COVID-19/Coronavirus Talk - Part II

[Mike Liut]

what would it take for you to take things seriously? since you seem immune to all logic

99.7% survival rate according to the CDC. Im good, but thanks anyway.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Your thought process is so annoyingly biased it borders on absurdity. You stand on an altar preaching and upholding science with sarcasm and insults when your actually just doing the opposite.
Science isn’t prefect, One way not to defend science is to pretend it is perfect. The myth that science should rely on proof or certainty -- or that there is some sort of "scientific method" that even flawed human beings can follow to produce guaranteed results -- is a view so harmful to scientific understanding that it only gives aid and comfort to its enemies. Science deniers, and supposed Science lovers, love to exploit uncertainty and certainty and use it as a cudgel. The scientific attitude is the idea that scientists care about evidence and are willing to change their views based on new evidence. It is a community standard of transparency, skepticism and willingness to test one another's work that has proven itself through time as the best means of understanding the empirical world. Scientists understand this and recognize that although they may aim at the goal of "truth," this can never be reached in practice. Instead science is founded on the idea of "warrant," which is the justification of belief based on fit with the evidence. Still, no matter how strong one's evidence, it is always theoretically possible for some future fact to come along and overthrow a theory. That is just how inductive reasoning works.

You stand on your altar of science saying it can never be dismissed. When, that is actually one of the most exciting things in science! Being wrong!

"If humans destroyed it, humans will obviously undestroy it."

I never inferred this. I mean a better inference would be “ if humans made it, they can unmake it” but to take that as a maxim would be folly.

You also smugly assume I’m a climate change denier. Hey congratulation you can link to an article which makes every sensational prediction of doom for the future of the planet. Here is one for you. What Five Graphs from the U.N. Climate Report Reveal About Our Path to Halting Climate Change

“The scenarios aren’t predictions; they can’t determine the fate of global warming. Instead, they provide road maps. The scenarios often underpin international policy, research, and activism for years to come.
The new report has five scenarios: two with low emissions, one with intermediate emissions, and two with high emissions. The very low emissions scenario meets the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal with likely warming of 1.4°C by 2100—but it overshoots the target to just above 1.5°C midcentury before decreasing to 1.4°C. The low emissions scenario reaches 1.8°C by 2100, just skirting under the high bounds of the Paris Agreement. Midlevel emissions hit 2.7°C, high emissions clock in at 3.6°C, and very high emissions extend to 4.4°C in 2100.
Climate scientist and IPCC Working Group I cochair Valérie Masson-Delmotte said that the midlevel emissions scenario most closely resembles the pledges made by countries to plateau emissions until around 2030. The highest emissions scenarios represent futures without any climate mitigation.
The last IPCC assessment in 2013 included just one low emissions scenario that kept warming under 2°C.”

Notice the 5 to 95 percent confidence threshold? That is “Real Science”. Not headline science for a low information voter. Also Notice, that there is an added scenario for lower emissions since 2013. Man stop the presses! How is the BBC going to get clicks with titles like “Global Warming Still Threatens Humanity But There Is More Hope”

Dismiss? Distraction? Im not the one equating Chinese Lab Leak Theory's with xenophobic anti-science rednecks who deny climate change and cant cope with the world where there isn't a bad guy. I mean it’s not like a lab leak would have political ramifications here at home and geo-political ramifications abroad that will effect your life sooner than climate change and maybe more drastically! No way that is absurd!

The next thing you will say is I’m a flat earthier but guess what a flat eather understand science better than you. Unfortunate, understanding science doesn’t make them anymore right than someone who say you can’t dismiss science.



Don’t bother watching the video. It’s not like she is an acclaimed scientist. Just call her a hack and move on. I mean a low information brain can’t handle facts that don’t fit with thier world view.

I know you loathe low information voters, they helped some orange man take over a country, but who is the opposite side of that same coin? Here is a nice article for you to help make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Are Democrats the Party of Science? Not Really.

Regarding the bolded: tell that to mainstream anthropologists who are all too ready to torch another anthropologist's career for demonstrating time after time that they are wrong and usually incalcitrant in their ideological and tenured positions

Regarding the post, in general: don't bother arguing with him. It's all post de facto smarm based on a calculated and ill-perceived weakness in someone else's arguments. It's not bias; it's conscious, contemptuous sardonicism.

