The Covid Emergency is Over

[chaos]

That's part of the issue.  There actually was a point in time if you said it came from a lab, you were vilified, demonetized, canceled etc....there are plenty of examples of youtube and such doing this.

And that is just for something completely benign.  It was worse if you questioned the vaccine, provided alternative ideas, challenged efficacy, etc......the whole thing was incompetence at best, nefarious at worst.

The communication from the government was not honest.  It was one option, and one option only.

Revisionist history!!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/guy-in-dispute/ar-AA2aOpy9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6a8c3b28d6e94aa4a47b81e048ad814a&ei=12

What Fauci did not say was that the study’s lead author, computational biologist Kristian Andersen, had an $8.9 million grant pending with NIH when the paper was submitted, or that Fauci had personally initiated the scientists' examination of the origins question. Nor did Fauci tell reporters that in a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference with a dozen scientists who studied the virus, a vast majority (10 of the 12) believed it was possible the virus had come from a lab.

Indeed, emails would later show that Andersen — the lead author of the paper — harbored strong suspicions that COVID-19 had emerged from a lab, not a wet market.

“Accidental escape [from a lab] is in fact highly likely — it’s not some fringe theory,” Andersen wrote to colleagues on Slack.

“[The] main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened,” Andersen wrote in another message to colleagues.

Today, most U.S. agencies, including the CIA, agree with Andersen that COVID-19 probably came from a laboratory in Wuhan.

Yet for years, the public was given a starkly different story: COVID-19 came from a wet market. People who suggested otherwise were not just wrong; they were peddling a racist conspiracy theory.

“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, in February 2020.

[Necrosis]

What is their evidence?

the studies don't corroborate this. Across the world, multiple countries have all done investigations, the data is published and is open source, you can read it.

[Humble Narcissist]

What is their evidence?

the studies don't corroborate this. Across the world, multiple countries have all done investigations, the data is published and is open source, you can read it.

You actually believe their studies after having lived through that?

[chaos]

You actually believe their studies after having lived through that?

At this point, the people that are wrong would have to swallow their pride in order to admit anything other than the "official" story. To accept the fact that there is a possibility the covid came from the lab would be to accept the possibility that they were duped by their "scientific community". That would then require them to question everything about their life and what they've blindly followed. It's a harsh reality once they wake up, if they do.

[Donny]

At this point, the people that are wrong would have to swallow their pride in order to admit anything other than the "official" story. To accept the fact that there is a possibility the covid came from the lab would be to accept the possibility that they were duped by their "scientific community". That would then require them to question everything about their life and what they've blindly followed. It's a harsh reality once they wake up, if they do.

100% as i wrote before a long time ago viruses have been exposed to the public before

[Necrosis]

You actually believe their studies after having lived through that?

The studies were never questionable. There actions may have been but if you look at the data its just giving you facts dude. It's just how it works. You have russia producing the same shit.

[Necrosis]

At this point, the people that are wrong would have to swallow their pride in order to admit anything other than the "official" story. To accept the fact that there is a possibility the covid came from the lab would be to accept the possibility that they were duped by their "scientific community". That would then require them to question everything about their life and what they've blindly followed. It's a harsh reality once they wake up, if they do.

I posted the best study to date which said that lab leak was possible but unlikely do to several factors. No one with a brain would say otherwise. People who are intelligent realize that you can't be certain on these things and should always be open to revision.

Even the scientists are not saying what you think they are saying. You are politicized. Read the actual data, its apolitical.

[chaos]

Behind the curtain talk between scientists = highly likely accidental escape from a lab.
Publicly scientists say = wet market.
Guess which one the morons believe?

LOL

[Grape Ape]

I posted the best study to date which said that lab leak was possible but unlikely do to several factors. No one with a brain would say otherwise. People who are intelligent realize that you can't be certain on these things and should always be open to revision.

Even the scientists are not saying what you think they are saying. You are politicized. Read the actual data, its apolitical.

I cannot say for certain which it was, and neither can anyone else, if if the data points towards a likelier zoonotic origin.

But you cannot argue how one theory was more readily accepted, and those who lobbied for  the other were cancelled, demonetized, fired, ridiculed etc.

This is exact opposite of what is supposed to happen.

[Primemuscle]

Behind the curtain talk between scientists = highly likely accidental escape from a lab.
Publicly scientists say = wet market.
Guess which one the morons believe?

LOL

I am not uninformed or a moron, and I believe both possibilities can be true. People—including scientists—often revise their views when new information comes to light. This is part of learning: there are no absolutes, so conclusions remain evolving and elusive.

[Grape Ape]

I am not uninformed or a moron, and I believe both possibilities can be true. People—including scientists—often revise their views when new information comes to light. This is part of learning: there are no absolutes, so conclusions remain evolving and elusive.

