Origin of Covid-19

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

3 hours ago, Bevo said:

the perpetrators of coverups are guilty of the crime until they can prove their innocence. 

Well, there’s YOUR justice system.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The explanation wasn't for you. 

I pressed the hookem reputation button to your post for the listeners at home and for the keeper of records. 

[bschoolprof 6252]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

No, you have it backwards. The coincidence is offered as evidence of a lab leak. The burden of proof is on the one advocating the coincidence as having any kind of deductive value. And that is only true if the Wuhan lab is unusual in a relevant way.

The WIV appears it was the epicenter of coronavirus research in China prior to 2020.  If you google "coronavirus research china" and set the years as 2018-2019, virtually every hit on the 1st page has ties to WIV. Take this research article in Nature Reviews written in 2019, which chronicles the work on coronavirus research over the years.  All authors are chinese; the two actually in China are at WIV.  The last author listed is the one who sequenced the genome and put it up on the interwebs in Feb 2020.  

Yeah, WIV was unique.  Yes, it was a pretty big coincidence.  

[Bevo 13569]

8 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well, there’s YOUR justice system.  

Yes, it is. If someone is covering up a crime, they are guilty of the crime. That's the way it has to be. Otherwise, the right move will always be to coverup and lie. If we really wanted to find out what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future, this is how it should have been handled. Worldwide sanctions and lawsuits should have happened immediately and should not have been removed until an open investigation had taken place. Without doing this, the next time something happens in China, China again will kill all the people involved and hide the facts again and we will be exactly where we are today with paid off scientists, politicians and health organizations and scant real evidence to learn and improve and prevent future problems. And it teaches other countries to do this same behavior if a breakout occurs in their country.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Bevo

[wildcat09 29347]

I always find the “China is inherently dishonest” rhetoric kind of funny. One the one hand, they’re definitely an authoritarian state and authoritarian states lie about pretty much everything as a matter of course. They lie even about shit even when there’s no reason to. On the other hand, we lie to the world about shit all of the time too and most presidential administrations that we’ve had absolutely would lie and try to cover it up if we had a lab leak, or even just a shitty response to an outbreak of a new zoonotic disease that began here. 

[Mullet Free 40]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're confusing exploring the lab as a possible source with the racist rhetoric used by some in insisting that it was in fact a lab release. Plenty of people, including the CDC, encouraged investigation of the first. The latter was rightly denounced. 

 

What's kind of funny is assuming that it originated in a Chinese wet market and was thus due to cultural practices actually seems more racist than assuming it was due to Chinese and US government incompetence.

10 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Hard to say since the classified report was leaked and doesn't provide any information on what evidence was considered. However, the level of confidence was low, so obviously it wasn't definitive evidence. We have had 8 intelligence agencies release reports. Only two have indicated lab release. 4 say human exposure to an infected animal (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf). 2 say not enough information either way. 

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I think that you have to filter each of the assessments through the built in bias of the particular intelligence agency.  For example, NSA may weight assessments based on signals intelligence whereas a DOE lab may weight different aspects. CIA may weight based on human intelligence, FBI on other factors. 

 

 

One argument for lab leak is the work that came from the American side to stifle investigation or discussion of the theory.  This guy, Fauci, Collins etc

 

 

Lol there was a "bat lady" in the Coronavirus lab.

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

 

[Mullet Free 40]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Again, the primary evidence of a lab release is China's refusal to allow an investigation. Otherwise, we just have two coincidences, the location of the lab and the wet markets near the the first area the virus was identified. Both were and are plausible sources for the virus. But the lab release theory requires more assumptions, so I'd argue that Occam's razor points that direction. 

Maybe this too...

 

 

[DDD Dad 14326]

11 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

This is getting pretty close to CR but [CR rant deleted]

Close?

[Mullet Free 40]

One more.

