The Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory now a likely reality

[myata]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Okay, well you're still blaming people for being gullible. 

And again: not just the people. People cannot changed, genes, the DNA. And people are programmable, period. Your pour propaganda with no checks or limits for so long and 80-90% will accept it. Empirical fact, done.

The only thing that can be attempted in this makeup is to prevent monopoly: on anything, information included and in this age, primarily and foremost. The one, and only hope.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, myata said:

The bureaucracy, especially entrenched and entitled one can act only by the principle of the least action for maximum compensation. A no-brainer.

This is also part of the reason the public health care system is a failure.  It is run by bureaucracy, politicians, and unions which are all looking out for their own interests first.  That's Socialism.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This is also part of the reason the public health care system is a failure.  It is run by bureaucracy, politicians, and unions which are all looking out for their own interests first.  That's Socialism.

Incorrect.  The Private system south of us is known for high bureaucracy necessitated by private insurance, and delivered much worse results during the pandemic 

 

[blackbird]

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Incorrect.  The Private system south of us is known for high bureaucracy necessitated by private insurance, and delivered much worse results during the pandemic 

 

That's an oversimplification and a poor example.  Canada is over-burdened with bureaucracy, powerful health unions, and various levels of government that get involved.  Plus I never said we need to follow the U.S. system.  There are some very highly-rated systems in Europe.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  There are some very highly-rated systems in Europe.

Agreed but I just want to put my hand up anytime anyone equates a public system with problems that are pervasive in healthcare. Thanks for the post.

[Goddess]

5 hours 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.

Excess deaths is the metric.

Sweden was 6.8%

Canada was higher at 7.4%

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Excess deaths is the metric.

Sweden was 6.8%

This is actually a great point: apples to apples. Is there a credible citation for these statistics?

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

This is actually a great point: apples to apples. Is there a credible citation for these statistics?

Covid-19: Sweden has the lowest excess mortality rate after the pandemic, despite refusing to lock down | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

The Daily — Provisional death counts and excess mortality, January 2020 to July 2022 (statcan.gc.ca)

 

Our World in Data is also a great site.

[ExFlyer]

Another thread for the covid conspirators to feed on

"Her guest essay in Sunday’s Times, titled “Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points,” takes readers through the so-called lab leak hypothesis." 

"but Chan sees it as one point among several that buttress her theory."

" third point is that the lab in Wuhan was not capable of containing an airborne virus as infectious as the one that started the pandemic."

Key words....HYPOTHISIS. THEORY LOL

"Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall,” Chan writes in her conclusion, “it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, "  as did Canadian funding and research in the Winnipeg labs.

But hey, the conspirators love to run with this stuff. I wait for definitive proof one way or the other.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

" third point is that the lab in Wuhan was not capable of containing an airborne virus as infectious as the one that started the pandemic."

Do you understand what is said here?

The Wuhan lab did not have the proper BSL clearance for working on airborne viruses, so when a virus gets loose, there's no way to contain it.  It needs to be BSL4 level.

You seem to be implying that the lab was not capable of PRODUCING the virus.

The sentence you highlighted above shows the proper securities were not in place at the Wuhan lab to be even WORKING on airborne viruses.

Which makes escape very likely.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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

People were scared and they believed with the government told them. When there is a crisis and people are frightened they very often make very bad decisions. It is a time when it's critical for the government to stand up and do the right thing, and that did not happen here.

The research that has been conducted since the pandemic overwhelmingly supports the idea that the lockdowns did more harm than good.

Canadian expert's research finds lockdown harms are 10 times greater than benefits | Toronto Sun

A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good | Health News Florida (usf.edu)

For the Greater Good? The Devastating Ripple Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis - PMC (nih.gov)

 

The research has been overwhelming. The lockdowns by and large were a mistake. Canadians supported the lockdowns because trudeau stood up and said that they would save lives and they were necessary according to the science. But as we now know, there was no science. It was a guess.

Now you can argue that given the circumstances they had to make a guess and did what they thought was best.

But at the end of the day it was still a very bad choice and pretending otherwise or that the Canadian People supported it because of good reasons rather than the government told them to would not be honest at this point. 

[ExFlyer]

25 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Do you understand what is said here?

The Wuhan lab did not have the proper BSL clearance for working on airborne viruses, so when a virus gets loose, there's no way to contain it.  It needs to be BSL4 level.

You seem to be implying that the lab was not capable of PRODUCING the virus.

The sentence you highlighted above shows the proper securities were not in place at the Wuhan lab to be even WORKING on airborne viruses.

Which makes escape very likely.

Hey, I am not a conspirator so, I read what is written when it is, right from the beginning  a hypothesis and then admitted theory. There is nothing to believe. It is an opinion, like so many conspirators are jumping on.

So,  my opinion, whether you like it or not is that the editorial is just conjecture.

Not a debatable issue with me just as the 1.8 K topic about covid is also just a half dozen conspirators stroking each other ad infinitum. LOL

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Hey, I am not a conspirator so, I read what is written when it is, right from the beginning  a hypothesis and then admitted theory. There is nothing to believe. It is an opinion, like so many conspirators are jumping on.

So,  my opinion, whether you like it or not is that the editorial is just conjecture.

Not a debatable issue with me just as the 1.8 K topic about covid is also just a half dozen conspirators stroking each other ad infinitum. LOL

So the answer is No.  No you don't understand the point.

What a shocker 🙄

 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

So the answer is No.  No you don't understand the point.

What a shocker 🙄

 

It is you that does not understand the point

Here it is again "HYPOTHISIS. THEORY".