The can revise their views.

But in this situation, their views were chastised, ridiculed, suppressed, silenced, etc.....tenured professors and medical folks lost their jobs, etc.

There is no denying this, yet some here seem to.

[deadz]

I am not uninformed or a moron, and I believe both possibilities can be true. People—including scientists—often revise their views when new information comes to light. This is part of learning: there are no absolutes, so conclusions remain evolving and elusive.

Lib brain, cannot be altered, death is the only cure.

[Necrosis]

I cannot say for certain which it was, and neither can anyone else, if if the data points towards a likelier zoonotic origin.

But you cannot argue how one theory was more readily accepted, and those who lobbied for  the other were cancelled, demonetized, fired, ridiculed etc.

This is exact opposite of what is supposed to happen.

I did not follow protocol, I didn't agree with 90% of it. I don't trust government to make decisions like that. So I agree.

The genetics of the strain which anyone can do and multiple have point to multiple animal origins

https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/welcome/episode/covid-origins

The lab does not produce a strain that matches that profile.

Now the options are, it's more than likely a natural occurrence or they are completely and utterly lying. That why they found does not match the strain that started it all at all and they are hoping no one will check etc.

its still debatable and always will be because China did not allow anyone in.

[Necrosis]

The can revise their views.

But in this situation, their views were chastised, ridiculed, suppressed, silenced, etc.....tenured professors and medical folks lost their jobs, etc.

There is no denying this, yet some here seem to.

I think there is more granularity there. A lot of folks were promoting then unproven treatments which may have caused serious harm. The idea was also lacking evidence, it was provocative and seriously reduced trust in the institutions. If it was a leak are the are hiding that (which they weren't, they simply did not know but have little evidence it was true) and that would then make public health a more dire situation. It wasn't that they were acting in that manner simply because of a disagreement, it was what it meant and the fact that there was little evidence for such a claim.

The outcome if that became the leading narrative could of been catastrophic.

The virus was very rough at the start but evolved to become a better virus lucky for us. In hindsight and in my gut during it, once we seen that deaths weren't piling up after the first year we should of came to our senses. The other problem is that because of those same measures our privileged vantage point in the current future may not afford us the perspective on the true seriousness because it didn't happen in actuality. So we are like of course it wasn't that bad!!

The whole thing was retarded. The one driver was that you had hospitals becoming overwhelmed which put the panic in people.

My area would be like, back to lockdowns, there has been one case.. like it was going to come into your home a run a train on you.

[Dos Equis]

Behind the curtain talk between scientists = highly likely accidental escape from a lab.
Publicly scientists say = wet market.
Guess which one the morons believe?

LOL

This is one the things that convinced me it was a lab leak. 

An unlikely genome sequence is evidence that COVID-19 leaked from a lab, two U.S. experts say
Two experts asserted in the Wall Street Journal that the genetic footprint of COVID-19 has never been seen in a naturally occurring coronavirus
Author of the article:By National Post Staff
Published Jun 08, 2021
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/unlikely-genome-sequencing-and-a-lack-of-genetic-diversity-provide-evidence-that-covid-19-originally-leaked-from-a-lab-according-to-two-experts-but-the-origins-of-the-virus-remain-unclear

[Necrosis]

This is one the things that convinced me it was a lab leak. 

An unlikely genome sequence is evidence that COVID-19 leaked from a lab, two U.S. experts say
Two experts asserted in the Wall Street Journal that the genetic footprint of COVID-19 has never been seen in a naturally occurring coronavirus
Author of the article:By National Post Staff
Published Jun 08, 2021
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/unlikely-genome-sequencing-and-a-lack-of-genetic-diversity-provide-evidence-that-covid-19-originally-leaked-from-a-lab-according-to-two-experts-but-the-origins-of-the-virus-remain-unclear

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12863-023-01169-8

What they are saying isn't true which makes sense why it would convince a layperson. They aren't being fully honest. Frankly they aren't experts, one dude is a physicist ffs

it is found in other coronaviruses at a decent rate, it is very rare in variants related to sars-cov2 less than 5% but it occurs.

The sequence is often a weakness, so viruses even when made in labs quickly move away from it, covid has not, this shows the sequence is functional.

" If a human artificially forced a "low-fitness" or inefficient sequence into the virus, it typically would have mutated away quickly. Instead, the CGG-CGG sequence has remained over 99.8% stable across millions of sequenced COVID-19 samples, meaning it serves a strong, natural functional purpose for the virus."

It's really not that convincing. If we are being truly objective here, which is what one should do as politics has no place here (with the truth of covid)

[Dos Equis]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12863-023-01169-8

What they are saying isn't true which makes sense why it would convince a layperson. They aren't being fully honest. Frankly they aren't experts, one dude is a physicist ffs

it is found in other coronaviruses at a decent rate, it is very rare in variants related to sars-cov2 less than 5% but it occurs.