 

[PocketNines]

Your thought process is so annoyingly biased it borders on absurdity. You stand on an altar preaching and upholding science with sarcasm and insults when your actually just doing the opposite.
Science isn’t prefect, One way not to defend science is to pretend it is perfect. The myth that science should rely on proof or certainty -- or that there is some sort of "scientific method" that even flawed human beings can follow to produce guaranteed results -- is a view so harmful to scientific understanding that it only gives aid and comfort to its enemies. Science deniers, and supposed Science lovers, love to exploit uncertainty and certainty and use it as a cudgel. The scientific attitude is the idea that scientists care about evidence and are willing to change their views based on new evidence. It is a community standard of transparency, skepticism and willingness to test one another's work that has proven itself through time as the best means of understanding the empirical world. Scientists understand this and recognize that although they may aim at the goal of "truth," this can never be reached in practice. Instead science is founded on the idea of "warrant," which is the justification of belief based on fit with the evidence. Still, no matter how strong one's evidence, it is always theoretically possible for some future fact to come along and overthrow a theory. That is just how inductive reasoning works.

You stand on your altar of science saying it can never be dismissed. When, that is actually one of the most exciting things in science! Being wrong!

"If humans destroyed it, humans will obviously undestroy it."

I never inferred this. I mean a better inference would be “ if humans made it, they can unmake it” but to take that as a maxim would be folly.

You also smugly assume I’m a climate change denier. Hey congratulation you can link to an article which makes every sensational prediction of doom for the future of the planet. Here is one for you. What Five Graphs from the U.N. Climate Report Reveal About Our Path to Halting Climate Change

“The scenarios aren’t predictions; they can’t determine the fate of global warming. Instead, they provide road maps. The scenarios often underpin international policy, research, and activism for years to come.
The new report has five scenarios: two with low emissions, one with intermediate emissions, and two with high emissions. The very low emissions scenario meets the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal with likely warming of 1.4°C by 2100—but it overshoots the target to just above 1.5°C midcentury before decreasing to 1.4°C. The low emissions scenario reaches 1.8°C by 2100, just skirting under the high bounds of the Paris Agreement. Midlevel emissions hit 2.7°C, high emissions clock in at 3.6°C, and very high emissions extend to 4.4°C in 2100.
Climate scientist and IPCC Working Group I cochair Valérie Masson-Delmotte said that the midlevel emissions scenario most closely resembles the pledges made by countries to plateau emissions until around 2030. The highest emissions scenarios represent futures without any climate mitigation.
The last IPCC assessment in 2013 included just one low emissions scenario that kept warming under 2°C.”

Notice the 5 to 95 percent confidence threshold? That is “Real Science”. Not headline science for a low information voter. Also Notice, that there is an added scenario for lower emissions since 2013. Man stop the presses! How is the BBC going to get clicks with titles like “Global Warming Still Threatens Humanity But There Is More Hope”

Dismiss? Distraction? Im not the one equating Chinese Lab Leak Theory's with xenophobic anti-science rednecks who deny climate change and cant cope with the world where there isn't a bad guy. I mean it’s not like a lab leak would have political ramifications here at home and geo-political ramifications abroad that will effect your life sooner than climate change and maybe more drastically! No way that is absurd!

The next thing you will say is I’m a flat earthier but guess what a flat eather understand science better than you. Unfortunate, understanding science doesn’t make them anymore right than someone who say you can’t dismiss science.



Don’t bother watching the video. It’s not like she is an acclaimed scientist. Just call her a hack and move on. I mean a low information brain can’t handle facts that don’t fit with thier world view.

I know you loathe low information voters, they helped some orange man take over a country, but who is the opposite side of that same coin? Here is a nice article for you to help make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Are Democrats the Party of Science? Not Really.

I am not going to address your strawmen beyond labeling the effort sad. My uncle was a scientist, my partner is. Thank you for identifying what's "exciting" about science.

If you had grasped the point you would have understood I am talking about those five outcomes you listed. But, you did not grasp it. That was the point of my link, not the BBC getting clicks (lol what?) or the Democratic Party or whatever your strawmannic brainworms whispered to you. As you recite, under the very best of those five scenarios, we are locked into 1.5 gain. Best case is far worse than now.