 

 

[Rimbo 25913]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I always find the “China is inherently dishonest” rhetoric kind of funny. One the one hand, they’re definitely an authoritarian state and authoritarian states lie about pretty much everything as a matter of course. They lie even about shit even when there’s no reason to. On the other hand, we lie to the world about shit all of the time too and most presidential administrations that we’ve had absolutely would lie and try to cover it up if we had a lab leak, or even just a shitty response to an outbreak of a new zoonotic disease that began here. 

I mean ... there's a difference between normal, fallible human nature and the lies that come from it, and cultures that actively encourage dishonesty, that see honesty as a sign of weakness or stupidity.

I'm not talking about the government, here. I'm talking about five thousand years of culture.

[YGIFS 19449]

9 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

The WIV appears it was the epicenter of coronavirus research in China prior to 2020.  If you google "coronavirus research china" and set the years as 2018-2019, virtually every hit on the 1st page has ties to WIV. Take this research article in Nature Reviews written in 2019, which chronicles the work on coronavirus research over the years.  All authors are chinese; the two actually in China are at WIV.  The last author listed is the one who sequenced the genome and put it up on the interwebs in Feb 2020.  

Yeah, WIV was unique.  Yes, it was a pretty big coincidence.  

Wow, I just did that search setting.  That is pretty telling, in a way.  I wonder when they write this in Chinese history books, if they'll ban it because the next generation will feel shamed for having participated in this.  

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

Worldwide sanctions and lawsuits should have happened immediately and should not have been removed until an open investigation had taken place.

Lawsuits? How would that work?

[Captainant 27638]

20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I mean ... there's a difference between normal, fallible human nature and the lies that come from it, and cultures that actively encourage dishonesty, that see honesty as a sign of weakness or stupidity.

I'm not talking about the government, here. I'm talking about five thousand years of culture.

Kinda like bragging about breaking the law and avoiding paying taxes because you're smart - along with the implication that following the law is stupid. And then elevating those bragging about it to be our national leader, right?

[statsman 5453]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I always find the “China is inherently dishonest” rhetoric kind of funny. One the one hand, they’re definitely an authoritarian state and authoritarian states lie about pretty much everything as a matter of course. They lie even about shit even when there’s no reason to. On the other hand, we lie to the world about shit all of the time too and most presidential administrations that we’ve had absolutely would lie and try to cover it up if we had a lab leak, or even just a shitty response to an outbreak of a new zoonotic disease that began here. 

Well, I think the Duffy is between societies that are dishonest and try to conceal it by punishing harshly anyone who exposes them, and societies that are dishonest and try to conceal it by deterring exposure in non-lethal and non-penal ways. 

[Rimbo 25913]

24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Kinda like bragging about breaking the law and avoiding paying taxes because you're smart - along with the implication that following the law is stupid. And then elevating those bragging about it to be our national leader, right?

What you're describing here is both a minority of the population and an anomaly over time. It's not a pervasive part of a culture spanning millennia or anything.

[wildcat09 29347]

21 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

What you're describing here is both a minority of the population and an anomaly over time. It's not a pervasive part of a culture spanning millennia or anything.

Well not millennia, but America has a long tradition of all kinds of huge fucking grifters, snake oil salesmen, and liars of all types finding enormous success here, and they're rarely ever punished for it. Elizabeth Holmes is the exception, not the rule. 

[Goredho 17397]

Shotgun out enough conspiracy theories, you’ll find some truth in one.  None of us are privy to anything other than 58357th hand information, but social media + assholes allows us to be targeted to form opinions before anyone knows anything definitive.  
 

Covid-19 demands a strategic response regardless of whether it came from a wet market or bio lab, and there is a venn diagram overlap of appropriate measures regardless of the exact origination story.  That’s what I hope we are focusing on at this time while trying to uncover more specifics.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Quote

Yes, it is. If someone is covering up a crime, they are guilty of the crime. That's the way it has to be. Otherwise, the right move will always be to coverup and lie.

