Origins of Covid-19 Part 2

TheImpatientPanther

Florida Flukin Panthers > LTIR Maple Leafs
Jan 17, 2013
28,408
25,293
Ontario, Canada
@tsweeney what the hell are you on about?
I was talking about the "scientists/experts" on these boards calling others conspiracy theorists or nutjobs for even bringing up a lab leak possibility months/half a year ago.

And now those who did the most shouting and labeling are backtracking at an incredible rate or simply hiding in the shadows. You sound like one of them to be honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HabsInsider

Smokey McCanucks

PuckDaddy "Perfect HFBoard Trade Proposal 02/24/14
Dec 21, 2010
3,165
283
In my opinion the process by which the public was "informed" of the "facts" around the initial outbreak and subsequent developments, was filled with corruption and self-dealing. It wouldn't be going too far to describe what happened around - for example - Dr. Daszak's letter, as a cover-up. Now, we can't really say whether there was in fact anything to cover up. It might have been a pre-emptive thing to save face and preserve the reputation of this particular academic sector by setting the narrative. But with hindsight it is clear that this sort of action was deeply dishonest and did a massive a disservice to the public.

The way most in the media rolled with it over all possible counter-scenarios, and now explicitly acknowledge doing so for political and ideological as opposed to scientific or journalistic reasons, is another very troubling thing. It makes me wonder, what other things which were at one point undeniable "facts" - and for which anybody putting forward a competing hypotheses was branded with the now-useless term of "conspiracy theorist" - will one day be shown up as in fact not being the case at all?

There is a lot more digging to do here. There is a lot more information still to be uncovered and brought into the light. For a year and a half the people investigating these questions have been either a handful of freelancers who said 'to hell with the professional consequences, this is an important issue' or they have been working for the kind of organizations that don't show their work or provide results to the public. Now it's my hope that as these have somehow become legitimate topics to speak on and argue about and discuss there will be some real progress made in finding out some anwers. One lesson I think we can all learn from this process even at this early point is to not settle in on a preferred right answer. Keeping an open mind is key. Arguing from one's preferred conclusion when we all know we are not working with a full data-set is something that ought to be avoided.
 

Lil Sebastian Cossa

Opinions are share are my own personal opinions.
Jul 6, 2012
11,436
7,446
@tsweeney what the hell are you on about?
I was talking about the "scientists/experts" on these boards calling others conspiracy theorists or nutjobs for even bringing up a lab leak possibility months/half a year ago.

And now those who did the most shouting and labeling are backtracking at an incredible rate or simply hiding in the shadows. You sound like one of them to be honest.

Well, I know someone here that I don't have to have a discussion with.

Don't come at people aggressively. Scientists/experts on here? In general, nobody here knows a damn thing about where it came from. If someone here is a researcher looking into it, obviously they would know more, but 99.9% of this board isn't gonna have anything to do with it. So woo hoo, people on here backtracking or whatnot... Honestly, who gives a flying f*** about that? I was talking about the researchers actually looking into this. I don't care about what Johnny assgrabber on HFBoards thinks about the possibility of a lab leak. I care about what people who actually look into the security of BSL-4 labs think about the possibility of a lab leak. And with those, far too often, people take crumbs from the researchers that it is possible that it leaked from a lab and extrapolate that to say that it absolutely MUST have.

In my opinion the process by which the public was "informed" of the "facts" around the initial outbreak and subsequent developments, was filled with corruption and self-dealing. It wouldn't be going too far to describe what happened around - for example - Dr. Daszak's letter, as a cover-up. Now, we can't really say whether there was in fact anything to cover up. It might have been a pre-emptive thing to save face and preserve the reputation of this particular academic sector by setting the narrative. But with hindsight it is clear that this sort of action was deeply dishonest and did a massive a disservice to the public.

The way most in the media rolled with it over all possible counter-scenarios, and now explicitly acknowledge doing so for political and ideological as opposed to scientific or journalistic reasons, is another very troubling thing. It makes me wonder, what other things which were at one point undeniable "facts" - and for which anybody putting forward a competing hypotheses was branded with the now-useless term of "conspiracy theorist" - will one day be shown up as in fact not being the case at all?

There is a lot more digging to do here. There is a lot more information still to be uncovered and brought into the light. For a year and a half the people investigating these questions have been either a handful of freelancers who said 'to hell with the professional consequences, this is an important issue' or they have been working for the kind of organizations that don't show their work or provide results to the public. Now it's my hope that as these have somehow become legitimate topics to speak on and argue about and discuss there will be some real progress made in finding out some anwers. One lesson I think we can all learn from this process even at this early point is to not settle in on a preferred right answer. Keeping an open mind is key. Arguing from one's preferred conclusion when we all know we are not working with a full data-set is something that ought to be avoided.