That best-case scenario very specifically is if all governments on the planet, right now, today, immediately acted in lockstep to cease mass carbon emission. To believe humans would do this even if they could do this is delusional on its face. It's so far beyond domestic politics in any country. How small is the brain that tries to force it there?

I believe so little in humanity (just look at the vaccine talk in this thread!) that I just do not believe we will meet the existential species threat. Human beings will pursue the worst of the 5 possible outcomes. 4 C gain with a bullet. As I originally said. Which you can see. Which is why it was my point.

Humans won't even do the most basic care for others. Personally, I helped organize logistics and helped run mass vaccination clinics for my county in January, February and March until the vaccines became widely available.

I entered the conversation because I saw people trying to get to the bottom of it with China. The very effort is pathetic beyond words. What are you going to find? Are you going to suggest that the conditions by which the world processes meat aren't guaranteed to produce these outcomes regardless of whatever happened in some lab somewhere? Of course you are not. It's fundamentally unserious and all the outright contempt that goes with that is warranted.

 

[KirkOut]

glad they finally grew a pair and instituted a firmer mandate for fed employees and contractors. I'm a fed contractor and our workplace is currently around 70% vaxxed. I'm excited that finally the morons comprising the other 30% will have to step up or get lost.

 

[Mike Liut]

The Covid injections are the only product in the world whose failures are blamed on those who haven’t taken the product. It’s madness.


I can no longer see through my glasses prescription. damn those people with 20/20.

 

[PocketNines]

Regarding the bolded: tell that to mainstream anthropologists who are all too ready to torch another anthropologist's career for demonstrating time after time that they are wrong and usually incalcitrant in their ideological and tenured positions

Regarding the post, in general: don't bother arguing with him. It's all post de facto smarm based on a calculated and ill-perceived weakness in someone else's arguments. It's not bias; it's conscious, contemptuous sardonicism.

LOL here's hoping Lemmiwinks makes it out of the second paragraph before he suffocates.

 

[Xerloris]

i appreciate you copied this math error straight from the website. do yourself a favor and read some of the comments on the article. you'll find plenty pumping their own agenda and findings, but you'll see a few who point out how this article is getting it wrong despite claiming to have it right. more importantly read the paper it's citing, as this is clearly not a summary and just "gotcha" reporting.

If you don't understand what's being said you can admit it. Telling someone they have a 12% chance to die is different then telling them "of the 12% that died, 82% had your blood type." Maybe you should wonder why that's happening.

 

[KirkOut]

The Covid injections are the only product in the world whose failures are blamed on those who haven’t taken the product. It’s madness.


I can no longer see through my glasses prescription. damn those people with 20/20.

"Several people have corrected my egregiously incorrect statements and laughably porous logic, but I'm going to continue stating the same incorrect thing over and over. I'm going to make sure not to quote any posts and just state them in a standalone message, because if I did that it would be pretty obvious that I have no actual counterpoints to the pantheon of facts being presented to me that I am choosing to ignore."

 

[BlueOil]

If you don't understand what's being said you can admit it. Telling someone they have a 12% chance to die is different then telling them "of the 12% that died, 82% had your blood type." Maybe you should wonder why that's happening.

i agree that's very different, but i take issue with how they arrive at 82% and agree with some of the commenters that point out the assumptive fallacy being made here to produce it for their argument. there is no proof of manipulation provided, just a summary that it must have happened because they did the math differently. seems like fallacy number two to me. i think there's a reason this is an authorless article on an obscure site. there's a standard review and compliant process for issues found in articles published in the NEJM. why not just submit it to the journal and get an official correction rather than dramatically sum it up as a crime against humanity without signing your name?

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

I am not going to address your strawmen beyond labeling the effort sad. My uncle was a scientist, my partner is. Thank you for identifying what's "exciting" about science.

If you had grasped the point you would have understood I am talking about those five outcomes you listed. But, you did not grasp it. That was the point of my link, not the BBC getting clicks (lol what?) or the Democratic Party or whatever your strawmannic brainworms whispered to you. As you recite, under the very best of those five scenarios, we are locked into 1.5 gain. Best case is far worse than now.

That best-case scenario very specifically is if all governments on the planet, right now, today, immediately acted in lockstep to cease mass carbon emission. To believe humans would do this even if they could do this is delusional on its face. It's so far beyond domestic politics in any country. How small is the brain that tries to force it there?