"Wuhan was not capable of containing an airborne virus "

I do not imply anything. These are direct quotes from the story.

No facts, that is the point

Edited June 6 by ExFlyer

[myata]

We were in luck this time that it wasn't the real thing. This bunch of f-up experts wouldn't have a clue what to do while half of the country would be in camps under military law.

"Covid is not a danger for our system" OK,

"As governments scrambled to make the idea of locking down regular life palatable throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Sweden refused, opting for a “voluntary” approach to dealing with the spread.

The nation of 10.4 million kept schools from closing throughout the biggest waves of the virus’ spread and did not mandate masks."

The result, excess mortality: Sweden 6.8%; Canada 7.3-7.5. Nope: can't replace working brain.

 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But as we now know, there was no science. It was a guess.

Pre-covid, the science was that lockdowns were ineffective and would do more harm than good.

No country's pre-covid pandemic plan included lockdowns, including Canada's.

Sweden was the only country that (mostly) followed the world's agreed upon pandemic plan.  They caved to pressure in a couple areas for short amounts of time. They did not lockdown, didn't close businesses or schools or the economy and fared at worst - the same as everyone else, and in most areas - better.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Pre-covid, the science was that lockdowns were ineffective and would do more harm than good.

No country's pre-covid pandemic plan included lockdowns, including Canada's.

Sweden was the only country that (mostly) followed the world's agreed upon pandemic plan.  They caved to pressure in a couple areas for short amounts of time. They did not lockdown, didn't close businesses or schools or the economy and fared at worst - the same as everyone else, and in most areas - better.

I didn't even know that we had a plan. I thought the plan was " Well this is what we did in 1920 so let's give that a crack again, Medical sciences about the same right?"

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

People......

....be honest at this point. 

 

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

....  No you don't understand the point.

 

 

10 minutes ago, myata said:

We were in luck this time that it wasn't the real thing........

 

 

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Pre-covid, the science was t....

And the saga with conspirators goes on ...and on....and on LOL

Here it is again, from the link, from the editorial ..

"HYPOTHISIS. THEORY".

"Wuhan was not capable of containing an airborne virus "

Someones rectal pluck and you folks suck it up as fact  LOL

 

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I didn't even know that we had a plan. I thought the plan was " Well this is what we did in 1920 so let's give that a crack again, Medical sciences about the same right?"

Yes.  Each country had one, and the world had one, as a whole.

At the beginning of covid, when Danielle Smith was still a journalist, she did an interview with Lt. Col. David Redman who was head of Alberta's emergency planning services and he discussed what was in the pre-covid pandemic plans and the discussion was "Why aren't we following them."

 

[suds]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Hey, I am not a conspirator so, I read what is written when it is, right from the beginning  a hypothesis and then admitted theory. There is nothing to believe. It is an opinion, like so many conspirators are jumping on.

So,  my opinion, whether you like it or not is that the editorial is just conjecture.

Not a debatable issue with me just as the 1.8 K topic about covid is also just a half dozen conspirators stroking each other ad infinitum. LOL

A 'theory' is formed from research and observable data. A 'hypothesis' is merely an assumption.  Chan's theory suggests  'the pandemic most likely occurred because the virus escaped from a research lab in wuhan' (and backs it up with facts). While the hypothesis is that 'covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan which is not supported by any strong evidence'. Relativity and evolution are both theories formed by research and observable data. Do you not believe in relativity or evolution?? If you do, are you not by your own definition a conspirator?

Edited June 6 by suds

[myata]

27 minutes ago, suds said:

While the hypothesis is that 'covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan which is not supported by any strong evidence'.

We're closing on the fifth anniversary of the pandemic and given the amount of research invested in this direction and the absence of convincing results, it may still progress to the status of "a speculation" some way down this path.

[Black Dog]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

This is also part of the reason the public health care system is a failure.  It is run by bureaucracy, politicians, and unions which are all looking out for their own interests first.  That's Socialism.

Whereas people in the private sector have everyone else's best interests at heart? Give your balls a tug.

[Black Dog]

58 minutes ago, myata said:

We were in luck this time that it wasn't the real thing. This bunch of f-up experts wouldn't have a clue what to do while half of the country would be in camps under military law.

Well if/when we have an outbreak of a virus that is more deadly and more transmissible than COVID-19, we can be sure all you folks will get your wish to shop till you drop.

[ExFlyer]

41 minutes ago, suds said:

A 'theory' is formed from research and observable data. A 'hypothesis' is merely an assumption.  Chan's theory suggests  'the pandemic most likely occurred because the virus escaped from a research lab in wuhan' (and backs it up with facts). While the hypothesis is that 'covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan which is not supported by any strong evidence'. Relativity and evolution are both theories formed by research and observable data. Do you not believe in relativity or evolution?? If you do, are you not by your own definition a conspirator?

Key is "theory"

There are lots of unproven theories out there.
I can make some up and so can you.

Here are some   https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/12-of-the-most-mind-blowing-scientific-theories-ever-conceived.htm

Here are some more https://www.livescience.com/11375-top-ten-conspiracy-theories.html

 

[suds]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Key is "theory"

There are lots of unproven theories out there.
I can make some up and so can you.

Here are some   https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/12-of-the-most-mind-blowing-scientific-theories-ever-conceived.htm

Here are some more https://www.livescience.com/11375-top-ten-conspiracy-theories.html

 

By definition, 'conspiracy theories' are hypothetical and not theory in any sense of the word. Not being based on research and observable data.