Now we are getting somewhere.  Where, I don't know but we are definitely on the way to getting somewhere.  Aw fuck it.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Mullet Free 40]

11 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

The WIV appears it was the epicenter of coronavirus research in China prior to 2020.  If you google "coronavirus research china" and set the years as 2018-2019, virtually every hit on the 1st page has ties to WIV. Take this research article in Nature Reviews written in 2019, which chronicles the work on coronavirus research over the years.  All authors are chinese; the two actually in China are at WIV.  The last author listed is the one who sequenced the genome and put it up on the interwebs in Feb 2020.  

Yeah, WIV was unique.  Yes, it was a pretty big coincidence.  

ah, more of the context @BrickHorn was searching for

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

What's kind of funny is assuming that it originated in a Chinese wet market and was thus due to cultural practices actually seems more racist than assuming it was due to Chinese and US government incompetence.

One argument for lab leak is the work that came from the American side to stifle investigation or discussion of the theory.  This guy, Fauci, Collins etc

 

On the first part, an uninformed assumption could indeed be racially tinged. But, my point wasn't that blaming it on a lab release was in and of itself racist. It was the rhetoric used to make that argument that made it racist (e.g., kung flu, china virus, and more). Further, there is a difference between suggesting paths of research, drawing a conclusion based on evidence, and making an assumption based on speculation. The early lab release theories (which again, focused more on engineered bioweapons/ intentional releases) were the latter. 

The second part is mainly non-sense. There is a disagreement about whether the NIH funding at Wuhan was for gain of function. Setting that issue aside, the funding was a few hundred thousand dollars. And the more obvious response is that if the US had been involved in the release or enhancement of Sars-Cov-2 in connection with the Wuhan lab, you can bet all your money that China would be releasing all sorts of information about that. 

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

Maybe this too...

 

 

We don't know what new intelligence or information was considered in the report. However, we know it couldn't have been the information about the possible sick researchers because that intelligence was already known. What we do know is that whatever new evidence was considered by the DOE, it wasn't substantial enough to do move the needle past "low confidence."

13 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

ah, more of the context @BrickHorn was searching for

It isn't a coincidence that coronavirus research was heavily centered in China. That confounding variable shouldn't be ignored when attempting to draw conclusions. 

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

53 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Now we are getting somewhere.  Where, I don't know but we are definitely on the way to getting somewhere.  Aw fuck it.

We still don’t know with any certainty where the SARS virus in 2003 originated. 

[CHAD BRISCOE 371]

I had it for two year’s I got it from a Chinese Person Uncle Joe Biden need to close the border’s . They come to make us sick on porpoise and make us Communist , and they make all the battery’s so it isn’t good . I heard the goverment said it was made in a Lab there . Because Biden gave them the recipe .

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

On the first part, an uninformed assumption could indeed be racially tinged. But, my point wasn't that blaming it on a lab release was in and of itself racist. It was the rhetoric used to make that argument that made it racist (e.g., kung flu, china virus, and more). Further, there is a difference between suggesting paths of research, drawing a conclusion based on evidence, and making an assumption based on speculation. The early lab release theories (which again, focused more on engineered bioweapons/ intentional releases) were the latter. 

The second part is mainly non-sense. There is a disagreement about whether the NIH funding at Wuhan was for gain of function. Setting that issue aside, the funding was a few hundred thousand dollars. And the more obvious response is that if the US had been involved in the release or enhancement of Sars-Cov-2 in connection with the Wuhan lab, you can bet all your money that China would be releasing all sorts of information about that. 

We don't know what new intelligence or information was considered in the report. However, we know it couldn't have been the information about the possible sick researchers because that intelligence was already known. What we do know is that whatever new evidence was considered by the DOE, it wasn't substantial enough to do move the needle past "low confidence."

It isn't a coincidence that coronavirus research was heavily centered in China. That confounding variable shouldn't be ignored when attempting to draw conclusions. 

 

[bernorange 8359]

Quote

...
Portraying the lab leak notion as a dangerous, racist conspiracy theory never made any sense, and journalists, health officials, and disinformation trackers—like GDI—that enforced this narrative should feel profoundly embarrassed.