I believe so little in humanity (just look at the vaccine talk in this thread!) that I just do not believe we will meet the existential species threat. Human beings will pursue the worst of the 5 possible outcomes. 4 C gain with a bullet. As I originally said. Which you can see. Which is why it was my point.

Humans won't even do the most basic care for others. Personally, I helped organize logistics and helped run mass vaccination clinics for my county in January, February and March until the vaccines became widely available.

I entered the conversation because I saw people trying to get to the bottom of it with China. The very effort is pathetic beyond words. What are you going to find? Are you going to suggest that the conditions by which the world processes meat aren't guaranteed to produce these outcomes regardless of whatever happened in some lab somewhere? Of course you are not. It's fundamentally unserious and all the outright contempt that goes with that is warranted.

Okay don’t address the fundamental fact in your previous trite diatribe that scientific findings are a holy grail and can’t be questioned or dismissed. I find that sad.

Not as sad as I find your assurance that you understand science because you have relations that are scientist. If I have a black friend and I assure you I am not a racist is that sad? If I tell you my grandfather was a mechanic does that qualify me to work on your car? Surely we can agree that all of those statements would be equally sad.

I did grasp you point your BBC article used “Code Red” in the title and does little but to serve as a shill piece for one scenario in the report. You still don’t grasp the point that “Science” cannot predict which one of those outcomes is going to happen, all are possible. Not equally but possible.

You believe? Oh so now we get the truth your not a proponent of science but religion! It’s your belief that none of the other scenarios in the report are possible because of your lack of faith in an existential quality like human goodness? I’m pretty sure topics on religion are against forum rules so I won’t comment further.

I commended you for serving your community. I enjoy doing that as well. I am sad that you are without hope for human kind. When I see this vaccine I see a modern miracle! To think we can have a vaccine, which you are a great proponent of, in such a short term and not be amazed! Surely that gives us no hope that “gizmo” invention like fusion could give us hope for a better future. But yeah no chance, your religion assures us, politicians will stop it! I’m not going to comment on that against forum rules you see but I’ll leave you with this. AT&T in the 1980 was so sure that cellular phone technology would be a minor player moving forward that they took no steps to corner the cellular market. Were those business executives wise to be so certain? Did politicians stop the fastest adaptation of a new technology in history? The answer to those questions is readily apparent as you almost certainly own one.

I entered this conversation because you were wrongly conflating geopolitical concerns about China and the Lab Leak Theory, to anti-science Missouri hicks not taking vaccines and your belief that pro sports is a goner because of your belief that the world is going to experience 4c temperature increase. Oh, I forgot science not your religion says so because of familial relations my bad!

There are valid scientific questions about the lab leak and/or the origins of the virus. Chiefly to understand how this one happened to stop the next one. The political questions and ramification aren’t mutual exclusive to the scientific ones. You don’t like that idea though so Straw-man right?

Im gonna take ChicagoBlues advice from here on. I wish you the best in your future endeavors!

 

[PocketNines]

Okay don’t address the fundamental fact in your previous trite diatribe that scientific findings are a holy grail and can’t be questioned or dismissed. I find that sad.

Not as sad as I find your assurance that you understand science because you have relations that are scientist. If I have a black friend and I assure you I am not a racist is that sad? If I tell you my grandfather was a mechanic does that qualify me to work on your car? Surely we can agree that all of those statements would be equally sad.

I did grasp you point your BBC article used “Code Red” in the title and does little but to serve as a shill piece for one scenario in the report. You still don’t grasp the point that “Science” cannot predict which one of those outcomes is going to happen, all are possible. Not equally but possible.

You believe? Oh so now we get the truth your not a proponent of science but religion! It’s your belief that none of the other scenarios in the report are possible because of your lack of faith in an existential quality like human goodness? I’m pretty sure topics on religion are against forum rules so I won’t comment further.