Yes. This is 100% what I was talking about. 100%. For far too many people, this type of nuance is beyond them. The media has played an awful role in understanding what the truth of anything is. Now, people have their conclusion in mind and disregard those items which do not fit their conclusion as opposed to take the evidence in front of them and follow it to the real conclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Nona Di Giuseppe

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
Wuhan is probably not ground zero though, only the first detected outbreak.

This is years in the making.

Research has shown that people got infected by bat coronavirus in rural area and were only detected way later by serological test (meaning we can't exactly identify the culprit). Those infections happen more frequently than you think and we could have several more coronavirus of bat (or other) origin slowly adapting. The wildlife farms provided an easy breeding ground for viruses, so hopefully they stay gone.

There's a reason why we get virus scares at least once a year from China and it's not their BSL-4.

What evidence is there that Wuhan is not ground zero?

I agree that the wildlife farms were a huge risk. But having one source of risk does not automatically eliminate another. A BSL-4 lab with questionable safety protocols and a lead scientist who believes that working with highly contagious pathogens in BSL-2 settings (Dr. Shi's own words) is just fine sounds pretty risky to me.
 

Smokey McCanucks

PuckDaddy "Perfect HFBoard Trade Proposal 02/24/14
Dec 21, 2010
3,165
283
Yes. This is 100% what I was talking about. 100%. For far too many people, this type of nuance is beyond them. The media has played an awful role in understanding what the truth of anything is. Now, people have their conclusion in mind and disregard those items which do not fit their conclusion as opposed to take the evidence in front of them and follow it to the real conclusion.

Right. Now in light of that I want to also talk about the possibility that we are dealing with a bio-weapon here. I would not be quick to dismiss this possibility. There are several (circumstantial and speculative, it's true) items that point in this direction.

1. The timing of the outbreak and the news of the outbreak and the progress of both the virus itself and the coverage of it were very convenient for certain parties. Cui bono? as we asked before. I've always been of the mindset that, as the Don says in the Godfather, "if he should be struck be lightning, I'm gonna blame some of the people in this room." I consider that a useful attitude, and what I mean by that is, even if it seems on the face of it very unlikely that there was nefarious action, you can't rule it out when somebody's interests are clearly served by what appears on the surface to be coincidence or accident. Is it a coincidence that the U.S. and now India have been hit so hard? Maybe it is. But, maybe it isn't. There are geopolitical considerations to take into account here.

2. The characteristics of the virus appear, to me at least, to be finely calibrated to attack the demographic structure of post-industrial western society specifically. Talking where in the world is there the health-care and support services to allow so many people to keep living even when they have dementia, alzheimers, cancer, other serious health problems like that? Where is there a lot of obesity and similar issues, which is now known to be a major factor in the severity of outcomes? And, it's not just the demographics. It's the whole open structure of western society - or what was an open strcture, 36 months ago. There is a dialectical thing going on here, and that lends itself to certain conclusions - first and most importantly that this is a conflict scenario.

3. Obviously the effective use of this virus as a bioweapon would be dependant on people not figuring out that's what it was. There would have to be both a development process which hid the real origin, and a concerted propaganda campaign paired with it to achieve this end. Indeed there was just such a campaign, and the real origin remains obfuscated. Something that is obviously a bioweapon is not going to be effective or worthwhile; you need plausible deniability. Has the possibility of engaging in this activity ever been discussed openly? Yes it has.

This is of course far from conclusive. But there is plenty on which to build a hypothesis. It's not an alternative that can be definitively ruled out and I certainly do not rule it out myself.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
What evidence is there that Wuhan is not ground zero?

I agree that the wildlife farms were a huge risk. But having one source of risk does not automatically eliminate another. A BSL-4 lab with questionable safety protocols and a lead scientist who believes that working with highly contagious pathogens in BSL-2 settings (Dr. Shi's own words) is just fine sounds pretty risky to me.

If it's a natural outbreak, it did not happen in Wuhan.

I agree it is a risk. I believe she has updated her lab protocols according to guidance afterwards.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
Right. Now in light of that I want to also talk about the possibility that we are dealing with a bio-weapon here. I would not be quick to dismiss this possibility. There are several (circumstantial and speculative, it's true) items that point in this direction.

