Is there any lower form of life than people who harass others about masks? The scary part is, they think they're the good guys.

lol

On 2/8/2021 at 12:17 PM, Dave Moss said:

 

Battling cancer but died of COVID-19, aka the common cold, what a joke.

4 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

Battling cancer but died of COVID-19, aka the common cold, what a joke.

On 2/6/2021 at 7:33 AM, DrPhilly said:

This thing just keeps getting pushed further down the road.

Why would they stop with their plans as long as dumb-arse Americans are complying with everything they're told to do.

The only way this will stop of we as a nation rebel against their plans, but in order to do that you have find out what their plans are which shouldn't be so hard because they've told you what they are.

10 hours ago, Kz! said:

Is there any lower form of life than people who harass others about masks? The scary part is, they think they're the good guys.

No there is not, they're just a bunch of ignorant arses that watch CNN all day long.

2 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

Why would they stop with their plans as long as dumb-arse Americans are complying with everything they're told to do.

The only way this will stop of we as a nation rebel against their plans, but in order to do that you have find out what their plans are which shouldn't be so hard because they've told you what they are.

For the record Dr Philly lives in Sweden, but he still tries to rebel against the U.S. government by not wearing a mask.

11 hours ago, vikas83 said:

 

Is there anything Biden can’t do???

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

For the record Dr Philly lives in Sweden, but he still tries to rebel against the U.S. government by not wearing a mask.

Follow along Dave. I wear a mask. 

8 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

For the record Dr Philly lives in Sweden, but he still tries to rebel against the U.S. government by not wearing a mask.

He says he's not anti-mask, just anti-mask mandate. Which during the worst pandemic in a century, makes sense in his mind. 

So, the WHO says it is "extremely unlikely" that the virus leaked from a lab because...reasons. The only report that I saw do a good job on this topic was the BBC, which raised the important question of how much we can trust those conclusions, as the data they were provided hasn't been disclosed and is obviously limited to whatever China is willing to provide, as well as the political considerations that the WHO will have to manage since China contributes so much money to its coffers. They're now claiming that "imported frozen produce" was the likely culprit, which squares with with China's political messaging. This is the first that I've heard any description of the virus as primarily foodborne.

Relatedly, anyone catch this interview on Bill Maher a little less than two weeks ago? It certainly seems that a lab leak is well within the realm of possibility, and I don't think these "findings" have done much to squelch it.
 

 

Babylon Bee is always on point:

 

Very cool, Johnson & Johnson:

 

25 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

So, the WHO says it is "extremely unlikely" that the virus leaked from a lab because...reasons. The only report that I saw do a good job on this topic was the BBC, which raised the important question of how much we can trust those conclusions, as the data they were provided hasn't been disclosed and is obviously limited to whatever China is willing to provide, as well as the political considerations that the WHO will have to manage since China contributes so much money to its coffers. They're now claiming that "imported frozen produce" was the likely culprit, which squares with with China's political messaging. This is the first that I've heard any description of the virus as primarily foodborne.

Relatedly, anyone catch this interview on Bill Maher a little less than two weeks ago? It certainly seems that a lab leak is well within the realm of possibility, and I don't think these "findings" have done much to squelch it.
 

 

I saw it when it aired and there were a couple red flags I remembered at the time. Some of their reasoning it was man-made was odd. I think at one point they say the fact that it spreads more easily indoors than outdoors is proof it was made in a lab. That's preposterous, there are a number of viral pathogens, specifically respiratory ones, that spread more easily indoors than outdoors. In fact, I'd bet more fit this description than not. Outdoor environmental conditions are far harsher than indoors when it comes to things like humidity, air circulation, and UV exposure, so anything with a lipid envelope is gonna struggle outdoors but fare better indoors. Pretty basic stuff that Maher should've pushed back on. I also remember a slight anti-vax tone underlying some of what they were saying too, which again is a bit odd if they're claiming to be experts on the subject. He mentioned something on the genetic analysis that didn't square with what I'd seen elsewhere. There might've been one or two other things I questioned, but I'll re-watch during lunch.

As far as credentials, they're both evolutionary biologists, so while they're at least versed in a tangentially related scientific field unlike the clown TEW was pimping a few weeks ago, they're still not virologists or epidemiologists, or even familiar with a human's susceptibility to a viral pathogen like an immunologist would be. Which makes more sense as to why they'd be getting some of the more basic stuff wrong.