I commended you for serving your community. I enjoy doing that as well. I am sad that you are without hope for human kind. When I see this vaccine I see a modern miracle! To think we can have a vaccine, which you are a great proponent of, in such a short term and not be amazed! Surely that gives us no hope that “gizmo” invention like fusion could give us hope for a better future. But yeah no chance, your religion assures us, politicians will stop it! I’m not going to comment on that against forum rules you see but I’ll leave you with this. AT&T in the 1980 was so sure that cellular phone technology would be a minor player moving forward that they took no steps to corner the cellular market. Were those business executives wise to be so certain? Did politicians stop the fastest adaptation of a new technology in history? The answer to those questions is readily apparent as you almost certainly own one.

I entered this conversation because you were wrongly conflating geopolitical concerns about China and the Lab Leak Theory, to anti-science Missouri hicks not taking vaccines and your belief that pro sports is a goner because of your belief that the world is going to experience 4c temperature increase. Oh, I forgot science not your religion says so because of familial relations my bad!

There are valid scientific questions about the lab leak and/or the origins of the virus. Chiefly to understand how this one happened to stop the next one. The political questions and ramification aren’t mutual exclusive to the scientific ones. You don’t like that idea though so Straw-man right?

Im gonna take ChicagoBlues advice from here on. I wish you the best in your future endeavors!

Liar. The bolded. I didn't read past that point.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

LOL here's hoping Lemmiwinks makes it out of the second paragraph before he suffocates.

Well…it could make for a funny high-browed comedy act.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Oh I am.

I've been posting all kinds of stuff. But when your fellow mod asks me to fact check twice in a row, it leads me to believe you are doing some curating here. The last one was a bit much. A video of an Australian government official speaking her own words. No editorial. No video tricks. My only comment was "Huh?"

I guess my perspective is that you all don't request fact checks on other links do you? Funny how it happened here twice in short order.

I know this can be a legitimately difficult topic, as it is very difficult to distinguish when a moderator is actively moderating, and when s/he is simply carrying on as a participant in a discussion.

This is why I actively encourage, and almost exclusively use myself, a blue font when making posts in a moderator's voice (or using some other sort of similar overt verbal signal making it clear that there is a command in play). In the absence of such a signal, or of a PM communication, or some sort of action like a post edit/delete, you can safely assume that any other general post in a thread by a moderator does not pertain to "official" duties. In other words, if your post violated site rules, there would have been some action against it, not simply a moderator quoting it and commenting.

Beyond that, moderators are allowed to participate in any discussion they see fit, and to voice their own opinions just like anyone else, as long as they obey site rules while doing so.

This site does not require a certain level of "proof" to back up opinions, or actively repress news sources based upon personal biases, though any poster participating in a discussion is free to do such things. This site does reserve the right to remove offensive content, or potentially harmful content, at the moderator's discretion.

Hopefully this helps make things clearer moving forward, but if you're ever not sure of whether or not you're being actively moderated or just being engaged by another poster, you absolutely have the right to ask. Sending a PM is the preferred method.

 

[Mike Liut]

A virologist on TV made sense. He said the vaccinated still get COVID and their strain mutates. The unvaccinated still get COVID and their strains mutate. As long as the virus is mutating then it’s impossible to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.

 

[Celtic Note]

A virologist on TV made sense. He said the vaccinated still get COVID and their strain mutates. The unvaccinated still get COVID and their strains mutate. As long as the virus is mutating then it’s impossible to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.

That’s why getting vaccinated before the strain mutated was so important. Since we failed to achieve that, we are now stuck with this like we are the flu and it’s numerous strains.

Also the vaccinated are highly less likely to transmit the original strain and are much less likely to communicate the variants than those who are unvaccinated, but why state something so important to the discussion?

 

[AjaxManifesto]

New mandates via Biden executive order for businesses > 100 people (we will see if this passes the courts)

Interestingly, the Post Office is exempt....

Hmmmmmm....

Key updates
Postal Service workers not included in Biden’s mandatory vaccination order, source says
8 things to know about Biden’s vaccine mandates and other pandemic plans
Los Angeles mandates student vaccinations in nation’s second-largest school district

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/09/covid-delta-variant-live-updates/

 

[Ranksu]

Keep taking your vax and all it’s boosters. I’ll be happy staying unvaxed and healthy. I’ve already had Covid. It was no biggie

to you.

How obesity you americans are covid will hit harder and it has been noted some fit person's get it harder until we don't know reason you should take vaccine to prevent not get in to hospital. But it's everyone's own view will you take care yourself and your relatives.

