, and no fungus in sight.
Hmm. Well, ok, let’s give it a shot. My Chinese isn’t worth crap these days, but I’m sure I can google translate every bit as well as “The Seeker”. Let’s check the diagnoses for the three who died:
So, these poor fellows were clearly pretty messed up. And respiratory and organ failure checks out. “Inhalation lung injury” doesn’t sound very COVID like, though. Almost sounds like maybe they had an accident down there. There’s also mention of “inhalation of noxious gases” in on or two of them as well. And what’s that last one? Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. That’s a funny name. Sounds…almost…fungal.
There were some secondary bacterial infections as well.
Any mention of viruses in there at all? Well, yes, in the followup discussion at the end:
So, that’s a little garbled, but sounds like there might have been some kind of a positive, general coronavirus antibody test performed by WIV. The second thesis, which I’m not going to bother digging into, said only 4 of the 6 tested positive.
Was a coronavirus the primary infection here? Maaaaybe. It sort of sounds like these guys just about drowned in bat guano somehow, so there was a lot going on. Obviously, coronaviruses were a concern for everyone, but there’s really no smoking gun, and I don’t think it would have been responsible for anyone to claim there was. Certainly there’s no indication any specific virus was or could be identified, and the antibody test isn’t very conclusive. There might indeed have been no way to determine much of anything conclusively, not once the survivors had recovered and autopsies had been refused by all three families of the deceased. It sounds like WIV also followed up with tests around the area, to check for any kind of general outbreak or crossover. (Though DRASTIC spins this as nefarious somehow, natch.)
This is definitely kind of all hat, no cattle when it comes to backing up the dramatic claims made by DRASTIC and Newsweek about a WIV coverup. Saying they died of a fungus infection could very well be Shi’s honest recollection of the affair — and she isn’t necessarily wrong.
I’ll admit I was cracking up at the over the top phrases like “The Seeker revealed his research powers to the group,” though.
The rest of is just more dreck along the same lines, or worse. I mean,
Spoiler: none of the research plans are damning.
Same old stuff. More of the stupid insinuation and conspiratorialism that we’ve already been having to swat down for far too long already.
Hint for the people talking about how “circumstantial evidence is stacking up”. It’s not a “stack” if the bottom layers keep getting debunked and disappearing out from under you. It’s true that that’s the way you win at Tetris, but it’s not so great for building an honest argument for anything.
The Wuhan Virology Institute is not a secret Chinese military facility or something.
Interestingly, in most of those articles there is secrecy. Denying where money came from, denying that it was for GoF projects, mostly simply not cooperating with the WHO or independent scientists. All this somehow calls into question your nothing to see here certainty. There is likely something to see here. It could be that it’s instinctive for the Chinese to be uncooperative.
I understand the idea that something would not be a good starting place, but that implies knowing the purpose of the GoF project. It could be exactly the right starting place. Or just the one they had.
I find your argument against a sample being found in the wild more compelling, but still, how remarkable would another SARS virus be? Would it really demand breathless emails? Could the fact that it was found and not talked about simply be because there hadn’t been adequate study prior to the lab mistake?
All of what you are claiming, point by point, is circumstantial based on your assessment of what you perceive normal behavior of research virologists is. Certainly it’s reasonable to ask for evidence, so far asked and not answered.
Granting your fairly obvious personal knowledge, you keep stressing that things are unlikely, even italicizing it. We are not talking about Yugos. We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
That the theories are more outlandish is not surprising under those circumstances. You have people trying to construct evidence where there is none for their narrative.
As have you, based on “normal” or “likely” as your key parameters.
I would prefer evidence.
The Wuhan Virology Institute is not a secret Chinese military facility or something.
Interestingly, in most of those articles there is secrecy. Denying where money came from, denying that it was for GoF projects, mostly simply not cooperating with the WHO or independent scientists. All this somehow calls into question your nothing to see here certainty. There is likely something to see here. It could be that it’s instinctive for the Chinese to be uncooperative.
I understand the idea that something would not be a good starting place, but that implies knowing the purpose of the GoF project. It could be exactly the right starting place. Or just the one they had.
I find your argument against a sample being found in the wild more compelling, but still, how remarkable would another SARS virus be? Would it really demand breathless emails? Could the fact that it was found and not talked about simply be because there hadn’t been adequate study prior to the lab mistake?
All of what you are claiming, point by point, is circumstantial based on your assessment of what you perceive normal behavior of research virologists is. Certainly it’s reasonable to ask for evidence, so far asked and not answered.
Granting your fairly obvious personal knowledge, you keep stressing that things are unlikely, even italicizing it. We are not talking about Yugos. We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
That the theories are more outlandish is not surprising under those circumstances. You have people trying to construct evidence where there is none for their narrative.
As have you, based on “normal” or “likely” as your key parameters.
I would prefer evidence.
It’s true that that’s the way you win at Tetris, but it’s not so great for building an honest argument for anything.
this bunch of people who just received their accelerated doctorates in forensic virology from Dunning-Kruger U aren’t actually interested in honest argument. they’re trying to rescue the GOP’s reputation by convincing enough people that they weren’t completely wrong about yet another something.
and no amount of debunking is going to stop them. they and their eager audience are already ignoring the fact that all they have is conjecture. and if a natural origin is eventually found, they aren’t going to believe it.
they will always believe, despite any evidence to the contrary, that this was a leak. and a good number of them are going to believe it was a deliberate leak to “weaken America”.
these aren’t scientists. they aren’t even reporters. it’s motivated reasoning and infectious ignorance running wild.
It’s true that that’s the way you win at Tetris, but it’s not so great for building an honest argument for anything.
this bunch of people who just received their accelerated doctorates in forensic virology from Dunning-Kruger U aren’t actually interested in honest argument. they’re trying to rescue the GOP’s reputation by convincing enough people that they weren’t completely wrong about yet another something.
and no amount of debunking is going to stop them. they and their eager audience are already ignoring the fact that all they have is conjecture. and if a natural origin is eventually found, they aren’t going to believe it.
they will always believe, despite any evidence to the contrary, that this was a leak. and a good number of them are going to believe it was a deliberate leak to “weaken America”.
these aren’t scientists. they aren’t even reporters. it’s motivated reasoning and infectious ignorance running wild.
a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
As noted in somebody’s comment above, there are multiple virology labs, of various kinds. But the one likely to have been actually experimenting on something like this (as opposed to just running virus tests on locals or sampling the local population) is across town and on the far side of the river from the market. Damn impressive throw of a stone.
The Chinese government’s lack of cooperation would be more convincing. Except that they are like that over lots of stuff. Especially when they perceive that they are being blamed, justly or not, for something. Merely having the US President (no matter what their opinion of him otherwise) ranting about “kung flu” and “Chinese virus” would be more than enough to trigger that well-honed reflex.
a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
As noted in somebody’s comment above, there are multiple virology labs, of various kinds. But the one likely to have been actually experimenting on something like this (as opposed to just running virus tests on locals or sampling the local population) is across town and on the far side of the river from the market. Damn impressive throw of a stone.
The Chinese government’s lack of cooperation would be more convincing. Except that they are like that over lots of stuff. Especially when they perceive that they are being blamed, justly or not, for something. Merely having the US President (no matter what their opinion of him otherwise) ranting about “kung flu” and “Chinese virus” would be more than enough to trigger that well-honed reflex.
like the media you don’t believe it because of who said it, without evidence.
“The media” has taken every imaginable position on this question. Your own opinions about all of this are based on things you have read or heard from “the media”.
There is no “media” seeking to suppress minority points of view. Most sources of information have an editorial point of view, which folks should be and generally are aware of. But there is no point of view about the origin of Covid that is not represented in “the media”.
like the media you don’t believe it because of who said it, without evidence.
“The media” has taken every imaginable position on this question. Your own opinions about all of this are based on things you have read or heard from “the media”.
There is no “media” seeking to suppress minority points of view. Most sources of information have an editorial point of view, which folks should be and generally are aware of. But there is no point of view about the origin of Covid that is not represented in “the media”.
“Merely having the US President (no matter what their opinion of him otherwise) ranting about “kung flu” and “Chinese virus” would be more than enough to trigger that well-honed reflex.”
Precisely.
“Merely having the US President (no matter what their opinion of him otherwise) ranting about “kung flu” and “Chinese virus” would be more than enough to trigger that well-honed reflex.”
Precisely.
narratives.
only liberals follow them.
narratives.
only liberals follow them.
The Chinese government’s lack of cooperation would be more convincing. Except that they are like that over lots of stuff.
Name one country that is transparent about the operations of bio-safety labs they host.
The Chinese are arguably worse about this than others, but it’s a matter of degree.
And the Tom Cottons of the world don’t help matters.
The Chinese government’s lack of cooperation would be more convincing. Except that they are like that over lots of stuff.
Name one country that is transparent about the operations of bio-safety labs they host.
The Chinese are arguably worse about this than others, but it’s a matter of degree.
And the Tom Cottons of the world don’t help matters.
I would prefer evidence.
Right. So would everyone else. But the greatest burden lies on those making very specific claims that are far less likely than other broader claims.
We aren’t comparing some well-covered-up-lab-leak theory with some particular bat biting a particular person. We’re comparing it to some unspecified animal out of many, many possible animals somewhere around Wuhan transmitting the virus to some unspecified person out of many, many possible people somewhere around Wuhan.
If you want evidence, you should be persuaded when someone points out that the evidence for the lab-leak theory sucks.
I would prefer evidence.
Right. So would everyone else. But the greatest burden lies on those making very specific claims that are far less likely than other broader claims.
We aren’t comparing some well-covered-up-lab-leak theory with some particular bat biting a particular person. We’re comparing it to some unspecified animal out of many, many possible animals somewhere around Wuhan transmitting the virus to some unspecified person out of many, many possible people somewhere around Wuhan.
If you want evidence, you should be persuaded when someone points out that the evidence for the lab-leak theory sucks.
they should at least back off the certainty. they’re claiming it was a leak based on conjecture and confirmation-bias.
it might turn out to have been a leak. enough actual evidence could come out to prove it. but that hasn’t happened yet.
they’d look a lot less silly, if they did that.
the fact that they don’t want to do that, and instead want to convince people that possibility=confirmation, tells me that they’re not in it for truth; they’re in it to establish a narrative of their own.
also Trump Won.
they should at least back off the certainty. they’re claiming it was a leak based on conjecture and confirmation-bias.
it might turn out to have been a leak. enough actual evidence could come out to prove it. but that hasn’t happened yet.
they’d look a lot less silly, if they did that.
the fact that they don’t want to do that, and instead want to convince people that possibility=confirmation, tells me that they’re not in it for truth; they’re in it to establish a narrative of their own.
also Trump Won.
“they should at least back off the certainty. they’re claiming it was a leak based on conjecture and confirmation-bias.”
Yep they should. If someone points to actual evidence a lab leak didn’t happen I will certainly take that into account. There is zero of that in this thread.
“they should at least back off the certainty. they’re claiming it was a leak based on conjecture and confirmation-bias.”
Yep they should. If someone points to actual evidence a lab leak didn’t happen I will certainly take that into account. There is zero of that in this thread.
Marty,
You may have missed my question from last night (12:03AM today,actually) or you may be ignoring it, so I ask again:
Which is “the” lab you’re theorizing about?
Proving that a leak DIDN’T happen is hard enough when “the” lab is a particular one. Proving there was no “leak” from ANY lab seems practically impossible. How would YOU go about it?
To save you the trouble of clicking back to the previous page, here’s the rest of that 12:03 comment:
If the “mistake” was careless handling of, say, blood from a bat collected in the wild, I would not hesitate to call that a case of the virus “leaking from the lab”, but it would obviously be very different from the virus being concocted in “the” lab.
And if the “mistake” was of that nature, one would have to wonder: how likely is it that that the lab worker was the very first person who got infected by this natural virus?
How unlikely is it that such a virus first infected a mailman, say? And would it be fair to say, in that case, that the virus “leaked” from the Wuhan post office?
–TP
Marty,
You may have missed my question from last night (12:03AM today,actually) or you may be ignoring it, so I ask again:
Which is “the” lab you’re theorizing about?
Proving that a leak DIDN’T happen is hard enough when “the” lab is a particular one. Proving there was no “leak” from ANY lab seems practically impossible. How would YOU go about it?
To save you the trouble of clicking back to the previous page, here’s the rest of that 12:03 comment:
If the “mistake” was careless handling of, say, blood from a bat collected in the wild, I would not hesitate to call that a case of the virus “leaking from the lab”, but it would obviously be very different from the virus being concocted in “the” lab.
And if the “mistake” was of that nature, one would have to wonder: how likely is it that that the lab worker was the very first person who got infected by this natural virus?
How unlikely is it that such a virus first infected a mailman, say? And would it be fair to say, in that case, that the virus “leaked” from the Wuhan post office?
–TP
Marty seems to be responding to the imaginary person who has asserted that a lab leak was impossible.
Marty seems to be responding to the imaginary person who has asserted that a lab leak was impossible.
“If someone points to actual evidence a lab leak didn’t happen I will certainly take that into account.”
Many things didn’t happen in the world yesterday.
But I can’t prove they didn’t happen.
Zen Trump.
“If someone points to actual evidence a lab leak didn’t happen I will certainly take that into account.”
Many things didn’t happen in the world yesterday.
But I can’t prove they didn’t happen.
Zen Trump.
“Proving a negative” (a logical impossibility) is the new GOP cognitive framework.
“Prove it didn’t happen!” – is a phrase straight out of schlocky horror movies and tabloid stories. And, now, the GOP phrasebook.
Though I have to say I’m at a loss to figure out what their endgame is. “Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the Party’s absolute failure to deal with the virus effectively once it reached the USA.
“Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the massive negligent homicide of nearly a million Americans.
So I’m not sure if this frenzy to retrofit Covid-19 origins into their favorite fantasy world is simply to distract attention from the GOP’s crimes against humanity, or if they’re just cognitively impaired enough to think “proving” their favorite fantasy means nothing that came afterward is their fault.
It’s always difficult to distinguish between malignance and stupidity as the GOP’s prime motivators.
“Proving a negative” (a logical impossibility) is the new GOP cognitive framework.
“Prove it didn’t happen!” – is a phrase straight out of schlocky horror movies and tabloid stories. And, now, the GOP phrasebook.
Though I have to say I’m at a loss to figure out what their endgame is. “Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the Party’s absolute failure to deal with the virus effectively once it reached the USA.
“Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the massive negligent homicide of nearly a million Americans.
So I’m not sure if this frenzy to retrofit Covid-19 origins into their favorite fantasy world is simply to distract attention from the GOP’s crimes against humanity, or if they’re just cognitively impaired enough to think “proving” their favorite fantasy means nothing that came afterward is their fault.
It’s always difficult to distinguish between malignance and stupidity as the GOP’s prime motivators.
or if they’re just cognitively impaired enough to think “proving” their favorite fantasy means nothing that came afterward is their fault.
uhyup.
plus, they would really like to prove the straw liberals who haunt their imaginations wrong.
or if they’re just cognitively impaired enough to think “proving” their favorite fantasy means nothing that came afterward is their fault.
uhyup.
plus, they would really like to prove the straw liberals who haunt their imaginations wrong.
Some people just like the flavor of international espionage and familiar enemies. It’s a favorite genre of many readers. This one is RL and they get to feel like a participant. The beats of the story are familiar and that brings comfort in unsettling times.
Some people just like the flavor of international espionage and familiar enemies. It’s a favorite genre of many readers. This one is RL and they get to feel like a participant. The beats of the story are familiar and that brings comfort in unsettling times.
We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan.
Actually, patient zero may have been somewhere else. In Jan, I was in Korea and a recently retired colleague passed, rather suddenly. Respiratory distress. He was overweight but other than that, in relatively good health. He hadn’t travelled to Wuhan, but he had travelled. I came back for the funeral, and looking at this timeline
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline
31 Dec 2019
WHO’s Country Office in the People’s Republic of China picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website on cases of ‘viral pneumonia’ in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China.
The Country Office notified the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point in the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office about the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission media statement of the cases and provided a translation of it.
I don’t know if my colleague passed from COVID. He was Burmese and Buddhist, so he was cremated. However, I would not be surprised, given mobility and travel habits, that patient zero was from somewhere else. So the certitude you express about their being a patient zero in Wuhan belies your supposed sceptical stance. At least be honest with yourself about what you are saying.
We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan.
Actually, patient zero may have been somewhere else. In Jan, I was in Korea and a recently retired colleague passed, rather suddenly. Respiratory distress. He was overweight but other than that, in relatively good health. He hadn’t travelled to Wuhan, but he had travelled. I came back for the funeral, and looking at this timeline
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline
31 Dec 2019
WHO’s Country Office in the People’s Republic of China picked up a media statement by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission from their website on cases of ‘viral pneumonia’ in Wuhan, People’s Republic of China.
The Country Office notified the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point in the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office about the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission media statement of the cases and provided a translation of it.
I don’t know if my colleague passed from COVID. He was Burmese and Buddhist, so he was cremated. However, I would not be surprised, given mobility and travel habits, that patient zero was from somewhere else. So the certitude you express about their being a patient zero in Wuhan belies your supposed sceptical stance. At least be honest with yourself about what you are saying.
Interestingly, in most of those articles there is secrecy. Denying where money came from, denying that it was for GoF projects, mostly simply not cooperating with the WHO or independent scientists.
Sure. And have you stopped beating your wife?
I mean, at least some of those denials are perfectly fair. If they weren’t doing GoF projects (which, as far as anyone can tell, they weren’t), what do you expect them to say?
And I wasn’t aware that the WHO had any complaints about the level of cooperation they’ve received so far, at least in the origin investigation. (IIRC, there were some quibbles about timely information sharing, way back at the beginning of the pandemic, but that was apparently more about dumb bureaucratic foot-dragging than secrecy.)
DRASTIC, on the other hand…
I understand the idea that something would not be a good starting place, but that implies knowing the purpose of the GoF project.
No, not really. It’s true there can be a whole slew of purposes for GoF research — researching what causes changes in infectiousness, developing animal models, etc. etc.
But the problem is that an existing virus model like SARS-CoV would be a better starting point for all of them. There’s just no apparent reason anyone would go and pick an otherwise obscure virus like RaTG13 out of their butts, just to spend months on extra ground work in order to get up to the starting line again.
We are not talking about Yugos. We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
The virology institute is 12km from the market, which wasn’t ground zero anyway.
Like someone else said, that’s a pretty impressive stone throw.
And there’s no reason to think patient zero was even from Wuhan. The actual patient zero is more likely to have been a farmer or someone further out in the countryside, in a better position to be in contact with animals, who then brought it into Wuhan on a visit (or passed it to someone who did).
Finally, name me a city in China without a busy market and a virology lab. Which Chinese city wouldn’t be that kind of a “stone’s throw” from your post hoc suspicions?
Interestingly, in most of those articles there is secrecy. Denying where money came from, denying that it was for GoF projects, mostly simply not cooperating with the WHO or independent scientists.
Sure. And have you stopped beating your wife?
I mean, at least some of those denials are perfectly fair. If they weren’t doing GoF projects (which, as far as anyone can tell, they weren’t), what do you expect them to say?
And I wasn’t aware that the WHO had any complaints about the level of cooperation they’ve received so far, at least in the origin investigation. (IIRC, there were some quibbles about timely information sharing, way back at the beginning of the pandemic, but that was apparently more about dumb bureaucratic foot-dragging than secrecy.)
DRASTIC, on the other hand…
I understand the idea that something would not be a good starting place, but that implies knowing the purpose of the GoF project.
No, not really. It’s true there can be a whole slew of purposes for GoF research — researching what causes changes in infectiousness, developing animal models, etc. etc.
But the problem is that an existing virus model like SARS-CoV would be a better starting point for all of them. There’s just no apparent reason anyone would go and pick an otherwise obscure virus like RaTG13 out of their butts, just to spend months on extra ground work in order to get up to the starting line again.
We are not talking about Yugos. We are talking about a killer virus that, with all current information, had a patient zero somewhere in Wuhan. Within a stones throw of a market and lab, where information has been purposefully not shared.
The virology institute is 12km from the market, which wasn’t ground zero anyway.
Like someone else said, that’s a pretty impressive stone throw.
And there’s no reason to think patient zero was even from Wuhan. The actual patient zero is more likely to have been a farmer or someone further out in the countryside, in a better position to be in contact with animals, who then brought it into Wuhan on a visit (or passed it to someone who did).
Finally, name me a city in China without a busy market and a virology lab. Which Chinese city wouldn’t be that kind of a “stone’s throw” from your post hoc suspicions?
Though I have to say I’m at a loss to figure out what their endgame is. “Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the Party’s absolute failure to deal with the virus effectively once it reached the USA.
Pretty obvious, actually. If it came from a lab, then you can further justify (not that they need help) rampant xenophobia. Because it was those nasty non-white foreigners who made us all sick. (Made themselves sick, too. But what happened to anybody else is of no interest.)
Though I have to say I’m at a loss to figure out what their endgame is. “Proving” Covid-19 came from a lab does nothing to excuse the Party’s absolute failure to deal with the virus effectively once it reached the USA.
Pretty obvious, actually. If it came from a lab, then you can further justify (not that they need help) rampant xenophobia. Because it was those nasty non-white foreigners who made us all sick. (Made themselves sick, too. But what happened to anybody else is of no interest.)
This just in: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
This just in: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
Finally, name me a city in China without a busy market and a virology lab. Which Chinese city wouldn’t be that kind of a “stone’s throw” from your post hoc suspicions?
From the Vanity Fair article:
Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Only two other labs in the world, in Galveston, Texas, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were doing similar research. “It’s not a dozen cities,” he said. “It’s three places.”
Seems somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.
Finally, name me a city in China without a busy market and a virology lab. Which Chinese city wouldn’t be that kind of a “stone’s throw” from your post hoc suspicions?
From the Vanity Fair article:
Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Only two other labs in the world, in Galveston, Texas, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were doing similar research. “It’s not a dozen cities,” he said. “It’s three places.”
Seems somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.
This just in
The thing is, it’s not “just in”.
The possibility that the virus was introduced into the human population via human error at the Wuhan lab has been on the table from day 1. It’s not a new theory.
This just in
The thing is, it’s not “just in”.
The possibility that the virus was introduced into the human population via human error at the Wuhan lab has been on the table from day 1. It’s not a new theory.
also from Ebright:
even this guy, who beyond question thinks there’s evidence for a lab leak, isn’t going for the certainty the people who eagerly quote him are.
ya know, if Trump hadn’t turned this whole fucking thing into a partisan (and then racist) shitshow, we might have had a chance for a rational discussion about this. but now, Trump partisans and anti-Democratic partisans are dead-set on convincing everyone that this is was the Kung Flu, as Trump said it was. and other people aren’t about to let those racist xenophobic morons gaslight the country into believing something that hasn’t been proved.
so, good job, GOP. you’ve fucked this up too.
also from Ebright:
even this guy, who beyond question thinks there’s evidence for a lab leak, isn’t going for the certainty the people who eagerly quote him are.
ya know, if Trump hadn’t turned this whole fucking thing into a partisan (and then racist) shitshow, we might have had a chance for a rational discussion about this. but now, Trump partisans and anti-Democratic partisans are dead-set on convincing everyone that this is was the Kung Flu, as Trump said it was. and other people aren’t about to let those racist xenophobic morons gaslight the country into believing something that hasn’t been proved.
so, good job, GOP. you’ve fucked this up too.
This just in:
More rehashed Nick Wade smelling garbage? And there’s our friends at DRASTIC again?
Seriously, some of the stuff in there is almost verbatim, like:
And also, incidentally, previously debunked. Like the rest of the specifics AFAICT.
The stuff about internal conversations between Trump officials and their various worries might be new, but I’m not sure I could care any less.
If someone was warning them not to stick their foot in their mouths with alarmism about GoF work in Wuhan, well, that sounds like a pretty good idea, actually. They should have stuck to it — especially because there’s some pretty thorough confusion throughout about what GoF actually means. It sounds like someone’s been talking to Rand Paul or something. In any case, the research they’re talking about was done with a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. It has nothing to do with COVID-19.
This just in:
More rehashed Nick Wade smelling garbage? And there’s our friends at DRASTIC again?
Seriously, some of the stuff in there is almost verbatim, like:
And also, incidentally, previously debunked. Like the rest of the specifics AFAICT.
The stuff about internal conversations between Trump officials and their various worries might be new, but I’m not sure I could care any less.
If someone was warning them not to stick their foot in their mouths with alarmism about GoF work in Wuhan, well, that sounds like a pretty good idea, actually. They should have stuck to it — especially because there’s some pretty thorough confusion throughout about what GoF actually means. It sounds like someone’s been talking to Rand Paul or something. In any case, the research they’re talking about was done with a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. It has nothing to do with COVID-19.
The thing is, it’s not “just in”.
Did you read the article? It alleges, among other things:
A months long Vanity Fair investigation, interviews with more than 40 people, and a review of hundreds of pages of U.S. government documents, including internal memos, meeting minutes, and email correspondence, found that conflicts of interest, stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research, hampered the U.S. investigation into COVID-19’s origin at every step. In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.
In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”
Also, this:
For most of the past year, the lab-leak scenario was treated not simply as unlikely or even inaccurate but as morally out-of-bounds. In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.”
So, I’m going to say what people were saying then and what they are saying now don’t sound the same to me.
But sure, Trump’s fault.
The thing is, it’s not “just in”.
Did you read the article? It alleges, among other things:
A months long Vanity Fair investigation, interviews with more than 40 people, and a review of hundreds of pages of U.S. government documents, including internal memos, meeting minutes, and email correspondence, found that conflicts of interest, stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research, hampered the U.S. investigation into COVID-19’s origin at every step. In one State Department meeting, officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government say they were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.
In an internal memo obtained by Vanity Fair, Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, wrote that staff from two bureaus, his own and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, “warned” leaders within his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”
Also, this:
For most of the past year, the lab-leak scenario was treated not simply as unlikely or even inaccurate but as morally out-of-bounds. In late March, former Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield received death threats from fellow scientists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had originated in a lab. “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.”
So, I’m going to say what people were saying then and what they are saying now don’t sound the same to me.
But sure, Trump’s fault.
The stories about DRASTIC really remind me of the “Catching Kevin” story that Wired ran back in 1996, profiling Tsutomi Shimomura’s efforts to track and apprehend infamous hacker Kevin Mitnick. It was a great story – a mix of detective fiction, cyberpunk, and wild west showdown. Shimomura came out looking like a samurai code wizard who defeated an evil mastermind.
Coming back to the story in 2006, I found that the stories of Mitnick’s crimes had been exaggerated to the point of absurdity, and that Shimomura was, by all accounts, a bit of a diva. I mean, during his trial and incarceration, Mitnick was forbidden from using the prison pay phone and kept in solitary for fear that he might whistle the nuclear codes through his teeth or something (truth is that Mitnick was more of a social engineer than a code ninja).
But oh, the glory of that story. It made me want to be Shimomura, protecting my network from evil code ninjas bent on mayhem.
The lab leak story is well told and suspenseful and has a solid bad guy and mysterious heroes. It appears plausible. It hits a lot of popular tropes. It fits the curve in the right places.
I just suspect that, whatever the ultimate answer to the mystery is, this story will look a lot more mundane in hindsight, and the individuals involved in DRASTIC will have lost a lot of that heroic aura that they are currently being wrapped in.
The stories about DRASTIC really remind me of the “Catching Kevin” story that Wired ran back in 1996, profiling Tsutomi Shimomura’s efforts to track and apprehend infamous hacker Kevin Mitnick. It was a great story – a mix of detective fiction, cyberpunk, and wild west showdown. Shimomura came out looking like a samurai code wizard who defeated an evil mastermind.
Coming back to the story in 2006, I found that the stories of Mitnick’s crimes had been exaggerated to the point of absurdity, and that Shimomura was, by all accounts, a bit of a diva. I mean, during his trial and incarceration, Mitnick was forbidden from using the prison pay phone and kept in solitary for fear that he might whistle the nuclear codes through his teeth or something (truth is that Mitnick was more of a social engineer than a code ninja).
But oh, the glory of that story. It made me want to be Shimomura, protecting my network from evil code ninjas bent on mayhem.
The lab leak story is well told and suspenseful and has a solid bad guy and mysterious heroes. It appears plausible. It hits a lot of popular tropes. It fits the curve in the right places.
I just suspect that, whatever the ultimate answer to the mystery is, this story will look a lot more mundane in hindsight, and the individuals involved in DRASTIC will have lost a lot of that heroic aura that they are currently being wrapped in.
Seems somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.
Oh, there’s no question WIV is doing work on another level from a lot of others.
But they’re not — by any stretch — the only lab in China with freezers full of weird and scary bat fluids. Are you really credulous enough to believe that, if this were a different city and a different lab, team DRASTIC wouldn’t be out there right now dredging up high school prom photos for some poor lab assistant in that one, and making dark remarks about his mysterious hickeys?
Seems somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.
Oh, there’s no question WIV is doing work on another level from a lot of others.
But they’re not — by any stretch — the only lab in China with freezers full of weird and scary bat fluids. Are you really credulous enough to believe that, if this were a different city and a different lab, team DRASTIC wouldn’t be out there right now dredging up high school prom photos for some poor lab assistant in that one, and making dark remarks about his mysterious hickeys?