13 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I saw it when it aired and there were a couple red flags I remembered at the time. Some of their reasoning it was man-made was odd. I think at one point they say the fact that it spreads more easily indoors than outdoors is proof it was made in a lab. That's preposterous, there are a number of viral pathogens, specifically respiratory ones, that spread more easily indoors than outdoors. In fact, I'd bet more fit this description than not. Outdoor environmental conditions are far harsher than indoors when it comes to things like humidity, air circulation, and UV exposure, so anything with a lipid envelope is gonna struggle outdoors but fare better indoors. Pretty basic stuff that Maher should've pushed back on. I also remember a slight anti-vax tone underlying some of what they were saying too, which again is a bit odd if they're claiming to be experts on the subject. He mentioned something on the genetic analysis that didn't square with what I'd seen elsewhere. There might've been one or two other things I questioned, but I'll re-watch during lunch.

As I recall, they started off by saying that they support vaccines and that, as evolutionary biologists who travel the world studying disease, they have been vaccinated more than pretty much anyone due their high exposure to various diseases in their line of work. They then made the point that they would actually prefer a viral-vector vaccine as opposed to an mRNA one, simply because the latter is brand-new while the former is a more tried-and-tested method that has been used for a long time and that we have mountains of data confirming their safety. What they seemed to be indicating in the interview in regard to the lab in Wuhan is that the virus seems to bee too advanced, too evolved at this early stage to have recently jumped species. They seem to think that the virus' advanced infectivity, lethality, and mutation would seem to suggest that it had been intentionally evolved in a lab either through a close ancestor or human tissue.

Also, in the BBC news report I watched yesterday, it flat-out stated that that lab was experimenting with coronaviruses specifically. While not definitive, there certainly seem to be a lot a of unanswered questions and reasons to probe this hypothesis more deeply.

18 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

As I recall, they started off by saying that they support vaccines and that, as evolutionary biologists who travel the world studying disease, they have been vaccinnated more than pretty much anyone due their high exposure to various diseases in their line of work. They then made the point that they would actually prefer a viral-vector vaccine as opposed to an mRNA one, simply because the latter is brand-new while the former is a more tried-and-tested method that has been used for a long time and that we have mountains of data confirming their safety. What they seemed to be indicating in the interview in regard to the lab in Wuhan is that the virus seems to bee too advanced, too evolved at this early stage to have recently jumped species. They seem to think that the virus' advanced infectivity, lethality, and ability to mutate would seem to suggest that it had been intentionally evolved in a lab either through a close ancestor or human tissue. Also, in the BBC news report I watched yesterday, they flat-out stated that that lab was experimenting with coronaviruses specifically.

I could be off in recalling the anti-vax tone, I'll have to watch again. As for the evolutionary aspect, the genetic forensic research to date doesn't turn up anything that provides evidence that this was the result of gain of function research. On the contrary, it provided evidence that points to a zoonotic origin. Having advanced infectivity isn't a smoking gun. Plenty of viruses have advanced infectivity (this being far less than something like measels or small pox.) Same for lethality (ebola or rabies.) And its ability to mutate is actually pretty weak compared to influenza strains. That's not to say this virus isn't unique in that it does a little bit of everything just good enough to evade detection and NOT kill you while it spreads to others. Counter-intuitively, a pathogen that's highly lethal kills its host before it can be spread. Probably one of the biggest reasons why this virus is such a PITA is because of how often it's being spread asymptomatically/presymptomatically. But again, none of this proves it was made in a lab just because it's effective in harming humans. Using this logic, plenty of past pathogens would've fallen under the same classification.

23 hours ago, vikas83 said:

 

A buddy of mine works in a hospital and tells me the Pfizer vaccine totally knocks people out after the second dose. He got the Moderna one and said he felt pretty crappy initially after the second dose, but a lot of his co-workers got Pfizer's and were totally laid up for a couple of days. I said "that means it's working." I also made the point that, with all the drugs I've put in my body over the years, I've never settled for low quality and this will be no different. I want that good sh**, so Pfizer sounds like the ticket: "F*** me up, doc!"

10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

A buddy of mine works in a hospital and tells me the Pfizer vaccine totally knocks people out after the second dose. He got the Moderna one and said he felt pretty crappy initially after the second dose, but a lot of his co-workers got Pfizer's and were totally laid up for a couple of days. I said "that means it's working." I also made the point that, with all the drugs I've put in my body over the years, I've never settled for low quality and this will be no different. I want that good sh**, so Pfizer sounds like the ticket: "F*** me up, doc!"