1. The timing of the outbreak and the news of the outbreak and the progress of both the virus itself and the coverage of it were very convenient for certain parties. Cui bono? as we asked before. I've always been of the mindset that, as the Don says in the Godfather, "if he should be struck be lightning, I'm gonna blame some of the people in this room." I consider that a useful attitude, and what I mean by that is, even if it seems on the face of it very unlikely that there was nefarious action, you can't rule it out when somebody's interests are clearly served by what appears on the surface to be coincidence or accident. Is it a coincidence that the U.S. and now India have been hit so hard? Maybe it is. But, maybe it isn't. There are geopolitical considerations to take into account here.

2. The characteristics of the virus appear, to me at least, to be finely calibrated to attack the demographic structure of post-industrial western society specifically. Talking where in the world is there the health-care and support services to allow so many people to keep living even when they have dementia, alzheimers, cancer, other serious health problems like that? Where is there a lot of obesity and similar issues, which is now known to be a major factor in the severity of outcomes? And, it's not just the demographics. It's the whole open structure of western society - or what was an open strcture, 36 months ago. There is a dialectical thing going on here, and that lends itself to certain conclusions - first and most importantly that this is a conflict scenario.

3. Obviously the effective use of this virus as a bioweapon would be dependant on people not figuring out that's what it was. There would have to be both a development process which hid the real origin, and a concerted propaganda campaign paired with it to achieve this end. Indeed there was just such a campaign, and the real origin remains obfuscated. Something that is obviously a bioweapon is not going to be effective or worthwhile; you need plausible deniability. Has the possibility of engaging in this activity ever been discussed openly? Yes it has.

This is of course far from conclusive. But there is plenty on which to build a hypothesis. It's not an alternative that can be definitively ruled out and I certainly do not rule it out myself.

1. US have been hit hard because there are many people doing idiotic things in the name of freedom. India has been hit hard because the country is hard packed, their health system is bad and their culture is not very lockdown prone.
They both didn't need any external help to screw themselves up.

2. I guess most viruses must be bioweapons in your eyes then, because most of them will be more severe in the elderly, immunocompromised and/or obese people. This is not surprising for a natural virus at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nona Di Giuseppe

Smokey McCanucks

PuckDaddy "Perfect HFBoard Trade Proposal 02/24/14
Dec 21, 2010
3,165
283
2. I guess most viruses must be bioweapons in your eyes then, because most of them will be more severe in the elderly, immunocompromised and/or obese people. This is not surprising for a natural virus at all.

That is just silly, as most viruses well pre-date the development of the technology needed to work with them.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
That is just silly, as most viruses well pre-date the development of the technology needed to work with them.

How can you be so sure? Maybe the technology has been there for a while and it has just been revealed to the public. :sarcasm:

The point is that aspect of the virus is not different from most other virus, so it's weird that you would use it as evidence toward it being a bioweapon.
 

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
If it's a natural outbreak, it did not happen in Wuhan.

I agree it is a risk. I believe she has updated her lab protocols according to guidance afterwards.
But we don't know that it was a natural outbreak. You can't use your conclusion that it was a natural outbreak to argue that the outbreak didn't likely originate in Wuhan. That's like saying the butler didn't do it because the maid did it when in fact we have not established the maid's guilt.

Good to hear that the lab protocols have been improved but her update of the lab protocols obviously does not do anything about the past.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
But we don't know that it was a natural outbreak. You can't use your conclusion that it was a natural outbreak to argue that the outbreak didn't likely originate in Wuhan. That's like saying the butler didn't do it because the maid did it when in fact we have not established the maid's guilt.

Good to hear that the lab protocols have been improved but her update of the lab protocols obviously does not do anything about the past.

In a scenario where it's a natural outbreak, it would not be ground zero is what I meant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
In a scenario where it's a natural outbreak, it would not be ground zero is what I meant.
OK. let's assume the pandemic has a natural path and it originated elsewhere. Why did the outbreak occur in Wuhan of all places? Why not in other places in China?
 

Smokey McCanucks

PuckDaddy "Perfect HFBoard Trade Proposal 02/24/14
Dec 21, 2010
3,165
283
How can you be so sure? Maybe the technology has been there for a while and it has just been revealed to the public. :sarcasm:

The point is that aspect of the virus is not different from most other virus, so it's weird that you would use it as evidence toward it being a bioweapon.

To the first point, it stands to reason that awareness of new technologies and capabilities on the part of the general public lags behind the awareness of specialists and those 'in the know'. Just look at the Manhattan Project. But, as in that example we are talking maybe a decade tops so my point stands.