At least in this situation you regret you didn't follow professional guideline. But you have self-determination, you can decide what you do your life.

I'm fighting everyday with patients who are mentally ill with this same area. They are will most likely die if they don't accept treatment, but self-determination its stretched so far away.

 

[simon IC]

Oh I am.

I've been posting all kinds of stuff. But when your fellow mod asks me to fact check twice in a row, it leads me to believe you are doing some curating here. The last one was a bit much. A video of an Australian government official speaking her own words. No editorial. No video tricks. My only comment was "Huh?"

I guess my perspective is that you all don't request fact checks on other links do you? Funny how it happened here twice in short order.

I certainly did not demand you to fact-check. I wasn't even asking for you to fact-check. It was a suggestion. I like to call out misinformation whenever I suspect it, but when I do so I am acting in my capacity as a regular poster, not as a moderator. You are not requested to provide fact checks if you link media on this site. If you link something offensive, or that contravenes site rules, or that could be potentially harmful, a moderator can delete it at their own discretion. As neither of the links you provided were deleted, obviously you did not do this.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding and any confusion it may have caused. As I am not an expert on the subject to begin with, and that there are a number of posters who know a lot more than I do, I am going to cease being an active participant in this thread and focus on moderating it. I look forward to reading your contribution to the conversation going forward.

 

[Mike Liut]

Teenage boys more at risk from the vaccine than Covid

Teenage boys more at risk from vaccines than Covid

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Update....postal workers not exempt....

 

[AjaxManifesto]

Fauci Was 'Untruthful' to Congress About Wuhan Lab Research, New Documents Appear To Show

This is an AFP report. Fact check it yourselves. I don't know where AFP falls in terms of bias.

 

[Blueston]

Looks like reports of invermectin working on covid were horses**t.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/09/10/ivermectin-covid-humans/

 

[BlueOil]

Teenage boys more at risk from the vaccine than Covid

Teenage boys more at risk from vaccines than Covid

here's an article that doesn't cost a subscription to read past the vague headline: Covid-19: JCVI opts not to recommend universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds

The UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has not recommended that all young people aged 12-15 are given the covid-19 vaccination, and it has instead asked ministers to seek further advice from the UK’s chief medical officers on the wider potential benefits of vaccination.

On Friday 3 September the government said that it had received advice from the independent JCVI that the health benefits of vaccination were “marginally greater than the potential known harms.” But the committee advised ministers to seek further input from the chief medical officers on the wider effects, including the impact on schools and young people’s education.

Scotland’s health secretary, Humza Yousaf, said, “While the JCVI has agreed that the benefits marginally outweigh the risks, they are not yet prepared to recommend universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds; however, they have suggested that health ministers may wish to ask their respective CMOs [chief medical officers] to explore the issue further, taking into consideration broader educational and societal impacts. We have asked for this further work to be conducted as soon as possible.”

JCVI: we don't universally recommend it yet, but talk with your medical officers since we don't consider all data points in our analyses

the headline you posted is probably in line with your thinking, but the details of the article probably aren't, since it still states vaccination has greater benefits than being unvaccinated. wanting to consider more information because there are known risks before universally recommending it is smart. summing it up as "teenage boys more at risk form vaccines than covid" when they really mean the heart side effects could occur more frequently than covid hospital admissions is an interesting way to get clicks for a right leaning UK site.

 

[BlueOil]

Update....postal workers not exempt....

wow, what a thing to misunderstand and circulate reporting on. did they ever update the posting?

 

[BlueOil]

Fauci Was 'Untruthful' to Congress About Wuhan Lab Research, New Documents Appear To Show

This is an AFP report. Fact check it yourselves. I don't know where AFP falls in terms of bias.

this is a Newsweek report as it says constantly throughout the article.

crux of the article:

The question is whether this work on humanized mice constitutes GOF research on a coronavirus that would make it more dangerous to humans. Ebright says it does.
Newsweek contacted the NIH for comment from Fauci and received this statement: "NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans."

the NIH denies they specifically funded making covid-like viruses more dangerous to humans, Ebright says he found grants that funded the work and, he assumes with his understanding, the work they did made it more dangerous. this is rand paul's schtick lately too. they both claim they have proof of funding and somehow that is proof the funding must have been used to make the virus worse. that seems like a pretty big leap to make.