But that's not all GDI has to atone for.

On Monday, I called out several of the journalists who incorrectly smeared lab leak origin proponents as racists ...

More:

https://reason.com/2023/02/28/global-disinformation-index-lab-leak-theory-media-misinfo/

[Mullet Free 40]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, the primary evidence of a lab release is China's refusal to allow an investigation. Otherwise, we just have two coincidences, the location of the lab and the wet markets near the the first area the virus was identified. Both were and are plausible sources for the virus.

 

I guess you forgot this coincidence that everyone already knew about?

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

However, we know it couldn't have been the information about the possible sick researchers because that intelligence was already known.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And the more obvious response is that if the US had been involved in the release or enhancement of Sars-Cov-2 in connection with the Wuhan lab, you can bet all your money that China would be releasing all sorts of information about that.

Disagree. Even admitting any potential US involvement implicates them far more as the country/scientists actually running the lab.

Best case scenario there is China playing the role of Otter in Animal House. "You fucked up. You trusted us."

 

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't a coincidence that coronavirus research was heavily centered in China.

Yeah it was centered in China. With a substantial focus in Wuhan, at minimum. Strange behavior to even downplay that at this point.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

9 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

 

I guess you forgot this coincidence that everyone already knew about?

 

 

Disagree. Even admitting any potential US involvement implicates them far more as the country/scientists actually running the lab.

Best case scenario there is China playing the role of Otter in Animal House. "You fucked up. You trusted us."

 

Yeah it was centered in China. With a substantial focus in Wuhan, at minimum. Strange behavior to even downplay that at this point.

Ok, what are you going to do about it, Mr. Picking on Disney?  You're not going to do a fucking thing, because you're impotent.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

45 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

We still don’t know with any certainty where the SARS virus in 2003 originated. 

Chad Briscoe and berntass quoted you after you posted.  I reckon you can figure out where SARS origninated.  Also 2003.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

News flash.   The coronavirus originated in China.  Holy fuck, those chinese.  Never mind they have half the worlds population, so if something IS going to happen, the likelihood it happens over there is like, none.   Then top it off with the fact that if you fuck up in a research project, you cant say oh my bad.  

[Brisketexan 105077]

6 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Chad Briscoe and berntass quoted you after you posted.  I reckon you can figure out where SARS origninated.  

I mean, we all KNOW where it originated.....

 

[Dahobbs 17527]

1 minute ago, Mullet Free said:

 

I guess you forgot this coincidence that everyone already knew about?

The intelligence report that some workers may have been sick? Yes, we've known about that for some time. Here is the WSJ reporting on it in 2021, https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228. While interesting, without more information, it is impossible to say whether it has any connection at all to Covid-19. And, even if it does, that doesn't necessarily suggest lab release. 

Quote

 

Disagree. Even admitting any potential US involvement implicates them far more as the country/scientists actually running the lab.

Best case scenario there is China playing the role of Otter in Animal House. "You fucked up. You trusted us."

Yeah it was centered in China. With a substantial focus in Wuhan, at minimum. Strange behavior to even downplay that at this point.

 

If China had hard evidence that it could blame the US, it definitely would. Right now, the entire focus is on China. If it could shift a bit of it somewhere else, it would.

Also, I haven't downplayed anything. I continue to believe that a lab release is a possible and plausible origination story for Covid-19. But, there is also no direct evidence linking the virus to the lab. And, given that we do know a bit about the research being done there and many of the viruses being studied there, it is notably that we can't find a connection to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., we don't have a genetic link between any of the viruses that were known to be studied there and SARS-CoV-2). Sure, part of that could be because of Chinese government interference. But given that a lot of our information about the lab predates when the Chinese government started interfering, we do have to admit this is at least some evidence of absence. We have another competing, possible, and plausible origination story centered on animal transference and the wet markets. And we have recent examples of other coronaviruses making that exact same leap and causing wide-spread illness. (e.g., SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV). Again, two plausible origination stories, but not a lot of information to allow us to intelligently decide between the two of them. I think the balance of factors weighs against lab release, but not by much. 