As to the second, there are lots of viruses for which that is not the case, which are more dangerous to young children for instance. I don't see that as a convincing counter-argument. Obviously if you accept the idea that a bio-weapon would need to be concealed as a 'normal' virus in order to be effective there are going to be some problems when it comes to determining the reality of that hypothesis if you are only looking at the characteristics of the virus itself. That would be the whole point and it's why a broader perspective than just the biological one is called for. Of course some of that stuff would open up a whole can of worms that we probably shouldn't get into here.

OK. let's assume the pandemic has a natural path and it originated elsewhere. Why did the outbreak occur in Wuhan of all places? Why not in other places in China?

Could be that's just where they have the facilities and expertise to detect such a thing. They wouldn't be able to do it in some rural place with no labs or anything.
 

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
Could be that's just where they have the facilities and expertise to detect such a thing. They wouldn't be able to do it in some rural place with no labs or anything.
In this scenario, the virus circulated in China undetected for some time until it found itself in Wuhan where the technology exists necessary for its detection. I find this less likely than the virus originating in Wuhan. We have reports of new pneumonia-like illness beginning in China around November/December 2019 in the Wuhan area. This evidence is best explained by the virus originating in Wuhan rather than somewhere else and there being no mention of its effects.

Also, if there were any evidence of the virus originating somewhere other than Wuhan, I doubt the CCP would keep it secret; I'd think they prefer the natural path than the lab leak.
 
Last edited:

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
In this scenario, the virus circulated in China undetected for some time until it found itself in Wuhan where the technology exists necessary for its detection. I find this less likely than the virus originating in Wuhan. We have reports of new pneumonia-like illness beginning in China around November/December 2019 in the Wuhan area. This evidence is best explained by the virus originating in Wuhan rather than somewhere else and there being no mention of its effects.

You have recorded instance of bat coronavirus infections in rural areas that have only been detected way after via serology studies. It's not that alien of a thought that rural China (and Africa/rural India too) could have some ongoing outbreaks that just go undetected due to lack of monitoring. If you add to this that most of the cases are asymptomatic, it makes it even less surprising.

Also, if there were any evidence of the virus originating somewhere other than Wuhan, I doubt the CCP would keep it secret; I'd think they prefer the natural path than the lab leak.

Not if that path is through the wildlife farm.

They got bonked once (SARS) for it and made some token changes, but the industry kept growing. If Sars-2 end up coming from them too, there would be a significant amount of international backlash.

There has to be a reason for them to sacrifice a big part of a 70 billion industry and it's not suddenly growing a conscience.

China doesn't want the origin to be found so that way no true action can be taken against them.
 

HabsAddict

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,025
5,032
Visit site
China doesn't want the origin to be found so that way no true action can be taken against them.

That's first cousin to "guilty as charged".

What nation on earth would bury evidence that cleared their name? Not even Russia circa 1960 would do that.

I have no problem absorbing yhe shortages by introducing 25% duty per year until 100% duty on ALL Chinese products. The CCP greatest fear is not any country, their greatest fear is internal dissent. Let's give it to them until they come clean or disappear,.
 

HabsAddict

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,025
5,032
Visit site
Intentional bio-weapon is a bridge too far....and of anyone in here, I've had an unhealthy fascination with bio-weapons going back to the 70s.

The virus does NOT, repeat, NOT have battlefield use. It's far too slow acting and avoidable to have any immediate effect. This isn't ebola. End of story. If you think it has battlefield use, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

An argument can be made that it's an intentional economic and social disruptive bio-weapon. Except that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A country that introduces it has to have a cure in hand or naturally immune. The CCP has to be clownishly stupid to even think about economic bio-weapons..and I certainly don't see that. It comes under....possible...but extremely unlikely.

Did they let it spread, sure they did....but that wasn't a first intent use. We can certainly charge them with that...but we also enter a world were we have to look at UK and Indian variants that were known by the country of origin and thry did not contain it either.

I'm prepared to punish the CCP for letting it get out.....but I doubt politicians and corporate pocket books will agree.

By anyone pushing the claims further and further from the likely into the twilight zone, one is actually helping the CCP.

LAB LEAK VS ZOONOSIS....let's keep it there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nona Di Giuseppe

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
That's first cousin to "guilty as charged".

What nation on earth would bury evidence that cleared their name? Not even Russia circa 1960 would do that.

I have no problem absorbing yhe shortages by introducing 25% duty per year until 100% duty on ALL Chinese products. The CCP greatest fear is not any country, their greatest fear is internal dissent. Let's give it to them until they come clean or disappear,.

That's the thing. If it came because of wildlife farms, it doesn't clear their name, far from it.
 