I talked to a colleague whose husband just had the 2nd Pfizer dose two days ago and he’s had no symptoms. Guess it is quite variable. 

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I talked to a colleague whose husband just had the 2nd Pfizer dose two days ago and he’s had no symptoms. Guess it is quite variable. 

My SIL got the Pfizer.  2nd dose knocked her out for a day.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I talked to a colleague whose husband just had the 2nd Pfizer dose two days ago and he’s had no symptoms. Guess it is quite variable. 

For sure. Most of the people I know complaining of symptoms have been from the Moderna. So who knows.

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Guess it is quite variable. 

Definitely variable, as all vaccine side-effects are, but the anecdotal evidence I've personally seen suggests that the strongest reactions are associated with that version. A friend who's a nurse has also been posting her experience and seemed to have a pretty strong reaction as well. She's young, too, although I'm not sure which one she had. It's no concern in my mind, just thought it was interesting. Like I said, making you feel sick generally means it's working to the extent that your immune response is activated.
 
Just checked actually: she got the Moderna vaccine and actually mentions that she's heard that the incidence of side-effects is somewhere around 25% for Moderna and 20% with Pfizer, and that most of her co-workers had Moderna and got similar side-effects, too. So, that's interesting compared with what I'd heard from my other friend. Maybe Pfizer is less likely to cause side effects but those side effects are more severe when it does? Variable, indeed.

35 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I talked to a colleague whose husband just had the 2nd Pfizer dose two days ago and he’s had no symptoms. Guess it is quite variable. 

Are you willing to play Russian Roulette? 

3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

So, the WHO says it is "extremely unlikely" that the virus leaked from a lab because...reasons. The only report that I saw do a good job on this topic was the BBC, which raised the important question of how much we can trust those conclusions, as the data they were provided hasn't been disclosed and is obviously limited to whatever China is willing to provide, as well as the political considerations that the WHO will have to manage since China contributes so much money to its coffers. They're now claiming that "imported frozen produce" was the likely culprit, which squares with with China's political messaging. This is the first that I've heard any description of the virus as primarily foodborne.

Relatedly, anyone catch this interview on Bill Maher a little less than two weeks ago? It certainly seems that a lab leak is well within the realm of possibility, and I don't think these "findings" have done much to squelch it.
 

 

Just re-watched it, and I think I was confusing Maher's comments as having a slightly anti-vax tone with theirs. Could just be that he's not as familiar with these vaccines and a general fear of the new or unknown is being reflected in his words. To their credit, they go on to correct him with stating these vaccines are "made in the lab" and that the delivery mechanisms are differentiating factors but are not providing actual coronavirus, rather instructions to replicate the spike protein. Though I find her inclination to prefer a viral vector delivery mechanism a little strange when thus far the efficacy is significantly less. In any case, no real issue there with their statements on the vaccines, so I was mistaken.

As for the comments I do take issue with:

@5:20 he claims this virus was capable of human-to-human transmission "from the get-go" which he implies is conspicuous. We don't know the "get-go" here. We rarely ever do in the definitive sense. By that logic, HIV, SARS, MERS, Influenza, etc are all conspicuous too.

@6:08 she states only a "lab-made" virus would mutate to get more virulent whereas wild-type viruses would not. That's misleading. Evolutionary pressures would select for higher transmissibility regardless of virulence. Again, I'd say, what causes rabies and ebola to be so virulent? It wasn't magic, they evolved to be that way, and it didn't require human intervention.

@6:58 he says it has a furin-cleavage site that no other coronavirus has, which again, is just flat out false. Cited source below.

@7:30 he says a virus that seems to be adapted to indoor transmission is conspicuous. lolwut?  Like, that statement alone torpedoes his credibility and kinda undermines everything else they've said to that point. You don't have to be a virologist to know plenty of viruses are adapted to indoor transmission.

 

Furin cleavage site claim:

Quote

Another argument made by the Yan report centers on the presence of a "furin-cleavage site” on the spike protein, a critical genetic feature that is thought to enhance the virus’s ability to enter cells. The report claims this feature is found on no other coronavirus and therefore must be engineered. But this statement contradicts findings: similar cleavage sites are found on bat coronaviruses in wild populations.

"I'm going to scream if I have to explain the fact that many viruses have cleavage sites,” says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/09/coronavirus-origins-misinformation-yan-report-fact-check-cvd/#close