Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

It was being studied in china with u.s. funding and the travel restrictions may have been more problematic what with people being herded like cattle at airports trying to avoid being stuck where they were.

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/20...search-funding

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...and-coronaviru

It seems like the project you are describing was trying to find the next coronavirus mutation before it transferred to humans. That doesn't necessarily mean the US NIH (or any other agency) had actual SARS-CoV-2 samples before it started infecting humans. There are many modes of failure in the process, admittedly at least one of which fits your description.

On first glance, the most likely scenario in my opinion is the project failed to discover SARS-CoV-2 in time to stop it from infecting a human community. The problem is that they can only collect samples, they cannot test every single bat. They rely on the probability of detection, and they just didn't have a fine enough net this time.

A variant of the above scenario is they did capture this strain of the virus, but maybe it was one mutation too early. So they dismissed it as not a threat.

Another, far less likely scenario is that they had so much data that they were unable to keep up with analysis. I'm sure we would have heard about this if they had later found the virus in their backlog. That's actually a relatively simple problem to fix, and would be presented in a bid to get more funding.

From there, it gets into human error followed by communication error (and probably some more as I dug deeper. I would eliminate all possibilities for failure in the process before I start accusing people of incompetence or malicious acts.

As for why funding was pulled, is it political, is it because it was ineffective, is there some nefarious plot? I don't know and I don't care to investigate right now.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Spuds

It seems like the project you are describing was trying to find the next coronavirus mutation before it transferred to humans. That doesn't necessarily mean the US NIH (or any other agency) had actual SARS-CoV-2 samples before it started infecting humans. There are many modes of failure in the process, admittedly at least one of which fits your description.

On first glance, the most likely scenario in my opinion is the project failed to discover SARS-CoV-2 in time to stop it from infecting a human community. The problem is that they can only collect samples, they cannot test every single bat. They rely on the probability of detection, and they just didn't have a fine enough net this time.

A variant of the above scenario is they did capture this strain of the virus, but maybe it was one mutation too early. So they dismissed it as not a threat.

Another, far less likely scenario is that they had so much data that they were unable to keep up with analysis. I'm sure we would have heard about this if they had later found the virus in their backlog. That's actually a relatively simple problem to fix, and would be presented in a bid to get more funding.

From there, it gets into human error followed by communication error (and probably some more as I dug deeper. I would eliminate all possibilities for failure in the process before I start accusing people of incompetence or malicious acts.

As for why funding was pulled, is it political, is it because it was ineffective, is there some nefarious plot? I don't know and I don't care to investigate right now.

The issue I see is the conflict of interest with the WHO investigation that already happened. The only US scientist that was on the team happens to be one that worked with the Wohan lab on gain of function research for years. Given the state of the current world situation it makes people question it’s legitimately. There will always be those that question it no matter how thorough of a investigation that is done. I just think they eff’d up and have given to much reason to doubt it by the doubters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

It seems like the project you are describing was trying to find the next coronavirus mutation before it transferred to humans. That doesn't necessarily mean the US NIH (or any other agency) had actual SARS-CoV-2 samples before it started infecting humans. There are many modes of failure in the process, admittedly at least one of which fits your description.

On first glance, the most likely scenario in my opinion is the project failed to discover SARS-CoV-2 in time to stop it from infecting a human community. The problem is that they can only collect samples, they cannot test every single bat. They rely on the probability of detection, and they just didn't have a fine enough net this time.

A variant of the above scenario is they did capture this strain of the virus, but maybe it was one mutation too early. So they dismissed it as not a threat.

Another, far less likely scenario is that they had so much data that they were unable to keep up with analysis. I'm sure we would have heard about this if they had later found the virus in their backlog. That's actually a relatively simple problem to fix, and would be presented in a bid to get more funding.

From there, it gets into human error followed by communication error (and probably some more as I dug deeper. I would eliminate all possibilities for failure in the process before I start accusing people of incompetence or malicious acts.

As for why funding was pulled, is it political, is it because it was ineffective, is there some nefarious plot? I don't know and I don't care to investigate right now.