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
You have recorded instance of bat coronavirus infections in rural areas that have only been detected way after via serology studies. It's not that alien of a thought that rural China (and Africa/rural India too) could have some ongoing outbreaks that just go undetected due to lack of monitoring. If you add to this that most of the cases are asymptomatic, it makes it even less surprising.



Not if that path is through the wildlife farm.

They got bonked once (SARS) for it and made some token changes, but the industry kept growing. If Sars-2 end up coming from them too, there would be a significant amount of international backlash.

There has to be a reason for them to sacrifice a big part of a 70 billion industry and it's not suddenly growing a conscience.

China doesn't want the origin to be found so that way no true action can be taken against them.
I don't see how a path throuh a wildlife farm changes things. We know the first instances of recorded cases occurred around Wuhan and they were reported by doctors describing unusual pneumonia-like symptoms in patients. If the outbreak originated elsewhere, why do we not have reports of such infections elsewhere? Maybe they occurred in a rural area where doctors don't keep such records or are not as observant? But even if we grant this supposition, if the jump from animal to human happened somewhere else, why did the outbreak occur around Wuhan and not somewhere else? We're still back to our original question.

And the reason China sacrificed their wildlife industry does not need to have been caused by their knowing that is how the pandemic originated. China likely had plans for their wildlife industry before the pandemic and this may have been an opportunistic time for them to implement it quickly.

That's the thing. If it came because of wildlife farms, it doesn't clear their name, far from it.
I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
I don't see how a path throuh a wildlife farm changes things. We know the first instances of recorded cases occurred around Wuhan and they were reported by doctors describing unusual pneumonia-like symptoms in patients. If the outbreak originated elsewhere, why do we not have reports of such infections elsewhere? Maybe they occurred in a rural area where doctors don't keep such records or are not as observant? But even if we grant this supposition, if the jump from animal to human happened somewhere else, why did the outbreak occur around Wuhan and not somewhere else? We're still back to our original question.

And the reason China sacrificed their wildlife industry does not need to have been caused by their knowing that is how the pandemic originated. China likely had plans for their wildlife industry before the pandemic and this may have been an opportunistic time for them to implement it quickly.

So they just decided to destroy decades of work just a that time? Seems like BSL-4 in Wuhan level of coincidence to me.

I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.

Even if it was something the word have warned them about for the last two decades and caused at least one other epidemic?
 

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
So they just decided to destroy decades of work just a that time? Seems like BSL-4 in Wuhan level of coincidence to me.



Even if it was something the word have warned them about for the last two decades and caused at least one other epidemic?
Is a leak from a poorly-run BSL-4 lab, which ultimately the CCP is seen as responsible for, better?

And as far as coincidences go, I find China's destruction of its wet markets less problematic since they likely already had plans for it precipitated by previous outbreaks, like SARS in 2002/3. A lab leak does not make the risk of a future naturally-occurring outbreak any less likely. They knew the wet markets were a ticking time bomb.
 

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,178
27,933
Montreal
Is a leak from a poorly-run BSL-4 lab, which ultimately the CCP is seen as responsible for, better?

And as far as coincidences go, I find China's destruction of its wet markets less problematic since they likely already had plans for it precipitated by previous outbreaks, like SARS in 2002/3. A lab leak does not make the risk of a future naturally-occurring outbreak any less likely. They knew the wet markets were a ticking time bomb.

Why did they spend effort to grow the industry between 2002 and December 2019 then? Why did they go so quickly, not giving time for wildlife farmers not to be blindsided? You say they had plans but I'd like to see your sources on that.
 

HabsAddict

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,025
5,032
Visit site
That's the thing. If it came because of wildlife farms, it doesn't clear their name, far from it.

BUT...people will be less angry if it's zoonosis.

Of course the brain drained trust of the CCP want all of this to go away, but the level of suspicion and anger for a lab accident by the world masses/governments will be off the charts compared to "another stupid eating habit by those xxxxx xxxxxxx".


I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.

Yup.

An analogy would be a driver killing a kid. If it's raining and makes a mistake, it's one thing, if he's drunk, it's different and people are far angrier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 42

42

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
8,585
6,617
Toronto Nebula
Why did they spend effort to grow the industry between 2002 and December 2019 then? Why did they go so quickly, not giving time for wildlife farmers not to be blindsided? You say they had plans but I'd like to see your sources on that.
Did they spend effort to grow or did they just let it be? I have no evidence the CCP had plans to eradicate the wet markets, this is just a guess on my part that fits the lab leak narrative, just like your guess that the virus cross from animal to human originating somewhere other than Wuhan fits the natural path narrative.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->