But they’re not — by any stretch — the only lab in China with freezers full of weird and scary bat fluids. Are you really credulous enough to believe that, if this were a different city and a different lab, team DRASTIC wouldn’t be out there right now dredging up high school prom photos for some poor lab assistant in that one, and making dark remarks about his mysterious hickeys?
You seem to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for the Wuhan folks. As do others here. I’m not getting it. I remember a distinctly different tone, tenor and substance back in the day and it seems like there is egg on a lot of faces. But, whatever, it’s not a hill I’m willing to spend any more time on.
Trump was a dumbass about CoVID, but I’m not sure he was alone. A lot of certainty back in the day is looking a lot less certain.
But they’re not — by any stretch — the only lab in China with freezers full of weird and scary bat fluids. Are you really credulous enough to believe that, if this were a different city and a different lab, team DRASTIC wouldn’t be out there right now dredging up high school prom photos for some poor lab assistant in that one, and making dark remarks about his mysterious hickeys?
You seem to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for the Wuhan folks. As do others here. I’m not getting it. I remember a distinctly different tone, tenor and substance back in the day and it seems like there is egg on a lot of faces. But, whatever, it’s not a hill I’m willing to spend any more time on.
Trump was a dumbass about CoVID, but I’m not sure he was alone. A lot of certainty back in the day is looking a lot less certain.
But sure, Trump’s fault.
the politicization is 100% the GOP’s fault. the irresponsible denials, the fountains of nonsense, the moronic grandstanding of Republican Congresspeople, the fact that GOP candidates ran on COVID/vax-denial, the fact that Trump’s vote share in a county is inversely proportional to its vaccination rate, the sheer idiocy of GOP legislatures passing anti-mask laws and failing to take even minor precautions.
that’s the GOP.
the GOP turned this into a partisan issue. and Trump led the way.
but of course they won’t take responsibility for their actions. they’re “conservatives”, after all. fuck everyone else.
But sure, Trump’s fault.
the politicization is 100% the GOP’s fault. the irresponsible denials, the fountains of nonsense, the moronic grandstanding of Republican Congresspeople, the fact that GOP candidates ran on COVID/vax-denial, the fact that Trump’s vote share in a county is inversely proportional to its vaccination rate, the sheer idiocy of GOP legislatures passing anti-mask laws and failing to take even minor precautions.
that’s the GOP.
the GOP turned this into a partisan issue. and Trump led the way.
but of course they won’t take responsibility for their actions. they’re “conservatives”, after all. fuck everyone else.
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
cleek –
Don’t forget the idiotic act of abruptly ordering Americans back to the US from whatever other country they were visiting, with no provisions made at any airport for additional staff to handle a sudden influx of tens of thousands of people. People stood in close-packed airport gates and concourses for HOURS with no screening, no masks, no nothing.
And don’t forget the corrupt clusterfuck that was the PPE rollout. States bidding against one another, Trump family intercepting shipments that states had already paid for to re-sell for profit (or diverting the shipments from Blue states to states that had supported Trump), Kushner stating that the national supply was for the Trump family, not for the states. This, while HCWs had not enough PPE for themselves and were using garbage bags, there weren’t enough masks or ventilators for HCWs or patients, and the resulting death rate was staggering.
(Just imagine what it would have been like if Trump had been in charge of distributing the vaccine: it would have been PPE all over again.)
The origins of Covid-19 have absolutely no bearing on any of that.
cleek –
Don’t forget the idiotic act of abruptly ordering Americans back to the US from whatever other country they were visiting, with no provisions made at any airport for additional staff to handle a sudden influx of tens of thousands of people. People stood in close-packed airport gates and concourses for HOURS with no screening, no masks, no nothing.
And don’t forget the corrupt clusterfuck that was the PPE rollout. States bidding against one another, Trump family intercepting shipments that states had already paid for to re-sell for profit (or diverting the shipments from Blue states to states that had supported Trump), Kushner stating that the national supply was for the Trump family, not for the states. This, while HCWs had not enough PPE for themselves and were using garbage bags, there weren’t enough masks or ventilators for HCWs or patients, and the resulting death rate was staggering.
(Just imagine what it would have been like if Trump had been in charge of distributing the vaccine: it would have been PPE all over again.)
The origins of Covid-19 have absolutely no bearing on any of that.
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC. For my part, I’d have a bit of a bone to pick with them and their shitty lies. But, I’m just a crusty old reactionary.
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC. For my part, I’d have a bit of a bone to pick with them and their shitty lies. But, I’m just a crusty old reactionary.
For my part, I’d have a bit of a bone to pick with them and their shitty lies. But, I’m just a crusty old reactionary.
And this is different from how things are now, before confirmation, because…?
Assuming it turns out to be a wild outbreak and not any sort of a leak, would that give you any less of a bone to pick with China?
For my part, I’d have a bit of a bone to pick with them and their shitty lies. But, I’m just a crusty old reactionary.
And this is different from how things are now, before confirmation, because…?
Assuming it turns out to be a wild outbreak and not any sort of a leak, would that give you any less of a bone to pick with China?
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
prove it or don’t. it’s currently unproved, regardless of how one feels about the evil PRC.
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
prove it or don’t. it’s currently unproved, regardless of how one feels about the evil PRC.
I remember a distinctly different tone, tenor and substance back in the day
You also “remembered” that the Dems were stopping Trump from banning Chinese because they couldn’t admit that he was right, which wasn’t the case at all, it was the concern that he was demonizing a group of people and doing things for political theatre that did nothing to deal with the actual problem. Which, well, I guess we aren’t the amateur sleuths on the level of a Newsweek article or a BroBible
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/04/your-medical-speculation-thread.html#comments
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/03/what-do-you-say-to-covid-if-it-were-your-barber.html#more
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/02/wuhans-on-first-.html
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/02/we-are-all-the-corvid-19-now.html
Why weren’t we speculating on the lab leak? Because maybe it didn’t really matter then and doesn’t really matter now? Naw, probably because we are all Maoists in love with China. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
So you are right to scoot off that hill and go back to whereever you were.
I remember a distinctly different tone, tenor and substance back in the day
You also “remembered” that the Dems were stopping Trump from banning Chinese because they couldn’t admit that he was right, which wasn’t the case at all, it was the concern that he was demonizing a group of people and doing things for political theatre that did nothing to deal with the actual problem. Which, well, I guess we aren’t the amateur sleuths on the level of a Newsweek article or a BroBible
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/04/your-medical-speculation-thread.html#comments
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/03/what-do-you-say-to-covid-if-it-were-your-barber.html#more
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/02/wuhans-on-first-.html
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/02/we-are-all-the-corvid-19-now.html
Why weren’t we speculating on the lab leak? Because maybe it didn’t really matter then and doesn’t really matter now? Naw, probably because we are all Maoists in love with China. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
So you are right to scoot off that hill and go back to whereever you were.
i do think it would be at least interesting if this was a leak. a Time For Some Hard Thinking kind of interesting, that is.
i do think it would be at least interesting if this was a leak. a Time For Some Hard Thinking kind of interesting, that is.
Why weren’t we speculating on the lab leak? Because maybe it didn’t really matter then and doesn’t really matter now? Naw, probably because we are all Maoists in love with China. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Ok, of all the truly odd things you’ve said over the years, the bolded is Number 1 (Number 2 is that the West caused the Holocaust). If there was a lab leak that caused 3.69M deaths as of today, that really is a thing.
Why weren’t we speculating on the lab leak? Because maybe it didn’t really matter then and doesn’t really matter now? Naw, probably because we are all Maoists in love with China. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Ok, of all the truly odd things you’ve said over the years, the bolded is Number 1 (Number 2 is that the West caused the Holocaust). If there was a lab leak that caused 3.69M deaths as of today, that really is a thing.
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
This is exactly how I feel. Of course, in the end it would be good to know so that if, for example, it was a lab leak then procedures could be tightened up. I know this is a huge issue in the States at the moment, fomented by the GOP for their own purposes, but I still go with russell’s comment way upthread about leaving it til a) there is more evidence, and b) people who actually are in a position (via relevant expertise) to judge can examine that evidence, and judge.
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
I think we’ve established in the past that nobody here feels particularly friendly toward the PRC – and I certainly don’t. Meanwhile, until a) and b) above are achieved, this whole thing seems like a tremendous waste of attention and energy, like so much of what the GOP’s focusses on.
What about our situation actually changes if it did turn out to have been an accidental lab leak? How does this narrative matter? Does anything change other than having a convenient scapegoat?
This is exactly how I feel. Of course, in the end it would be good to know so that if, for example, it was a lab leak then procedures could be tightened up. I know this is a huge issue in the States at the moment, fomented by the GOP for their own purposes, but I still go with russell’s comment way upthread about leaving it til a) there is more evidence, and b) people who actually are in a position (via relevant expertise) to judge can examine that evidence, and judge.
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
I think we’ve established in the past that nobody here feels particularly friendly toward the PRC – and I certainly don’t. Meanwhile, until a) and b) above are achieved, this whole thing seems like a tremendous waste of attention and energy, like so much of what the GOP’s focusses on.
i’d also be in favor of tightening lab controls for these places regardless of what people find out about C19 (living 10 miles from Chapel Hill like i do).
i’d also be in favor of tightening lab controls for these places regardless of what people find out about C19 (living 10 miles from Chapel Hill like i do).
So, further to my point that what I remembered from way back when, I found this statement:
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This is consistent with my memory. Scientists–and everyone else–taking very categorical positions that now seem not quite so categorical. I did not run down the sources, so I stand to be corrected. For the moment, though, I’m going to assume this is correct.
Two other things: first, no one seems to have found an infected animal (which seems odd) and second, if the PRC had nothing to hide, then open the door to some other honest broker (not the US) and let the light in. That seems like a no-brainer. That they haven’t and almost certainly will not is of some relevance IMO.
And, the response from some of our people here is: well, so what if CoVID 19 did come from a lab leak in Wuhan?
Again, 3.69M deaths as of today *and* why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?
So, further to my point that what I remembered from way back when, I found this statement:
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This is consistent with my memory. Scientists–and everyone else–taking very categorical positions that now seem not quite so categorical. I did not run down the sources, so I stand to be corrected. For the moment, though, I’m going to assume this is correct.
Two other things: first, no one seems to have found an infected animal (which seems odd) and second, if the PRC had nothing to hide, then open the door to some other honest broker (not the US) and let the light in. That seems like a no-brainer. That they haven’t and almost certainly will not is of some relevance IMO.
And, the response from some of our people here is: well, so what if CoVID 19 did come from a lab leak in Wuhan?
Again, 3.69M deaths as of today *and* why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?
I’m pretty comfortable saying nobody here knows if the virus came from the Wuhan lab or from the wet market. Or, somewhere else, for that matter.
It’s completely unsurprising that the best understanding of where it came from among people who actually know what they’re talking about might shift over time. That is a pretty common result of research. You have a hypothesis based on what you know, you find out more, your understanding changes and therefore your hypothesis changes.
It’s completely unsurprising that the Chinese government is reluctant to share with the world, and especially with a hostile American administration (either Trump or Biden), the details of what goes on in a BSL-4 lab hosted in their country. It would be good if that weren’t so, but it is so. It’s not clear to me that any other country is any more candid about what happens in bio-safety research labs hosted in their countries.
What do any of us know about errors or failures in the various BSL labs located here in the US?
It’s entirely possible that we will never, ever, ever know exactly where the virus came from and/or how it made its way into the human population. A definitive answer may not be available, now or ever.
If safety protocols at the Wuhan lab need to be tightened up, then I’m sure the scientific community and the various sponsors of the lab will make that happen. It’s certainly not going to, and should not, happen in response to the latest wave of public speculation.
If anyone thinks Tom Cotton gives a rat’s @ss about where the virus came from above and beyond the opportunity it provides him to be Tough On China, I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s a freaking virus. Every now and then, a new virus is introduced into the human population, a lot of people get sick, people who have expertise in the area do their homework, and we develop vaccines or other medical approaches to dealing with it.
I say we let them do their job, and the Tom Cottons of the world can STFU.
I’m pretty comfortable saying nobody here knows if the virus came from the Wuhan lab or from the wet market. Or, somewhere else, for that matter.
It’s completely unsurprising that the best understanding of where it came from among people who actually know what they’re talking about might shift over time. That is a pretty common result of research. You have a hypothesis based on what you know, you find out more, your understanding changes and therefore your hypothesis changes.
It’s completely unsurprising that the Chinese government is reluctant to share with the world, and especially with a hostile American administration (either Trump or Biden), the details of what goes on in a BSL-4 lab hosted in their country. It would be good if that weren’t so, but it is so. It’s not clear to me that any other country is any more candid about what happens in bio-safety research labs hosted in their countries.
What do any of us know about errors or failures in the various BSL labs located here in the US?
It’s entirely possible that we will never, ever, ever know exactly where the virus came from and/or how it made its way into the human population. A definitive answer may not be available, now or ever.
If safety protocols at the Wuhan lab need to be tightened up, then I’m sure the scientific community and the various sponsors of the lab will make that happen. It’s certainly not going to, and should not, happen in response to the latest wave of public speculation.
If anyone thinks Tom Cotton gives a rat’s @ss about where the virus came from above and beyond the opportunity it provides him to be Tough On China, I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s a freaking virus. Every now and then, a new virus is introduced into the human population, a lot of people get sick, people who have expertise in the area do their homework, and we develop vaccines or other medical approaches to dealing with it.
I say we let them do their job, and the Tom Cottons of the world can STFU.
i’m not in the “so what” camp. i’m in the “no it’s not proved, so please STFU about Trump and Tom Cotton being right because it’s not about them and it’s not about US party politics” camp.
i’m not in the “so what” camp. i’m in the “no it’s not proved, so please STFU about Trump and Tom Cotton being right because it’s not about them and it’s not about US party politics” camp.
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
There are plenty of reasons, where we actually know something about what they are doing, to be less than enthusiastic about the PRC. No need to speculate about possible lab origins.
I guess it depends on how friendly one feels toward the PRC.
There are plenty of reasons, where we actually know something about what they are doing, to be less than enthusiastic about the PRC. No need to speculate about possible lab origins.
second, if the PRC had nothing to hide, then open the door to some other honest broker (not the US) and let the light in.
You are assuming a very different mindset on the part of the Chinese government (and the Party) than they actually have. That’s just now how they think. Especially with respect to the outside world.
second, if the PRC had nothing to hide, then open the door to some other honest broker (not the US) and let the light in.
You are assuming a very different mindset on the part of the Chinese government (and the Party) than they actually have. That’s just now how they think. Especially with respect to the outside world.
“What do any of us know about errors or failures in the various BSL labs located here in the US?”
Anthrax.
Sent to top Democrats in the Senate.
And members of the press.
Where is the PROOF that it wasn’t Marty that did it?1??
“What do any of us know about errors or failures in the various BSL labs located here in the US?”
Anthrax.
Sent to top Democrats in the Senate.
And members of the press.
Where is the PROOF that it wasn’t Marty that did it?1??
What cleek said @02.33
What cleek said @02.33
so please STFU about Trump and Tom Cotton being right because it’s not about them and it’s not about US party politics” camp.
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
so please STFU about Trump and Tom Cotton being right because it’s not about them and it’s not about US party politics” camp.
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
i must be misunderstanding.
Fox News has been saying it for 18 months. here’s one night’s worth from Tucker, Sean and Laura.
and now, it’s Republican dogma that the lab origin has been absolutely proved beyond all doubt thus proving Trump et al were right. i see it everywhere.
77 of Republicans believe it came from a lab. 39% say it was a deliberate leak. Carlson wants Fauci investigated for “covering it up” (and the comments are full of people screaming about how this proves Trump was right to distrust him).
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
i must be misunderstanding.
Fox News has been saying it for 18 months. here’s one night’s worth from Tucker, Sean and Laura.
and now, it’s Republican dogma that the lab origin has been absolutely proved beyond all doubt thus proving Trump et al were right. i see it everywhere.
77 of Republicans believe it came from a lab. 39% say it was a deliberate leak. Carlson wants Fauci investigated for “covering it up” (and the comments are full of people screaming about how this proves Trump was right to distrust him).
“Again, 3.69M deaths as of today *and* why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?”
Yes, even the best get it wrong sometimes.
It comes with the human territory.
Attorneys for the prosecution and the defense call their experts in all sorts of Court cases.
So, I don’t know the answer to your question.
Maybe just call in Trump and Cruz and the Marjories, Rasputins, and Pillow guys and goils and their know-nothing hordes on every subject and wing it from now on.
And then attack Asians of all nationalities on U.S. streets as Trump aficionados are led to believe the CCP “sent” infected folks over here on planes to do their worst.
A lying racist Trade representative of the Trump ilk said precisely that.
The same ilk forced Fauci’s family in lockdown to escape violent threats on their lives. Health officials, experts, across the country and their families are under similar threat.
Experts weren’t the motivators of that as yet unanswered and unpunished crime, committed by Fauci’s bosses in the White House, though I’m not an expert, thus all the more reason to hear me out.
That’s not expertise, even of the faulty variety. It’s the usual shit from the usual suspects.
It’s fucking nationalist racist hate, with nuclear war as the realpolitic backup position, on the level of international relations.
The Lieutenant Governor of Texas lent a word of deadly Christian expertise to older folks who came down with the Covid-19 and who were commanding perhaps too many public resources for his genocidal republican taste, that they should expire voluntarily for the sake of the children, presumably the preborn, given that he is also an expert on women’s vaginas.
And yet Texans, with all of their untrained firearm expertise, did not shoot that expert filth in his head as their elderly parents succumbed to the pandemic.
But Fauci’s grown kids, who don’t even live with him or near him, had to go into hiding from conservatives who threatened to murder them.
And reality show Larry Kudlow remains an expert on economic trends despite his alcoholic and drug-induced track record.
“Again, 3.69M deaths as of today *and* why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?”
Yes, even the best get it wrong sometimes.
It comes with the human territory.
Attorneys for the prosecution and the defense call their experts in all sorts of Court cases.
So, I don’t know the answer to your question.
Maybe just call in Trump and Cruz and the Marjories, Rasputins, and Pillow guys and goils and their know-nothing hordes on every subject and wing it from now on.
And then attack Asians of all nationalities on U.S. streets as Trump aficionados are led to believe the CCP “sent” infected folks over here on planes to do their worst.
A lying racist Trade representative of the Trump ilk said precisely that.
The same ilk forced Fauci’s family in lockdown to escape violent threats on their lives. Health officials, experts, across the country and their families are under similar threat.
Experts weren’t the motivators of that as yet unanswered and unpunished crime, committed by Fauci’s bosses in the White House, though I’m not an expert, thus all the more reason to hear me out.
That’s not expertise, even of the faulty variety. It’s the usual shit from the usual suspects.
It’s fucking nationalist racist hate, with nuclear war as the realpolitic backup position, on the level of international relations.
The Lieutenant Governor of Texas lent a word of deadly Christian expertise to older folks who came down with the Covid-19 and who were commanding perhaps too many public resources for his genocidal republican taste, that they should expire voluntarily for the sake of the children, presumably the preborn, given that he is also an expert on women’s vaginas.
And yet Texans, with all of their untrained firearm expertise, did not shoot that expert filth in his head as their elderly parents succumbed to the pandemic.
But Fauci’s grown kids, who don’t even live with him or near him, had to go into hiding from conservatives who threatened to murder them.
And reality show Larry Kudlow remains an expert on economic trends despite his alcoholic and drug-induced track record.
3.69M deaths is a big thing. Patient Zero may have been exposed in the wild, may have been accidentally exposed to a virus that was found in the wild while in a lab that was storing the virus, or may have been working with a virus that had been altered in some way from a sample found in the wild.
Whichever of these proves true, none of that means that the government of the PRC bears sole moral responsibility for the deaths of 3.69M. Why would they?
No one here appears to be suggesting that the virus was part of some nefarious bioweapon research, which is good, because it would be the dumbest bioweapon ever.
Absent that sort of intention, I don’t see how the deaths are China’s sole responsibility to bear.
It’s a pandemic.
3.69M deaths is a big thing. Patient Zero may have been exposed in the wild, may have been accidentally exposed to a virus that was found in the wild while in a lab that was storing the virus, or may have been working with a virus that had been altered in some way from a sample found in the wild.
Whichever of these proves true, none of that means that the government of the PRC bears sole moral responsibility for the deaths of 3.69M. Why would they?
No one here appears to be suggesting that the virus was part of some nefarious bioweapon research, which is good, because it would be the dumbest bioweapon ever.
Absent that sort of intention, I don’t see how the deaths are China’s sole responsibility to bear.
It’s a pandemic.
i must be misunderstanding.
Ok, we may be talking past one another. I get that that there are people who believe CoVID is a PRC tailored virus and that the election is stolen. I thought you were imputing “about Trump and Tom Cotton being right” to me. If you are, I think you’re misreading what I’m saying.
i must be misunderstanding.
Ok, we may be talking past one another. I get that that there are people who believe CoVID is a PRC tailored virus and that the election is stolen. I thought you were imputing “about Trump and Tom Cotton being right” to me. If you are, I think you’re misreading what I’m saying.
It’s a pandemic.
and, as health experts keep trying to point out, it’s one that’s fairly easy to avoid, and the vaccines work.
so many deaths could have been avoided.
It’s a pandemic.
and, as health experts keep trying to point out, it’s one that’s fairly easy to avoid, and the vaccines work.
so many deaths could have been avoided.
“No one here appears to be suggesting that the virus was part of some nefarious bioweapon research, which is good, because it would be the dumbest bioweapon ever.”
It would be just like the Chinese to incinerate Wuhan first with a nuclear weapon before trying it out on us.
American experts were nice enough to “invite’ their fellow Americans to view nuclear testing in the American southwest from fairly up close back in the day.
It’s a wonder the invitees, being stiff-necked government haters with their own special expertise, took the advice of the nuclear officials, you know, the experts, and wore dark glasses for the viewing.
I wonder what would have happened if they had been asked to wear masks as well.
I just drove through some of those areas.
“No one here appears to be suggesting that the virus was part of some nefarious bioweapon research, which is good, because it would be the dumbest bioweapon ever.”
It would be just like the Chinese to incinerate Wuhan first with a nuclear weapon before trying it out on us.
American experts were nice enough to “invite’ their fellow Americans to view nuclear testing in the American southwest from fairly up close back in the day.
It’s a wonder the invitees, being stiff-necked government haters with their own special expertise, took the advice of the nuclear officials, you know, the experts, and wore dark glasses for the viewing.
I wonder what would have happened if they had been asked to wear masks as well.
I just drove through some of those areas.
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This all holds up pretty damn well, AFAICT.
I mean, the specific context I think they wer0e responding to there might have been some version of the early “bioweapon” rumors. That’s still very much categorically stupid.
But if it’s the “lab construct for nefarious experiments” versions they have in mind, well, uh, ditto.
That leaves what we might call the “(un)lucky sample” theory, where a virus that was pretty much ready to infect us in the usual way just happened to jump into a lab worker first rather than the customary rural woodsman. And I reckon those quotes give that…possibility just about as much attention as it deserves too.
Now, I suppose we should note there’s always an implicit qualifier in there for “not a laboratory construct [given known techniques and reasonable resource constraints]”. But you can’t blame anybody for wanting an out if turns out the Chinese have Star Trek replicator tech. Or they’ve been patiently training a bioweapon for decades by evolving it inside Uighur prisoners so it looks more natural.
This is consistent with my memory. Scientists–and everyone else–taking very categorical positions that now seem not quite so categorical.
I too have seen some scientists saying some very silly things recently — like “if it’s natural, we should have found the intermediate host by now” (even though, somewhere in the back of their brain, I’m sure they know perfectly well that it took more than a decade of hard work to fully suss out, e.g., SARS).
What we’re noticing, I think, is not any actual altering of the possibility space. Just a symptom of the fact that the same symphony of bullshit has continued to play, ceaselessly, this whole time. It’s not really humanly possible to perfectly ignore every note in that symphony, I think, no matter how false and empty they might individually be. Over time the din can start to wear into even the best of us.
It’s a kind of social conformity pressure, basically. Scientists aren’t totally immune, even if they should know better. And it’s why this kind of stuff shouldn’t be coddled.
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This all holds up pretty damn well, AFAICT.
I mean, the specific context I think they wer0e responding to there might have been some version of the early “bioweapon” rumors. That’s still very much categorically stupid.
But if it’s the “lab construct for nefarious experiments” versions they have in mind, well, uh, ditto.
That leaves what we might call the “(un)lucky sample” theory, where a virus that was pretty much ready to infect us in the usual way just happened to jump into a lab worker first rather than the customary rural woodsman. And I reckon those quotes give that…possibility just about as much attention as it deserves too.
Now, I suppose we should note there’s always an implicit qualifier in there for “not a laboratory construct [given known techniques and reasonable resource constraints]”. But you can’t blame anybody for wanting an out if turns out the Chinese have Star Trek replicator tech. Or they’ve been patiently training a bioweapon for decades by evolving it inside Uighur prisoners so it looks more natural.
This is consistent with my memory. Scientists–and everyone else–taking very categorical positions that now seem not quite so categorical.
I too have seen some scientists saying some very silly things recently — like “if it’s natural, we should have found the intermediate host by now” (even though, somewhere in the back of their brain, I’m sure they know perfectly well that it took more than a decade of hard work to fully suss out, e.g., SARS).
What we’re noticing, I think, is not any actual altering of the possibility space. Just a symptom of the fact that the same symphony of bullshit has continued to play, ceaselessly, this whole time. It’s not really humanly possible to perfectly ignore every note in that symphony, I think, no matter how false and empty they might individually be. Over time the din can start to wear into even the best of us.
It’s a kind of social conformity pressure, basically. Scientists aren’t totally immune, even if they should know better. And it’s why this kind of stuff shouldn’t be coddled.
I just wrote a pretty sparky comment about confirmation bias, but instead I will note that for the most part this was an interesting discussion. I have nothing to add.
I just wrote a pretty sparky comment about confirmation bias, but instead I will note that for the most part this was an interesting discussion. I have nothing to add.
It’s a pandemic.
Hopefully, with the new vaccine technology, this is the last pandemic.
It’s a pandemic.
Hopefully, with the new vaccine technology, this is the last pandemic.
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This all holds up pretty damn well, AFAICT.
It may hold up well. But saying “We stand with our colleagues” kinda detracts from the message. It at least has the potential to suggest that group solidarity, rather than scientific analysis, is behind their position.
27 top virologists published a letter in the British medical journal the Lancet that “strongly condemn[ed] conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” That March, the American journal Nature Medicine published a letter signed by 30 scientists stating, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
This all holds up pretty damn well, AFAICT.
It may hold up well. But saying “We stand with our colleagues” kinda detracts from the message. It at least has the potential to suggest that group solidarity, rather than scientific analysis, is behind their position.
It may hold up well. But saying “We stand with our colleagues” kinda detracts from the message. It at least has the potential to suggest that group solidarity, rather than scientific analysis, is behind their position.
I think you’re reading something that isn’t there. The science can stand on its own regardless.
But if someone’s making a patently baseless claim against one of your peers, “I stand with my colleague” is a perfectly admirable stance to take. It’s exactly when you should stand by your colleague.
It’s perhaps a particularly strong sentiment here, because anyone who knows any scientists would know the group solidarity wouldn’t outlive a ρ0 meson if there was the slightest chance that the science might let one of them be more right than a colleague.
It may hold up well. But saying “We stand with our colleagues” kinda detracts from the message. It at least has the potential to suggest that group solidarity, rather than scientific analysis, is behind their position.
I think you’re reading something that isn’t there. The science can stand on its own regardless.
But if someone’s making a patently baseless claim against one of your peers, “I stand with my colleague” is a perfectly admirable stance to take. It’s exactly when you should stand by your colleague.
It’s perhaps a particularly strong sentiment here, because anyone who knows any scientists would know the group solidarity wouldn’t outlive a ρ0 meson if there was the slightest chance that the science might let one of them be more right than a colleague.
I invite people who ask questions like “why trust experts?” rhetorically to go ahead and NOT trust experts in so-called real life. Might thin out the herd a bit.
People who ask that question non-rhetorically, i.e. with a willingness to hear an answer, are more reasonable. Probably due to experience in hiring or cross-examining “expert witnesses”.
Of course, there has probably never been a case where an “expert witness” changed the cross-examiner’s mind. Or maybe it happens, but the cross-examiner is duty-bound to not admit it.
–TP
I invite people who ask questions like “why trust experts?” rhetorically to go ahead and NOT trust experts in so-called real life. Might thin out the herd a bit.
People who ask that question non-rhetorically, i.e. with a willingness to hear an answer, are more reasonable. Probably due to experience in hiring or cross-examining “expert witnesses”.
Of course, there has probably never been a case where an “expert witness” changed the cross-examiner’s mind. Or maybe it happens, but the cross-examiner is duty-bound to not admit it.
–TP
why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?
Because they know more than we do.
Also, FWIW, the statement you cite asserts that the virus “originated in wildlife”. As opposed to having been fabricated as a bio weapon or similar. It’s not a statement that the vector into the human population either was exposure in a lab, or not. So “wrong” needs some qualification.
But long story short, I’ll take the professional assessment of people who do this stuff for a living over Bro Bible, or the data science hobbyists of DRASTIC, or Tom Cotton, or any other random talking head looking to make hay out of a public health crisis.