[wildcat09 29347]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The intelligence report that some workers may have been sick? Yes, we've known about that for some time. Here is the WSJ reporting on it in 2021, https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228. While interesting, without more information, it is impossible to say whether it has any connection at all to Covid-19. And, even if it does, that doesn't necessarily suggest lab release. 

 

About those reports, in China you apparently have to go to the hospital to get a doctor's note if you miss any work because you're sick. So if you have the flu and need to take a day or two off, even if your symptoms are pretty mild you go to the hospital just to get a doctor's note. So people going to the hospital isn't necessarily indicative of them being seriously sick.  But if those three people were the very first people to get covid and they got it because it leaked at the lab, you would think they would've infected many more people around them, and that the initial outbreak might have looked like smaller epicenters focused on where those people worked, lived, and otherwise visited.  But most if not all available evidence still indicates that the initial epicenter was in the market nearly 8 miles away, specifically from the area in the market where live mammals were sold. 

As a practical matter, whether it was a leak or zoonotic doesn't particularly matter to me; either way we should be insisting on both beefed up lab safety protocols and more regulation in food markets and other areas where the risk of zoonotic transmission is heightened, in China and all over the world. I do find the broader conversation somewhat interesting, though often frustrating. At the end of the day, very few people have anything useful to say about either lab safety protocols or appropriate regulations to decrease the risk of zoonotic transmission, but most people want to have some sort of take on it because covid itself was such a huge event and most people want to think that we can have some input into initiating some process that could prevent it from happening again.  It certainly makes me wish I could understand the science better, but basically all science to me remains indistinguishable from magic.

[bernorange 8359]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

.. It certainly makes me wish I could understand the science better, but basically all science to me remains indistinguishable from magic.

[babysdaddy 2721]

46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The intelligence report that some workers may have been sick? Yes, we've known about that for some time. Here is the WSJ reporting on it in 2021, https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228. While interesting, without more information, it is impossible to say whether it has any connection at all to Covid-19. And, even if it does, that doesn't necessarily suggest lab release. 

If China had hard evidence that it could blame the US, it definitely would. Right now, the entire focus is on China. If it could shift a bit of it somewhere else, it would.

Also, I haven't downplayed anything. I continue to believe that a lab release is a possible and plausible origination story for Covid-19. But, there is also no direct evidence linking the virus to the lab. And, given that we do know a bit about the research being done there and many of the viruses being studied there, it is notably that we can't find a connection to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., we don't have a genetic link between any of the viruses that were known to be studied there and SARS-CoV-2). Sure, part of that could be because of Chinese government interference. But given that a lot of our information about the lab predates when the Chinese government started interfering, we do have to admit this is at least some evidence of absence. We have another competing, possible, and plausible origination story centered on animal transference and the wet markets. And we have recent examples of other coronaviruses making that exact same leap and causing wide-spread illness. (e.g., SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV). Again, two plausible origination stories, but not a lot of information to allow us to intelligently decide between the two of them. I think the balance of factors weighs against lab release, but not by much. 

So you disagree with the FBI and the DOE.  And you're spending a ton of time and effort in this thread trying to downplay the lab release and give more credence to the natural origin.  I'm curious why?

[Dahobbs 17527]

Just now, babysdaddy said:

So you disagree with the FBI and the DOE. 

I wouldn't say I disagree with the DOE. I don't have access to the same information it does, but in general I don't think there is much of a distinction between having low confidence of a natural exposure origin or a low confidence of a lab release origin. Another way to put it is that I agree with National Intelligence Council and the four other intelligence community elements that reviewed the same data. 

(https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf)

Quote

 

After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19. All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.

• Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. 
• One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. 
• Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
• Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps.

The IC judges they will be unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of COVID-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before COVID-19 emerged.

 

 

 

Quote

 

And you're spending a ton of time and effort in this thread trying to downplay the lab release and give more credence to the natural origin.  I'm curious why?

