myata

This is exactly about it, the overall result in a grown up democratic society. With a flu-like epidemic it would be something like this: "the minimal disruption to the normal operation of the society with maximized protection of more susceptible population". The overall result? the opposite. Dismal and unacceptable in a grown up democratic society.

There's a simple reason for that: it takes one strike of a pen to write a universal order or policy. And to improve protection measures, actual work would have to be done, across the city or province with real measurable results. The bureaucracy, especially entrenched and entitled one can act only by the principle of the least action for maximum compensation. A no-brainer. Example: one day, overnight we discovered in the local park metal posts with notices, "mask is recommended". In the park, open air. With no one around most of the time. Then in a few weeks, all gone. This cost something across the city, all parks, right? To make, install then remove? Who paid for it? How? Why? Who decided? On what grounds? Where to ask? Who gave the answers?

With zero live cells in what is normally known as "brain", one can be challenged as to what vibration to produce as the answer. There are three, exactly: - throw up some dumb tired lie to boring infinity, usually coined - cry "Love and worship Him, foreva!" - shout "Anathema!!!" Don't count on getting a surprise. Never happens.

Russia is active these days everywhere in the free world. It's heading into a dead wall with its brutal aggression that violated and violates daily all established laws and principles. Obviously it will use propaganda to advance its agenda. Yes there should be peace and this is how it can be achieved: Russia gets out of Ukraine asap and pays for all the damages it caused. Better still, stripped of the nukes which she has no business of possessing, having committed acts nothing short of Nazi Germany last century.

First, it is not technically true, comparing apples to apples, such as developed provinces rather than lots of empty land. Populations of Sweden and Quebec are quite close, with similar Covid outcomes. Minus all the things mandatory and curfews etc of course. Secondly, and more importantly, in the situation the distribution of the adverse impact was very uneven, the question of what cost to the general citizen is acceptable to protect a smaller vulnerable group is not self-obvious one and has to be discussed and determined by the society. There's no automatic default answer to this question: one cannot confine everybody to solitary isolation to save one extremely vulnerable life. Does not work like that, in a democracy. Next, Canadian governments never demonstrated that they implemented all reasonable measures to protect the vulnerable effectively and efficiently before raising that question. Look we have this meh-standard system to keep which we're paid by you astronomical compensations and bonuses so now you have to go into solitary is not a valid point. In a democracy that is. All in all it shows that Canadian public administration are grossly ineffective, don't understand their place and purpose in the democratic framework of governance and cannot handle unexpected situations intelligently and effectively. That cannot be said of the expected ones either (see LRT construction in the national capital).

There are facts too: in Sweden there's been no lockdowns, curfews and forced vaccinations. Restaurants and shows didn't close. The sky did not fall down. Facts, and logic: they still have some weight and account for something -no?

Canada's political system represented by basket of entitled good-for-nothings, feeling the more entitled the less they are useful to the country has been waiting for something like this with wide open hands. The third world where the oligarchy can do anything, and be held to account for nothing, can be just around the corner.

Subject to a credible evidence that it was taking place of course; and with a compatible virus. We are in a situation where there isn't credible, strong evidence either way. However there are some pieces of information here: First, if credible evidence of the gain of function research in Wuhan is established, then statistical argument of the coincidence of place and time becomes unavoidable. If coincidence it would have to be in the rarest of the kind. Secondly, in all previous such cases the zoonotic origin of new coronaviruses was confirmed or strongly suggested by animal studies (camels and bats) but no such credible candidate species has emerged so far despite massive searches. We will soon be on the five-year mark of the pandemic and the longer this gap persist, the less credible the animal origin possibility will grow. So, together the issues of the gain of function research in Wuhan; and the absence of a credible animal host with time can produce if not conclusive, then highly persuasive argument for the human-contributed if not made origin of Covid.

By the way, this episode brings up an interesting (hypothetical at this point) question. Suppose (if) the study did take place and someone was involved in it some way - that's an if as yet, what would their/your reaction be when they/you found out about the consequences? I can see how less sophisticated types would try to diminish the effect, like it didn't matter anyways just another flu. But others, more determined ones could be thinking, f- it, can't be helped now but we still can save the humankind, show it what it was all about. Which one would you be?

Just don't worry: will make no difference to the converted.

Such as one study with preformed conclusions before it was written; another one was where an individual made a substantial contribution but wasn't among the authors. If memory serves me well, but should be too hard to find. Science is about the objective truth, not some holy crusade. Over and again we have to come back to this. OK forget it. If that wasn't clear enough I have to give up.