They know more than I do. They know more than you do. They know more than Marty does, or Tom Cotton does, or probably jack lecou, or whoever else wants to offer up their expert opinion.
Nobody appears to know the exact path the virus took from whatever critter it came from into the human population. People who know how to figure this stuff out, to the degree that it can be figured out, are doing the homework to figure it out. Some of them are probably even Chinese, and personally I welcome their participation. Not everybody in the PRC is a PRC apparatchik. It takes time to do that stuff, and I’m happy to let them do their job.
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
If I’m not mistaken, this whole thing was kicked off by Marty sharing the news that the debunking of Tom Cotton had been debunked.
So, I guess, Marty, or whoever it was he quoted.
why the fuck should we listen to experts if they are going to get shit like this wrong?
Because they know more than we do.
Also, FWIW, the statement you cite asserts that the virus “originated in wildlife”. As opposed to having been fabricated as a bio weapon or similar. It’s not a statement that the vector into the human population either was exposure in a lab, or not. So “wrong” needs some qualification.
But long story short, I’ll take the professional assessment of people who do this stuff for a living over Bro Bible, or the data science hobbyists of DRASTIC, or Tom Cotton, or any other random talking head looking to make hay out of a public health crisis.
They know more than I do. They know more than you do. They know more than Marty does, or Tom Cotton does, or probably jack lecou, or whoever else wants to offer up their expert opinion.
Nobody appears to know the exact path the virus took from whatever critter it came from into the human population. People who know how to figure this stuff out, to the degree that it can be figured out, are doing the homework to figure it out. Some of them are probably even Chinese, and personally I welcome their participation. Not everybody in the PRC is a PRC apparatchik. It takes time to do that stuff, and I’m happy to let them do their job.
Who is making this statement? Seriously.
If I’m not mistaken, this whole thing was kicked off by Marty sharing the news that the debunking of Tom Cotton had been debunked.
So, I guess, Marty, or whoever it was he quoted.
Whichever of these proves true, none of that means that the government of the PRC bears sole moral responsibility for the deaths of 3.69M. Why would they?
Interesting reframing of the issue. Where the did the notion of “sole moral responsibility” come from? And what’s wrong with saying, “The PRC ought to come clean and until they do, they are are presumed complicit, if not in the inception, then in the follow-on pandemic”? If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.
Whichever of these proves true, none of that means that the government of the PRC bears sole moral responsibility for the deaths of 3.69M. Why would they?
Interesting reframing of the issue. Where the did the notion of “sole moral responsibility” come from? And what’s wrong with saying, “The PRC ought to come clean and until they do, they are are presumed complicit, if not in the inception, then in the follow-on pandemic”? If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.
I think you’re reading something that isn’t there. The science can stand on its own regardless.
I’m not reading it in; I don’t think they did it. I’m saying that the phrasing was an unnecessary encouragement for those who would prefer to discount their expert opinion. Just saying, “Based on the evidence we have seen, we don’t believe it pandemic resulted from a lab leak” would be sufficient.
I think you’re reading something that isn’t there. The science can stand on its own regardless.
I’m not reading it in; I don’t think they did it. I’m saying that the phrasing was an unnecessary encouragement for those who would prefer to discount their expert opinion. Just saying, “Based on the evidence we have seen, we don’t believe it pandemic resulted from a lab leak” would be sufficient.
Tom Cotton serial liar … who thinks Iraq helped with 9/11 … who claimed to have served as an Army Ranger (he didn’t) … who claimed Biden was buying Harris’ book to give to illegal immigrant (didn’t happen).
if you belive anything that comes out of that clown’s pie hole, you’re dumber than Tom Cotton thinks you are.
Tom Cotton serial liar … who thinks Iraq helped with 9/11 … who claimed to have served as an Army Ranger (he didn’t) … who claimed Biden was buying Harris’ book to give to illegal immigrant (didn’t happen).
if you belive anything that comes out of that clown’s pie hole, you’re dumber than Tom Cotton thinks you are.
AlaMcT screved
Number 2 is that the West caused the Holocaust
Number 2 about why I think you are an asshole is how you take a long discussion and reframe it to suit your arguments. I disagree with Marty as well, but he doesn’t pull shit like this. Crusty old reactionary? More like someone who has never matured past their 1st year of law school.
Number 1 reason?
But, whatever, it’s not a hill I’m willing to spend any more time on.
The only hill you are going to spend time on is the one where you get to toss stink bombs into the discussion. And then explain how ‘busy’ you are. I’m assuming that location is why you act like such Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz’s unholy offspring.
AlaMcT screved
Number 2 is that the West caused the Holocaust
Number 2 about why I think you are an asshole is how you take a long discussion and reframe it to suit your arguments. I disagree with Marty as well, but he doesn’t pull shit like this. Crusty old reactionary? More like someone who has never matured past their 1st year of law school.
Number 1 reason?
But, whatever, it’s not a hill I’m willing to spend any more time on.
The only hill you are going to spend time on is the one where you get to toss stink bombs into the discussion. And then explain how ‘busy’ you are. I’m assuming that location is why you act like such Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz’s unholy offspring.
Just saying, “Based on the evidence we have seen, we don’t believe it pandemic resulted from a lab leak” would be sufficient.
Sure. If it were actually just a debate about the evidence. It never really has been though.
Just saying, “Based on the evidence we have seen, we don’t believe it pandemic resulted from a lab leak” would be sufficient.
Sure. If it were actually just a debate about the evidence. It never really has been though.
And what’s wrong with saying, “The PRC ought to come clean and until they do, they are are presumed complicit, if not in the inception, then in the follow-on pandemic”? If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.
Come clean on what? Complicit in what?
Could have stopped the spread how? Where? When?
If we don’t even know the origin, how can we even start to understand how it spread? If we don’t know how and when it spread, how can we even start to say that China had an opportunity to stop or minimize? That “If” is a place holder for a lot of very different scenarios branching off from a lot of unknowns.
Assuming, for the moment, that China has come clean with what they knew, or assuming that they did come clean with what they know, would that be any more convincing to those who suspect China’s motives than were Iraq’s denials of having WMDs?
I’m not saying that China has been forthcoming, I’m just once again wondering what, if anything, in people’s opinions of China’s complicity changes in the wake of new information?
It’s clear that people blame China for something, but I’m not convinced that this blame is actually attached to anything other than suspicion that if China is capable of [insert any one of a number of collective violations of Human Rights] then there has to be one more we can add to the pile.
And what’s wrong with saying, “The PRC ought to come clean and until they do, they are are presumed complicit, if not in the inception, then in the follow-on pandemic”? If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.
Come clean on what? Complicit in what?
Could have stopped the spread how? Where? When?
If we don’t even know the origin, how can we even start to understand how it spread? If we don’t know how and when it spread, how can we even start to say that China had an opportunity to stop or minimize? That “If” is a place holder for a lot of very different scenarios branching off from a lot of unknowns.
Assuming, for the moment, that China has come clean with what they knew, or assuming that they did come clean with what they know, would that be any more convincing to those who suspect China’s motives than were Iraq’s denials of having WMDs?
I’m not saying that China has been forthcoming, I’m just once again wondering what, if anything, in people’s opinions of China’s complicity changes in the wake of new information?
It’s clear that people blame China for something, but I’m not convinced that this blame is actually attached to anything other than suspicion that if China is capable of [insert any one of a number of collective violations of Human Rights] then there has to be one more we can add to the pile.
Sure. If it were actually just a debate about the evidence. It never really has been though.
That’s clear now. But at the time, it wasn’t yet.
Sure. If it were actually just a debate about the evidence. It never really has been though.
That’s clear now. But at the time, it wasn’t yet.
Cheryl Rofer weighs in.
virologist: no
scientist: yes
everybody seems to want to have an opinion about this. the folks who are actually in a position to have an opinion all appear to agree that we don’t know with any degree of certainty.
I’m fine with uncertainty, especially when it is an accurate reflection of what is actually knowable. as far as I can tell, the rest is noise.
McK points out that 3.69M people are dead. I suggest we respect the dead and not use them to make political gotcha points.
and to be honest, when I see statements like “it depends on how you feel about the PRC”, I’m pretty sure we’ve ventured into the world of political gotcha points.
it’s a freaking virus. they’re trying to figure it out. let them do their job. if you think you know their job better than they do, you’re probably wrong.
and FWIW, Tom Cotton is a guy who looks in the mirror every day and thinks he sees the POTUS. if you think Tom Cotton gives one flying f*ck about the virus as a public health issue, you are mistaken. to Tom Cotton, COVID is an opportunity to be yet another hard ass conservative swinging d*ck. to Tom Cotton, the sun coming up in the morning is an opportunity to be yet another hard ass conservative swinging d*ck.
give the man every bit of the attention he deserves.
Cheryl Rofer weighs in.
virologist: no
scientist: yes
everybody seems to want to have an opinion about this. the folks who are actually in a position to have an opinion all appear to agree that we don’t know with any degree of certainty.
I’m fine with uncertainty, especially when it is an accurate reflection of what is actually knowable. as far as I can tell, the rest is noise.
McK points out that 3.69M people are dead. I suggest we respect the dead and not use them to make political gotcha points.
and to be honest, when I see statements like “it depends on how you feel about the PRC”, I’m pretty sure we’ve ventured into the world of political gotcha points.
it’s a freaking virus. they’re trying to figure it out. let them do their job. if you think you know their job better than they do, you’re probably wrong.
and FWIW, Tom Cotton is a guy who looks in the mirror every day and thinks he sees the POTUS. if you think Tom Cotton gives one flying f*ck about the virus as a public health issue, you are mistaken. to Tom Cotton, COVID is an opportunity to be yet another hard ass conservative swinging d*ck. to Tom Cotton, the sun coming up in the morning is an opportunity to be yet another hard ass conservative swinging d*ck.
give the man every bit of the attention he deserves.
from Russell’s Rofer link
I might as well add that there is a crappy lab-leak article in Vanity Fair that is not worth your time to read. Not linking
Fortunately, we have other amateur internet sleuths to give us those links!
from Russell’s Rofer link
I might as well add that there is a crappy lab-leak article in Vanity Fair that is not worth your time to read. Not linking
Fortunately, we have other amateur internet sleuths to give us those links!
“So, I guess, Marty, or whoever it was he quoted.”
First, I claimed no such thing. Nor was the point of the article that Tom Cotton was right, it was that the media got it wrong.
Second, from Rofer, “but unlikely because accidents happen but people handling viruses take precautions against leaks.”
This level of bias makes her opinion pretty irrelevant. All this talk of science and experts, then someone points out that people handling viruses take precautions. Like we all didn’t know that in the first place. It wouldn’t even hardly be an accident if they didn’t.
“So, I guess, Marty, or whoever it was he quoted.”
First, I claimed no such thing. Nor was the point of the article that Tom Cotton was right, it was that the media got it wrong.
Second, from Rofer, “but unlikely because accidents happen but people handling viruses take precautions against leaks.”
This level of bias makes her opinion pretty irrelevant. All this talk of science and experts, then someone points out that people handling viruses take precautions. Like we all didn’t know that in the first place. It wouldn’t even hardly be an accident if they didn’t.
right wing cancel culture part ∞
right wing cancel culture part ∞
“This level of bias ….”
I don’t know why, but I just wanted to repeat those words.
It’s like Meet The Press hosting two pangolins and two bats to hash out the blame game, with Marjorie Taylor Greene doing her maskless spittle-flecked moderating.
“If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.”
This is an uncommonly high level of positive bias toward the efficacy of top-down, centralized governmental control, considering the source.
They blew it initially, but so did South Dakota, which had plenty of heads-up warning and where folks expired at their kitchen tables where all individual initiative politics without state intervention is apparently done up there.
Have we gotten to the bottom of this yet?
https://www.aldf.com/did-lyme-disease-originate-in-the-eastern-u-s-from-borrelia-burgdorferi-infected-ticks-that-escaped-from-a-laboratory-at-the-plum-island-animal-disease-center-where-scientists-were-conducting-top-sec/
But given the “level of bias”, whatever “narrative” that is, against expertise of all kinds AND our perverted culture of conspiratorial jonesing regarding all things governmental, why the complacency over the purported scientific consensus about that disease’s origins?
“This level of bias ….”
I don’t know why, but I just wanted to repeat those words.
It’s like Meet The Press hosting two pangolins and two bats to hash out the blame game, with Marjorie Taylor Greene doing her maskless spittle-flecked moderating.
“If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.”
This is an uncommonly high level of positive bias toward the efficacy of top-down, centralized governmental control, considering the source.
They blew it initially, but so did South Dakota, which had plenty of heads-up warning and where folks expired at their kitchen tables where all individual initiative politics without state intervention is apparently done up there.
Have we gotten to the bottom of this yet?
https://www.aldf.com/did-lyme-disease-originate-in-the-eastern-u-s-from-borrelia-burgdorferi-infected-ticks-that-escaped-from-a-laboratory-at-the-plum-island-animal-disease-center-where-scientists-were-conducting-top-sec/
But given the “level of bias”, whatever “narrative” that is, against expertise of all kinds AND our perverted culture of conspiratorial jonesing regarding all things governmental, why the complacency over the purported scientific consensus about that disease’s origins?
“If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.”
lol
“If anyone had a last clear chance to stop or minimize this thing, it was the PRC.”
lol
That’s clear now. But at the time, it wasn’t yet.
Hmm.
That’s clear now. But at the time, it wasn’t yet.
Hmm.
Marty, here’s what you wrote
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
Followed by a link to a entitled “Tom Cotton once again makes media look foolish”. I accept that you are tossing Cotton out the window, but don’t claim it’s poor reading on everyone else’s part. If you want better discussion, bring better sources.
Marty, here’s what you wrote
Not for nothing but there have been a few things lately where “debunked conspiracy theories” don’t seem to be so debunked.
Followed by a link to a entitled “Tom Cotton once again makes media look foolish”. I accept that you are tossing Cotton out the window, but don’t claim it’s poor reading on everyone else’s part. If you want better discussion, bring better sources.
Further to cleek’s link about the Stanford law student the Stanford Federalist Society is trying to cancel, I am so happy to see from these further satirical efforts by Stanford students, in his defence, that satire is still in excellent and rude health.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1400216803389820928/photo/1
Further to cleek’s link about the Stanford law student the Stanford Federalist Society is trying to cancel, I am so happy to see from these further satirical efforts by Stanford students, in his defence, that satire is still in excellent and rude health.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1400216803389820928/photo/1
“I’m fine with uncertainty.”
I wouldn’t go as far as claiming I’m fine with it, as I still have my hands full being fine with gravity, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, existential ennui, what comes after Death (yet more Judgement, according to the narrative claimed by those free of bias; you’d think that would be the first thing oblivion would release us from), and the tyranny of having only one choice of what to breath: oxygen.
I’m not entirely sold on water either.
“I’m fine with uncertainty.”
I wouldn’t go as far as claiming I’m fine with it, as I still have my hands full being fine with gravity, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy, existential ennui, what comes after Death (yet more Judgement, according to the narrative claimed by those free of bias; you’d think that would be the first thing oblivion would release us from), and the tyranny of having only one choice of what to breath: oxygen.
I’m not entirely sold on water either.
María Salazar (R), FL
Karl Marx is LOLing in his grave.
María Salazar (R), FL
Karl Marx is LOLing in his grave.
it was that the media got it wrong.
so, two things.
first, nobody knows ‘who got it wrong’ because nobody knows if the virus came from the lab or not. people who actually have the skill set to figure that out are trying to figure it out.
second, ‘the media’ has presented a range of opinion on the question. so for any given point of view, you will find somebody in ‘the media’ who held that point of view, and somebody else who argued against it.
one month into the pandemic, we knew some things but not everything. now, a year and change into it, we know more. it’s completely unsurprising that the thinking about the origins of the virus would change in that time. it doesn’t prove anybody ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it demonstrates that we know more than we did a year ago.
‘the media’ as a phrase is a conservative code word for anyone who says something they don’t agree with.
This level of bias makes her opinion pretty irrelevant.
Rofer makes a statement that you find glaringly obvious, and you cite it as evidence of bias on her part.
Pick one.
As always, I continue to be amazed at the ambition and unfounded confidence of armchair experts.
it was that the media got it wrong.
so, two things.
first, nobody knows ‘who got it wrong’ because nobody knows if the virus came from the lab or not. people who actually have the skill set to figure that out are trying to figure it out.
second, ‘the media’ has presented a range of opinion on the question. so for any given point of view, you will find somebody in ‘the media’ who held that point of view, and somebody else who argued against it.
one month into the pandemic, we knew some things but not everything. now, a year and change into it, we know more. it’s completely unsurprising that the thinking about the origins of the virus would change in that time. it doesn’t prove anybody ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it demonstrates that we know more than we did a year ago.
‘the media’ as a phrase is a conservative code word for anyone who says something they don’t agree with.
This level of bias makes her opinion pretty irrelevant.
Rofer makes a statement that you find glaringly obvious, and you cite it as evidence of bias on her part.
Pick one.
As always, I continue to be amazed at the ambition and unfounded confidence of armchair experts.
Karl Marx is LOLing in his grave.
[well, ok. maybe he isn’t. despite being born one, he wasn’t all that fond of Jews later in his life.]
Karl Marx is LOLing in his grave.
[well, ok. maybe he isn’t. despite being born one, he wasn’t all that fond of Jews later in his life.]
Hitler murdered the Communists and Socialists first, apparently only to solidify his monopoly position in the Jew-killing game, so goes the narrative.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Salazar is an up and coming conservative republican genocidal subhuman murderer.
Her narrative and America, the narrative it coasts on, cannot co-exist. Though probably she’ll survive the reality of today’s stinking hateful conservative trumpian America.
I guess we’re not enough of a heavily-armed country yet to head her off at the pass.
Russian Jews escaping Communism flee to a Socialist country …. Israel …. apparently not realizing they are jumping from the pot into the fire, according to her narrative.
Hitler murdered the Communists and Socialists first, apparently only to solidify his monopoly position in the Jew-killing game, so goes the narrative.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
Salazar is an up and coming conservative republican genocidal subhuman murderer.
Her narrative and America, the narrative it coasts on, cannot co-exist. Though probably she’ll survive the reality of today’s stinking hateful conservative trumpian America.
I guess we’re not enough of a heavily-armed country yet to head her off at the pass.
Russian Jews escaping Communism flee to a Socialist country …. Israel …. apparently not realizing they are jumping from the pot into the fire, according to her narrative.
Having her narrative and eating it too.
https://www.jpost.com/business/business-news/business-leader-pm-netanyahu-is-extreme-socialist
Having her narrative and eating it too.
https://www.jpost.com/business/business-news/business-leader-pm-netanyahu-is-extreme-socialist
There are certain words I’m coming to hate.
Like “community”, because it has been deracinated of all meaning.
But “narrative” goes to the top of the list, because now in certain hands that hold themselves as utterly unbiased, innocent-faced gadfly observers of the scene, it is a synonym for “lie” and meant so, but with one pseudo-intellectual pinky raised to hopefully fend off a f*cking fistfight.
Everyone has a narrative until they are punched in the face.
There are certain words I’m coming to hate.
Like “community”, because it has been deracinated of all meaning.
But “narrative” goes to the top of the list, because now in certain hands that hold themselves as utterly unbiased, innocent-faced gadfly observers of the scene, it is a synonym for “lie” and meant so, but with one pseudo-intellectual pinky raised to hopefully fend off a f*cking fistfight.
Everyone has a narrative until they are punched in the face.
that’s just, like, your narrative, man.
that’s just, like, your narrative, man.
Narrative is just a substitute for your theory and the way you construct it. It’s about telling a story, mostly where our opinions and biases replace any absence of facts. They can be wildly disparate or quite nuanced.
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases. When we arrive the biases are immediately more striking, and reactions more intense.
But it’s not, from this utterly unbiased and innocent faced gadfly, a synonym for lying.
Narrative is just a substitute for your theory and the way you construct it. It’s about telling a story, mostly where our opinions and biases replace any absence of facts. They can be wildly disparate or quite nuanced.
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases. When we arrive the biases are immediately more striking, and reactions more intense.
But it’s not, from this utterly unbiased and innocent faced gadfly, a synonym for lying.
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
Chopped liver retires to the peanut gallery…
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
Chopped liver retires to the peanut gallery…
libertarians… cancelled !
libertarians… cancelled !
Let’s play a game. Assign probabilities, whether quantified (“0.001%” and such) or generally characterized (“highly likely” and such).
1. Created/modified in a lab and released on purpose.
2. Created/modified in a lab and released accidentally.
3. Naturally occurring with patient zero being a lab worker. (I don’t think there’s a purposeful-release option needed for this one, though one might add the possibility that this was known and covered up.)
4. Naturally occurring with patient zero being someone infected by an animal outside of a lab.
It sounds like 1. and 2. are highly unlikely because people with the necessary expertise can readily identify viruses created/modified (however that is best put) in a lab and no one has done so.
It sounds like 4. is far more likely than 3. because a naturally occurring virus would have to be out in the world circulating widely before it could even get into a lab environment, meaning the number of initial-infection opportunities outside of a lab would be wildly greater than the number inside a lab. I’m also not sure anyone will ever be able to tell the difference or that there was a true “patient zero,” in the sense that only one person was infected by an animal and was the sole human source of the virus in other humans thereafter. Couldn’t there have been multiple animal-to-human infections before COVID-19 had spread widely enough to be identified as a distinct illness?
Let’s play a game. Assign probabilities, whether quantified (“0.001%” and such) or generally characterized (“highly likely” and such).
1. Created/modified in a lab and released on purpose.
2. Created/modified in a lab and released accidentally.
3. Naturally occurring with patient zero being a lab worker. (I don’t think there’s a purposeful-release option needed for this one, though one might add the possibility that this was known and covered up.)
4. Naturally occurring with patient zero being someone infected by an animal outside of a lab.
It sounds like 1. and 2. are highly unlikely because people with the necessary expertise can readily identify viruses created/modified (however that is best put) in a lab and no one has done so.
It sounds like 4. is far more likely than 3. because a naturally occurring virus would have to be out in the world circulating widely before it could even get into a lab environment, meaning the number of initial-infection opportunities outside of a lab would be wildly greater than the number inside a lab. I’m also not sure anyone will ever be able to tell the difference or that there was a true “patient zero,” in the sense that only one person was infected by an animal and was the sole human source of the virus in other humans thereafter. Couldn’t there have been multiple animal-to-human infections before COVID-19 had spread widely enough to be identified as a distinct illness?
The trained narratologist drinks quietly in the corner.
Go on…
The trained narratologist drinks quietly in the corner.
Go on…
As an academic I would also consign ‘discourse’ to the flames (and consequently oblivion).
[Caveat: I am not fully sure that the word has become as loathsome in English as in German, although it is likewise possible that it came into German as an infection itself]
As an academic I would also consign ‘discourse’ to the flames (and consequently oblivion).
[Caveat: I am not fully sure that the word has become as loathsome in English as in German, although it is likewise possible that it came into German as an infection itself]
I am so happy to see from these further satirical efforts by Stanford students, in his defence, that satire is still in excellent and rude health.
Definitely should block these students from graduating. This kind of slur against blameless snowflakes (and what else is comparing them to the Federalist Society?) cannot be allowed to continue.
I am so happy to see from these further satirical efforts by Stanford students, in his defence, that satire is still in excellent and rude health.
Definitely should block these students from graduating. This kind of slur against blameless snowflakes (and what else is comparing them to the Federalist Society?) cannot be allowed to continue.
Fox headline:
“Kevin McCarthy: Democrats ignored truth about COVID origins putting politics before American lives”
Now there’s a narrative. I’m not the first to make this point, but, by the time the virus had been identified, how would knowing how it started change the response needed to save American lives? I’m not talking about how to deal with the PRC politically because of what they did or didn’t do, because that has nothing to do with people dying of COVID-19 in the United States. I’m talking about preventing the spread. And what exactly was it that Democrats in particular failed to do, as opposed to the former dipsh*t?
I blame the media.
Fox headline:
“Kevin McCarthy: Democrats ignored truth about COVID origins putting politics before American lives”
Now there’s a narrative. I’m not the first to make this point, but, by the time the virus had been identified, how would knowing how it started change the response needed to save American lives? I’m not talking about how to deal with the PRC politically because of what they did or didn’t do, because that has nothing to do with people dying of COVID-19 in the United States. I’m talking about preventing the spread. And what exactly was it that Democrats in particular failed to do, as opposed to the former dipsh*t?
I blame the media.
I am not fully sure that the word has become as loathsome in English as in German, although it is likewise possible that it came into German as an infection itself.
Good news, Hartmut. Looks like it comes from Latin via Old French. So the Germans are blameless here.
I am not fully sure that the word has become as loathsome in English as in German, although it is likewise possible that it came into German as an infection itself.
Good news, Hartmut. Looks like it comes from Latin via Old French. So the Germans are blameless here.
hsh, a potential addendum to 3. would be a disgruntled lab worker that became patient zero on purpose (while 1. implies an authorized release which is a different thing).
But that would be Twelve Monkeys territory.
(Is it fortunate that Covid did not arise in a year of the monkey because we otherwise would have another conspracy theory on our hands?)
hsh, a potential addendum to 3. would be a disgruntled lab worker that became patient zero on purpose (while 1. implies an authorized release which is a different thing).
But that would be Twelve Monkeys territory.
(Is it fortunate that Covid did not arise in a year of the monkey because we otherwise would have another conspracy theory on our hands?)
wj, I know where the word comes from. But who is responsible for its current(imo deserved) bad reputation?
wj, I know where the word comes from. But who is responsible for its current(imo deserved) bad reputation?
If you hate “discourse” then you are not part of the discourse community that loves “discourse.”
If you hate “discourse” then you are not part of the discourse community that loves “discourse.”
You can’t make this stuff up. From my local paper. Headline Northern California Man Who Heckled US Capitol Police for Protecting Pedophiles Served Jail Time for Statutory Rape of 14-Year-Old Girl.
Do they go out of their way to accuse others of their own misdeeds? (I hesitate to suggest deliberate recruiting, but….)
You can’t make this stuff up. From my local paper. Headline Northern California Man Who Heckled US Capitol Police for Protecting Pedophiles Served Jail Time for Statutory Rape of 14-Year-Old Girl.
Do they go out of their way to accuse others of their own misdeeds? (I hesitate to suggest deliberate recruiting, but….)
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases. When we arrive the biases are immediately more striking, and reactions more intense.
are you under the impression that you and McK arrive here without biases of your own?
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases. When we arrive the biases are immediately more striking, and reactions more intense.
are you under the impression that you and McK arrive here without biases of your own?
can’t have bias when you’re the default.
can’t have bias when you’re the default.
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
Chopped liver retires to the peanut gallery…
Also:
The trained narratologist drinks quietly in the corner.
Go on…
At least we can still laugh.
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
Chopped liver retires to the peanut gallery…
Also:
The trained narratologist drinks quietly in the corner.
Go on…
At least we can still laugh.
At least we can still laugh.
More importantly, we can still laugh at ourselves. (Personally, I’m still wrapping my head around the concept that my level of disagreement counts as “nuanced”. I suppose from a sufficient distance….)
At least we can still laugh.
More importantly, we can still laugh at ourselves. (Personally, I’m still wrapping my head around the concept that my level of disagreement counts as “nuanced”. I suppose from a sufficient distance….)
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
A lot of biases would be revealed a little more quickly if some people would post links AND discuss why they think they are good evidence instead of aiming for the drive by (that’s for you, chopped liver. And I would note that you did have AlaMcT rushing to your rescue when I said I didn’t think much of libertarians. Such calummy! Oh, the ad hominem!)
But back to Marty, the link you posted to start all this off was from The Hill. I’m not going to shoot the messenger, as the Hill is already playing Russian Roulette with a full chamber, but I will point out that besides the Tom Cotton point (which you seem to disavow, with a sort of mission impossible vibe), here are the others
But it is safe to say it’s no longer a fringe conspiracy theory. The timing is interesting as well, because, as we’ve seen time and time and time again, what were conspiracy theories during the 2020 presidential campaign when Trump was on the big stage are seen quite differently in 2021, with Joe Biden safely across the finish line and in the Oval Office.
OK! What have you got?
2020: Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation, many media outlets told us.
2021: Well, it turns out Hunter is under FBI investigation. Oh, and the laptop looks like it does belong to him after all.
OK, the Rudy story. I guess one press conference in front of Four Seasons Total Landscaping is not enough.
2020: Russia paid the Taliban bounties to take out U.S. troops and Trump gave Putin a pass.
2021: Well, it turns out the intelligence sourcing on that was bad and it’s likely no such bounties existed.
So, the media just did this to make Trump’s life miserable? Well…
In fact, this whole incident feels like a classic example of a Soviet style misinformation campaign. It has just enough truth in it to be credible but packaged, i.e., spun, in such a way as to cause maximum disruption in the U.S.
Disclosing that Russia is aiding the Taliban is old news that has been ignored for several years. Repackaging that news as “Russia is paying bounties to Taliban militants to kill American servicemen.” given how politicized U.S. foreign and defense policy has become, is like a grenade, or in this case a Molotov Cocktail, thrown into the fabric of American politics. The consequences are predictable.