 

Again, I don't think I'm downplaying lab release. I'm simply pointing out that direct evidence associated with lab release is essentially non-existent. A lot of that is because China hasn't allowed an adequate investigation of either the lab release or natural exposure scenarios. What I find interesting is those that want to present the evidence on lab release as far more conclusive that it is or that entities like the DOE say it is. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

54 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

So you disagree with the FBI and the DOE.  And you're spending a ton of time and effort in this thread trying to downplay the lab release and give more credence to the natural origin.  I'm curious why?

I’m pretty sure he’s saying they’re in cahoots with the Jews.  Ya know, the jews, and the nigras,  they are going to lay waste to us with hamster bones. Nevertheless.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Judge Roybeanbag

[CHAD BRISCOE 371]

18 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’m pretty sure he’s saying they’re in cahoots with the Jews.  Ya know, the jews, and the nigras,  they are going to lay waste to us with hamster bones. Nevertheless.  

God damn man you can’t call them jews no more

Edited February 28, 2023 by CHAD BRISCOE

[CHAD BRISCOE 371]

My mom died after having the Vaccine . 

Edited February 28, 2023 by CHAD BRISCOE

[Dahobbs 17527]

8 minutes ago, CHAD BRISCOE said:

My mom died after having the Vaccine . 

She never saw that bus coming. 

[CHAD BRISCOE 371]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

She never saw that bus coming. 

she choked on a Cigarette 

[Schulz2.0 28951]

Arguably the bigger issue than whether it was a lab leak or human/animal transmission.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

I’ll bet China wishes they’d waited a little longer before launching that balloon.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

The whiplash caused by reading the back-and-forth between pedantic and indiscriminate comments in this thread might sideline more people than Covid. 

We need Yogi Berra in here for a low-brow and on-the-nose summary of the situation.

[YGIFS 19449]

^

China?  Nobody lives there anymore, it's too overpopulated.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by YGIFS

[jimmyjazz 45891]

An example of the level of skepticism that should be applied to any and all claims speaking to conspiracy, intent, etc.:

Is this true?

For a few weeks during the beginning of the epidemic, the Chinese banned all domestic flights in and out of Wuhan, but allowed all international flights to continue.

[Hate 20106]

Banning flights was racist.

[CHAD BRISCOE 371]

Its the Goverment so it will be like when they finally told us about the Alien’s we will know the truth but in 100 year’s 

because of the lobbyist

[DougHdTx1968 37]

57 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

The whiplash caused by reading the back-and-forth between pedantic and indiscriminate comments in this thread might sideline more people than Covid. 

We need Yogi Berra in here for a low-brow and on-the-nose summary of the situation.

boop

[Wally Fairway 5541]

1 hour ago, Hate said:

Banning flights was racist.

so the Chinese gov't banning domestic flights inside China is a clear sign of racism against the Chinese, que¿

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

An example of the level of skepticism that should be applied to any and all claims speaking to conspiracy, intent, etc.:

Is this true?

For a few weeks during the beginning of the epidemic, the Chinese banned all domestic flights in and out of Wuhan, but allowed all international flights to continue.

According to this (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/trumps-flawed-china-travel-conspiracy/), no it is not. 

Quote

 

President Donald Trump has twice now advanced the flawed theory that China nefariously continued to allow flights out of Wuhan, the city where the COVID-19 outbreak originated, to Western cities while blocking flights into other cities in China.

“You could fly out of Wuhan where the primary problem was … and you could go to different parts of the world, but you couldn’t go [from Wuhan] to Beijing and  you couldn’t go to any place in China. So what’s that all about?” the president asked during a Fox News virtual town hall on May 3, implying that China may have sought to protect itself even as it was allowing infections to spread to other countries.

But that’s wrong. Flight records show China did block international commercial flights out of Wuhan after Jan. 23, according to Flightradar24, a global flight tracking service.

It appears the origin of Trump’s misguided speculation may be an op-ed by a Harvard professor who later “updated” his column to acknowledge that flight data does not confirm that China continued to allow commercial flights to various international destinations, including the U.S., after Jan. 23.