Agreed, and I'll add that the they sample populations of livestock and wild species that congregate like bats in order to see if all of these animals or many of them are sick with a single virus. If ten thousand random animals were sampled, researchers would find a number of endemic viruses causing illness, but if they happen to find one that was prevalent and circumventing herd immunity then they would conclude it is novel. Now, just because there is a novel and prevalent virus circulating through livestock or wild animals doesn't mean it is inherently bad or concerning. It may infect animals, but it may not cause serious disease, nor lead to death, so I don't know if all novel viruses get the same attention. It is possible that asymptomatic pandemics are happening all the time, where we are shedding novel viruses, but they just don't cause much harm. Why? Maybe we have enough immunity to prevent disease, so all that people feel are mild symptoms, or maybe the virus is capable of replicating without being so destructive, so it can spread enough without causing damage. I don't know, but I do know there is a fair amount of guesswork that inherently goes into trying to predict which viruses could cross over to humans, and which ones will be potentially deadly or cause a pandemic. Maybe it spreads like wildfire in animals, but not in humans, or vice versa.

Interestingly, it is actually the least severe viruses that could be the worst. Compare SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2, and this is very apparent. SARS-COV-1 had only a few thousand cases, and it was quickly eliminated with contact tracing and quarantining, which was possible because it didn't spread as fast/easily as SARS-COV-2, and it often caused symptoms within days that was obvious and severe, but SARS-COV-2 can have no symptoms or a delay in symptoms for weeks, which allows it to spread, and it is only severe in a small percentage of people. Sample some livestock, and it may be hard to find an animal that died of SARS-COV-2, especially if a disease is more likely to kill the elderly and the frail, which largely doesn't exist as much in animals. Throw that disease that is barely perceptible to be deadly in animals into an 8 billion human population, a quarter of whom may be in the last third of their lives, and then that disease is not so imperceptible.

Researchers could have found the virus, but would they know the variant was capable of passing to humans? Would they know it was capable of transmitting easier/faster than SARS-COV-1? Would they know it was capable of being severe, yet not so severe, as to be obvious? If they knew all these things, would they be able to isolate the livestock or wild animals and kill them before humans were infected? If not then would they have enough compelling and concerning data to provide to the appropriate officials to institute prophylactic containment of the potential pandemic and initiate government investment in a vaccine development? This all seems highly unlikely. Given the scale of SARS-COV-1 or MERS, even if it did impact Asian countries or the Middle East back then, the rest of the world may not have raised an eyebrow of concern if researchers found SARS-COV-2. While we had a response, for instance, to Ebola, it was far easier to identify and isolate individuals like SARS-COV-1, even if severe illness was guaranteed and the mortality rate was high, transmissibility was functionally harder for the virus, so it didn't cause or require extreme measures. This virus was a perfect storm. Too subtle to cause red flags with researchers and governments, too fast to contain, too mild or delayed to isolate, yet severe if enough people are exposed. Unfortunately, scientists and governments may not be capable of seeing such a virus coming until Pandora's box is already open, and it is too late. Then, it is all hindsight bias.

[JD001]

Interesting social experiments underway in Liverpool, last night they organised a rave, 3000 young people who had to go through various checks etc before they could participate. No masks, no social distancing etc..

Tonight they are organising another event for a slightly older population and then will be another event for another demographic..

It's amazing how many experiments have been conducted, underway or planned.. I wonder what we are doing has surpassed the rather weird stuff that went on 70odd years ago..

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/tho...wn-2021-04-30/

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Unless you're a ventilator candidate you'll probably get a drug or 2 and ride it out in isolation anyway. Anti vaxxers will benefit from the herd immunity created by pro vaxxers and anti maskers may get lucky too. I still wear one where required but refuse to wear it outside

But that's just putting healthcare workers at unnecessary risk and use up resources unnecessarily. Wouldn't you agree that it could have been avoided if anti vaxxers just got the vaccine?

And isn't that hypocritical of anti vaxxers/people who downplay covid to get any form of treatment?

Thank you for still wearing your mask where one is required.

[Lantanafrs2]

What's hypocritical is telling me to not wear one and 9 months later telling me to wear 2 as part of a social experiment

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

What's hypocritical is telling me to not wear one and 9 months later telling me to wear 2 as part of a social experiment

That's avoiding my question. Also, things/guidance change as more information is found. That's how science works.