[…]
Even if the Taliban has elected not to take such bounties, that doesn’t mean that the Kremlin cannot find other elements, both criminal and other, in Afghanistan to whom it can offer support or even bounties in order to torpedo the U.S.-Taliban agreement. As usual the shadow war between Washington and Moscow is always more nuanced and complex than what meets the eye. What’s unfortunate is how readily the U.S. media allows itself to be manipulated by the Kremlin.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2020/07/01/russia-paying-taliban-bounty-kill-us-troops-alternative-explanation.html
OK, what about this WaPo stuff? That is ACTUAL HEADLINES FROM STORIES. That _has to_ show the bias.
2020: “Trump signs $2 trillion coronavirus bill into law as companies and households brace for more economic pain,” – Washington Post.
2021: “Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty in defining move of presidency,” – Washington Post
note the framing, no links, but quotes, so if you aren’t in love with Hunter Biden sliming or Russian дезинформация, there is nothing to nail down, so you can dump that. Just like you did with Tom Cotton.
But the last one is two headlines from the WaPo. The first one continues
President Trump on Friday signed a massive $2 trillion emergency spending bill into law, promising to deliver a tidal wave of cash to individual Americans, businesses and health care facilities all reeling from the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/03/27/congress-coronavirus-house-vote/
while the second one is from an article with the headline
Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty and favoring individuals over businesses
and goes on to say
The roughly $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which only Democrats supported, spends most of the money on low-income and middle-class Americans and state and local governments, with very little funding going toward companies. (bold mine)
So two unsourced assertions and a forced reading for the third. 1/4th of Trump’s bill went to corporations
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-anatomy-of-the-2-trillion-covid-19-stimulus-bill/
On the other hand, the American Rescue Act appears to not give corporations any money
https://www.statista.com/chart/24395/composition-of-the-american-rescue-plan-act/
This might account for the different in language, but since the author is just trying to help you with your confirmation bias, he’s certainly not going to point any of that out. One stimulus bill is just like another one, why are they being so mean to our man I love him so, Donald J. Trump?
When you talk about confirmation bias, you really need to look in the mirror…
Lots of what is discussed here in the absence of myself and McT is just nuanced differences that occasionally reveal deeper biases.
A lot of biases would be revealed a little more quickly if some people would post links AND discuss why they think they are good evidence instead of aiming for the drive by (that’s for you, chopped liver. And I would note that you did have AlaMcT rushing to your rescue when I said I didn’t think much of libertarians. Such calummy! Oh, the ad hominem!)
But back to Marty, the link you posted to start all this off was from The Hill. I’m not going to shoot the messenger, as the Hill is already playing Russian Roulette with a full chamber, but I will point out that besides the Tom Cotton point (which you seem to disavow, with a sort of mission impossible vibe), here are the others
But it is safe to say it’s no longer a fringe conspiracy theory. The timing is interesting as well, because, as we’ve seen time and time and time again, what were conspiracy theories during the 2020 presidential campaign when Trump was on the big stage are seen quite differently in 2021, with Joe Biden safely across the finish line and in the Oval Office.
OK! What have you got?
2020: Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation, many media outlets told us.
2021: Well, it turns out Hunter is under FBI investigation. Oh, and the laptop looks like it does belong to him after all.
OK, the Rudy story. I guess one press conference in front of Four Seasons Total Landscaping is not enough.
2020: Russia paid the Taliban bounties to take out U.S. troops and Trump gave Putin a pass.
2021: Well, it turns out the intelligence sourcing on that was bad and it’s likely no such bounties existed.
So, the media just did this to make Trump’s life miserable? Well…
In fact, this whole incident feels like a classic example of a Soviet style misinformation campaign. It has just enough truth in it to be credible but packaged, i.e., spun, in such a way as to cause maximum disruption in the U.S.
Disclosing that Russia is aiding the Taliban is old news that has been ignored for several years. Repackaging that news as “Russia is paying bounties to Taliban militants to kill American servicemen.” given how politicized U.S. foreign and defense policy has become, is like a grenade, or in this case a Molotov Cocktail, thrown into the fabric of American politics. The consequences are predictable.
[…]
Even if the Taliban has elected not to take such bounties, that doesn’t mean that the Kremlin cannot find other elements, both criminal and other, in Afghanistan to whom it can offer support or even bounties in order to torpedo the U.S.-Taliban agreement. As usual the shadow war between Washington and Moscow is always more nuanced and complex than what meets the eye. What’s unfortunate is how readily the U.S. media allows itself to be manipulated by the Kremlin.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2020/07/01/russia-paying-taliban-bounty-kill-us-troops-alternative-explanation.html
OK, what about this WaPo stuff? That is ACTUAL HEADLINES FROM STORIES. That _has to_ show the bias.
2020: “Trump signs $2 trillion coronavirus bill into law as companies and households brace for more economic pain,” – Washington Post.
2021: “Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty in defining move of presidency,” – Washington Post
note the framing, no links, but quotes, so if you aren’t in love with Hunter Biden sliming or Russian дезинформация, there is nothing to nail down, so you can dump that. Just like you did with Tom Cotton.
But the last one is two headlines from the WaPo. The first one continues
President Trump on Friday signed a massive $2 trillion emergency spending bill into law, promising to deliver a tidal wave of cash to individual Americans, businesses and health care facilities all reeling from the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/03/27/congress-coronavirus-house-vote/
while the second one is from an article with the headline
Biden stimulus showers money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty and favoring individuals over businesses
and goes on to say
The roughly $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which only Democrats supported, spends most of the money on low-income and middle-class Americans and state and local governments, with very little funding going toward companies. (bold mine)
So two unsourced assertions and a forced reading for the third. 1/4th of Trump’s bill went to corporations
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-anatomy-of-the-2-trillion-covid-19-stimulus-bill/
On the other hand, the American Rescue Act appears to not give corporations any money
https://www.statista.com/chart/24395/composition-of-the-american-rescue-plan-act/
This might account for the different in language, but since the author is just trying to help you with your confirmation bias, he’s certainly not going to point any of that out. One stimulus bill is just like another one, why are they being so mean to our man I love him so, Donald J. Trump?
When you talk about confirmation bias, you really need to look in the mirror…
I think I used our somewhere here. No russell we all bring them.
I think I used our somewhere here. No russell we all bring them.
Bias is not a good or bad thing. It’s just a thing.
I teach my students STAR – Sufficient, Typical, Accurate, Relevant – as a way to think about framing an argument. If you have done your best to consider (and test) whether the evidence you are giving meets these standards, then it is okay to allow yourself sine bias on the side you think is stronger. But if that is the case, then the A carries a lot of weight and you have to be scrupulous in your presentation of the other side, and limit your throwing of shade to editorializing about the information presented.
Bias is not a good or bad thing. It’s just a thing.
I teach my students STAR – Sufficient, Typical, Accurate, Relevant – as a way to think about framing an argument. If you have done your best to consider (and test) whether the evidence you are giving meets these standards, then it is okay to allow yourself sine bias on the side you think is stronger. But if that is the case, then the A carries a lot of weight and you have to be scrupulous in your presentation of the other side, and limit your throwing of shade to editorializing about the information presented.
“sine” = “some”
“sine” = “some”
This article suggests that the Dems are thinking about more nuanced strategies to counter GOP attacks in the wake of Melanie Stansbury’s impressive win in New Mexico. Here’s hoping.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/04/melanie-stansbury-crime-police-reform-gop/
This article suggests that the Dems are thinking about more nuanced strategies to counter GOP attacks in the wake of Melanie Stansbury’s impressive win in New Mexico. Here’s hoping.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/04/melanie-stansbury-crime-police-reform-gop/
And on a completely different topic, today I got my Friday e-mail flyer from Sparkfun, a DIY electronics place. The lead device, price $500, is a GPS receiver that will, with a good antenna, tell you where you are ±2 cm. Or more correctly, where the antenna is. All three axes. So russell in MA, wj in CA, and me in CO, could read off the numbers and tell how far apart each of us was from the others to an accuracy on the order of two inches.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
And on a completely different topic, today I got my Friday e-mail flyer from Sparkfun, a DIY electronics place. The lead device, price $500, is a GPS receiver that will, with a good antenna, tell you where you are ±2 cm. Or more correctly, where the antenna is. All three axes. So russell in MA, wj in CA, and me in CO, could read off the numbers and tell how far apart each of us was from the others to an accuracy on the order of two inches.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
Not for things like farming. They include land-based antennas to increase accuracy even more.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
Not for things like farming. They include land-based antennas to increase accuracy even more.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
As Charles notes, it all depends on what you’re doing. Just like I can use a micrometer to get the thickness of a 2×4 to a thousandth of an inch — but why would I? Yet, for other applications, that level of accuracy is desirable. Necessary, even.
This strikes me as being excessively picky.
As Charles notes, it all depends on what you’re doing. Just like I can use a micrometer to get the thickness of a 2×4 to a thousandth of an inch — but why would I? Yet, for other applications, that level of accuracy is desirable. Necessary, even.
Not for things like farming. They include land-based antennas to increase accuracy even more.
Indeed. The flyer makes a point of explaining that if I put a transmitter on my house, the accuracy relative to that transmitter is about 2 mm.
That solves one of the problems with my two (conceptual to different degrees) tech retirement hobby projects. Which was, how does the robot part of the cat-chaser project return to its shelter with sufficient precision to enable wireless recharging. ±2 mm is easily within what is required.
Not for things like farming. They include land-based antennas to increase accuracy even more.
Indeed. The flyer makes a point of explaining that if I put a transmitter on my house, the accuracy relative to that transmitter is about 2 mm.
That solves one of the problems with my two (conceptual to different degrees) tech retirement hobby projects. Which was, how does the robot part of the cat-chaser project return to its shelter with sufficient precision to enable wireless recharging. ±2 mm is easily within what is required.
In the cases where farmers use a shared ground-based transmitter and it breaks down, tractors for miles around come to a halt.
In the cases where farmers use a shared ground-based transmitter and it breaks down, tractors for miles around come to a halt.
The first million-dollar winner in the Colorado vaccination lottery was announced. In our lottery, anyone who has had at least one shot at any time is eligible. Yesterday’s winner got her first shot back in March and her second shot in April. I make it roughly an even-money bet that all five winners will have gotten their qualifying shot before the lottery was announced, so were not incented by it at all.
The hoped-for spike in vaccinations after the lottery announcement has not happened.
The first million-dollar winner in the Colorado vaccination lottery was announced. In our lottery, anyone who has had at least one shot at any time is eligible. Yesterday’s winner got her first shot back in March and her second shot in April. I make it roughly an even-money bet that all five winners will have gotten their qualifying shot before the lottery was announced, so were not incented by it at all.
The hoped-for spike in vaccinations after the lottery announcement has not happened.
Colbert King shares some of his reader’s emails, proving once again that the GOP is chock-full of racists.
Colbert King shares some of his reader’s emails, proving once again that the GOP is chock-full of racists.
“I can use a micrometer to get the thickness of a 2×4 to a thousandth of an inch — but why would I?”
Measure with a micrometer, cut with an ax, pound to fit, paint to hide.
That’s my mantra and I’m sticking to it.
“I can use a micrometer to get the thickness of a 2×4 to a thousandth of an inch — but why would I?”
Measure with a micrometer, cut with an ax, pound to fit, paint to hide.
That’s my mantra and I’m sticking to it.
I make it roughly an even-money bet that all five winners will have gotten their qualifying shot before the lottery was announced, so were not incented by it at all.
As long as those who needed an incentive got one, it’s working as designed. And if the winners are those who got their shots earlier, well that’s just virtue rewarded.
I make it roughly an even-money bet that all five winners will have gotten their qualifying shot before the lottery was announced, so were not incented by it at all.
As long as those who needed an incentive got one, it’s working as designed. And if the winners are those who got their shots earlier, well that’s just virtue rewarded.
A Federal judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons:
The mind boggles.
A Federal judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons:
The mind boggles.
homeland defense equipment
Red Dawn!
any country that wants to attack the US isn’t going to do it with anything that cares about an AR15.
homeland defense equipment
Red Dawn!
any country that wants to attack the US isn’t going to do it with anything that cares about an AR15.
Swiss Army knives are more identifiable than assault weapons. Besides, the Romans had the first army knives.
Swiss Army knives are more identifiable than assault weapons. Besides, the Romans had the first army knives.
And what’s sold to-day as Swiss Army Knives has for the most part little to do with actual military equipment.
A pioneer bayonet would fit that bill much better.
I assume that neither the home nor the homeland is defended by bayonet charges very often these days (and practuícyll never by wielding Swiss Army Knives be they real or just marketed as such).
And what’s sold to-day as Swiss Army Knives has for the most part little to do with actual military equipment.
A pioneer bayonet would fit that bill much better.
I assume that neither the home nor the homeland is defended by bayonet charges very often these days (and practuícyll never by wielding Swiss Army Knives be they real or just marketed as such).
The semantic battle over what constitutes an “assault weapon” is absurd. US firearms law is absurd. There are several other civilized countries in the world that afford plenty of rights to hunters and firearms enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby while also putting sensible limits on community carry and discouraging the suicidal bunker pathology of the NRA. WE should be looking at those countries and trying to follow their approaches in fleshing out what “well regulated” means.
American exceptionalism is literally killing us.
The semantic battle over what constitutes an “assault weapon” is absurd. US firearms law is absurd. There are several other civilized countries in the world that afford plenty of rights to hunters and firearms enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby while also putting sensible limits on community carry and discouraging the suicidal bunker pathology of the NRA. WE should be looking at those countries and trying to follow their approaches in fleshing out what “well regulated” means.
American exceptionalism is literally killing us.
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
Also, we have reached a point where we will not ever get sensible regulation of firearms without also getting deep changes to law enforcement. The gun fetishism and power kink associated with them are woven deep into our Law Enforcement community. It’s going to take decades of weeding to get anywhere even assuming we can make any headway.
I expect widespread civil unrest and low intensity violence before any of that, and I think the US (or whatever else emerges from that) will be much reduced in power and influence before any of this gets settled.
Also, we have reached a point where we will not ever get sensible regulation of firearms without also getting deep changes to law enforcement. The gun fetishism and power kink associated with them are woven deep into our Law Enforcement community. It’s going to take decades of weeding to get anywhere even assuming we can make any headway.
I expect widespread civil unrest and low intensity violence before any of that, and I think the US (or whatever else emerges from that) will be much reduced in power and influence before any of this gets settled.
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
for the same reason the average M16-carrying foot soldier doesn’t carry a sniper rifle.
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
for the same reason the average M16-carrying foot soldier doesn’t carry a sniper rifle.
homeland defense equipment
Two words: national guard. They’ll even supply the rifle.
homeland defense equipment
Two words: national guard. They’ll even supply the rifle.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
But when you look at mass murders, they almost entirely involve firearms.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
But when you look at mass murders, they almost entirely involve firearms.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
That’s an interesting qualifier. Only about ~20% of gun homicides are by rifle. Pistols are by far the most popular, with shotguns in third. Even in mass shootings, pistols are often the more effective weapon.
So obviously you’re making the point that singling out “assault weapons” for a ban is somewhat arbitrary. And I agree!
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
Or, if that’s too much for you, let’s institute some of the things nous referenced. The probably 1,000 or more sensible measures that would make things safer and saner, while still allowing legitimate recreational use: Prohibit most kinds of carrying in public. Require that weapons be kept locked at gun clubs at most times. Track sales of ammunition (and reloading supplies) and restrict the type and quantity of ammunition that can be kept at any one time. Mandatory liability insurance. Require regular recertification and maybe even periodic psychological exams or anger management training of some sort. Automate background checks, including for private sales. Automatically confiscate weapons from domestic violence suspects, etc. Limit the quantities of guns that can be purchased by private individuals — at least without a collector or dealer license, which should both be difficult to obtain and have real teeth for any violations. (While we’re at it: reform the ATF, and actually enforce the existing regulations.)
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure smarter people than I have thought of more and better ones.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
That’s an interesting qualifier. Only about ~20% of gun homicides are by rifle. Pistols are by far the most popular, with shotguns in third. Even in mass shootings, pistols are often the more effective weapon.
So obviously you’re making the point that singling out “assault weapons” for a ban is somewhat arbitrary. And I agree!
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
Or, if that’s too much for you, let’s institute some of the things nous referenced. The probably 1,000 or more sensible measures that would make things safer and saner, while still allowing legitimate recreational use: Prohibit most kinds of carrying in public. Require that weapons be kept locked at gun clubs at most times. Track sales of ammunition (and reloading supplies) and restrict the type and quantity of ammunition that can be kept at any one time. Mandatory liability insurance. Require regular recertification and maybe even periodic psychological exams or anger management training of some sort. Automate background checks, including for private sales. Automatically confiscate weapons from domestic violence suspects, etc. Limit the quantities of guns that can be purchased by private individuals — at least without a collector or dealer license, which should both be difficult to obtain and have real teeth for any violations. (While we’re at it: reform the ATF, and actually enforce the existing regulations.)
That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure smarter people than I have thought of more and better ones.
Good luck, wj, getting evenhanded consideration rather than defensive counterargument from any of the 2A Defender types. They don’t actually ever listen or accept that any of America’s public health problems involving firearms have anything to do with firearms. They are protecting a religious tenet.
The Second Amendment has never been in any more danger than has Christianity or White People.
Good luck, wj, getting evenhanded consideration rather than defensive counterargument from any of the 2A Defender types. They don’t actually ever listen or accept that any of America’s public health problems involving firearms have anything to do with firearms. They are protecting a religious tenet.
The Second Amendment has never been in any more danger than has Christianity or White People.
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
Not as long as there’s the 2ndA and the current court rulings on it. Even if the 2ndA were repealed, a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
Not as long as there’s the 2ndA and the current court rulings on it. Even if the 2ndA were repealed, a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
nous, the fact that the argument won’t persuade doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making. If nothing else, it makes defense and recruiting by the @A cultists just a little harder if their arguments have actually been countered. And on this topic, every little reduction in the cultists’ numbers is worth having.
But I admit, having the NRA continue its self-inflicted implosion is the best news we’ve had in ages. Sure, a new organization could arise to do the same lobbying. But it would take time for it to build up the same political clout. Time that could get the laws changed.
nous, the fact that the argument won’t persuade doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making. If nothing else, it makes defense and recruiting by the @A cultists just a little harder if their arguments have actually been countered. And on this topic, every little reduction in the cultists’ numbers is worth having.
But I admit, having the NRA continue its self-inflicted implosion is the best news we’ve had in ages. Sure, a new organization could arise to do the same lobbying. But it would take time for it to build up the same political clout. Time that could get the laws changed.
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
hooray. this fucking zombie argument again.
a) no, it’s not even close to true (you’ve got the order and rate compeltely reversed) and b) are knives designed, intended, engineered to be as lethal as possible ? is killing a knife’s only actual purpose ? does anyone practice their knife skills by stabbing paper silhouettes of people ? did Jared Diamond ever write a book called “Knives, Germs and Steel” ?
In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often, and murdered by bare hands, fists, or feet occurs three times more often than by any kind of rifle.
hooray. this fucking zombie argument again.
a) no, it’s not even close to true (you’ve got the order and rate compeltely reversed) and b) are knives designed, intended, engineered to be as lethal as possible ? is killing a knife’s only actual purpose ? does anyone practice their knife skills by stabbing paper silhouettes of people ? did Jared Diamond ever write a book called “Knives, Germs and Steel” ?
oh, “rifle” ?
lol.
so fucking dumb.
oh, “rifle” ?
lol.
so fucking dumb.
a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state
the millions of full-auto weapons in the US agree with this wishful thinking.
a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state
the millions of full-auto weapons in the US agree with this wishful thinking.
FYI, all that crazy runaway Biden-caused inflation?
it’s about car prices, which is really all about COVID.
FYI, all that crazy runaway Biden-caused inflation?
it’s about car prices, which is really all about COVID.
So, are the used vehicle dealers price gouging?
All those New Yorkers moving to Texas have to buy a car and learn to drive.
So, are the used vehicle dealers price gouging?
All those New Yorkers moving to Texas have to buy a car and learn to drive.
So, are the used vehicle dealers price gouging?
Nope, classic supply and demand. Limited new cars, because of limited supply of the chips now used in cars. So more demand for used cars. But, unsurprisingly, no increased supply of used cars.
The estimates I see are that it may be 2023 before the car chip supply catches up with demand for new cars. I’m sitting here telling myself that I should have bought the new car I need last summer, when prices were low. Sigh.
So, are the used vehicle dealers price gouging?
Nope, classic supply and demand. Limited new cars, because of limited supply of the chips now used in cars. So more demand for used cars. But, unsurprisingly, no increased supply of used cars.
The estimates I see are that it may be 2023 before the car chip supply catches up with demand for new cars. I’m sitting here telling myself that I should have bought the new car I need last summer, when prices were low. Sigh.
i sold my car last June because i wasn’t using it (WFH) – Audi A4, 2014, 72K miles. i got $8000 at Carmax. same car, same year, same mileage is now selling for $18000 at Carmax.
there are people in the comments on that ArsTech story saying cars they bought a year ago now have a trade-in higher than what it cost new.
new car prices are up too, for other reasons.
i sold my car last June because i wasn’t using it (WFH) – Audi A4, 2014, 72K miles. i got $8000 at Carmax. same car, same year, same mileage is now selling for $18000 at Carmax.
there are people in the comments on that ArsTech story saying cars they bought a year ago now have a trade-in higher than what it cost new.
new car prices are up too, for other reasons.
REntal cars is mentioned in the article, but only as a side note and a different article talked about some impacts. I don’t think this is the original article, but it covers it
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-the-covid-pandemic-led-to-a-rental-car-crisis-just-as-americans-are-ready-to-bust-loose/
So it’s not just the chips. Funny how these things always have multiple angles…
REntal cars is mentioned in the article, but only as a side note and a different article talked about some impacts. I don’t think this is the original article, but it covers it
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-the-covid-pandemic-led-to-a-rental-car-crisis-just-as-americans-are-ready-to-bust-loose/
So it’s not just the chips. Funny how these things always have multiple angles…
Even if the 2ndA were repealed, a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
That sentence is at least debatable from several directions. If the 2A were repealed, it means that two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate approved it and then either (a) 38 state legislatures plus governors approved it or (b) voting majorities in 38 states approved it. That’s an enormous change in public opinion from where we are today. Enough so that it is possible neither one of us would recognize that America. And while repeal makes it possible, immediate confiscation seems unlikely. Do you really think there would be a minority of any size that would say, “I’ll kill people rather than register my guns. I’ll kill rather than show my ID and sign for ammunition.”?
Even if the 2ndA were repealed, a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
That sentence is at least debatable from several directions. If the 2A were repealed, it means that two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate approved it and then either (a) 38 state legislatures plus governors approved it or (b) voting majorities in 38 states approved it. That’s an enormous change in public opinion from where we are today. Enough so that it is possible neither one of us would recognize that America. And while repeal makes it possible, immediate confiscation seems unlikely. Do you really think there would be a minority of any size that would say, “I’ll kill people rather than register my guns. I’ll kill rather than show my ID and sign for ammunition.”?
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
The civilian equivalent of an assault rifle can be cheap (and cheap ammunition is available) and has lousy accuracy. But recall that in most military action, something over 90% of rounds expended are not really aimed, they are intended to make the other guy keep his head down so he can’t aim. Most of the rifles handed out to the troops have a three-shot burst limit to keep their trained operators from simply spraying a whole magazine. Although to be honest, in most mass shooting situations, a good handgun in the appropriate caliber is probably a lot more effective.
The civilian equivalent of a sniper rifle is a pricey bolt-action single-shot hunting rifle intended to take antelope or bighorn sheep at 250 yards after a day’s stalk. Or the even more expensive match-grade single-shot bolt-action rifles intended for competition out as far as 700 yards. Relatively speaking, damned few of them are sold. Even for practice ammunition, price is well down the list of considerations.
Why should “assault weapons” be banned but not sniper rifles?
The civilian equivalent of an assault rifle can be cheap (and cheap ammunition is available) and has lousy accuracy. But recall that in most military action, something over 90% of rounds expended are not really aimed, they are intended to make the other guy keep his head down so he can’t aim. Most of the rifles handed out to the troops have a three-shot burst limit to keep their trained operators from simply spraying a whole magazine. Although to be honest, in most mass shooting situations, a good handgun in the appropriate caliber is probably a lot more effective.
The civilian equivalent of a sniper rifle is a pricey bolt-action single-shot hunting rifle intended to take antelope or bighorn sheep at 250 yards after a day’s stalk. Or the even more expensive match-grade single-shot bolt-action rifles intended for competition out as far as 700 yards. Relatively speaking, damned few of them are sold. Even for practice ammunition, price is well down the list of considerations.
a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
This has me wondering if Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK have China-like police states or if something else might be a factor…
a ban couldn’t be enforced without bloody conflict and a China-like police state.
This has me wondering if Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK have China-like police states or if something else might be a factor…
This has me wondering if Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK have China-like police states or if something else might be a factor…
I don’t buy the premise that eliminating assault rifles in private hands would require massive conflict and a police state. Although there would likely be pockets where it comes to a serious police action. (Likely outsourced to the military.)
That said, there’s an obvious reason those countries are different: they never had a time when such guns were widely available. It’s lots easier to avoid spreading them than to rein them in after they are already spread.
This has me wondering if Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK have China-like police states or if something else might be a factor…
I don’t buy the premise that eliminating assault rifles in private hands would require massive conflict and a police state. Although there would likely be pockets where it comes to a serious police action. (Likely outsourced to the military.)
That said, there’s an obvious reason those countries are different: they never had a time when such guns were widely available. It’s lots easier to avoid spreading them than to rein them in after they are already spread.
I said enforced. I don’t know much about the other countries, but, in Australia, people are still holding quite a few illegal guns. There’s a big difference between banning guns and enforcing the ban by going door to door and forcibly taking the guns.
I said enforced. I don’t know much about the other countries, but, in Australia, people are still holding quite a few illegal guns. There’s a big difference between banning guns and enforcing the ban by going door to door and forcibly taking the guns.
“in Australia, people are still holding quite a few illegal guns. There’s a big difference between banning guns and enforcing the ban”
If the 2ndA diehards in the USA buried their assault rifles in their gardens, and left them there until the North Koreans invade, that would be okay too.
Might make for some interesting times in a couple of generations (like buried WWI ordinance), but whatever.
“in Australia, people are still holding quite a few illegal guns. There’s a big difference between banning guns and enforcing the ban”
If the 2ndA diehards in the USA buried their assault rifles in their gardens, and left them there until the North Koreans invade, that would be okay too.
Might make for some interesting times in a couple of generations (like buried WWI ordinance), but whatever.
It doesn’t matter if Australians are holding illegal guns if they are also keeping those guns hidden away for fear of confiscation.
If such a ban were to be put in place here, I wouldn’t even care if the owner of the weapon were not charged with a felony for possession. What matters is that the firearm is confiscated and taken out of circulation.
As for the whole sniper rifle vs. box fed, semi-auto rifle built for sustained fire comparison, hunting rifles (which is what any sniper rifle in a reasonable caliber really is) are judged by how *efficiently* they kill – they are meant to be fired once with purpose and with a lot of forethought; anti-personnel rifles are judged by how *easily* they kill (or incapacitate) and the high and sustained rate of fire that they are designed for shows that they are meant for putting many bullets into an area in a short time frame to make up for any deficiency of skill or forethought.
Second Amendment types conflate these deep differences in philosophy and purpose to confuse the line between the paramilitary rifle and grampa’s Browning hunting rifle, but it’s all smoke and mirrors.
It’s not about the stopping power of a single round or the efficiency with which that round can kill. It’s about the ability to sustain mayhem.
It doesn’t matter if Australians are holding illegal guns if they are also keeping those guns hidden away for fear of confiscation.
If such a ban were to be put in place here, I wouldn’t even care if the owner of the weapon were not charged with a felony for possession. What matters is that the firearm is confiscated and taken out of circulation.
As for the whole sniper rifle vs. box fed, semi-auto rifle built for sustained fire comparison, hunting rifles (which is what any sniper rifle in a reasonable caliber really is) are judged by how *efficiently* they kill – they are meant to be fired once with purpose and with a lot of forethought; anti-personnel rifles are judged by how *easily* they kill (or incapacitate) and the high and sustained rate of fire that they are designed for shows that they are meant for putting many bullets into an area in a short time frame to make up for any deficiency of skill or forethought.
Second Amendment types conflate these deep differences in philosophy and purpose to confuse the line between the paramilitary rifle and grampa’s Browning hunting rifle, but it’s all smoke and mirrors.
It’s not about the stopping power of a single round or the efficiency with which that round can kill. It’s about the ability to sustain mayhem.
I said enforced.
The countries I mentioned enforce the ban. I’m sure those Aussies realize that if they were to open brag about having an assault rifle, they might have some problems. Why does that not count as ‘enforcement’?
I don’t know much about the other countries
noted
I said enforced.
The countries I mentioned enforce the ban. I’m sure those Aussies realize that if they were to open brag about having an assault rifle, they might have some problems. Why does that not count as ‘enforcement’?
I don’t know much about the other countries
noted
The countries I mentioned enforce the ban.
The countries you listed have restrictions on private possession rather than outright bans.
Gun Ownership By Country 2021
The countries I mentioned enforce the ban.
The countries you listed have restrictions on private possession rather than outright bans.
