- This topic has 160 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Plus my point is that it is easy to construct a conspiracy theory than to prove that there is no conspiracy. A tool much used by conspiracy theorists.
Anyway I thought this was a 911 discussion forum.
Tony M, I argue that covid-19 was not loose in the UK in mid December because we have seen that infection numbers double every three or four days; it would have been like Wuhan before mid January. The reason for corpses in the streets in Wuhan was that the hospitals overloaded; we’d have seen that in the UK as well if the government hadn’t been persuaded to change policy and impose lockdown on March 23. I find Imperial College’s CoVID-19 model to match the recorded cases and deaths very convincingly; check the rise in the first graph to see where we would have been heading without lockdown:
https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/#/details/United_Kingdom
Rapid mutation leading to many strains is usual for single-strand RNA viruses, since there is no redundancy / genetic replication correction mechanism.
The UK ran a pandemic simulation exercise in 2016. The result was that the UK was entirely unprepared. So of course it was covered up and ignored by the government, which serves capital not the people. Let’s not let them off the hook, eh? Ultimately it doesn’t matter where SARS-CoV-2 originated, the government response to it was hideous, disgusting:
– “…citing government scientific adviser Graham Medley, who said in an interview on Newsnight just last week that the UK’s approach was to allow ‘a controlled epidemic’ of large numbers of people, which would generate ‘herd immunity’. Medley suggested that, ‘ideally’, we might need ‘a nice big epidemic’ among the less vulnerable.”
Let’s take a moment to consider what that would have meant. When covid-19 kills it does so horribly; days of agonising struggle for breath until, usually, the heart fails under the strain of trying to compensate for lack of oxygen from the lungs. Covid-19’s spread can be slowed down by lockdown, but over time just as many people will need critical care. But without lockdown all (say) 500,000 will need it in the course of just one month, but with only 5000 places available nationally 99% of them are not going to get it. Twice as many will die than if care were available, but all will suffer horribly whether they eventually die or not. Many, living alone, would be left to care for themselves, but being entirely incapacitated would be unable to do so. The government policy amounted to torturing hundreds of thousands of people, half or more of them to death, many of them alone and slowly starving, all for the sake of the economy. At least in hospital their last days can be made comfortable after a long and productive life. With proper personal protective equipment that the government refused to invest in, their last days could be social as well.
SA, Tony, I’m not worried about being off-topic on this thread; I started it and all the WTC7 evidence has already been presented.
SA: – “The main difference being, as I understand in the spike protein which enables it to attach to ACE2 on respiratory alveoli.”
Yes, that’s the bit that resembles the genetically engineered SARS vaccine virus.
Maybe SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, maybe it didn’t. But one of the SARS outbreaks did start from a lab escape I think, yet still these labs are in city centres, run with nine-to-five jobs rather than three month work placements in combined live-in and post-work quarantine facilities in remote locations. Why? Money, of course.
Tony M, I’m sorry about your services friends. A friend of mine lost a friend of his when Thatcher enthusiastically chose war over the Falkland Islands.
Yes, it is unlikely that the effects of various battlefield toxins will ever be sorted out. War is bad for our health; it’s such a truism that I hesitated to type it.
My attitude to nuclear power has changed over the years. A friend of mine pointed out that a single power reactor contains a similar quantity of radioactive material as would be released in an entire global nuclear conflict. There are some 440 power reactors on Earth, most near sea level, which is rising; these must be shut down and defuelled. And I used to think that wind and solar couldn’t supply enough power, but more recent rapid development is proving otherwise. But we still need continent-scale high voltage grid.
I oppose nuclear weapons and dinosaur power reactors and but not nuclear technology in general, eg. research reactors produce isotopes essential for imaging, medicine and industry. And it’s always important to get facts right and not exaggerate, or when bystanders present our complaints to the technical community the reply they’ll get is “well that’s just bollox, these people must be crazy”.
Yes, that’s the bit that resembles the genetically engineered SARS vaccine virus.
“Maybe SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, maybe it didn’t. But one of the SARS outbreaks did start from a lab escape I think, “
You start with maybe and then end with I think. That really is exactly my point and similar to how these CTs start and then are taken as fact. Postulating that something happened because it can happen theoretically and because there are superficial resemblances to other events is enough to start a conspiracy theory but is no evidence that something has happened. CTs are used to divert from real issues to be dealt with. In this case the major story is how incompetent And negligent US and U.K. governments Have been. China is being used to divert from this basic fact.
As to where bio labs should be sited, of course one can have ideas but I am afraid neither of us knows enough about this to pontificate.SA, I’m not going to settle on the bat origin theory just because it’s becoming mainstream, nor because the lab escape theory is getting used for bashing the Chinese government.
If I was benevolent dictator of the world for a year, I’d have all the surveillance systems and security cameras turned to point the other way. Instead of surveillance upon the people concentrating data into the possession of corporations and governments, I’d have the surveillance in all the labs, boardrooms and factories etc., both government and private, distributing all that data and making it available to the entire global population. Under such circumstances I would expect conspiracy theories to wither, because instead of speculating, anyone with a suspicion could just access the system and look for themselves.
Then we’d see what we should really be outraged about. We’d have seen the local Chinese housing authorities enforcing the lockdown by welding shut the apartment block doors. We’d have heard the screams in the night and seen the backlog of corpses at the crematoria, and what was coming would have been common knowledge. We’d have seen Boris Johnson and his cabinet chuckling about the irrelevance of what we’d just seen and trading lives against profit for various timings and degrees of social restrictions. We’d see Trump failing to work out how to open his cornflakes and praying on the matter before finally calling his national security advisor to help him.
Religion has long taught of an omniscient God as an encouragement to conscience. I say let’s build public omniscience. The person who made a start is in Belmarsh prison awaiting extradition, and that speaks volumes about good and evil.
“SA, I’m not going to settle on the bat origin theory just because it’s becoming mainstream,”
No but you could if it was explained scientifically as it has been, Are you questioning the scientific data from many groups? Sorry no links but I am sure you can find them.SA, SARS did escape from a lab. Twice. You might have confirmed to save me having to go and check. Foot and Mouth also escaped from a lab.
I see that there is this statement in the Lancet from nearly thirty authors and backed by a dozen citations:
– “We are public health scientists who have closely followed the emergence of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and are deeply concerned about its impact on global health and wellbeing. We have watched as the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China, in particular, have worked diligently and effectively to rapidly identify the pathogen behind this outbreak, put in place significant measures to reduce its impact, and share their results transparently with the global health community. This effort has been remarkable./em>
– We sign this statement in solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China who continue to save lives and protect global health during the challenge of the COVID-19 outbreak. We are all in this together, with our Chinese counterparts in the forefront, against this new viral threat.
– The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1
and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine13
and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.
We want you, the science and health professionals of China, to know that we stand with you in your fight against this virus.– We invite others to join us in supporting the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of Wuhan and across China. Stand with our colleagues on the frontline!
– We speak in one voice. To add your support for this statement, sign our letter online. LM is editor of ProMED-mail. We declare no competing interests.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
OK, so early work suggesting a lab escape seems to be contradicted by later work, and a consensus has developed around origin in the wild.
But the statement itself suggests something more alarming. How has the lab escape theory threatened free flow of information? That shouldn’t happen, and this statement shouldn’t be necessary. Do I smell politics again?
SA, do you know of any systematic reviews yet of the lab escape versus wild origin theories? Any idea how many papers address this?