The sequence is often a weakness, so viruses even when made in labs quickly move away from it, covid has not, this shows the sequence is functional.

" If a human artificially forced a "low-fitness" or inefficient sequence into the virus, it typically would have mutated away quickly. Instead, the CGG-CGG sequence has remained over 99.8% stable across millions of sequenced COVID-19 samples, meaning it serves a strong, natural functional purpose for the virus."

It's really not that convincing. If we are being truly objective here, which is what one should do as politics has no place here (with the truth of covid)

Sorry not sorry, but I'm not placing any stock in what you say.  I believe them, over you, including this:

"In the case of COVID-19, the virus appeared in humans already in its most contagious form and no real adaptations occurred until the first variations were seen months later in England. Rapid optimization of COVID-19 is unprecedented and indicates a long period of adaptation predating public transmission, said Quay and Muller."

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/unlikely-genome-sequencing-and-a-lack-of-genetic-diversity-provide-evidence-that-covid-19-originally-leaked-from-a-lab-according-to-two-experts-but-the-origins-of-the-virus-remain-unclear

[Necrosis]

Sorry not sorry, but I'm not placing any stock in what you say.  I believe them, over you, including this:

"In the case of COVID-19, the virus appeared in humans already in its most contagious form and no real adaptations occurred until the first variations were seen months later in England. Rapid optimization of COVID-19 is unprecedented and indicates a long period of adaptation predating public transmission, said Quay and Muller."

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/unlikely-genome-sequencing-and-a-lack-of-genetic-diversity-provide-evidence-that-covid-19-originally-leaked-from-a-lab-according-to-two-experts-but-the-origins-of-the-virus-remain-unclear

You don't need to believe me, you just need to believe the experts who have studied this there whole lives. You are only believing them because it aligns with your political position which is not an honest position.

You didn't even address the facts I presented. You just plugged your ears and posted another quote that isn't entirely true. That's not being intellectually honest is it?

One guy is a physicist for fucks sake, you don't find it odd you are "believing" someone who has no expertise in the area at all? that doesn't cause some alarm bells to go off? that it may be politically motivated?

[Grape Ape]

I think there is more granularity there. A lot of folks were promoting then unproven treatments which may have caused serious harm. The idea was also lacking evidence, it was provocative and seriously reduced trust in the institutions. If it was a leak are the are hiding that (which they weren't, they simply did not know but have little evidence it was true) and that would then make public health a more dire situation. It wasn't that they were acting in that manner simply because of a disagreement, it was what it meant and the fact that there was little evidence for such a claim.

The outcome if that became the leading narrative could of been catastrophic.

The virus was very rough at the start but evolved to become a better virus lucky for us. In hindsight and in my gut during it, once we seen that deaths weren't piling up after the first year we should of came to our senses. The other problem is that because of those same measures our privileged vantage point in the current future may not afford us the perspective on the true seriousness because it didn't happen in actuality. So we are like of course it wasn't that bad!!

The whole thing was retarded. The one driver was that you had hospitals becoming overwhelmed which put the panic in people.

My area would be like, back to lockdowns, there has been one case.. like it was going to come into your home a run a train on you.

I was specifically referring to the lab leak for my comments about cancelling, etc....but it could also be applied to alternative treatments, natural immunity, etc.  Which treatments specifically do you think were causing harm?  From what I remember, most of the treatments were low risk in terms of side effects of the drugs, the real risk being they didn't do much or were started too late.

As for the bolded, yes.

I didn't take the vaccine at first because I already worked remote, and thought I could take a wait and see approach.  It wasn't a slam dunk for me, and it weighed on me.  But I did realize quickly that the healthy and non-compromised folks were likely fine, and once had my 3 days Covid sickness, I didn't see any reason after that.

[Necrosis]

I was specifically referring to the lab leak for my comments about cancelling, etc....but it could also be applied to alternative treatments, natural immunity, etc.  Which treatments specifically do you think were causing harm?  From what I remember, most of the treatments were low risk in terms of side effects of the drugs, the real risk being they didn't do much or were started too late.

As for the bolded, yes.

I didn't take the vaccine at first because I already worked remote, and thought I could take a wait and see approach.  It wasn't a slam dunk for me, and it weighed on me.  But I did realize quickly that the healthy and non-compromised folks were likely fine, and once had my 3 days Covid sickness, I didn't see any reason after that.

I am not sure if any of those alternative treatments caused harm directly, more so indirectly by causing people to avoid actual treatment, avoid vaccination if they are high risk (diabetic for example) etc... ivermectin is pretty harmless stuff. I am a  believer in alternative medicine in the sense that, exercise, diet mods, supps do have an impact. You could throw peptides in there as well and off label stuff- phenibut, nootropics etc..