Gun Ownership By Country 2021
While jack lecou did say
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
I took the asterisks as an indication of hyperbole. However, I apparently live in a ‘China-like police state’. Good to know.
While jack lecou did say
Why choose? We should ban *all* of them!
I took the asterisks as an indication of hyperbole. However, I apparently live in a ‘China-like police state’. Good to know.
Do you really think there would be a minority of any size that would say, “I’ll kill people rather than register my guns. I’ll kill rather than show my ID and sign for ammunition.”?
Unfortunately, to me this may be meant as a rhetorical question but I am not at all sure that the answer in reality would really be ‘No!’ (and I do not mean the answer of CharlesWT). I fear, there are enough nutcases that would kill for less and, should the situation arise, there will be more than enough ‘molon labe’ type propaganda to rile up as many of those as possible. The NRA, as despicable as it has become under Wayne LaPierre, is not the most extreme by far. One has just to look at Gun Owners of America and their boss Pratt. Unlike Wayne ‘can’t even properly shoot a tame elephant at spitting distance’ who is just a crook without a conscience, the likes of Pratt look like true believers of significant nuttity.
Do you really think there would be a minority of any size that would say, “I’ll kill people rather than register my guns. I’ll kill rather than show my ID and sign for ammunition.”?
Unfortunately, to me this may be meant as a rhetorical question but I am not at all sure that the answer in reality would really be ‘No!’ (and I do not mean the answer of CharlesWT). I fear, there are enough nutcases that would kill for less and, should the situation arise, there will be more than enough ‘molon labe’ type propaganda to rile up as many of those as possible. The NRA, as despicable as it has become under Wayne LaPierre, is not the most extreme by far. One has just to look at Gun Owners of America and their boss Pratt. Unlike Wayne ‘can’t even properly shoot a tame elephant at spitting distance’ who is just a crook without a conscience, the likes of Pratt look like true believers of significant nuttity.
Jack Lecou has enjoyed himself scoffing at various implausible theories of a lab origin. But if he wants to convince me, he needs to address the better theories.
We know that the WIV was working on a project, funded via Peter Daszak’s group, to “Understand the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”. Part of the project was “virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice”. A natural thing to do to “test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission” would be to conduct serial-passage experiments with various bat coronaviruses and host cell cultures, to see what could be produced.
So I speculate that during such experiments one of the bat coronaviruses evolved into a particularly well-adapted virus, perhaps first in an intermediate host, then in human or humanized cells. This paper discusses the possibility.
And then there was a leak infecting one or more lab workers. Since the project included “serological and molecular screening of people working in wet markets” it is easy to see how the virus could have spread to the Huanan wet market (which outbreak was early but apparently not quite the earliest).
Once the coronavirus was identified, a suitably high-ranking official will have visited Dr Shi, to ask respectfully whether the lab might have been the source of the outbreak. She will have replied, respectfully and not dishonestly, that she could not be sure. The official will have advised her to conduct a careful investigation, and that he was confident that it would show that the lab was not responsible, which fact she would communicate to the world. He will have further advised her to destroy or conceal beyond discovery any records and materials which might be used by malicious actors to impute responsibility for the outbreak to the lab.
Meanwhile, Peter Daszak, whose career would be very badly damaged if it were discovered that he was responsible for a project which caused the pandemic, organised and signed, without declaring his interest, a letter stating with much more confidence that was justified, that studies “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife”.
In general, conspiracy theories should be distrusted because too many people with too little motivation would have to be keeping a secret. In this case, the secret would be known only to a few strongly motivated people in the lab, while many powerful people who do not know the secret are strongly motivated to offer alternative explanations. Add to that the politics, where fingers were pointed at the WIV by disgusting, ignorant liars like Trump, causing good, knowledgeable people to want there to be no truth whatever in his allegations. This is what you need for a successful cover-up.
Jack Lecou has enjoyed himself scoffing at various implausible theories of a lab origin. But if he wants to convince me, he needs to address the better theories.
We know that the WIV was working on a project, funded via Peter Daszak’s group, to “Understand the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”. Part of the project was “virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice”. A natural thing to do to “test predictions of CoV inter-species transmission” would be to conduct serial-passage experiments with various bat coronaviruses and host cell cultures, to see what could be produced.
So I speculate that during such experiments one of the bat coronaviruses evolved into a particularly well-adapted virus, perhaps first in an intermediate host, then in human or humanized cells. This paper discusses the possibility.
And then there was a leak infecting one or more lab workers. Since the project included “serological and molecular screening of people working in wet markets” it is easy to see how the virus could have spread to the Huanan wet market (which outbreak was early but apparently not quite the earliest).
Once the coronavirus was identified, a suitably high-ranking official will have visited Dr Shi, to ask respectfully whether the lab might have been the source of the outbreak. She will have replied, respectfully and not dishonestly, that she could not be sure. The official will have advised her to conduct a careful investigation, and that he was confident that it would show that the lab was not responsible, which fact she would communicate to the world. He will have further advised her to destroy or conceal beyond discovery any records and materials which might be used by malicious actors to impute responsibility for the outbreak to the lab.
Meanwhile, Peter Daszak, whose career would be very badly damaged if it were discovered that he was responsible for a project which caused the pandemic, organised and signed, without declaring his interest, a letter stating with much more confidence that was justified, that studies “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife”.
In general, conspiracy theories should be distrusted because too many people with too little motivation would have to be keeping a secret. In this case, the secret would be known only to a few strongly motivated people in the lab, while many powerful people who do not know the secret are strongly motivated to offer alternative explanations. Add to that the politics, where fingers were pointed at the WIV by disgusting, ignorant liars like Trump, causing good, knowledgeable people to want there to be no truth whatever in his allegations. This is what you need for a successful cover-up.
This is the factcheck.org discussion of what Pro Bono is talking about.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
I guess we are lucky to be living in interesting times…
This is the factcheck.org discussion of what Pro Bono is talking about.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/
I guess we are lucky to be living in interesting times…
The countries you listed have restrictions on private possession rather than outright bans.
if we were talking about restrictions, you’d be be telling us restrictions impossible.
strange how the Gun Fondeler ratchet only ever works to increase the amount of guns, all while they tell us how guns are the key to safety and security.
gun crime increases? more guns. black guy gets elected? more guns. someone looks to restrict guns? more guns. Wayne LaPierre needs a new desk chair? more guns. more gun in the hands of black people? more guns for white people. more guns for white people? yes! more guns!
The countries you listed have restrictions on private possession rather than outright bans.
if we were talking about restrictions, you’d be be telling us restrictions impossible.
strange how the Gun Fondeler ratchet only ever works to increase the amount of guns, all while they tell us how guns are the key to safety and security.
gun crime increases? more guns. black guy gets elected? more guns. someone looks to restrict guns? more guns. Wayne LaPierre needs a new desk chair? more guns. more gun in the hands of black people? more guns for white people. more guns for white people? yes! more guns!
children get killed? more guns! brown guy shoots up an office? more guns! white guy massacres a concert? more guns! gay get slaughtered? more guns! soldiers get slaughtered? more guns! lead flies like starlings in office after office, school after school, playgrounds, malls, streets, hotels, homes, hospitals. more guns!
we already have more guns than any other country and it hasn’t done anything to keep us safe? more guns!
fuck you and fuck your guns.
children get killed? more guns! brown guy shoots up an office? more guns! white guy massacres a concert? more guns! gay get slaughtered? more guns! soldiers get slaughtered? more guns! lead flies like starlings in office after office, school after school, playgrounds, malls, streets, hotels, homes, hospitals. more guns!
we already have more guns than any other country and it hasn’t done anything to keep us safe? more guns!
fuck you and fuck your guns.
I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Charles has any guns (I don’t remember him saying anything to that effect, though again, I may be wrong) I think he just argues from the standpoint that any increase in regulation will bring on a “China-like police state” I feel that if you watch youtubers who talk about ‘how I conquered Southern China’, that may come with the territory.
I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Charles has any guns (I don’t remember him saying anything to that effect, though again, I may be wrong) I think he just argues from the standpoint that any increase in regulation will bring on a “China-like police state” I feel that if you watch youtubers who talk about ‘how I conquered Southern China’, that may come with the territory.
I don’t own or have any guns. I’ve never felt the need. I’ve shot military and civilian guns. Don’t like the noise.
I don’t own or have any guns. I’ve never felt the need. I’ve shot military and civilian guns. Don’t like the noise.
I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Charles has any guns
[should-have-been] obviously, except the directly reply to what i quoted, that wasn’t aimed at Charles personally.
I may be wrong, but I don’t believe Charles has any guns
[should-have-been] obviously, except the directly reply to what i quoted, that wasn’t aimed at Charles personally.
cleek’s analysis of what events cause there to be more guns in the US seems spot on to me.
Plus:
lead flies like starlings in office after office, school after school, playgrounds, malls, streets, hotels, homes, hospitals. is a marvellous, poetic image about a horrible, deadly phenomenon.
cleek’s analysis of what events cause there to be more guns in the US seems spot on to me.
Plus:
lead flies like starlings in office after office, school after school, playgrounds, malls, streets, hotels, homes, hospitals. is a marvellous, poetic image about a horrible, deadly phenomenon.
Lab Leak Hypothesis
My go-to biologist offers this.
It’s the public policy, stupid.
Lab Leak Hypothesis
My go-to biologist offers this.
It’s the public policy, stupid.
I see some guy named Trump made page A22 in the Times today.
I see some guy named Trump made page A22 in the Times today.
there are millions of AR-15’s in private hands in the US. it’s a popular rifle because all of the things that make it an effective military weapon also make it useful for civilian purposes. it’s lightweight, reliable, accurate, has very low recoil. it’s also kind of a tinker-toy, it’s easy to take apart and reconfigure with any of a gazillion after-market parts to suit whatever purpose you want to use it for.
it’s also pretty hard to say where the line between ‘assault rifle’ and ‘not assault rifle’ lies.
all of which is to say, it will be freaking difficult to make owning that rifle illegal.
it’s popularity is also due in no small part to its bad-ass vibe. which is weird a little disturbing, but not out of character, at least for Americans.
in my very humble opinion, FWIW, the focus on specific models of firearm is not going to solve the issue of gun violence.
you shouldn’t be able to get a firearm unless you have had some training in its use. using a firearm in an unsafe way should mean you no longer get to own a firearm. a history of violent behavior or mental illness should mean you do not get to own a firearm. if you own a firearm and your local cops decide you’re a risk to your family or neighbors, they should be able to take your firearms away.
owning firearms for personal use should be seen as a privilege which must be earned, and which can be revoked if it is abused or if you behave in ways that make your owning a firearm a bad risk for the people around you.
there are millions of AR-15’s in private hands in the US. it’s a popular rifle because all of the things that make it an effective military weapon also make it useful for civilian purposes. it’s lightweight, reliable, accurate, has very low recoil. it’s also kind of a tinker-toy, it’s easy to take apart and reconfigure with any of a gazillion after-market parts to suit whatever purpose you want to use it for.
it’s also pretty hard to say where the line between ‘assault rifle’ and ‘not assault rifle’ lies.
all of which is to say, it will be freaking difficult to make owning that rifle illegal.
it’s popularity is also due in no small part to its bad-ass vibe. which is weird a little disturbing, but not out of character, at least for Americans.
in my very humble opinion, FWIW, the focus on specific models of firearm is not going to solve the issue of gun violence.
you shouldn’t be able to get a firearm unless you have had some training in its use. using a firearm in an unsafe way should mean you no longer get to own a firearm. a history of violent behavior or mental illness should mean you do not get to own a firearm. if you own a firearm and your local cops decide you’re a risk to your family or neighbors, they should be able to take your firearms away.
owning firearms for personal use should be seen as a privilege which must be earned, and which can be revoked if it is abused or if you behave in ways that make your owning a firearm a bad risk for the people around you.
owning firearms for personal use should be seen as a privilege which must be earned, and which can be revoked if it is abused or if you behave in ways that make your owning a firearm a bad risk for the people around you.
The challenge is squaring this with the 2nd Amendment. Now if we had a sane Supreme Court, it would focus on the “well-regulated militia” part of the Amendment. That leaves plenty of room for regulation. Unfortunately, thanks to McConnell, we are unlikely to be able to get there for at least a generation.
owning firearms for personal use should be seen as a privilege which must be earned, and which can be revoked if it is abused or if you behave in ways that make your owning a firearm a bad risk for the people around you.
The challenge is squaring this with the 2nd Amendment. Now if we had a sane Supreme Court, it would focus on the “well-regulated militia” part of the Amendment. That leaves plenty of room for regulation. Unfortunately, thanks to McConnell, we are unlikely to be able to get there for at least a generation.
qualifiying clauses are unoriginalist.
qualifiying clauses are unoriginalist.
I would be fascinated to know how you expect them to rationalize that conclusion. Not that I dispute your prediction that they will. Or something similarly vacuous.
I would be fascinated to know how you expect them to rationalize that conclusion. Not that I dispute your prediction that they will. Or something similarly vacuous.
At least those in the text. The unspoken ones read right from the minds of the writers are the bread and butter of that particular circus (as are mixed metaphors).
True originalists (like schoolteachers dealing with literature) know far better than the original authors what the latter meant (and more inmportant what they did not mean).
At least those in the text. The unspoken ones read right from the minds of the writers are the bread and butter of that particular circus (as are mixed metaphors).
True originalists (like schoolteachers dealing with literature) know far better than the original authors what the latter meant (and more inmportant what they did not mean).
The challenge is squaring this with the 2nd Amendment.
We have a highly politicized SCOTUS, so the post-Heller reading of the 2nd A is probably going to stand for the foreseeable future. A generation or more.
So I don’t see any of what I’ve suggested happening.
But in a perfect world, I guess what I’d suggest is to have public policy around guns be focused on the outcome we want.
The kinds of mass killings that people are most horrified by are invariably carried out by people who are disturbed, emotionally and/or mentally. IMO the most effective way of preventing things like that is going to be preventing those people from getting their hands on guns. It will, IMO, be easier to get public buy-in on something like that by identifying and treating those individuals as a particular case, rather than by preventing everyone from having access to firearms of a particular hard-to-define class.
The most common cause of death by firearm is suicide – something like 60% of firearm deaths are suicides. If we want to reduce that number, we will IMO make more progress by making mental health resources available and by removing the stigma around using them. Most suicides by firearm involve handguns. Bans on assault weapons aren’t going to prevent that.
So if what we want is simply to reduce the number of people killed by firearms in any given year, banning assault rifles is probably not going to make that big of a dent. From a basic public health point of view, the focus on assault rifles is not that useful.
There is another dimension to all of this, where the availability of firearms like AR-15s is probably more relevant. That is the emergence of unaccountable free-lance militias over the last 30 years, and the increasingly common belief that political violence is an acceptable recourse if you simply don’t get your way, politically.
The dudes – overwhelmingly dudes, and overwhelmingly white – who show up in political contexts open-carrying and talking about 2A solutions seem to always show up with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder. In that context it is an intimidating firearm, is meant to be one, and in fact does offer tactical advantages that would be useful if these guys ever got their wish and their posing turned into an actual firefight.
If you were a cop, you’d probably rather face an adversary with a handgun or a shotgun or a plain old hunting rifle, than one with an AR-15 or similar.
From a point of view of not having self-appointed vigilantes running around with firearms that would let them go toe-to-toe with cops, the National Guard, or for that matter your average military rifleman, I’d see value in banning things like the AR-15.
But I might see greater advantage in banning self-appointed and self-organized militias. If you want to play army, go join the actual Army, and submit to military discipline under the direction of public authorities.
You know, like what the 2nd A talks about.
TBH I don’t see any progress on gun policy in the cards. Too many people have bought into the whole “I need a gun to defend my freedoms” thing, and too many political careers and money are invested in stoking all of that.
Americans like guns, and we are an unusually violent society, prone to shooting ourselves and each other. All of our public policy (or lack thereof) around firearms is a reflection of that.
We won’t change the public policy until we change people’s thinking about guns. I don’t know how to do that.
I’d be happy to have a mandatory background check and waiting period with no exceptions, and a 10 or 12 round cap on magazine sizes. Getting even that far at the national level would be huge.
And I’d like all of the gun-humping nut jobs to keep their advocacy the hell out of my state. If you want to open carry your AR-15 to the grocery store for whatever bizarre reason, move somewhere where folks think that’s a good idea and stay the hell away from me and mine.
Live free or die somewhere else.
The challenge is squaring this with the 2nd Amendment.
We have a highly politicized SCOTUS, so the post-Heller reading of the 2nd A is probably going to stand for the foreseeable future. A generation or more.
So I don’t see any of what I’ve suggested happening.
But in a perfect world, I guess what I’d suggest is to have public policy around guns be focused on the outcome we want.
The kinds of mass killings that people are most horrified by are invariably carried out by people who are disturbed, emotionally and/or mentally. IMO the most effective way of preventing things like that is going to be preventing those people from getting their hands on guns. It will, IMO, be easier to get public buy-in on something like that by identifying and treating those individuals as a particular case, rather than by preventing everyone from having access to firearms of a particular hard-to-define class.
The most common cause of death by firearm is suicide – something like 60% of firearm deaths are suicides. If we want to reduce that number, we will IMO make more progress by making mental health resources available and by removing the stigma around using them. Most suicides by firearm involve handguns. Bans on assault weapons aren’t going to prevent that.
So if what we want is simply to reduce the number of people killed by firearms in any given year, banning assault rifles is probably not going to make that big of a dent. From a basic public health point of view, the focus on assault rifles is not that useful.
There is another dimension to all of this, where the availability of firearms like AR-15s is probably more relevant. That is the emergence of unaccountable free-lance militias over the last 30 years, and the increasingly common belief that political violence is an acceptable recourse if you simply don’t get your way, politically.
The dudes – overwhelmingly dudes, and overwhelmingly white – who show up in political contexts open-carrying and talking about 2A solutions seem to always show up with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder. In that context it is an intimidating firearm, is meant to be one, and in fact does offer tactical advantages that would be useful if these guys ever got their wish and their posing turned into an actual firefight.
If you were a cop, you’d probably rather face an adversary with a handgun or a shotgun or a plain old hunting rifle, than one with an AR-15 or similar.
From a point of view of not having self-appointed vigilantes running around with firearms that would let them go toe-to-toe with cops, the National Guard, or for that matter your average military rifleman, I’d see value in banning things like the AR-15.
But I might see greater advantage in banning self-appointed and self-organized militias. If you want to play army, go join the actual Army, and submit to military discipline under the direction of public authorities.
You know, like what the 2nd A talks about.
TBH I don’t see any progress on gun policy in the cards. Too many people have bought into the whole “I need a gun to defend my freedoms” thing, and too many political careers and money are invested in stoking all of that.
Americans like guns, and we are an unusually violent society, prone to shooting ourselves and each other. All of our public policy (or lack thereof) around firearms is a reflection of that.
We won’t change the public policy until we change people’s thinking about guns. I don’t know how to do that.
I’d be happy to have a mandatory background check and waiting period with no exceptions, and a 10 or 12 round cap on magazine sizes. Getting even that far at the national level would be huge.
And I’d like all of the gun-humping nut jobs to keep their advocacy the hell out of my state. If you want to open carry your AR-15 to the grocery store for whatever bizarre reason, move somewhere where folks think that’s a good idea and stay the hell away from me and mine.
Live free or die somewhere else.
everything Russell writes is true, as usual.
nonetheless, “fuck you and fuck your guns” is going to be my approach.
everything Russell writes is true, as usual.
nonetheless, “fuck you and fuck your guns” is going to be my approach.
people who are disturbed, emotionally and/or mentally
Which, IMHO, includes virtually all of the members of the self-styled “militias” — else they wouldn’t behave as they do. And therein lies the rub.
people who are disturbed, emotionally and/or mentally
Which, IMHO, includes virtually all of the members of the self-styled “militias” — else they wouldn’t behave as they do. And therein lies the rub.
everything Russell writes is true, as usual.
Yup.
nonetheless, “fuck you and fuck your guns” is going to be my approach.
Very understandable.
Sigh.
everything Russell writes is true, as usual.
Yup.
nonetheless, “fuck you and fuck your guns” is going to be my approach.
Very understandable.
Sigh.
I suspect that a lot of the militia members you see in public and on TV are engaging in a form of cosplay. It’s the ones you never see you have to worry about…
A more valuable political weapon is the more traditional military and civilian rifles. At least in the movies, drama series, and sometimes in real life. Nothing makes an impression like reaching out and touching someone…
I suspect that a lot of the militia members you see in public and on TV are engaging in a form of cosplay. It’s the ones you never see you have to worry about…
A more valuable political weapon is the more traditional military and civilian rifles. At least in the movies, drama series, and sometimes in real life. Nothing makes an impression like reaching out and touching someone…
The complete abolition of guns would be an expansion of the horizon of freedom.
or what cleek said.
The complete abolition of guns would be an expansion of the horizon of freedom.
or what cleek said.
“The following is a list of assassinations by firearm detailing the firearms used in the killings of politicians and key social and cultural figures. “
List of assassinations by firearm
“The following is a list of assassinations by firearm detailing the firearms used in the killings of politicians and key social and cultural figures. “
List of assassinations by firearm
The complete abolition of guns would be an expansion of the horizon of freedom.
Perhaps. After all, civilian firearm possession is completely banned in North Korea and Eritrea…
The complete abolition of guns would be an expansion of the horizon of freedom.
Perhaps. After all, civilian firearm possession is completely banned in North Korea and Eritrea…
Perhaps. After all, civilian firearm possession is completely banned in North Korea and Eritrea…
Japan and UK are both consistently ranked as free as the US. their guns laws are much stricter. explain this situation.
how does having a gun make anyone in the US more free? *
i don’t have a gun. am i less free than the yahoo down the road who shoots all day long?
literally what would owning a gun do for me to ensure my freedom? and by what percentage is that freedom diminished because i can only have a gun that shoots as fast as my finger can squeeze instead having a full-auto 600rpm Uzi? and how much less is it because i can’t have an RPG launcher? or a Stinger.
show me in the Constitution where it says i can’t have an RPG. show me where it limits me to semi-automatic weapons, which didn’t exist in 1790.
* aside from the tautological “you’re free to own a gun!”
Perhaps. After all, civilian firearm possession is completely banned in North Korea and Eritrea…
Japan and UK are both consistently ranked as free as the US. their guns laws are much stricter. explain this situation.
how does having a gun make anyone in the US more free? *
i don’t have a gun. am i less free than the yahoo down the road who shoots all day long?
literally what would owning a gun do for me to ensure my freedom? and by what percentage is that freedom diminished because i can only have a gun that shoots as fast as my finger can squeeze instead having a full-auto 600rpm Uzi? and how much less is it because i can’t have an RPG launcher? or a Stinger.
show me in the Constitution where it says i can’t have an RPG. show me where it limits me to semi-automatic weapons, which didn’t exist in 1790.
* aside from the tautological “you’re free to own a gun!”
You’re a free rider… 🙂
You’re a free rider… 🙂
give some cops guns, sure. give soldiers guns, sure. everybody else: no gun. and nobody’s freedom changes by one milliRand.
give some cops guns, sure. give soldiers guns, sure. everybody else: no gun. and nobody’s freedom changes by one milliRand.
You’re a free rider… 🙂
Makes the dubious (at best) assumption that all those yahoos with dozens of guns enhance anybody else’s freedom.
You’re a free rider… 🙂
Makes the dubious (at best) assumption that all those yahoos with dozens of guns enhance anybody else’s freedom.
By the way, and as a change of theme (for me at least), last night I watched the documentary about The Band, Once Were Brothers. It was such a mixed experience for me, because I loved them and their music so much, and I loved The Last Waltz, but it was so sad the way it all ended, and I hadn’t known the details before.
Booze and drugs, Jesus what havoc they have wrought between them.(Talk about stating the bleedin’ obvious, as the English say.)
By the way, and as a change of theme (for me at least), last night I watched the documentary about The Band, Once Were Brothers. It was such a mixed experience for me, because I loved them and their music so much, and I loved The Last Waltz, but it was so sad the way it all ended, and I hadn’t known the details before.
Booze and drugs, Jesus what havoc they have wrought between them.(Talk about stating the bleedin’ obvious, as the English say.)
We had, long time ago, a guy here who thought that portable nukes were covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Srictly, that is discrimination based on muscle power: only if you can lift it, you are allowed to carry it. I thought firearms were meant as equalizers on that front.
We had, long time ago, a guy here who thought that portable nukes were covered by the 2nd Amendment.
Srictly, that is discrimination based on muscle power: only if you can lift it, you are allowed to carry it. I thought firearms were meant as equalizers on that front.
You’re a free rider… 🙂
Makes the dubious (at best) assumption that all those yahoos with dozens of guns enhance anybody else’s freedom.
In the list linked below, the US is rated 14th in burglaries behind a number of countries that have much lower civilian gun possession rates. No doubt there is any number of social factors at play. But the level of uncertainty in knowing which homes do and don’t have guns likely plays a role in the burglary rates.
“Number of burglaries recorded by police in that country per 100,000 population.”
Burglaries: Countries Compared
You’re a free rider… 🙂
Makes the dubious (at best) assumption that all those yahoos with dozens of guns enhance anybody else’s freedom.
In the list linked below, the US is rated 14th in burglaries behind a number of countries that have much lower civilian gun possession rates. No doubt there is any number of social factors at play. But the level of uncertainty in knowing which homes do and don’t have guns likely plays a role in the burglary rates.
“Number of burglaries recorded by police in that country per 100,000 population.”
Burglaries: Countries Compared
And above a number of countries which have much lower civilian gun possession rates.
To me, freedom from being shot is vastly more important than freedom to shoot. I think it unreasonable for people who think otherwise to inflict their preference on the rest of us.
And above a number of countries which have much lower civilian gun possession rates.
To me, freedom from being shot is vastly more important than freedom to shoot. I think it unreasonable for people who think otherwise to inflict their preference on the rest of us.
I’d rather a somewhat higher chance of an unarmed burglar entering my home in exchange for a lower chance of an armed burglar doing so. I have a dog, I’m probably a guy most people don’t want to have to fight, and there’s a small aluminum bat under my bed. I have no interest in a gun fight happening in my house, regardless of whether I have a gun.
I’d rather a somewhat higher chance of an unarmed burglar entering my home in exchange for a lower chance of an armed burglar doing so. I have a dog, I’m probably a guy most people don’t want to have to fight, and there’s a small aluminum bat under my bed. I have no interest in a gun fight happening in my house, regardless of whether I have a gun.
Neatly put, Pro Bono.
Neatly put, Pro Bono.
I think it unreasonable for people who think otherwise to inflict their preference on the rest of us.
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
I think it unreasonable for people who think otherwise to inflict their preference on the rest of us.
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
I suspect that a lot of the militia members you see in public and on TV are engaging in a form of cosplay.
it ain’t a costume if the gun shoots real bullets.
if you show up with real firearms talking about how you’re going to shoot people if you don’t get your way, it’s no longer self-defense. it’s an attempt at coercion through the threat of force.
I don’t really have a problem with people who own guns for sport, for actual self-defense or home defense, or even if they just think guns are interesting gizmos. it’s not my thing, but I’m also fine with it as long as the people who own firearms know how to use them, use them safely, and don’t threaten other people with them. and by “know how to use them” I mean have had some instruction in how to safely use them, handle them, clean them, and store them. “I grew up around guns” is not evidence that you have a clue.
I think it is bat-sh*t insane that in many jurisdictions people are allowed to own firearms and carry them around with no qualification beyond having a pulse. some people – no small number of people, actually – are irresponsible knotheads. those people should not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms. some people are mentally or emotionally unbalanced to the point of not being able to make responsible choices about their own safety or the safety of others. those people should not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms.
a disturbing number of people own firearms out of some fantastic notion that the government is out to oppress them and if they didn’t have a freaking arsenal this country would immediately turn into some version of soviet Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. they feel entitled to threaten their neighbors and civil authorities on a regular basis with freaking mayhem, and on occasion go beyond mere threats. they think they are patriots, but in fact they are paranoid bullies. they should not only not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms, they should be some kind of medication.
it should be straight-up illegal for people to organize themselves into military or military-esque units outside the control of civil authority. we’ve allowed it for a couple of decades now, and if it continues it’s going to make any kind of coherent public or civic life impossible.
we should not tolerate people who use firearms or any similar means to bully and threaten others. period. it’s unacceptable.
I suspect that a lot of the militia members you see in public and on TV are engaging in a form of cosplay.
it ain’t a costume if the gun shoots real bullets.
if you show up with real firearms talking about how you’re going to shoot people if you don’t get your way, it’s no longer self-defense. it’s an attempt at coercion through the threat of force.
I don’t really have a problem with people who own guns for sport, for actual self-defense or home defense, or even if they just think guns are interesting gizmos. it’s not my thing, but I’m also fine with it as long as the people who own firearms know how to use them, use them safely, and don’t threaten other people with them. and by “know how to use them” I mean have had some instruction in how to safely use them, handle them, clean them, and store them. “I grew up around guns” is not evidence that you have a clue.