* * *

It appears the origin may be a column by historian and author Niall Ferguson in the (London) Sunday Times on April 5, in which he discussed questions that ought to be posed to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Among them: “[A]fter it became clear that there was a full-blown epidemic spreading from Wuhan to the rest of Hubei province, why did you cut off travel from Hubei to the rest of China – on January 23 – but not from Hubei to the rest of the world?”

Hubei province is where the city of Wuhan is located.

Ferguson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, continued: “January is always a peak month for travel from China to Europe and America because of the lunar new year holiday. As far as I can tell from the available records, however, regular direct flights from Wuhan continued to run to London, Paris, Rome, New York and San Francisco throughout January and in some cases into February. You have lost no time in restricting international travel into China now that Covid-19 has gone global; your approach was conspicuously different when you were exporting it to us.”

The Jan. 23 date is significant because that is the day China implemented severe travel restrictions on Wuhan, halting train and air travel from the bustling city of 11 million people. That measure came two days after the country’s leading disease specialist, Zhong Nanshan, said in a press briefing that “since it is known that the virus can be transmitted from people to people, one thing to do is to strictly quarantine patients and track close contacts, which is probably the most important thing,” according to a timeline published by China. By that time, the virus was already known to have spread outside China, with the first recorded case in Thailand on Jan. 13.

However, the premise of Ferguson’s column — that China continued to allow flights from Wuhan to various international destinations including the U.S. after Jan. 23, even as China cut off travel between Wuhan and the rest of China — was later contested by Daniel Bell, dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University in China.

In a post to his website dated April 21, Bell said he reached out to Ferguson via email, and that Ferguson provided his sourcing. But upon closer inspection, Bell wrote, “the sources he sent did not support the allegation that there were regular commercial flights from Wuhan to the US and Europe after January 23rd and ‘in some cases into February.’”

While data Ferguson provided from global flight tracker FlightStats “seem[ed] to show that thirty-one flights left from Wuhan to cities in the US and Europe on or after Jan 23,” when Bell checked those against data from a website for the Civil Aviation Administration of China, he found that most of those flights were cancelled. And a handful of others originating in Guangzhou that “in normal times would do a stopover in Wuhan on the way” to San Francisco instead flew “direct from Guangzhou, bypassing Wuhan.”

“The records show that flights out of Wuhan to the rest of the world stopped around mid-day on the 23rd,, the same day China stopped flights from Wuhan to the rest of China,” Bell wrote.

“Why does it matter?” Bell wrote. “If the Chinese government did allow regular flights from Wuhan to Western countries after January 23rd, it suggests the Chinese government deliberately allowed, if not encouraged, the spread of the virus to five cities in Western countries after it tried to control it in China.”

We spoke to Ian Petchenik, the director of communications for Flightradar24, a global flight tracking service, and Petchenik confirmed that “there were no more normal, commercial flights” from Wuhan after Jan. 23. “They did stop people from going to the U.S. and to the rest of the world,” he said.

After Jan. 23, flight data shows there were a few flights from Wuhan to destinations in Asia outside of China, Petchenik told us, but those may have been mostly empty planes returning to their base country. There were also a handful of flights from Wuhan chartered by the U.S. State Department to evacuate American citizens, including diplomats and their families, beginning on Jan. 28. Passengers on those planes were flown to military bases in California and were mandated to complete a 14-day quarantine.

On April 21, Ferguson provided an “update” to his April 5 column in which he acknowledged, “Data from sensors tracking actual flight paths would seem to indicate that no flights left from Wuhan itself to other countries in the world after January 23.” Ferguson wrote that he reached out to the U.S. company Flightspin, and that officials there “concluded that it was very unlikely indeed that any flights had gone from Wuhan to Western cities after January 23.”

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45891]

Ah, so my skepticism was warranted.  Oh well, nevertheless, CHINA INTENTIONALLY EXPORTED THE VIRUS!!!