I think the problem was we didn't know. I think it's unfair to judge those decisions in hindsight without proper context.

It's a hard call with public health. There is a certain duty to others as we live in a society. If it reduced the burden on hospitals and reduced transmission (which is only does mildly at best) I can see the risks being worth it. Vaccines have pretty low risks and it's established that the virus has more risks for myocarditis for example. I simply didn't like the shaming and forced nature of it. I had friends lose their jobs and I am not sure what the right answer there was. I know folks losing their businesses was pretty brutal to see.

I am definitely torn on the situation, the medical side of me see's the arguments, I have read the papers but that morphs when you have politicians dictating policy that can have ulterior motives (financial etc). That's how it's always been though. I am not sure if our saturation with information has made it more obvious but I can't imagine it was less corrupt 2 years ago when there was zero oversight.

[chaos]

As for the bolded, yes.

*should have

Fauci and others benefited tremendously from creating panic over covid. Governments around the world learned how their populations will fall in line and beg to be controlled with the media pushing their agenda.

[Grape Ape]

I am not sure if any of those alternative treatments caused harm directly, more so indirectly by causing people to avoid actual treatment, avoid vaccination if they are high risk (diabetic for example) etc... ivermectin is pretty harmless stuff. I am a  believer in alternative medicine in the sense that, exercise, diet mods, supps do have an impact. You could throw peptides in there as well and off label stuff- phenibut, nootropics etc..

That's the thing - there was no "actual treatment".  It was "stay home unless it gets so bad you have to go to the hospital".  Doctors on the front lines who were trying alternate methods and sharing success publicly were vilified.

I think the problem was we didn't know. I think it's unfair to judge those decisions in hindsight without proper context.

This is probably where you and I have the widest gap in opinion - I agree "we didn't know" existed, but you give much more leeway here than I do.  For example, we did know early on that outdoor transmission was unlikely, but governors like Newsom still closed the beaches and filled the skate parks with sand, and arrested those who didn't comply.  There was no "science" that said you needed a mask to walk to your table in a restaurant, but could remove it once you sat.  Or that you had to limit gatherings to 10, but if you were protesting, 100 was cool.

And my bigger problem, which I have been consistent on, was not as much the "we didn't know", but the suppression of conflicting opinions and the lack of honesty about the situation.

It's a hard call with public health. There is a certain duty to others as we live in a society. If it reduced the burden on hospitals and reduced transmission (which is only does mildly at best) I can see the risks being worth it. Vaccines have pretty low risks and it's established that the virus has more risks for myocarditis for example. I simply didn't like the shaming and forced nature of it. I had friends lose their jobs and I am not sure what the right answer there was. I know folks losing their businesses was pretty brutal to see.

It IS hard with public health.  There's the old dilemma of "do you let the bus of 30 kids go off a cliff, if it means it will save 1000 other people".  I think that's kind of what they were doing with vaccine, meaning they knew certain folks were going to have side effects, but overall they felt the math would work (this is purely my thought, didn't read this anywhere).

The problem with this is you constantly hammer  and message "safe and effective", all it takes is one person to lose a family member from the vax, and confidence is shaken.  Then you get a network of folks in the same situation, and now half the population thinks the gov't is full of shit.  The sheep media was complicit in this.  They should have been more honest about personal choice, the possible risks, etc.....but they were not - those who didn't take the shot were vilified, and the media was constant with this messaging.

I am definitely torn on the situation, the medical side of me see's the arguments, I have read the papers but that morphs when you have politicians dictating policy that can have ulterior motives (financial etc). That's how it's always been though. I am not sure if our saturation with information has made it more obvious but I can't imagine it was less corrupt 2 years ago when there was zero oversight.

Yeah, I think about this too.  Take the media - people say "I wish it more honest like back then with Walter Cronkite".......and now I'm like, it would have actually been EASIER to control the narrative back then simply because it took fewer outlets to control.

[Grape Ape]

*should have

Fauci and others benefited tremendously from creating panic over covid. Governments around the world learned how their populations will fall in line and beg to be controlled with the media pushing their agenda.

This is all true.

[chaos]

And my bigger problem, which I have been consistent on, was not as much the "we didn't know", but the suppression of conflicting opinions and the lack of honesty about the situation.

Isn't that what science is all about? Get a few scientists to agree with a (paid) opinion, then force it on the public and any scientist that disagrees or offers a different idea is ridiculed, denounced, "canceled"? I mean, what kind of scientist publicly challenges questionable findings? 

[Necrosis]

Isn't that what science is all about? Get a few scientists to agree with a (paid) opinion, then force it on the public and any scientist that disagrees or offers a different idea is ridiculed, denounced, "canceled"? I mean, what kind of scientist publicly challenges questionable findings?

No it's not.

You aren't being honest.