I think it is bat-sh*t insane that in many jurisdictions people are allowed to own firearms and carry them around with no qualification beyond having a pulse. some people – no small number of people, actually – are irresponsible knotheads. those people should not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms. some people are mentally or emotionally unbalanced to the point of not being able to make responsible choices about their own safety or the safety of others. those people should not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms.
a disturbing number of people own firearms out of some fantastic notion that the government is out to oppress them and if they didn’t have a freaking arsenal this country would immediately turn into some version of soviet Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. they feel entitled to threaten their neighbors and civil authorities on a regular basis with freaking mayhem, and on occasion go beyond mere threats. they think they are patriots, but in fact they are paranoid bullies. they should not only not have the privilege of owning or handling firearms, they should be some kind of medication.
it should be straight-up illegal for people to organize themselves into military or military-esque units outside the control of civil authority. we’ve allowed it for a couple of decades now, and if it continues it’s going to make any kind of coherent public or civic life impossible.
we should not tolerate people who use firearms or any similar means to bully and threaten others. period. it’s unacceptable.
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
self-defense against whom? people with guns?
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
self-defense against whom? people with guns?
But the level of uncertainty in knowing which homes do and don’t have guns likely plays a role in the burglary rates.
I ran a symbolic regression on gun possession rate versus burglary rate for 86 countries. There’s no discernible correlation.
… or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
Whatever else you say about Pol Pot, he did greatly reduce the need in Cambodia for eyeglasses…
self-defense against whom? people with guns?
Yes. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. My impression is that all the regulars here have the luxury of not living in high-crime neighborhoods. I live in one of the safer areas of one of the safest cities in the country.
But the level of uncertainty in knowing which homes do and don’t have guns likely plays a role in the burglary rates.
I ran a symbolic regression on gun possession rate versus burglary rate for 86 countries. There’s no discernible correlation.
… or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
Whatever else you say about Pol Pot, he did greatly reduce the need in Cambodia for eyeglasses…
self-defense against whom? people with guns?
Yes. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. My impression is that all the regulars here have the luxury of not living in high-crime neighborhoods. I live in one of the safer areas of one of the safest cities in the country.
Canada, Finland, Sweden. Plenty of guns. Plenty of gun ownership. Their regulations make far more sense than ours. Strangely, their burglary rates are not out of control.
Canada, Finland, Sweden. Plenty of guns. Plenty of gun ownership. Their regulations make far more sense than ours. Strangely, their burglary rates are not out of control.
Somehow, I’ve gotten through 50+ years without needing a gun to defend myself, even in the gun-crazed US of A. I’m rather confident that the same goes for the overwhelming majority of people. Take a f*cking karate class or something if you’re that worried about self-defense.
Somehow, I’ve gotten through 50+ years without needing a gun to defend myself, even in the gun-crazed US of A. I’m rather confident that the same goes for the overwhelming majority of people. Take a f*cking karate class or something if you’re that worried about self-defense.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
What does “always” mean here? Will the same number of criminals be able to get their hands on guns, or will some number of criminals have guns at any given point? What if that number is a lot closer to 3 than to thousands upon thousands? It’s an absolutist formulation that simply ignores the experiences of other nations and what the practical goals of gun policy should be.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
What does “always” mean here? Will the same number of criminals be able to get their hands on guns, or will some number of criminals have guns at any given point? What if that number is a lot closer to 3 than to thousands upon thousands? It’s an absolutist formulation that simply ignores the experiences of other nations and what the practical goals of gun policy should be.
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
You may be self-defenseless against someone with a gun if you do not have one. But if they don’t have a gun either? Seems quit possible to defend oneself in that circumstance. Hardly defenseless.
So, you want to inflict self-defencelessness on everyone else.
You may be self-defenseless against someone with a gun if you do not have one. But if they don’t have a gun either? Seems quit possible to defend oneself in that circumstance. Hardly defenseless.
Seems quit possible to defend oneself in that circumstance. Hardly defenseless.
More than a few women would disagree. Handguns were called the great equalizers for a reason.
Seems quit possible to defend oneself in that circumstance. Hardly defenseless.
More than a few women would disagree. Handguns were called the great equalizers for a reason.
Somehow, I’ve gotten through 50+ years without needing a gun to defend myself, even in the gun-crazed US of A. I’m rather confident that the same goes for the overwhelming majority of people.
Almost 70 for me. To be fair, 14 year-old me once stalked an idiot deer hunter who had shot at me. It was worth the effort to say, from a dozen feet behind him, “Shoot at me again and you won’t get out of these woods,” and watch him leap an amazing distance straight up because he had no idea I was there.
Somehow, I’ve gotten through 50+ years without needing a gun to defend myself, even in the gun-crazed US of A. I’m rather confident that the same goes for the overwhelming majority of people.
Almost 70 for me. To be fair, 14 year-old me once stalked an idiot deer hunter who had shot at me. It was worth the effort to say, from a dozen feet behind him, “Shoot at me again and you won’t get out of these woods,” and watch him leap an amazing distance straight up because he had no idea I was there.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
If we had a quantitively fairer and more just society, we would have far fewer criminals.
It’s a trees and forest thing.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
If we had a quantitively fairer and more just society, we would have far fewer criminals.
It’s a trees and forest thing.
were called
that simple conflation of past times and the current situation, of military grade weapons and a handgun, is telling.
Digging deeper, the ease with which you go to ‘China-like police state’ indicates that a certain laziness in thought and a certain amount of creative argumentation. How about a ‘Swiss-like police state’? Or a ‘Japan-like police state’? You want to say that freedoms will be lost, but fail to explain how practically every other country on the globe deals with it except to postulate massive storehouses of hidden weapons in the outback.
Of course, you are just arguing, it’s all fun and games. whatevs.
were called
that simple conflation of past times and the current situation, of military grade weapons and a handgun, is telling.
Digging deeper, the ease with which you go to ‘China-like police state’ indicates that a certain laziness in thought and a certain amount of creative argumentation. How about a ‘Swiss-like police state’? Or a ‘Japan-like police state’? You want to say that freedoms will be lost, but fail to explain how practically every other country on the globe deals with it except to postulate massive storehouses of hidden weapons in the outback.
Of course, you are just arguing, it’s all fun and games. whatevs.
So I speculate that during such experiments one of the bat coronaviruses evolved into a particularly well-adapted virus, perhaps first in an intermediate host, then in human or humanized cells. This paper discusses the possibility.
It remains to be seen whether any hypothetical lab process would indeed result in a virus that looks exactly like it does. TBD. But I think I’ve said all along that it might be possible. And that just gets us back where we started. Possible.
The biggest question with this scenario is still why? From the outside it’s easy to shrug and say “mad science”, and people like DRASTIC or whoever have dug up various other papers out of WIV that have scary looking words in them, but in actual fact none of these resemble the necessary scenario in any way. From a research perspective, this other hypothetical scenario — the start point, the end point, the methodology — still just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
If they were doing something like that, where are the preliminary papers talking about the idea? About early results? The emails to colleagues in Galveston? Etc. Requires at the very least an international conspiracy, and a tight lid on any whistle blowers on the US side. Whole ‘nother rabbit hole, and still absolutely no actual evidence for it.
So I speculate that during such experiments one of the bat coronaviruses evolved into a particularly well-adapted virus, perhaps first in an intermediate host, then in human or humanized cells. This paper discusses the possibility.
It remains to be seen whether any hypothetical lab process would indeed result in a virus that looks exactly like it does. TBD. But I think I’ve said all along that it might be possible. And that just gets us back where we started. Possible.
The biggest question with this scenario is still why? From the outside it’s easy to shrug and say “mad science”, and people like DRASTIC or whoever have dug up various other papers out of WIV that have scary looking words in them, but in actual fact none of these resemble the necessary scenario in any way. From a research perspective, this other hypothetical scenario — the start point, the end point, the methodology — still just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
If they were doing something like that, where are the preliminary papers talking about the idea? About early results? The emails to colleagues in Galveston? Etc. Requires at the very least an international conspiracy, and a tight lid on any whistle blowers on the US side. Whole ‘nother rabbit hole, and still absolutely no actual evidence for it.
If we had a quantitively fairer and more just society, we would have far fewer criminals.
In that regard, the quickest way to greatly reduce gun violence and deaths is to end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws that bring people into conflict with each other and the police.
If we had a quantitively fairer and more just society, we would have far fewer criminals.
In that regard, the quickest way to greatly reduce gun violence and deaths is to end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws that bring people into conflict with each other and the police.
the quickest way to greatly reduce gun violence and deaths is to end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws
Well, that would certainly reduce the funds available to criminals to buy guns. But whether that would reduce crimes, other than those specifically decriminalized, is debatable. Which, given the low price of guns, wouldn’t help all that much with gun violence.
the quickest way to greatly reduce gun violence and deaths is to end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws
Well, that would certainly reduce the funds available to criminals to buy guns. But whether that would reduce crimes, other than those specifically decriminalized, is debatable. Which, given the low price of guns, wouldn’t help all that much with gun violence.
But it would free up resources that police could spend on other crimes. As it is, police tend to focus on crimes that will bring them the most profit: civil asset forfeiture. And glory: Being on TV and in the papers standing next to piles of drugs and cash. Or releasing mug shots of purported sex traffickers.
But it would free up resources that police could spend on other crimes. As it is, police tend to focus on crimes that will bring them the most profit: civil asset forfeiture. And glory: Being on TV and in the papers standing next to piles of drugs and cash. Or releasing mug shots of purported sex traffickers.
What I would like to see is a scatter chart that has firearms per capita on one axis and firearm deaths per capita on the other axis to get an idea of which countries do the best job of regulating their firearms.
Just eyeballing the data, the US would be a conspicuous outlier. We have four or more times as many firearms per capita as any other reasonably stable country (1.2 firearms per person, where Canada/NW Europe have somewhere around 1 firearm for every three people). Meanwhile our firearm deaths per capita are 12.2 per 100k compared to fewer than 3 per 100k in Canada/NW Europe. And homicides are an even greater disparity with 4.4/100k in the US compared to fewer than 1/100k in Canada/NW Europe.
And our gun suicides are higher as well.
Homicide wise, we are closer to Paraguay, Venezuela, and Mexico than we are to Europe, but those three countries do it with fewer guns per capita than we do. We look more like a country on the verge of civil breakdown than we do a reasonably stable democracy, and all those extra guns do not seem to be preventing many deaths.
What I would like to see is a scatter chart that has firearms per capita on one axis and firearm deaths per capita on the other axis to get an idea of which countries do the best job of regulating their firearms.
Just eyeballing the data, the US would be a conspicuous outlier. We have four or more times as many firearms per capita as any other reasonably stable country (1.2 firearms per person, where Canada/NW Europe have somewhere around 1 firearm for every three people). Meanwhile our firearm deaths per capita are 12.2 per 100k compared to fewer than 3 per 100k in Canada/NW Europe. And homicides are an even greater disparity with 4.4/100k in the US compared to fewer than 1/100k in Canada/NW Europe.
And our gun suicides are higher as well.
Homicide wise, we are closer to Paraguay, Venezuela, and Mexico than we are to Europe, but those three countries do it with fewer guns per capita than we do. We look more like a country on the verge of civil breakdown than we do a reasonably stable democracy, and all those extra guns do not seem to be preventing many deaths.
End the War on Drugs. Demilitarize the US police. Shift regulation to a community safety/training based model and limit the number of firearms (6 or so, with more allowed with caveats)and rounds of ammunition that any one person can have, and license them all. Get as many of those firearms/rounds as possible out of individual residences. Build a fucking social safety net to reduce desperation, and make anyone with a domestic violence charge have to keep their firearms off-premises.
End the War on Drugs. Demilitarize the US police. Shift regulation to a community safety/training based model and limit the number of firearms (6 or so, with more allowed with caveats)and rounds of ammunition that any one person can have, and license them all. Get as many of those firearms/rounds as possible out of individual residences. Build a fucking social safety net to reduce desperation, and make anyone with a domestic violence charge have to keep their firearms off-premises.
civil asset forfeiture
One of those rare topics where, I suspect, everyone here would be united. In opposition.
At most, some might argue that there are some few instances where it is useful. But no question that the abuses outweigh the utility.
civil asset forfeiture
One of those rare topics where, I suspect, everyone here would be united. In opposition.
At most, some might argue that there are some few instances where it is useful. But no question that the abuses outweigh the utility.
end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws that bring people into conflict with each other and the police.
No disagreement from me on this.
end the war on drugs and repeal other victimless crime laws that bring people into conflict with each other and the police.
No disagreement from me on this.
What I would like to see is a scatter chart that has firearms per capita on one axis and firearm deaths per capita on the other axis to get an idea of which countries do the best job of regulating their firearms.
I matched Gun Ownership By Country 2021 against Gun Deaths By Country 2021 and got 76 countries.
There’s a very weak to no correlation. In a chart with the X-axis representing gun possession rate and the Y-axis representing firearm-related deaths, most of the dots are jumbled in the lower left-hand corner. Near the Y-axis there is a column of nine dots representing countries that have a high firearm death rate in spite of supposedly not having many guns. And then there’s the US way over to the lower right.
What I would like to see is a scatter chart that has firearms per capita on one axis and firearm deaths per capita on the other axis to get an idea of which countries do the best job of regulating their firearms.
I matched Gun Ownership By Country 2021 against Gun Deaths By Country 2021 and got 76 countries.
There’s a very weak to no correlation. In a chart with the X-axis representing gun possession rate and the Y-axis representing firearm-related deaths, most of the dots are jumbled in the lower left-hand corner. Near the Y-axis there is a column of nine dots representing countries that have a high firearm death rate in spite of supposedly not having many guns. And then there’s the US way over to the lower right.
civil asset forfeiture
Yes. A terrible policy as it is routinely applied to the poor and not rich criminals who, if this policy were to be applied uniformly, should be reduced to penury prior to trial. But you know, rich and poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.
civil asset forfeiture
Yes. A terrible policy as it is routinely applied to the poor and not rich criminals who, if this policy were to be applied uniformly, should be reduced to penury prior to trial. But you know, rich and poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.
“Did you know police can just take your stuff if they suspect it’s involved in a crime? They can! It’s a shady process called “civil asset forfeiture,” and it would make for a weird episode of Law and Order.”
Civil Forfeiture: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (YouTube)
“Did you know police can just take your stuff if they suspect it’s involved in a crime? They can! It’s a shady process called “civil asset forfeiture,” and it would make for a weird episode of Law and Order.”
Civil Forfeiture: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) (YouTube)
There’s a very weak to no correlation.
I wasn’t trying to see if there was a correlation. I was trying to locate a cluster of nation states with fairly high firearms ownership per capita and fairly low firearms related deaths per capita. The idea was to look to those nation states to see if there was any commonality in how they regulated firearm ownership.
There’s a very weak to no correlation.
I wasn’t trying to see if there was a correlation. I was trying to locate a cluster of nation states with fairly high firearms ownership per capita and fairly low firearms related deaths per capita. The idea was to look to those nation states to see if there was any commonality in how they regulated firearm ownership.
One should note, Ferguson MO, where early protests took place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
was a hotbed for asset forfeiture
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/05/ferguson-operates-police-department-profit-center/
What goes around comes around, despite the inability for people to notice it.
One should note, Ferguson MO, where early protests took place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
was a hotbed for asset forfeiture
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/05/ferguson-operates-police-department-profit-center/
What goes around comes around, despite the inability for people to notice it.
I was trying to locate a cluster of nation states with fairly high firearms ownership per capita and fairly low firearms related deaths per capita.
Out of the countries that have 15 or more guns per 100 people, these are the countries that have the least deaths per number of guns.
Columns:
The number of guns per 100 people.
The number of deaths per 100,000 people.
The ratio of first column/second column.
I was trying to locate a cluster of nation states with fairly high firearms ownership per capita and fairly low firearms related deaths per capita.
Out of the countries that have 15 or more guns per 100 people, these are the countries that have the least deaths per number of guns.
Columns:
The number of guns per 100 people.
The number of deaths per 100,000 people.
The ratio of first column/second column.
The way I did the calculations, I probably should say the most guns per each death.
The way I did the calculations, I probably should say the most guns per each death.
Since anti-burglar defence gets mentioned in the context of guns, I’d like to see numbers of how many of those burglaries happen in the absence of the owners and how many burglaries target the very guns claimed to be needed against them.
I have at least heard that a significant part of illegal guns in the US come from burgled homes (and cars). And to my knowledge, at least over here in Central Europe, the overwhelming number of burglaries happen, when no one is at home and a far smaller part when the owners are asleep and will only notice after the event.
In either case a firearm is of limited use and even among gun crazies few will boobytrap their homes with their guns to allow their most valued possesions to defend themselves (and those may well end in the headlines as “shot by own spring-gun”)
Since anti-burglar defence gets mentioned in the context of guns, I’d like to see numbers of how many of those burglaries happen in the absence of the owners and how many burglaries target the very guns claimed to be needed against them.
I have at least heard that a significant part of illegal guns in the US come from burgled homes (and cars). And to my knowledge, at least over here in Central Europe, the overwhelming number of burglaries happen, when no one is at home and a far smaller part when the owners are asleep and will only notice after the event.
In either case a firearm is of limited use and even among gun crazies few will boobytrap their homes with their guns to allow their most valued possesions to defend themselves (and those may well end in the headlines as “shot by own spring-gun”)
Well, Switzerland should be considered an outlier, because the civil defense program means that every able bodied man has a rifle at home.
All healthy Swiss men aged between 18 and 34 are obliged to do military service and all are issued with assault rifles or pistols which they are supposed to keep at home.
Twenty years ago the Swiss militia was a sizeable force of around 600,000 soldiers. Today it is only a third of that size but until recently most former soldiers used to keep their guns after they had completed their military duties, leading to lots of weapons being stored in the attics or cupboards of private Swiss households.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
Not sure how that figures into the stats above.
Well, Switzerland should be considered an outlier, because the civil defense program means that every able bodied man has a rifle at home.
All healthy Swiss men aged between 18 and 34 are obliged to do military service and all are issued with assault rifles or pistols which they are supposed to keep at home.
Twenty years ago the Swiss militia was a sizeable force of around 600,000 soldiers. Today it is only a third of that size but until recently most former soldiers used to keep their guns after they had completed their military duties, leading to lots of weapons being stored in the attics or cupboards of private Swiss households.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
Not sure how that figures into the stats above.
United States 120.5
I’m sure I’ve seen this stat before, but it’s still a bit mind-blowing. Talking about giving it more than 100%.
I think this speaks to the depth of the problem in the US. I actually don’t think it’s just about gun ownership.
The problem isn’t that the US has more guns, the problem is that the US has more gun nuts.
Blame it on the NRA. Blame it on racism (relatedly: always interesting how quickly absolute gun rights develop qualifications when Black Panthers try to exercise them…). Blame it on the 4th amendment itself, and unhealthy narratives about how the country got started (hint: we’d still be speaking English like the Canadians do if it weren’t for the timely intervention of the French Navy, but I digress.) Blame it on adulatory press coverage of mass shooters and their body counts.
Whatever it is, it’s more than just a mechanical problem. I absolutely believe that there can be such a thing as a responsible gun owner. Even whole countries of them.
I’m not convinced that’s possible in the US with its current attitudes. And you solve public health problems with the public attitudes you have, not the ones you wish you had.
United States 120.5
I’m sure I’ve seen this stat before, but it’s still a bit mind-blowing. Talking about giving it more than 100%.
I think this speaks to the depth of the problem in the US. I actually don’t think it’s just about gun ownership.
The problem isn’t that the US has more guns, the problem is that the US has more gun nuts.
Blame it on the NRA. Blame it on racism (relatedly: always interesting how quickly absolute gun rights develop qualifications when Black Panthers try to exercise them…). Blame it on the 4th amendment itself, and unhealthy narratives about how the country got started (hint: we’d still be speaking English like the Canadians do if it weren’t for the timely intervention of the French Navy, but I digress.) Blame it on adulatory press coverage of mass shooters and their body counts.
Whatever it is, it’s more than just a mechanical problem. I absolutely believe that there can be such a thing as a responsible gun owner. Even whole countries of them.
I’m not convinced that’s possible in the US with its current attitudes. And you solve public health problems with the public attitudes you have, not the ones you wish you had.
The biggest question with this scenario is still why?…From a research perspective, this other hypothetical scenario — the start point, the end point, the methodology — still just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
When you’re engaged in a project to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses evolving to infect humans, it makes perfect sense to try to accelerate bat coronavirus evolution to see how easy it is get something which could infect humans.
If they were doing something like that, where are the preliminary papers talking about the idea? About early results? The emails to colleagues in Galveston? Etc. Requires at the very least an international conspiracy
Lab A chooses not to discuss its somewhat edgy research with Lab B until the results are in?
Certainly there some things in this hypothesis which one might judge to be rather unlikely to happen. But a Bayesian has to weigh that against the fact that the pandemic started in one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
The biggest question with this scenario is still why?…From a research perspective, this other hypothetical scenario — the start point, the end point, the methodology — still just doesn’t make a lick of sense.
When you’re engaged in a project to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses evolving to infect humans, it makes perfect sense to try to accelerate bat coronavirus evolution to see how easy it is get something which could infect humans.
If they were doing something like that, where are the preliminary papers talking about the idea? About early results? The emails to colleagues in Galveston? Etc. Requires at the very least an international conspiracy
Lab A chooses not to discuss its somewhat edgy research with Lab B until the results are in?
Certainly there some things in this hypothesis which one might judge to be rather unlikely to happen. But a Bayesian has to weigh that against the fact that the pandemic started in one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
the way they do in other countries where there are gun murder rates approaching zero?
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
the way they do in other countries where there are gun murder rates approaching zero?
there/their etc
there/their etc
When I look at Charles’ chart, I see the the US has way more guns per capital than anybody else and way more people killed by firearms.
I’m not sure what point Charles was trying to make, but what I take away is that more guns means more people killed with guns.
When I look at Charles’ chart, I see the the US has way more guns per capital than anybody else and way more people killed by firearms.
I’m not sure what point Charles was trying to make, but what I take away is that more guns means more people killed with guns.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
i must have a gun because a criminal might have a gun because we all have guns.
i think we’ve found Charles’ religion.
Criminals will always have guns if they want them.
i must have a gun because a criminal might have a gun because we all have guns.
i think we’ve found Charles’ religion.
I don’t suppose there’s data readily available, but I’d be interested in ammunition per person as much as guns per person. A rural relative who does competitive long-range target shooting has been complaining that match-grade ammunition is out-of-stock basically everywhere.
I don’t suppose there’s data readily available, but I’d be interested in ammunition per person as much as guns per person. A rural relative who does competitive long-range target shooting has been complaining that match-grade ammunition is out-of-stock basically everywhere.
Not sure that CharlesWT had a “point” with that last table, other than responding to a request for data.
Clearly Iceland is doing something right, with that microscopic death rate/gun. Not sure why they even *have* guns there, its not like there’s much of a crime rate, or hunting. Even when the populace forced a change of government it was a “Kitchenware Revolution” in 2008, no firearms required.
Defend against a Viking invasion! Oh, wait…
Not sure that CharlesWT had a “point” with that last table, other than responding to a request for data.
Clearly Iceland is doing something right, with that microscopic death rate/gun. Not sure why they even *have* guns there, its not like there’s much of a crime rate, or hunting. Even when the populace forced a change of government it was a “Kitchenware Revolution” in 2008, no firearms required.
Defend against a Viking invasion! Oh, wait…
Near the Y-axis there is a column of nine dots representing countries that have a high firearm death rate in spite of supposedly not having many guns [emphasis added]
That (“supposedly”) being the rub.
Near the Y-axis there is a column of nine dots representing countries that have a high firearm death rate in spite of supposedly not having many guns [emphasis added]
That (“supposedly”) being the rub.
When you’re engaged in a project to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses evolving to infect humans, it makes perfect sense to try to accelerate bat coronavirus evolution to see how easy it is get something which could infect humans.
Only in those very general terms. As soon as you drill into, well, which actual techniques, what’s the best way to approach this, how will we measure progress, validate our results, etc., it all kind of falls apart, at least in terms of lining up with SARS-CoV-2 specifically. Maybe there’s a plausible scenario buried in there somewhere, but I haven’t seen it yet.
But a Bayesian has to weigh that against the fact that the pandemic started in one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
This “suspicious” fact remains pretty much the only one we actually have. And I think it’s pretty circumstantial.
When you’re engaged in a project to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses evolving to infect humans, it makes perfect sense to try to accelerate bat coronavirus evolution to see how easy it is get something which could infect humans.
Only in those very general terms. As soon as you drill into, well, which actual techniques, what’s the best way to approach this, how will we measure progress, validate our results, etc., it all kind of falls apart, at least in terms of lining up with SARS-CoV-2 specifically. Maybe there’s a plausible scenario buried in there somewhere, but I haven’t seen it yet.
But a Bayesian has to weigh that against the fact that the pandemic started in one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
This “suspicious” fact remains pretty much the only one we actually have. And I think it’s pretty circumstantial.
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
You mean it’s usual to locate a facility to study something near when the phenomena occurs? Who knew?
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
You mean it’s usual to locate a facility to study something near when the phenomena occurs? Who knew?
Pro Bono, I’m curious where the other 2 cities are and why.
Pro Bono, I’m curious where the other 2 cities are and why.
…one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
I don’t understand how you got to three. Lots of places do gain of function experiments. Lots of places work with coronaviruses. Heck, no one even keeps track of how many level-3 and level-4 biocontainment facilities there are in the US, let alone what they’re all doing.
…one of at most three cities in the world where this sort of experiment might plausibly have been taking place.
I don’t understand how you got to three. Lots of places do gain of function experiments. Lots of places work with coronaviruses. Heck, no one even keeps track of how many level-3 and level-4 biocontainment facilities there are in the US, let alone what they’re all doing.
Clearly Iceland is doing something right, with that microscopic death rate/gun. Not sure why they even *have* guns there, its not like there’s much of a crime rate, or hunting.
Rifles for reindeer. Shotguns for grouse and ptarmigans.
Clearly Iceland is doing something right, with that microscopic death rate/gun. Not sure why they even *have* guns there, its not like there’s much of a crime rate, or hunting.
Rifles for reindeer. Shotguns for grouse and ptarmigans.
Iceland is a bit annal when it comes to guns.
Overview of Gun Laws by Nation: Iceland
Iceland is a bit annal when it comes to guns.
Overview of Gun Laws by Nation: Iceland
Heck, no one even keeps track of how many level-3 and level-4 biocontainment facilities there are in the US, let alone what they’re all doing.
Well, hopefully someone does, albeit maybe not all in one place.
But yeah, there are dozens or hundreds of BSL-3 and -2 labs in China alone, some of which certainly handle coronavirus, even if they don’t publish as actively as WIV (or in English journals).
Heck, no one even keeps track of how many level-3 and level-4 biocontainment facilities there are in the US, let alone what they’re all doing.
Well, hopefully someone does, albeit maybe not all in one place.
But yeah, there are dozens or hundreds of BSL-3 and -2 labs in China alone, some of which certainly handle coronavirus, even if they don’t publish as actively as WIV (or in English journals).
I’m curious where the other 2 cities are and why.
Galveston, TX and Chapel Hill, NC
from the link McTx shared the other day: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
I’m curious where the other 2 cities are and why.
Galveston, TX and Chapel Hill, NC
from the link McTx shared the other day: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
Iceland is a very small place with a unique combination of stubborn individualism and communitarianism.
And they may be anal about guns, but that doesn’t seem to prevent Icelanders from owning a firearm. It’s mostly just to keep tempers in check and to prevent suicide. Despite there being almost no homicide to speak of, they do have a few firearm related suicides a year.
Iceland is a very small place with a unique combination of stubborn individualism and communitarianism.
And they may be anal about guns, but that doesn’t seem to prevent Icelanders from owning a firearm. It’s mostly just to keep tempers in check and to prevent suicide. Despite there being almost no homicide to speak of, they do have a few firearm related suicides a year.
I guess most of them in wintertime. Although the main island is 100% south of the arctic circle, nights in winter get very long and foster depression. Probably one reason for the traditional song and story time sessions and the literary production. Winter was known as ‘lots of time and lots of calf hides’ (= source of vellum to write on).
Icelandic movies tend to be either very depressing or completely weird (occasionally both).
I guess most of them in wintertime. Although the main island is 100% south of the arctic circle, nights in winter get very long and foster depression. Probably one reason for the traditional song and story time sessions and the literary production. Winter was known as ‘lots of time and lots of calf hides’ (= source of vellum to write on).
Icelandic movies tend to be either very depressing or completely weird (occasionally both).
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
Not the same thing. Wuhan is 600 or so miles north of Guangdong, where Sars broke out. Yunnan, where the horseshoe bats thought to be the origin of both diseases are, is roughly on a latitude with Guangdong, far to the West.
Kind of like how it would have been extraordinarily suspicious if a mosquito-borne illness had broken out near CDC HQ in Atlanta back in the day, eh?
Not the same thing. Wuhan is 600 or so miles north of Guangdong, where Sars broke out. Yunnan, where the horseshoe bats thought to be the origin of both diseases are, is roughly on a latitude with Guangdong, far to the West.
I’ve watched the Icelandic TV drama series, Trapped (trailer). Very good. There’s a second season I haven’t watched yet.
When I was there 50 years ago, they were just starting/had just started their first TV station. Perhaps, in part, in cultural defense. Icelandics were buying TVs so they could watch the TV broadcasts from the US military base.
I’ve watched the Icelandic TV drama series, Trapped (trailer). Very good. There’s a second season I haven’t watched yet.
