Jump to content

The Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory now a likely reality


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We’ve been openly debating the origin of Covid for years. If convincing evidence emerges either way then I’ll be happy to believe it. Neither of the two leading theories reflects well on the PRC. They have failed to co-operate fully with outside agencies. 

No they did not.  And that has to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, suds said:

For someone who seems to care so much about the planet you seem to think making deadly pathogens far more deadly for humans is a good idea.

Well when you put it that way it bears repeating the planet would give a collective cheer if we disappeared.

But I meant more in terms of how knowing COVID came from a lab would have changed our response?

Not by much it would seem. Maybe a few dead politicians hanging from lampposts. I'd be all for that.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We’ve been openly debating the origin of Covid for years. If convincing evidence emerges either way then I’ll be happy to believe it. Neither of the two leading theories reflects well on the PRC. They have failed to co-operate fully with outside agencies. 

So the committee's evidence that found it was most likely the lab wasn't convincing for you? Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well when you put it that way it bears repeating the planet would give a collective cheer if we disappeared.

But I meant more in terms of how knowing COVID came from a lab would have changed our response?

Not by much it would seem. Maybe a f

It wouldn't be the first time for a lab leak in China. You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, suds said:

It wouldn't be the first time for a lab leak in China. You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes.

I suppose. Governments have been lying to us forever and we still can't seem to do anything about it.

Oh well if by we did we'd probably only bring some new dystopian freakshow into existence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I suppose. Governments have been lying to us forever and we still can't seem to do anything about it.

Well voting for them again certainly isn't helping. Maybe stop doing that first.

As to the rest if you honestly don't feel that voting or participating helps then don't. Sit in the sidelines and the rest of us will take care of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suds said:

gain of function research taking place at the Wuhan lab.

Subject to a credible evidence that it was taking place of course; and with a compatible virus.

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We’ve been openly debating the origin of Covid for years. If convincing evidence emerges either way then I’ll be happy to believe it. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

We are in a situation where there isn't credible, strong evidence either way.

We're ALWAYS in a situation where there's no way for us to say what our governments are up to. The evidence is usually always either incredible ie Fauci murdered millions for billions, or it's ridiculous ie Fauci murdered millions for billions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well voting for them again certainly isn't helping. Maybe stop doing that first.

I don't and never did.

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As to the rest if you honestly don't feel that voting or participating helps then don't. Sit in the sidelines and the rest of us will take care of it.

Tried that too, it didn't change anything.

As for participating, well, I've been volunteering in local government for nearly 40 years now so...it's a habit I guess.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Keep in mind that there was an accusation of murder in the thread.

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

This is a conversation with nurses/docs about when Fauci found out they were using budesonide and it was working so he banned it.

 

Screenshot_20240605-204422.thumb.jpg.f0b24067583e41cbb35e2bf887154e18.jpgScreenshot_20240605-204609.thumb.jpg.de0c8eecdf82cfc30cbdae551a46ca84.jpgScreenshot_20240605-204609.thumb.jpg.de0c8eecdf82cfc30cbdae551a46ca84.jpgScreenshot_20240605-204012.thumb.jpg.f1906578326b32f9e634f7398bb5b3ea.jpgScreenshot_20240605-204521.thumb.jpg.5bc3e29bc8ded8ca185a2ec24ffc6c4f.jpg

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I don't and never did.

If you Voted NDP you did

Quote

 

Tried that too, it didn't change anything.

 

 

You said that nothing you can do changes anything anyway. So at least you might as well not change anything using the method that requires the least energy :)

Quote

As for participating, well, I've been volunteering in local government for nearly 40 years now so...it's a habit I guess.

Local government is fine but it isn't going to do a damn thing about the issues you've been raising. You might as well have volunteered to run the boy scouts, a worthwhile enough endeavor but it's not going to change federal politics.

At the end of the day a democracy boils down to what the people do. If the people do their job then it works. If the people do not do their job then nothing works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

The evidence is usually always either incredible ie Fauci

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, myata said:

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?

The sky didn't fall but Sweden had a death rate far worse than Canada. That should be the metric we're following here.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

had a death rate far worse than Canada.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, myata said:

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

Quite true.

One fact is that many seniors in many, if not all, seniors homes were not properly protected and a large number died.  

Yet, who and how many authorities who could have done something to prevent the disaster, have actually been held accountable for what happened?  Even governments who have the power to do something appear to have failed to act in time to protect the seniors in these homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The sky didn't fall but Sweden had a death rate far worse than Canada. That should be the metric we're following here.

One unnecessary loss of life is one too many.  Many seniors paid the price because those in authority failed to act.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Even governments who have the power to do something appear to have failed to act in time to protect the seniors in these homes.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, myata said:

 

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).

I don't accept how you have framed the results here.  You are just looking for reasons to discount lockdowns instead of looking at the overall result.  

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

One unnecessary loss of life is one too many.   

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

looking at the overall result.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, myata said:

 

The overall result? the opposite. Dismal and unacceptable in a grown up democratic society.

Most Canadians approved of the federal government handling as of 2022, 61%. And most provincial governments got a passing grade also. 

There was a lot of vocal opposition to lockdowns and such, but the polling data showed a silent super majority was in favor of constraints. 

Trudeau himself fared about 50/50 in a post pandemic poll.

I used the results I found and didn't go in afterwards to find out why those I disagree with were incorrect.

https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/poll-gives-federal-covid-19-handling-public-opinion-booster-8267251

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/poll-finds-strong-support-for-covid-19-curfews-despite-doubts-about-effectiveness-1.1550561

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/angus-reid-pandemic-poll-politics-1.6384927

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

There was a lot of vocal opposition to lockdowns and such, but the polling data showed a silent super majority was in favor of constraints. 

Sure. Silent majorities are common, like a staple in the third world countries. Could there be a connection? Correlation perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you're blaming the people, then I guess I agree.

No: not only the people. The majority will give in to massive, ongoing day after day propaganda. Particularly, that of fear and hate has proven effective: yes, remember "antivaxxers" and horror, horror stories, on public channels? No controls. Run it 24/7 then wonder at the "approval" ratings. Goebbels already knew that trick.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, myata said:

No: not only the people. The majority will give in to massive, ongoing day after day propaganda. Particularly, that of fear and hate has proven effective: yes, remember "antivaxxers" and horror, horror stories, on public channels? No controls. Run it 24/7 then wonder at the "approval" ratings. Goebbels already knew that trick.

Okay, well you're still blaming people for being gullible.  And as far as that goes, the characterization has to stick when they do something you agree with. 

 

This is an odd aspect of forum commentary that I had to come to terms with myself. If you say the people are stupid, then what happens when they do something you agree with? Are they still stupid?  

The fact is the masses act like masses.  

So If you denigrate them, I don't think you can reasonably use their reaction as evidence for anything you agree with. 

 

I try to live by that principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...