You don't need a PhD here: only common sense that most of the readers will understand: if you have one event at a certain place A (the bat research project, if confirmed); then the likelihood that another, entirely unrelated one: natural development of a virus: happening at the exact same time and in the exact same place has to be minuscule to non existent. On the other hand, the probability of a mishap is always present. So it's all down to the confirmation of the project. If there is a reasonable ground to believe that it was taking place at the place of the origin of the virus, the probabilities would be stuck squarely in favor of the lab origin simply by the law of probabilities.

No, not building anything. It's only the math and unlike some of us, it just cannot lie. The probability of two unrelated events happening within same short interval: 0.000 something The probability of two unrelated events happening at the same very close geographical location: 0.000 else. If the events are indeed not related the probability of it being sheer chance has to be the multiple of the two, with many zeroes. On the other hand, human negligence and just bad luck happen all the time see "car accidents", etc. So if - and it's an if, similar research was indeed conducted there, and there can be some evidence of that, it's the math that's telling us which is more likely. No need to build anything.

The Congress inquiry cited some untoward practices that in my view, a scientist who values their profession and professional reputation could not allow to be involved in.

The declaration Some countries followed it almost to the word. And look: the sky did not fall down. Only a flu-like disease with a disproportionately high impact in the vulnerable population. Focused protection makes all the sense. Population-wide indiscriminate draconian policies: not much; and all the way to a clear overreach and abuse of power.

To summarize the balance of likelihood: 1. Natural emergence + some virus institute in the area (a coincidence of location): OK, a coincidence 2. Same + virus institute with specialization in bat viruses: interesting 3. Same + virus institute with specialization in bat viruses and an active project in the similar kind of virus at the time of the event: the coincidence of the time and location becomes unlikely 4. + other circumstantial evidence: approaching the smoking gun level.

Well, there are some essential variables in this equation: 1) the timing and 2) multiple probabilities. What would be the chance of it appearing naturally exactly at the time when some lab was presumably working on something similar AND in the same place too? That would be like two unlikely positions of the planets aligning like by some magic. Whereas (assuming some evidence) lab leaks and mishaps do happen routinely. I think saw something about researchers in the group complaining of something flu-like right at the time these events were developing. If only the fact of the actual work can be confirmed with some confidence, the balance of possibilities could tip the other way quite naturally (no pun).

And why wouldn't the whistle lady have mentioned this chain of amazing coincidences in her report? That would amount to a smoking gun, if/when confirmed independently and confidently.

This is kind of a reversal of the argument there's nothing so complex as human eye) I'm far from being an expert to argue either way. But a solid evidence of some work done in this particular or close area would certainly add to the combined weight of the associated hypothesis.

The phenomenon of loudmouth aggressive populism riding to the top of the politics is nothing new. No point in making it about a specific individual and it only helps him. What seems to be new here is how its rising with no apparent single cause in sight; nothing like the collapse in Germany after WWI. The contributing causes here can be first the general feeling of stagnation in popular democracies around the globe; the race for ever higher prosperity ran flat and there doesn't seem to be a deeper, more important one to keep going. Then, the binary political system has worked itself out to the only possible destination: extreme and irreconcilable polarization; partisanship. On this general background comes the populist messiah: just tap your finger here and all you problems will be solved, concerns relieved. This a much deeper and complex problem than one red hot air balloon.

I agree its way short of a smoking gun. However I recall very clearly too how the study that found traces of contamination in some stall in the the market was fanfared and paraded as the "proof" of the nature origin while it could have been secondary, ternary and so on contamination. The lengths to which reputable, presumably competent people were prepared to go putting their reputation and credibility on the line is nothing short of astounding.

Never say never again, in Canada. Compensations, bonuses and LOL how else.

And they want more of the same, only with a different face sticker stuck on the rusty and leaking old thing. Make no mistakes here.

If you answer one question, the buzz will throw ten more. It's not the answers they are seeking: only the buzz, the wider and louder the better.

We may still get them: Oops. "Coulthart, a veteran scientist who currently heads Canada’s Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance System, did not respond to a request for comment by the Guardian. But in the leaked email, he wrote that he believes an “environmental exposure – or a combination of exposures – is triggering and/or accelerating a variety of neurodegenerative syndromes” with people seemingly susceptible to different protein-misfolding ailments, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease." “Politicians don’t want to acknowledge there is something serious going on, because then they need to address it,” said one young woman, adding that ever since the province issued its final report, she has received no assistance or follow-up, despite experiencing worsening symptoms. Never say never again, here.