When I was there 50 years ago, they were just starting/had just started their first TV station. Perhaps, in part, in cultural defense. Icelandics were buying TVs so they could watch the TV broadcasts from the US military base.
I have wanted to visit Iceland for quite a long time, but read recently that they’re mightily sick of tourists, who outnumber them by a factor of 2 or 3 during the summer.
Maybe autumn would be a better time to go? Or Spring? Does anyone here know?
I have wanted to visit Iceland for quite a long time, but read recently that they’re mightily sick of tourists, who outnumber them by a factor of 2 or 3 during the summer.
Maybe autumn would be a better time to go? Or Spring? Does anyone here know?
CaseyL: when you sign up on IcelandAir’s website, they’ll send you all the great deals in February.
But be warned: death will not release you.
CaseyL: when you sign up on IcelandAir’s website, they’ll send you all the great deals in February.
But be warned: death will not release you.
A couple I know went to Iceland a few years ago and got several offers for group sex. I don’t recall the precise time of year, but I’m sure it wasn’t winter. They claim not to have taken up any of the offers, the apparent prudes.
A couple I know went to Iceland a few years ago and got several offers for group sex. I don’t recall the precise time of year, but I’m sure it wasn’t winter. They claim not to have taken up any of the offers, the apparent prudes.
We went to Iceland in early September, looking for a window after summer tourism but before the weather was likely to shut down the hiking we wanted to do. It was also the first weeks of autumn when the Aurora Borealis might happen.
We got a bit of rain, but not at any time that cut into anything we were doing. The hiking was awesome. And we lucked out and got a huge show of the Northern Lights visible from a park not far from our hotel near the national stadium on the East side of Reykjavik.
We went to Iceland in early September, looking for a window after summer tourism but before the weather was likely to shut down the hiking we wanted to do. It was also the first weeks of autumn when the Aurora Borealis might happen.
We got a bit of rain, but not at any time that cut into anything we were doing. The hiking was awesome. And we lucked out and got a huge show of the Northern Lights visible from a park not far from our hotel near the national stadium on the East side of Reykjavik.
Snarki – You’ll note I didn’t ask about going in the winter 😀
HSH – Um. I had not heard that about Iceland. Do… do they show up at airports, like polyamorous greeting committees?
nous – Oh, that sounds perfect! Are there still a lot of tourists around in September?
Snarki – You’ll note I didn’t ask about going in the winter 😀
HSH – Um. I had not heard that about Iceland. Do… do they show up at airports, like polyamorous greeting committees?
nous – Oh, that sounds perfect! Are there still a lot of tourists around in September?
On the southwest side of the island, it doesn’t get very cold in winter. But the weather can be rather dynamic. And it doesn’t get very warm in summer. When I was there, the record high temperature was 59F.
On the southwest side of the island, it doesn’t get very cold in winter. But the weather can be rather dynamic. And it doesn’t get very warm in summer. When I was there, the record high temperature was 59F.
Are there still a lot of tourists around in September?
Quite a few, still. It didn’t help that we were there at the same time that they were having a World Cup qualifier across the street, so we had a bunch of Ukrainians at the hotel the first night.
We rented a car and left early enough to get to Thingvellir and Reynisfjara before most of the tour busses arrived from Reykjavik. We were usually leaving just as the crowds started showing up.
Think there were five other visitors with us on the pony trek and about seven in our group when we hiked up to see Glymur.
There were lots of beautiful, less popular destinations we got to around Reykjavik where we were practically alone.
And the long light was divine for photography.
Are there still a lot of tourists around in September?
Quite a few, still. It didn’t help that we were there at the same time that they were having a World Cup qualifier across the street, so we had a bunch of Ukrainians at the hotel the first night.
We rented a car and left early enough to get to Thingvellir and Reynisfjara before most of the tour busses arrived from Reykjavik. We were usually leaving just as the crowds started showing up.
Think there were five other visitors with us on the pony trek and about seven in our group when we hiked up to see Glymur.
There were lots of beautiful, less popular destinations we got to around Reykjavik where we were practically alone.
And the long light was divine for photography.
CharlesWT: That sounds like the perfect environment for me!
People are supposed to become less cold-tolerant as they get older. Not me; the older I get, the more I hate hot weather.
A country perpetually autumn-winter would be heavenly! Hmm… how hard is it to emigrate to Iceland??
CharlesWT: That sounds like the perfect environment for me!
People are supposed to become less cold-tolerant as they get older. Not me; the older I get, the more I hate hot weather.
A country perpetually autumn-winter would be heavenly! Hmm… how hard is it to emigrate to Iceland??
Not the same thing. Wuhan is 600 or so miles north of Guangdong, where Sars broke out. Yunnan, where the horseshoe bats thought to be the origin of both diseases are, is roughly on a latitude with Guangdong, far to the West.
So tell me: what’s the distance between Guangdong, where SARS broke out, and Yunnan, where a closely related virus was found in bats?
If you’re making a play strictly at latitude, you should know that horseshoe bats definitely range into central China, including Hubei. All of Hubei, IIRC, and maybe even further north. It’s possible the Hubei bats haven’t been getting as much love as their brothers in those Yunnan caves recently, but they’re out there. And so are the coronaviruses.
Not to mention all the other critters that might have been involved. With 40-70 years of divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, there’s a lot of time for stuff to have happened.
Not the same thing. Wuhan is 600 or so miles north of Guangdong, where Sars broke out. Yunnan, where the horseshoe bats thought to be the origin of both diseases are, is roughly on a latitude with Guangdong, far to the West.
So tell me: what’s the distance between Guangdong, where SARS broke out, and Yunnan, where a closely related virus was found in bats?
If you’re making a play strictly at latitude, you should know that horseshoe bats definitely range into central China, including Hubei. All of Hubei, IIRC, and maybe even further north. It’s possible the Hubei bats haven’t been getting as much love as their brothers in those Yunnan caves recently, but they’re out there. And so are the coronaviruses.
Not to mention all the other critters that might have been involved. With 40-70 years of divergence between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13, there’s a lot of time for stuff to have happened.
Unfortunately, I missed an opportunity to visit Iceland a second time a few years ago (the first visit was just two days and my knowledge of Icelandic was zero at the time). Now I hop that I will be able to visit there again and in particular to get into some bookshops in the hope to get some used specimens of books I am unable to obtain from home (I wonder what they would think about that crazy German who wants Icelandic editions of classical Latin authors).
Unfortunately by then my limited knowledge of Icelandic that I have acquired in the meantime will probably be gone again.
Unfortunately, I missed an opportunity to visit Iceland a second time a few years ago (the first visit was just two days and my knowledge of Icelandic was zero at the time). Now I hop that I will be able to visit there again and in particular to get into some bookshops in the hope to get some used specimens of books I am unable to obtain from home (I wonder what they would think about that crazy German who wants Icelandic editions of classical Latin authors).
Unfortunately by then my limited knowledge of Icelandic that I have acquired in the meantime will probably be gone again.
Yes of course, a horseshoe bat virus might have reached Wuhan zoonotically. But Wuhan isn’t a particularly likely place for it, as was implied by the comment I was replying to.
Yes of course, a horseshoe bat virus might have reached Wuhan zoonotically. But Wuhan isn’t a particularly likely place for it, as was implied by the comment I was replying to.
I went to Iceland in January: it wasn’t all that cold. And one gets used to the smell of the water.
I went to Iceland in January: it wasn’t all that cold. And one gets used to the smell of the water.
Yes of course, a horseshoe bat virus might have reached Wuhan zoonotically. But Wuhan isn’t a particularly likely place for it, as was implied by the comment I was replying to.
It’s certainly not not a likely place for it. What are you even basing that on? That SARS and MERS happened elsewhere?
I was teasing a little bit about the CDC thing – WIV was founded in the fifties or something, and not as far as I know specifically for coronavirus research (I don’t even know if they were known in China at the time).
But the point remains: Wuhan sits right in bat + coronavirus central. It’s not unlikely at all that a coronavirus outbreak could occur there.
Yes of course, a horseshoe bat virus might have reached Wuhan zoonotically. But Wuhan isn’t a particularly likely place for it, as was implied by the comment I was replying to.
It’s certainly not not a likely place for it. What are you even basing that on? That SARS and MERS happened elsewhere?
I was teasing a little bit about the CDC thing – WIV was founded in the fifties or something, and not as far as I know specifically for coronavirus research (I don’t even know if they were known in China at the time).
But the point remains: Wuhan sits right in bat + coronavirus central. It’s not unlikely at all that a coronavirus outbreak could occur there.
nous: I am jealous beyond words about the aurora borealis. I absolutely long for it. One of these days…
(Pro Bono: that is a very cryptic remark about the smell of the water, unless I missed something upthread. What is the smell?)
nous: I am jealous beyond words about the aurora borealis. I absolutely long for it. One of these days…
(Pro Bono: that is a very cryptic remark about the smell of the water, unless I missed something upthread. What is the smell?)
In the spring, when I was in Keflavík, it was the rich smell of the fish processing plant that had you sniffing your parka wondering if it had gotten wet and was rotting.
In the spring, when I was in Keflavík, it was the rich smell of the fish processing plant that had you sniffing your parka wondering if it had gotten wet and was rotting.
Pro Bono: that is a very cryptic remark about the smell of the water, unless I missed something upthread. What is the smell?
Sulfur. Iceland gets its power, heat, and hot water for the showers from geothermal energy. Cold water comes from glaciers and runoff. The plumbing is basically two separate feeds from two separate sources.
The hot water pipes get run under the roads and keep them defrosted during the winter.
My silver Thor’s Hammer still looks antiqued from the sulfur oxidation it picked up in the shower during our vacation in 2017.
Pro Bono: that is a very cryptic remark about the smell of the water, unless I missed something upthread. What is the smell?
Sulfur. Iceland gets its power, heat, and hot water for the showers from geothermal energy. Cold water comes from glaciers and runoff. The plumbing is basically two separate feeds from two separate sources.
The hot water pipes get run under the roads and keep them defrosted during the winter.
My silver Thor’s Hammer still looks antiqued from the sulfur oxidation it picked up in the shower during our vacation in 2017.
Iceland is a very small place with a unique combination of stubborn individualism and communitarianism.
sounds like Vermont, or maybe the Pacific Northwest.
Iceland is a very small place with a unique combination of stubborn individualism and communitarianism.
sounds like Vermont, or maybe the Pacific Northwest.
nous: ah yes, that all makes sense. I knew about the geothermal energy supply, but never extrapolated to the sulfurous (or as we would say sulphurous) side effects.
But further on the cryptic aspect, how come you shower with Thor’s hammer? Is that when you expect an attack, or were you traumatised by seeing Psycho at an impressionable age?
nous: ah yes, that all makes sense. I knew about the geothermal energy supply, but never extrapolated to the sulfurous (or as we would say sulphurous) side effects.
But further on the cryptic aspect, how come you shower with Thor’s hammer? Is that when you expect an attack, or were you traumatised by seeing Psycho at an impressionable age?
Thor’s Hammer = my ukonvasara pendant.
Matches my forearm tattoo.
Thor’s Hammer = my ukonvasara pendant.
Matches my forearm tattoo.
You are very kind to ignore my extreme silliness! Thank you.
You are very kind to ignore my extreme silliness! Thank you.
Covering my ambiguity bases.
Covering my ambiguity bases.
Wonder what it says about me that I know enough people who wear Thor’s hammer pendants that it never even occurred to me to picture someone in the shower with a hyper-sledge hammer?
Wonder what it says about me that I know enough people who wear Thor’s hammer pendants that it never even occurred to me to picture someone in the shower with a hyper-sledge hammer?
The hot water pipes get run under the roads and keep them defrosted during the winter.
This may explain the scene in Trapped in which a peloton of bikes are zipping down a street in Reykjavik in the middle of the night in the middle of winter.
The hot water pipes get run under the roads and keep them defrosted during the winter.
This may explain the scene in Trapped in which a peloton of bikes are zipping down a street in Reykjavik in the middle of the night in the middle of winter.
I didn’t even know Thor’s hammer pendants were a thing! Which is why it made no sense to me at all. Yet another module of the ObWi educational curriculum, in which I have (truly) learnt a great deal.
I didn’t even know Thor’s hammer pendants were a thing! Which is why it made no sense to me at all. Yet another module of the ObWi educational curriculum, in which I have (truly) learnt a great deal.
There exists a casting mould from the Middle Ages allowing to cast both Thor’s hammer and Christian cross pendants. Obviously there were enough customers for both and the craftsman had no qualms serving either.
Btw, I would not be surpised, if some Viking age Scandinavians wore both at the same time too. Beliefs were still rather flexible.
There exists a casting mould from the Middle Ages allowing to cast both Thor’s hammer and Christian cross pendants. Obviously there were enough customers for both and the craftsman had no qualms serving either.
Btw, I would not be surpised, if some Viking age Scandinavians wore both at the same time too. Beliefs were still rather flexible.
My impression is that Iceland is quite a bit greener than when I was there. They’re replanting the forests. They’re importing tree species rather than plant the native trees. Over time the climate has shifted enough that the native trees are no longer a good match.
My impression is that Iceland is quite a bit greener than when I was there. They’re replanting the forests. They’re importing tree species rather than plant the native trees. Over time the climate has shifted enough that the native trees are no longer a good match.
There exists a casting mould from the Middle Ages allowing to cast both Thor’s hammer and Christian cross pendants.
My wife has one of those pendants (which also got the sulfur treatment on the trip).
My impression is that Iceland is quite a bit greener than when I was there. They’re replanting the forests.
It’s a work-in-progress. Heard this one from our hiking guide as we walked through some scrub on the way up the west side of Glymur:
What should you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest?
Stand up.
There exists a casting mould from the Middle Ages allowing to cast both Thor’s hammer and Christian cross pendants.
My wife has one of those pendants (which also got the sulfur treatment on the trip).
My impression is that Iceland is quite a bit greener than when I was there. They’re replanting the forests.
It’s a work-in-progress. Heard this one from our hiking guide as we walked through some scrub on the way up the west side of Glymur:
What should you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest?
Stand up.
thanks to cleek for answering my question about the 3 places. I re-read the Vanity Fair article, it’s quite interesting rhetorically in the way it paints the people arguing for the lab-leak possibility as these sort of embattled truth seekers. In particular, Redfield’s talking about death threats. I don’t want to dismiss them, I have to wonder if any of that can be attributed to the boiling over of frustration with the clickbait administration’s handling of the pandemic. A couple of links
Interview with Redfield
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/health/covid-CDC-redfield.html
There are people who say to me, “Well, why didn’t you tell the president this?” or, “Why do you tell the president that?” There are some people that will only be satisfied if you personally criticize the president. I’m a chain-of-command kind of guy.
Here’s an article about the letter from Foege to Redfield and a pull graf
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cdc-director-calls-redfield-reveal-trump-administration-missteps/story?id=73480591
HHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Michael Caputo, who has since taken leave from his position, accused government scientists of “sedition” and working to undermine the president even if it hurt the American public in a rant posted to social media. Redfield said he was “deeply saddened” by those false comments and that CDC’s dedicated professionals are working 24/7 on the pandemic response.
I don’t want to claim that Redfield is trying to make himself a martyr, but one can easily see the dynamic involved. Sadly, one can also the possibility of arguing for a lab-leak as being a way to restore a reputation damaged by being in the orbit of clickbait.
thanks to cleek for answering my question about the 3 places. I re-read the Vanity Fair article, it’s quite interesting rhetorically in the way it paints the people arguing for the lab-leak possibility as these sort of embattled truth seekers. In particular, Redfield’s talking about death threats. I don’t want to dismiss them, I have to wonder if any of that can be attributed to the boiling over of frustration with the clickbait administration’s handling of the pandemic. A couple of links
Interview with Redfield
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/health/covid-CDC-redfield.html
There are people who say to me, “Well, why didn’t you tell the president this?” or, “Why do you tell the president that?” There are some people that will only be satisfied if you personally criticize the president. I’m a chain-of-command kind of guy.
Here’s an article about the letter from Foege to Redfield and a pull graf
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cdc-director-calls-redfield-reveal-trump-administration-missteps/story?id=73480591
HHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Michael Caputo, who has since taken leave from his position, accused government scientists of “sedition” and working to undermine the president even if it hurt the American public in a rant posted to social media. Redfield said he was “deeply saddened” by those false comments and that CDC’s dedicated professionals are working 24/7 on the pandemic response.
I don’t want to claim that Redfield is trying to make himself a martyr, but one can easily see the dynamic involved. Sadly, one can also the possibility of arguing for a lab-leak as being a way to restore a reputation damaged by being in the orbit of clickbait.
Back to our discussion of gun control, this from the Guardian, was interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/08/anom-encrypted-app-fbi-afp-australia-federal-police-sting-operation-ironside-an0m
Executing Australia’s largest number of search warrants in one day, police on Monday seized 104 firearms, including a military-grade sniper rifle, as well as almost A$45m (£25m) in cash. About A$7m was found in a safe buried beneath a garden shed in a Sydney suburb.
104!!! Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html
May 9, 2019
Law enforcement officers in Los Angeles seized more than 1,000 guns from a Bel Air mansion on Wednesday after receiving an anonymous tip.
[…]
Aerial images show stacks of weapons — including hundreds of rifles and pistols, as well as ammunition and manufacturing equipment.
Back to our discussion of gun control, this from the Guardian, was interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/08/anom-encrypted-app-fbi-afp-australia-federal-police-sting-operation-ironside-an0m
Executing Australia’s largest number of search warrants in one day, police on Monday seized 104 firearms, including a military-grade sniper rifle, as well as almost A$45m (£25m) in cash. About A$7m was found in a safe buried beneath a garden shed in a Sydney suburb.
104!!! Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html
May 9, 2019
Law enforcement officers in Los Angeles seized more than 1,000 guns from a Bel Air mansion on Wednesday after receiving an anonymous tip.
[…]
Aerial images show stacks of weapons — including hundreds of rifles and pistols, as well as ammunition and manufacturing equipment.
Ah, a freedom factory! And the commies are seizing the means of production. An infomer is also involved. Almost a trifecta.
Ah, a freedom factory! And the commies are seizing the means of production. An infomer is also involved. Almost a trifecta.
…more than 1,000 guns from a Bel Air mansion…
People like this are who run up the national per capita gun ownership numbers. (Wonder if he own stock in one of the gun manufacturers. Just to get something back on all that spending….)
…more than 1,000 guns from a Bel Air mansion…
People like this are who run up the national per capita gun ownership numbers. (Wonder if he own stock in one of the gun manufacturers. Just to get something back on all that spending….)
Ah, a freedom factory! And the commies are seizing the means of production. An infomer is also involved. Almost a trifecta.
Then, there’s this.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/06/08/california-gun-bust-leads-to-charges-of-600000-in-fraud/
After all, if it’s a scam of the unemployment system, he must be one of “those people.” And “we” don’t want “them” to have guns!
Ah, a freedom factory! And the commies are seizing the means of production. An infomer is also involved. Almost a trifecta.
Then, there’s this.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/06/08/california-gun-bust-leads-to-charges-of-600000-in-fraud/
After all, if it’s a scam of the unemployment system, he must be one of “those people.” And “we” don’t want “them” to have guns!
For all the (richly deserved) caustic remarks that we, and numerous others, have made about the Texas legislature and its vote suppression efforts, it must be noted that sometimes (on other issues) they did the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-lawmakers-again-urge-federal-board-to-remove-negro-from-name-of-natural-sites/2021/06/07/8d5cd1f4-be35-11eb-83e3-0ca705a96ba4_story.html
Kind of sad that the Federal government has had most of these in a similar recommendation from 30 years ago. But not acted on them.
For all the (richly deserved) caustic remarks that we, and numerous others, have made about the Texas legislature and its vote suppression efforts, it must be noted that sometimes (on other issues) they did the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-lawmakers-again-urge-federal-board-to-remove-negro-from-name-of-natural-sites/2021/06/07/8d5cd1f4-be35-11eb-83e3-0ca705a96ba4_story.html
Kind of sad that the Federal government has had most of these in a similar recommendation from 30 years ago. But not acted on them.
Just for the record, I have high respect for people like Ian McCollum (Forgotten Weapons) or Othais&May (C&Rsenal) that are clearly weapon enthusiasts but produce material that’s not just entertaining but also gives in-depths information and avoids politics (except where it directly interferes with their serious and scholarly work). They are clearly not gun p0rnographers and act very responsibly (given that they life-fire guns that are often more than a century old that fact probably plays a role there too).
The problem is to make laws that on the one hand protects people and activities like them but also protects the public from those that amass arsenals out of paranoia and to live out their violent fantasies at the cost of others (and think that safety precautions are for sissies and invented by spoilsports and THEM!).
Just for the record, I have high respect for people like Ian McCollum (Forgotten Weapons) or Othais&May (C&Rsenal) that are clearly weapon enthusiasts but produce material that’s not just entertaining but also gives in-depths information and avoids politics (except where it directly interferes with their serious and scholarly work). They are clearly not gun p0rnographers and act very responsibly (given that they life-fire guns that are often more than a century old that fact probably plays a role there too).
The problem is to make laws that on the one hand protects people and activities like them but also protects the public from those that amass arsenals out of paranoia and to live out their violent fantasies at the cost of others (and think that safety precautions are for sissies and invented by spoilsports and THEM!).
After all, if it’s a scam of the unemployment system, he must be one of “those people.” And “we” don’t want “them” to have guns!
Nope, since THEM steal from US by cheating the system, US have to outcheat them to just get even.
Same reason given for election fraud committed by GOPsters: It’s OUR only chance to counter the MASSIVE fraud constantly committed by THEM.
Cf. insurance too: it’s only fair, if WE get out more than we pay in, othewrwise it’s us paying for THEIR health.
Or why should WE pay for schools that our own kids (if we have any) do not use. It’s just subsidizing THEM.
After all, if it’s a scam of the unemployment system, he must be one of “those people.” And “we” don’t want “them” to have guns!
Nope, since THEM steal from US by cheating the system, US have to outcheat them to just get even.
Same reason given for election fraud committed by GOPsters: It’s OUR only chance to counter the MASSIVE fraud constantly committed by THEM.
Cf. insurance too: it’s only fair, if WE get out more than we pay in, othewrwise it’s us paying for THEIR health.
Or why should WE pay for schools that our own kids (if we have any) do not use. It’s just subsidizing THEM.
Western 3%er Madness: Parts I and II:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/07/idaho-republicans-far-right-mask-mandates
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/08/klamath-falls-oregon-protests-ammon-bundy
All this with reports coming out of the G7 Summit that the economies of the leading economic nations could shed trillions – twice as much or more per year as was lost to the pandemic – if the temperature does go up by 2.6 degrees as currently projected.
Not a good time to give up on collective solutions.
Western 3%er Madness: Parts I and II:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/07/idaho-republicans-far-right-mask-mandates
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/08/klamath-falls-oregon-protests-ammon-bundy
All this with reports coming out of the G7 Summit that the economies of the leading economic nations could shed trillions – twice as much or more per year as was lost to the pandemic – if the temperature does go up by 2.6 degrees as currently projected.
Not a good time to give up on collective solutions.
Cf. insurance too: it’s only fair, if WE get out more than we pay in, othewrwise it’s us paying for THEIR health.
To be honest, I hope to die having gotten far less out of the health insurance system than I put in. Be able to say, “No, didn’t do the big cancer deal. No, didn’t lay in an ICU for weeks smashed up in an auto accident.”
Cf. insurance too: it’s only fair, if WE get out more than we pay in, othewrwise it’s us paying for THEIR health.
To be honest, I hope to die having gotten far less out of the health insurance system than I put in. Be able to say, “No, didn’t do the big cancer deal. No, didn’t lay in an ICU for weeks smashed up in an auto accident.”
Not a good time to give up on collective solutions.
Iron Rule #1: any solution where liberals ask “conservatives” to chip-in for anything that sounds like a collective good will never be implemented.
Not a good time to give up on collective solutions.
Iron Rule #1: any solution where liberals ask “conservatives” to chip-in for anything that sounds like a collective good will never be implemented.
cleek, your comment comes just as the Biden-Capito infrastructure talks ended with no deal, and McConnell announced he would not support the John Lewis VRA (which was the Plan B if HR 1 went nowhere).
cleek, your comment comes just as the Biden-Capito infrastructure talks ended with no deal, and McConnell announced he would not support the John Lewis VRA (which was the Plan B if HR 1 went nowhere).
It would be mildly amusing (assuming there’s nothing constructive to be done) to write a bill to straight up reinstate the VRA. And, when McConnell inevitably announces that he won’t support it, ask him why he voted to reauthorize it, when it got essentially unanimous approval a few years ago.
Not that I think anyone would get an answer out of him. But possibly amusing to see how he evades.
It would be mildly amusing (assuming there’s nothing constructive to be done) to write a bill to straight up reinstate the VRA. And, when McConnell inevitably announces that he won’t support it, ask him why he voted to reauthorize it, when it got essentially unanimous approval a few years ago.
Not that I think anyone would get an answer out of him. But possibly amusing to see how he evades.
…a bill to straight up reinstate the VRA.
Less language that the SCOTUS explicitly found unconstitutional, or replacement language inserted. So most likely, written to require that all states must submit any changes in election law affecting federal elections — voter id, how many vote centers, US House districts, ease of vote by mail, etc — for pre-approval by the DOJ. I’m willing to take bets that such language will not pass. At a minimum, Senators from blue western states will not vote for legislation that requires every tweak to improve vote by mail systems, rated by experts to be the best at accuracy, security, and ease of use, to be pre-approved by the DOJ. Especially a DOJ that may be in the hands of Republicans that are, at a national level, completely opposed to vote by mail.
Or at least they’ll vote for it only once, and will then be primaried out. Vote by mail is enormously popular in the West.
…a bill to straight up reinstate the VRA.
Less language that the SCOTUS explicitly found unconstitutional, or replacement language inserted. So most likely, written to require that all states must submit any changes in election law affecting federal elections — voter id, how many vote centers, US House districts, ease of vote by mail, etc — for pre-approval by the DOJ. I’m willing to take bets that such language will not pass. At a minimum, Senators from blue western states will not vote for legislation that requires every tweak to improve vote by mail systems, rated by experts to be the best at accuracy, security, and ease of use, to be pre-approved by the DOJ. Especially a DOJ that may be in the hands of Republicans that are, at a national level, completely opposed to vote by mail.
Or at least they’ll vote for it only once, and will then be primaried out. Vote by mail is enormously popular in the West.
At a minimum, Senators from blue western states will not vote for legislation that requires every tweak to improve vote by mail systems, rated by experts to be the best at accuracy, security, and ease of use, to be pre-approved by the DOJ.
I’m not so sure. Yes, it would be a hassle. But I think they (at least a significant portion of them) might feel it’s a small price to pay in exchange for getting certain other parts of the country to be required to do the right thing. Certainly, as a Californian (and vote by mail fan), that would be my take.
At a minimum, Senators from blue western states will not vote for legislation that requires every tweak to improve vote by mail systems, rated by experts to be the best at accuracy, security, and ease of use, to be pre-approved by the DOJ.
I’m not so sure. Yes, it would be a hassle. But I think they (at least a significant portion of them) might feel it’s a small price to pay in exchange for getting certain other parts of the country to be required to do the right thing. Certainly, as a Californian (and vote by mail fan), that would be my take.
FU GOP
FU GOP
My first response: So many of them are so scientifically illiterate, that it would not entirely surprise me to find that this was a seriously meant question.
And lo, I find from the San Antonio Current that this is indeed a possibility:
It’s unclear whether Gohmert intended his question to be a sarcastic or whether it displays a scientific ignorance so profound that he has no clue how fucked the Earth would be if forest rangers tampered with those orbits.
Either way, the expert to whom he addressed the query replies with a level of diplomacy that qualifies her for work at the State Department if that whole science thing doesn’t pan out for her.
“I would have to follow up with on you on that one, Mr. Gohmert,” she replies after a full three-second pause. Then she flashes a broad smile.
It’s in the same category as Trump asking Birx to conduct research into injecting bleach. The GOP – Party of the Flat Earth.
My first response: So many of them are so scientifically illiterate, that it would not entirely surprise me to find that this was a seriously meant question.
And lo, I find from the San Antonio Current that this is indeed a possibility:
It’s unclear whether Gohmert intended his question to be a sarcastic or whether it displays a scientific ignorance so profound that he has no clue how fucked the Earth would be if forest rangers tampered with those orbits.
Either way, the expert to whom he addressed the query replies with a level of diplomacy that qualifies her for work at the State Department if that whole science thing doesn’t pan out for her.
“I would have to follow up with on you on that one, Mr. Gohmert,” she replies after a full three-second pause. Then she flashes a broad smile.
It’s in the same category as Trump asking Birx to conduct research into injecting bleach. The GOP – Party of the Flat Earth.
Unfortunately, Mr.Gohmert, this would require the summoning of certain pagan deities. Our studies have found conclusively that this would have some side effects that you and most of your constituents would rather avoid and are beyond our current abilities to control with any certainty. On the other hand it indeed falls under the authority of the department of agriculture and the forest service since it involves a certain silvane caprine of dark colour and known high fertility.
Unfortunately, Mr.Gohmert, this would require the summoning of certain pagan deities. Our studies have found conclusively that this would have some side effects that you and most of your constituents would rather avoid and are beyond our current abilities to control with any certainty. On the other hand it indeed falls under the authority of the department of agriculture and the forest service since it involves a certain silvane caprine of dark colour and known high fertility.