[Lantanafrs2]

Then keep your science because I dont want to find out 9 months from now that they had it all wrong

[Lantanafrs2]

Healthcare workers will always be at risk to some degree. It comes with the territory. Someone who is vaccinated can still transmit the virus

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Then keep your science because I dont want to find out 9 months from now that they had it all wrong

God help you when you find out she's preggers

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by weederr33

God help you when you find out she's preggers

if science doesn't work, and God doesn't work, what's left? lucky rabbits feet? just remember, the rabbit that lost it's foot wasn't so lucky.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Agreed, and I'll add that the they sample populations of livestock and wild species that congregate like bats in order to see if all of these animals or many of them are sick with a single virus. If ten thousand random animals were sampled, researchers would find a number of endemic viruses causing illness, but if they happen to find one that was prevalent and circumventing herd immunity then they would conclude it is novel. Now, just because there is a novel and prevalent virus circulating through livestock or wild animals doesn't mean it is inherently bad or concerning. It may infect animals, but it may not cause serious disease, nor lead to death, so I don't know if all novel viruses get the same attention. It is possible that asymptomatic pandemics are happening all the time, where we are shedding novel viruses, but they just don't cause much harm. Why? Maybe we have enough immunity to prevent disease, so all that people feel are mild symptoms, or maybe the virus is capable of replicating without being so destructive, so it can spread enough without causing damage. I don't know, but I do know there is a fair amount of guesswork that inherently goes into trying to predict which viruses could cross over to humans, and which ones will be potentially deadly or cause a pandemic. Maybe it spreads like wildfire in animals, but not in humans, or vice versa.

Interestingly, it is actually the least severe viruses that could be the worst. Compare SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2, and this is very apparent. SARS-COV-1 had only a few thousand cases, and it was quickly eliminated with contact tracing and quarantining, which was possible because it didn't spread as fast/easily as SARS-COV-2, and it often caused symptoms within days that was obvious and severe, but SARS-COV-2 can have no symptoms or a delay in symptoms for weeks, which allows it to spread, and it is only severe in a small percentage of people. Sample some livestock, and it may be hard to find an animal that died of SARS-COV-2, especially if a disease is more likely to kill the elderly and the frail, which largely doesn't exist as much in animals. Throw that disease that is barely perceptible to be deadly in animals into an 8 billion human population, a quarter of whom may be in the last third of their lives, and then that disease is not so imperceptible.

Researchers could have found the virus, but would they know the variant was capable of passing to humans? Would they know it was capable of transmitting easier/faster than SARS-COV-1? Would they know it was capable of being severe, yet not so severe, as to be obvious? If they knew all these things, would they be able to isolate the livestock or wild animals and kill them before humans were infected? If not then would they have enough compelling and concerning data to provide to the appropriate officials to institute prophylactic containment of the potential pandemic and initiate government investment in a vaccine development? This all seems highly unlikely. Given the scale of SARS-COV-1 or MERS, even if it did impact Asian countries or the Middle East back then, the rest of the world may not have raised an eyebrow of concern if researchers found SARS-COV-2. While we had a response, for instance, to Ebola, it was far easier to identify and isolate individuals like SARS-COV-1, even if severe illness was guaranteed and the mortality rate was high, transmissibility was functionally harder for the virus, so it didn't cause or require extreme measures. This virus was a perfect storm. Too subtle to cause red flags with researchers and governments, too fast to contain, too mild or delayed to isolate, yet severe if enough people are exposed. Unfortunately, scientists and governments may not be capable of seeing such a virus coming until Pandora's box is already open, and it is too late. Then, it is all hindsight bias.

It's been a while since I've read up on it, but didn't they trace the origins of SARS-COV-2 to not just a bat but also a pangolin? If so, it would be more of a hybrid since most corona viruses originate from bats.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by weederr33

since most corona viruses originate from bats.

Not if you wear gloves.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Not if you wear gloves.


Attachment 200202

Lol duh. I'm talking about the reservoir for the virus.