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic: he was claiming that climate change is caused by orbital perturbations which it would be beyond the powers of government agencies to undo.
I think also that the expert would have done better to say “No, we can’t change the earth’s orbit, nor the moon’s. But we can do something about carbon dioxide emissions.”
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic: he was claiming that climate change is caused by orbital perturbations which it would be beyond the powers of government agencies to undo.
I think also that the expert would have done better to say “No, we can’t change the earth’s orbit, nor the moon’s. But we can do something about carbon dioxide emissions.”
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic
then you have powers of sarcasm detection far exceeding mine.
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic
then you have powers of sarcasm detection far exceeding mine.
wj: “McConnell inevitably announces that he won’t support it, ask him why he voted to reauthorize it, when it got essentially unanimous approval a few years ago.
Not that I think anyone would get an answer out of him. But possibly amusing to see how he evades.”
Oh, like a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the last year of a presidential term?
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
wj: “McConnell inevitably announces that he won’t support it, ask him why he voted to reauthorize it, when it got essentially unanimous approval a few years ago.
Not that I think anyone would get an answer out of him. But possibly amusing to see how he evades.”
Oh, like a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn’t be filled in the last year of a presidential term?
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
Given that most of the military equipment in private hands is in the hands of his supporters, I’d consider praying for a stroke more likely to succeed. Deo volente
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
Given that most of the military equipment in private hands is in the hands of his supporters, I’d consider praying for a stroke more likely to succeed. Deo volente
Unfortunately, Mr.Gohmert, this would require the summoning of certain pagan deities.
So, Superman is copped liver?…
Unfortunately, Mr.Gohmert, this would require the summoning of certain pagan deities.
So, Superman is copped liver?…
Because we can always use a cause for hope, here’s an indication that even places like small town Texas are changing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/09/pride-month-rainbow-bakery-customer/
No wonder the Texas GOP legislators are in a panic.
Because we can always use a cause for hope, here’s an indication that even places like small town Texas are changing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/09/pride-month-rainbow-bakery-customer/
No wonder the Texas GOP legislators are in a panic.
Superman is just a manifestation of Mithras.
Superman is just a manifestation of Mithras.
Oh, this reminds me that Loki starts today. My 8-year-old and I can bond while also driving my wife nuts.
Oh, this reminds me that Loki starts today. My 8-year-old and I can bond while also driving my wife nuts.
Superman is just a manifestation of Mithras.
Just keeping the showering with ox blood tastefully out of sight.
Superman is just a manifestation of Mithras.
Just keeping the showering with ox blood tastefully out of sight.
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic: he was claiming that climate change is caused by orbital perturbations which it would be beyond the powers of government agencies to undo.
Perhaps. But he has a history of saying idiotic stuff, and, apparently (he’s even referred to it himself) the (fiercely contested) title of Dumbest Member of Congress.
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
Amen.
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic: he was claiming that climate change is caused by orbital perturbations which it would be beyond the powers of government agencies to undo.
Perhaps. But he has a history of saying idiotic stuff, and, apparently (he’s even referred to it himself) the (fiercely contested) title of Dumbest Member of Congress.
McConnell is a hypocritical lump of corruption, the only kind of “amusing” evasion he can do involves being on the receiving end of gunfire.
Amen.
Gohmert is clearly feeling the pressure from Gaetz, Taylor-Greene, and Boebert for dumbest thing said by a member of the House. If Sidney Powell were a member, her attempts to hand Dominion and Smartmatic billion dollar summary judgements would still have the others beat, I think. What’s the over/under on when Powell’s attorneys attempt to withdraw from the case?
Gohmert is clearly feeling the pressure from Gaetz, Taylor-Greene, and Boebert for dumbest thing said by a member of the House. If Sidney Powell were a member, her attempts to hand Dominion and Smartmatic billion dollar summary judgements would still have the others beat, I think. What’s the over/under on when Powell’s attorneys attempt to withdraw from the case?
I was, uh, informed by the immediate past director of NASA that they found that the Moon’s orbit is changing slightly and so is the Earth’s orbit around the Sun…
The immediate past director of NASA is Jim Bridenstine, a former climate denier without a science background, appointed by Trump and confirmed by a 50-49 party-line vote in the Senate in April 2018.
But Bridenstine changed his mind once he started talking to scientists. So whatever he told Gohmert it was before he was in charge of NASA.
I was, uh, informed by the immediate past director of NASA that they found that the Moon’s orbit is changing slightly and so is the Earth’s orbit around the Sun…
The immediate past director of NASA is Jim Bridenstine, a former climate denier without a science background, appointed by Trump and confirmed by a 50-49 party-line vote in the Senate in April 2018.
But Bridenstine changed his mind once he started talking to scientists. So whatever he told Gohmert it was before he was in charge of NASA.
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic
Not sure if that’s better or worse
I think it pretty clear that Gohmert intended to be sarcastic
Not sure if that’s better or worse
But he has a history of saying idiotic stuff, and, apparently (he’s even referred to it himself) the (fiercely contested) title of Dumbest Member of Congress.
I feel there is a cross-chamber competition. On one side, Gohmert and the others mentioned, on the other side, Tommy Tuberville and Ron Johnson. Really is a clash of the titans…
But he has a history of saying idiotic stuff, and, apparently (he’s even referred to it himself) the (fiercely contested) title of Dumbest Member of Congress.
I feel there is a cross-chamber competition. On one side, Gohmert and the others mentioned, on the other side, Tommy Tuberville and Ron Johnson. Really is a clash of the titans…
The Moon is moving away from the Earth slowing her (rotation) down. So each day the sun has more time to heat Earth up and the cold on the night side has more time to vent into space. So naturally the Earth gets warmer. The solution is to elongate the orbit to benefit from the fact that movement gets faster the closer one is to the sun (so we would pass through the hot zone faster and spent more time in the slower outer and cooler part. You may say that getting too close will overheat us in the short term but this will be compensated by higher evaporation leading to more clouds that will shield us during that critical period. Ideally we would change the Moon’s orbit so it will be between us and the sun when we are closest.
See, all is easy with proper knowldege of celebrity mechanics and thermic dynamos.
The Moon is moving away from the Earth slowing her (rotation) down. So each day the sun has more time to heat Earth up and the cold on the night side has more time to vent into space. So naturally the Earth gets warmer. The solution is to elongate the orbit to benefit from the fact that movement gets faster the closer one is to the sun (so we would pass through the hot zone faster and spent more time in the slower outer and cooler part. You may say that getting too close will overheat us in the short term but this will be compensated by higher evaporation leading to more clouds that will shield us during that critical period. Ideally we would change the Moon’s orbit so it will be between us and the sun when we are closest.
See, all is easy with proper knowldege of celebrity mechanics and thermic dynamos.
We could always launch Gohmert into the Sun, if it needs some more “dim”.
Worth a try.
We could always launch Gohmert into the Sun, if it needs some more “dim”.
Worth a try.
the internet tells me it takes 55x more energy to launch something into the sun than it does to launch something to Mars.
i say it’d be worth the expense.
the internet tells me it takes 55x more energy to launch something into the sun than it does to launch something to Mars.
i say it’d be worth the expense.
i say it’d be worth the expense.
I bet a GoFundMe account would do really well. And even better if it offered to do Greene and Boebert at the same time.
(Greene may not believe in evolution, but it would improve the gene pool nevertheless.)
i say it’d be worth the expense.
I bet a GoFundMe account would do really well. And even better if it offered to do Greene and Boebert at the same time.
(Greene may not believe in evolution, but it would improve the gene pool nevertheless.)
A further gloss on the Gohmert intention:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/09/gohmerts-question-about-forest-service-changing-earths-orbit-was-dumb-not-reason-you-think/
A further gloss on the Gohmert intention:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/09/gohmerts-question-about-forest-service-changing-earths-orbit-was-dumb-not-reason-you-think/
i have no reason to believe Gohmert is capable of being so dryly sardonic.
i have no reason to believe Gohmert is capable of being so dryly sardonic.
Nothing in his previous history of science-illiteracy suggests he is…
Nothing in his previous history of science-illiteracy suggests he is…
A GoFundMe to send Gohmert, Boebert, and Greene on a junket to tour solar dynamics up close and personal could fully fund Biden’s American Job Plan.
Throw in some Senators (McConnell, Tuberville, Johnson) and we might be able to pay down the national debt a little.
A GoFundMe to send Gohmert, Boebert, and Greene on a junket to tour solar dynamics up close and personal could fully fund Biden’s American Job Plan.
Throw in some Senators (McConnell, Tuberville, Johnson) and we might be able to pay down the national debt a little.
Another truly excellent suggestion (or solution)!
Another truly excellent suggestion (or solution)!
A further gloss on the Gohmert intention
It’s just another triumph of “I’m just a regular guy using my common sense” logic.
A further gloss on the Gohmert intention
It’s just another triumph of “I’m just a regular guy using my common sense” logic.
i know we’re not supposed to call them the anti-science party. but…
they’re the anti-science party.
i know we’re not supposed to call them the anti-science party. but…
they’re the anti-science party.
Certainly they are the party for those who are anti-science. But that’s not quite the same thing.
It might be more accurate to say that they are the anti-empiricism party. It isn’t science, after all, which says that Trump lost. Denial of reality is a rather larger field than just denying science.
Certainly they are the party for those who are anti-science. But that’s not quite the same thing.
It might be more accurate to say that they are the anti-empiricism party. It isn’t science, after all, which says that Trump lost. Denial of reality is a rather larger field than just denying science.
Per the title of this thread, for some the limits (if any) are way, way out there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/adam-schiff-leak-investigation-eric-swalwell/2021/06/11/ee935590-ca58-11eb-81b1-34796c7393af_story.html
Quite usually for the Trump administration, the accusation motivating the investigation (leaks) was something that members of the administration were doing more than anyone else.
Per the title of this thread, for some the limits (if any) are way, way out there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/adam-schiff-leak-investigation-eric-swalwell/2021/06/11/ee935590-ca58-11eb-81b1-34796c7393af_story.html
Quite usually for the Trump administration, the accusation motivating the investigation (leaks) was something that members of the administration were doing more than anyone else.
Sieve calling the colander holy (i.e. hole-ridden)?
Sieve calling the colander holy (i.e. hole-ridden)?
Hey, it’s the only kind of “holy” they can get anywhere close to.
Hey, it’s the only kind of “holy” they can get anywhere close to.
Hey, it’s the only kind of “holy” they can get anywhere close to.
Holy shit! Wholly shit?
As for “leak-ridden”, the Trump admin seems to have invented a new form of aerogel.
Hey, it’s the only kind of “holy” they can get anywhere close to.
Holy shit! Wholly shit?
As for “leak-ridden”, the Trump admin seems to have invented a new form of aerogel.
People object to some libertarians calling the government a criminal syndicate and protection racket. But the government seems to take an inordinate number of opportunities to prove them right.
“Eric Boehm, who reported this story for Reason last month, notes that on March 22, law enforcement officials with the bureau raided the establishment as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the business itself. The warrant allowed agents to confiscate a laundry list of things: the company’s security cameras, computers, the steel frames that nest the containers. Deemed off-limits: “a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe-deposit boxes.”
The agents were unfazed. They did it anyway, wantonly rummaging through the personal property in approximately 800 boxes—belonging to people who were not suspected of committing any crimes—and then holding those items hostage. (If you feel like getting mad today, feel free to watch them in action.)
…
There’s the obvious implication: The government wants the proceeds. But there’s also the notion that carrying or storing large sums of money somehow incriminates you in the drug trade, evocative of the Department of Homeland Security’s sordid record of habitually seizing large sums of cash from airport travelers.”
The FBI Returned This Innocent Couple’s Safe Deposit Box. It Refuses To Give Back Many Others—and Is Trying To Seize $85 Million in Cash.: “It makes me feel like the government is preying on the vulnerable and the weak to line their own pockets.”
People object to some libertarians calling the government a criminal syndicate and protection racket. But the government seems to take an inordinate number of opportunities to prove them right.
“Eric Boehm, who reported this story for Reason last month, notes that on March 22, law enforcement officials with the bureau raided the establishment as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the business itself. The warrant allowed agents to confiscate a laundry list of things: the company’s security cameras, computers, the steel frames that nest the containers. Deemed off-limits: “a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safe-deposit boxes.”
The agents were unfazed. They did it anyway, wantonly rummaging through the personal property in approximately 800 boxes—belonging to people who were not suspected of committing any crimes—and then holding those items hostage. (If you feel like getting mad today, feel free to watch them in action.)
…
There’s the obvious implication: The government wants the proceeds. But there’s also the notion that carrying or storing large sums of money somehow incriminates you in the drug trade, evocative of the Department of Homeland Security’s sordid record of habitually seizing large sums of cash from airport travelers.”
The FBI Returned This Innocent Couple’s Safe Deposit Box. It Refuses To Give Back Many Others—and Is Trying To Seize $85 Million in Cash.: “It makes me feel like the government is preying on the vulnerable and the weak to line their own pockets.”
back to lab leaks
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/
https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691
back to lab leaks
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-762/
https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691
1) asset forfeiture is an abomination. when cops take more from people than thieves do, the system is broken.
2) as predicted, the media’s new breathless crush on the lab leak story is convincing the Trump cult that Trump was right all along and that the media was previously lying to hurt Trump.
1) asset forfeiture is an abomination. when cops take more from people than thieves do, the system is broken.
2) as predicted, the media’s new breathless crush on the lab leak story is convincing the Trump cult that Trump was right all along and that the media was previously lying to hurt Trump.
virological.org, eh? Well, let’s face it, it’s no Bro Bible.
virological.org, eh? Well, let’s face it, it’s no Bro Bible.
This past week Nevada became the sixth state to permanently adopt mail ballots as the default voting method. Vermont is expected to become the seventh, and first non-western state, to permanently go vote by mail later this month. (California’s default vote by mail statute is not permanent; it expires at the end of 2021.)
Nevada also tossed their presidential caucuses in favor of a primary. The law sets a default date for the primary, but also includes a provision to adjust the date so that Nevada is the first primary. This sets up a battle with New Hampshire, which has a similar provision in its state law.
This past week Nevada became the sixth state to permanently adopt mail ballots as the default voting method. Vermont is expected to become the seventh, and first non-western state, to permanently go vote by mail later this month. (California’s default vote by mail statute is not permanent; it expires at the end of 2021.)
Nevada also tossed their presidential caucuses in favor of a primary. The law sets a default date for the primary, but also includes a provision to adjust the date so that Nevada is the first primary. This sets up a battle with New Hampshire, which has a similar provision in its state law.
Jusr wait until the originalists on SCOTUS find that voting by mail was clearly not the intent of the founders thus making it unconstitutional.
Jusr wait until the originalists on SCOTUS find that voting by mail was clearly not the intent of the founders thus making it unconstitutional.
Hartmut, I have previously expressed my concerns that HR1/S1 may not allow a voting model where the default is vote by mail and in-person activities are inconvenient and intended to handle just the edge cases. Despite the fact that such models consistently win expert rankings for accuracy, security, and ease of use among all US models.
Hartmut, I have previously expressed my concerns that HR1/S1 may not allow a voting model where the default is vote by mail and in-person activities are inconvenient and intended to handle just the edge cases. Despite the fact that such models consistently win expert rankings for accuracy, security, and ease of use among all US models.
The law sets a default date for the primary, but also includes a provision to adjust the date so that Nevada is the first primary. This sets up a battle with New Hampshire, which has a similar provision in its state law.
The obvious solution, for those not obsessed with being special: hold them both on the same day. Tie for first!
The law sets a default date for the primary, but also includes a provision to adjust the date so that Nevada is the first primary. This sets up a battle with New Hampshire, which has a similar provision in its state law.
The obvious solution, for those not obsessed with being special: hold them both on the same day. Tie for first!
Another seriously dumb idea
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/06/11/masks-for-unvaccinated-workers-not-for-vaccinated-new-cal-osha-proposal/
Apparently it has escaped the notice of our state Occupational Health and Safety folks that there is a significant overlap between those who refuse to get vaccinated and those who refuse to wear masks. In short, there’s no way this idea works in the real world.
Another seriously dumb idea
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/06/11/masks-for-unvaccinated-workers-not-for-vaccinated-new-cal-osha-proposal/
Apparently it has escaped the notice of our state Occupational Health and Safety folks that there is a significant overlap between those who refuse to get vaccinated and those who refuse to wear masks. In short, there’s no way this idea works in the real world.
In short, there’s no way this idea works in the real world.
People often say that about workplace safety rules. Right up until the regulations are enforced, with escalating fines and insurance problems, and it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform. The big problem in my mind is that Cal/OSHA probably doesn’t have the resources to do a whole lot of enforcement.
“Why did Bob get fired?”
“Lied to the supervisor about being vaccinated.”
In short, there’s no way this idea works in the real world.
People often say that about workplace safety rules. Right up until the regulations are enforced, with escalating fines and insurance problems, and it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform. The big problem in my mind is that Cal/OSHA probably doesn’t have the resources to do a whole lot of enforcement.
“Why did Bob get fired?”
“Lied to the supervisor about being vaccinated.”
Michael Cain, and my concern is that the current SCOTUS will take a second bite at (or out of) voting rights, should a new case reach it. So, I fear that, even if Congress managed to pass anything (and thanks to among others Manchin it won’t), SCOTUS will be the second line of defense of the GOP shenanigans and may even go on the offense to force Blue states to follow the example of the Red states by declaring all measures taken to ease voting to be against the original intent of the founders. It could be a moment of “obviously we were not clear enough the last time and you refused to take the hint when we killed all means of enforcement of the Voting Right Act. So, as a result you now force us to talk plain: this is not supposed to be a democracy and the veneer will only be tolerated as long as the power stays where it belongs. And that is not The People. And we are mightily p|ssed and extremly disappointed that you force our hands that way.”
Michael Cain, and my concern is that the current SCOTUS will take a second bite at (or out of) voting rights, should a new case reach it. So, I fear that, even if Congress managed to pass anything (and thanks to among others Manchin it won’t), SCOTUS will be the second line of defense of the GOP shenanigans and may even go on the offense to force Blue states to follow the example of the Red states by declaring all measures taken to ease voting to be against the original intent of the founders. It could be a moment of “obviously we were not clear enough the last time and you refused to take the hint when we killed all means of enforcement of the Voting Right Act. So, as a result you now force us to talk plain: this is not supposed to be a democracy and the veneer will only be tolerated as long as the power stays where it belongs. And that is not The People. And we are mightily p|ssed and extremly disappointed that you force our hands that way.”
it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform.
I expect that businesses would have no philosophical problem with complying. But they, especially the small businesses, have very little prospect for checking their employees’ true vaccination status. Even if they would be fine with firing employees for lying about it, how would they ever know?
it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform.
I expect that businesses would have no philosophical problem with complying. But they, especially the small businesses, have very little prospect for checking their employees’ true vaccination status. Even if they would be fine with firing employees for lying about it, how would they ever know?
… it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform.
until enough people can be bought to reverse either the rules or to call back the enforcers or to get the case thrown out of court by ‘friendly’ judges in conjunction with also carefully corrupted prosecutors.
I have my cap of cynicism on to-day, I admit.
… it becomes very much in businesses’ interest to conform.
until enough people can be bought to reverse either the rules or to call back the enforcers or to get the case thrown out of court by ‘friendly’ judges in conjunction with also carefully corrupted prosecutors.
I have my cap of cynicism on to-day, I admit.
Even if they would be fine with firing employees for lying about it, how would they ever know?
And some Red states are working on preventing them knowing and being unable to act should they learn anyway.
Even if they would be fine with firing employees for lying about it, how would they ever know?
And some Red states are working on preventing them knowing and being unable to act should they learn anyway.
“And we are mightily p|ssed and extremly disappointed that you force our hands that way.”
“Even more, we are pissed that we have had to admit, to ourselves, just how little we care for democracy. Self-delusion was ever so much more pleasant.”
“And we are mightily p|ssed and extremly disappointed that you force our hands that way.”
“Even more, we are pissed that we have had to admit, to ourselves, just how little we care for democracy. Self-delusion was ever so much more pleasant.”
SFAICT, the danger of being unvaccinated and unmasked is to the people who are unvaccinated and unmasked.
IOW, a self-correcting problem.
SFAICT, the danger of being unvaccinated and unmasked is to the people who are unvaccinated and unmasked.
IOW, a self-correcting problem.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated. Recent studies indicate that it’s a pointless and unnecessary risk for people who have had COVID to get vaccinated.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated. Recent studies indicate that it’s a pointless and unnecessary risk for people who have had COVID to get vaccinated.
SFAICT, the danger of being unvaccinated and unmasked is to the people who are unvaccinated and unmasked.
Not all unvaccinated people are that way voluntarily. Houston Methodist Hospital has now suspended 178 employees (out of almost 26,000) who refused to be vaccinated because, in the hospital’s opinion, they pose a clear danger to patients who cannot safely receive any of the current vaccines. The lawsuit has already been filed. The EEOC has issued guidance that says employers in general may require vaccination for employees who work on site.
SFAICT, the danger of being unvaccinated and unmasked is to the people who are unvaccinated and unmasked.
Not all unvaccinated people are that way voluntarily. Houston Methodist Hospital has now suspended 178 employees (out of almost 26,000) who refused to be vaccinated because, in the hospital’s opinion, they pose a clear danger to patients who cannot safely receive any of the current vaccines. The lawsuit has already been filed. The EEOC has issued guidance that says employers in general may require vaccination for employees who work on site.
Recent studies indicate that it’s a pointless and unnecessary risk for people who have had COVID to get vaccinated.
just get the shot. quit trying to weasel out of it.
Recent studies indicate that it’s a pointless and unnecessary risk for people who have had COVID to get vaccinated.
just get the shot. quit trying to weasel out of it.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
It’s not a question of public safety, though, it’s a question of public safety *policy.* Whether or not someone is unvaccinated, but is resistant due to prior exposure introduces more ambiguity and bureaucracy and legal questions into what is meant to be a simple way to create enforceably and unambiguous policies that increase the likelihood of reaching herd immunity. Requiring the vaccine is just pragmatic at that point.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
It’s not a question of public safety, though, it’s a question of public safety *policy.* Whether or not someone is unvaccinated, but is resistant due to prior exposure introduces more ambiguity and bureaucracy and legal questions into what is meant to be a simple way to create enforceably and unambiguous policies that increase the likelihood of reaching herd immunity. Requiring the vaccine is just pragmatic at that point.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
If there was a charge to get vaccinated, you might have an argument. But since it’s free, why split hairs? It is, after all, far easier to keep records of who got vaccinated than to run immunity tests over and over.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
If there was a charge to get vaccinated, you might have an argument. But since it’s free, why split hairs? It is, after all, far easier to keep records of who got vaccinated than to run immunity tests over and over.
SCOTUS will be the second line of defense of the GOP shenanigans and may even go on the offense to force Blue states to follow the example of the Red states by declaring all measures taken to ease voting to be against the original intent of the founders.
Not so much anti-blue as anti-western. Utah is vote by mail. Arizona is 80% vote by mail, installed by Republicans (note how none of the many proposals to restrict vote by mail that have been introduced in Arizona this year have passed). Montana is 75%. Wyoming is 30%. In 2020, >90% of all ballots cast in the 13-state West were ballots distributed by mail.
I always think back to Arizona v. Arizona and get depressed about the changes that have happened in the Court’s lineup. East Coast pundits were all surprised when Justice Kennedy sided with the liberals and said the people could take redistricting authority away from the Arizona State Legislature (that’s what they call themselves, not the General Assembly or some such) and award it to a largely independent commission. I called it when I said that Kennedy was a California boy, the only Justice at that time with experience in the West, and knew what an enormous can of worms would be opened if the SCOTUS started now to try to rein in ballot initiatives in western states.
Kennedy is gone and so is RBG. I believe that Gorsuch would follow Kennedy’s path, because he still has family in Colorado and would prefer to be able to walk the streets and not have people spit at him. That still leaves us (me?) a vote short. Roberts was incensed over Kennedy’s vote then. The CJ’s dissent reads like a fifth-grader throwing a tantrum. Kavanaugh and ACB probably don’t care enough to go against the CJ on this.
SCOTUS will be the second line of defense of the GOP shenanigans and may even go on the offense to force Blue states to follow the example of the Red states by declaring all measures taken to ease voting to be against the original intent of the founders.
Not so much anti-blue as anti-western. Utah is vote by mail. Arizona is 80% vote by mail, installed by Republicans (note how none of the many proposals to restrict vote by mail that have been introduced in Arizona this year have passed). Montana is 75%. Wyoming is 30%. In 2020, >90% of all ballots cast in the 13-state West were ballots distributed by mail.
I always think back to Arizona v. Arizona and get depressed about the changes that have happened in the Court’s lineup. East Coast pundits were all surprised when Justice Kennedy sided with the liberals and said the people could take redistricting authority away from the Arizona State Legislature (that’s what they call themselves, not the General Assembly or some such) and award it to a largely independent commission. I called it when I said that Kennedy was a California boy, the only Justice at that time with experience in the West, and knew what an enormous can of worms would be opened if the SCOTUS started now to try to rein in ballot initiatives in western states.
Kennedy is gone and so is RBG. I believe that Gorsuch would follow Kennedy’s path, because he still has family in Colorado and would prefer to be able to walk the streets and not have people spit at him. That still leaves us (me?) a vote short. Roberts was incensed over Kennedy’s vote then. The CJ’s dissent reads like a fifth-grader throwing a tantrum. Kavanaugh and ACB probably don’t care enough to go against the CJ on this.
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated? Let the employees decide between getting two free jabs that provide a very high probability of passing the test, or hoping to get infected and acquire adequate immunity that way?
The test should be whether someone has immunity, not whether they’ve been vaccinated.
So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated? Let the employees decide between getting two free jabs that provide a very high probability of passing the test, or hoping to get infected and acquire adequate immunity that way?
Not all unvaccinated people are that way voluntarily.
I’m aware of that, but they can wear masks.
Once the vaccines are approved for general use by the FDA, employers and venues can require vaccination, with some exceptions (and I anticipate that a bunch of people whose only philosophy is IGMFY will suddenly claim to have deep philosophical reasons for not getting the shot).
I’m just so enormously fed up with the anti-vaxxers (of all varieties) that I don’t give a fine feathered damn what happens to them.
Not all unvaccinated people are that way voluntarily.
I’m aware of that, but they can wear masks.
Once the vaccines are approved for general use by the FDA, employers and venues can require vaccination, with some exceptions (and I anticipate that a bunch of people whose only philosophy is IGMFY will suddenly claim to have deep philosophical reasons for not getting the shot).
I’m just so enormously fed up with the anti-vaxxers (of all varieties) that I don’t give a fine feathered damn what happens to them.
So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated?
Yes.
So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated?
Yes.
This Politico article was interesting
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/06/06/covid-vaccine-saga-health-care-system-491932
Though I imagine there is a writer at Reason already incorporating it into a this is why goverments shouldn’t do vaccinations article
This Politico article was interesting
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/06/06/covid-vaccine-saga-health-care-system-491932
Though I imagine there is a writer at Reason already incorporating it into a this is why goverments shouldn’t do vaccinations article
“So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated?”
It is just one more of a ton of things you have to demonstrate to work at a hospital. The question is what antibody test they will use. So sure.
The FDA doesn’t recommend any tests that currently exist as tests for immunity so it seems premature to require the test. That just leaves proof of vaccination.
“So just as a hypothetical, you’re good with Houston Methodist notifying their employees that unless they can show an adequate antibody test by June 21, they’re terminated?”
It is just one more of a ton of things you have to demonstrate to work at a hospital. The question is what antibody test they will use. So sure.
The FDA doesn’t recommend any tests that currently exist as tests for immunity so it seems premature to require the test. That just leaves proof of vaccination.
The FDA doesn’t recommend any tests that currently exist as tests for immunity so it seems premature to require the test. That just leaves proof of vaccination.
My understanding is that there is also a small but definitely non-zero percentage of the population with innate immunity that doesn’t produce the antibodies, and would always fail an antibody test. This seems to be true for almost all viral pathogens — for any given virus, some part of the population is innately immune. I have read speculation that what was previously labeled “junk DNA” has something to do with it.
The FDA doesn’t recommend any tests that currently exist as tests for immunity so it seems premature to require the test. That just leaves proof of vaccination.
My understanding is that there is also a small but definitely non-zero percentage of the population with innate immunity that doesn’t produce the antibodies, and would always fail an antibody test. This seems to be true for almost all viral pathogens — for any given virus, some part of the population is innately immune. I have read speculation that what was previously labeled “junk DNA” has something to do with it.
A little something on the position of the courts on requiring employees to get vaccinated or be terminated:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/13/methodist-vaccine-lawsuit-dismissed/
As with so many cases involving Trump cultists (I confess to not having verified that the plaintiffs are such; but I’d put money on it), the judge’s comments in dismissing the suit were caustic.
A little something on the position of the courts on requiring employees to get vaccinated or be terminated:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/13/methodist-vaccine-lawsuit-dismissed/
As with so many cases involving Trump cultists (I confess to not having verified that the plaintiffs are such; but I’d put money on it), the judge’s comments in dismissing the suit were caustic.