Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 101112 LastLast
Results 351 to 385 of 406

Thread: Constructive shaming

  1. #351
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    110,025

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    dse
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #352
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    110,025

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    not you tom
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  3. #353
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    I don't understand. Are you taking a side in how/where the virus originated? If so, what is your opinion? I would genuinely like to know. My understanding is that the Chinese officials have not permitted an independent study.
    Multiple responses addressing this since my.... erm... diatribe. My apologies (though I'm not sorry). Yeah, I'm really disappointed in 'a few' posting here. Because what they're saying/doing is subversive; it's destructive. WTH is wrong with you boys? Are you really so intent on this countries destruction? It certainly seems so. Traitors, nothing less.

    I've read nothing - nothing at all - to suggest C19 is a lab-produced viro-weapon. I don't have a link - but had read, that by the sequencing performed, the consensus view is, this is a wild variety, mutated to allow human/human transmission. This crap being promoted here, as elsewhere, appeals to the foil-hat, conspiracy fools, confirms their biases, and with todays internet/social media, it takes on a life of its own. This is incredibly dangerous; I've no use for fools promoting such dangerous garbage.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  4. #354
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    21,768

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Yeah, there is no smoking gun to suggest that.

    And, if there were, the MAGAs wouldn't be the ones to figure it out. They would have to rely on expertise outside of the MAGA universe.

    The MAGAs are relying on coincidences...but they won't consider this one: humankind has had many zoonotic origin epidemics jumping to humans, but by coincidence this is the first one, and a doozy at that, to occur on a MAGA watch. What is different about this zoonotic epidemic? Oh, it occurred on a MAGA watch...

    The MAGAs aren't capable of figuring out the origin; the MAGAs aren't capable of figuring out transmission, public health policy; the MAGAs certainly aren't capable of figuring out therapeutics (heh, hydroxychloroquine, bleach inside the body, light upside the rectums, remember those blasts from the past?); the MAGAs aren't capable of figuring out a vaccine...but they sure are capable of effing things up, and refusing pretty much everything because...and here is the kicker...Don't Tread on Me.

    Give me an effing break.



    .
    You know people are still taking hydroxy? Really. Two cats asked me if I could get some, the other day. Really.

    I asked why. I should have said yes, and got paid. Damn.

    What? They’re obviously asking to be fleeced...

  5. #355
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    34,667

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I've read nothing - nothing at all - to suggest C19 is a lab-produced viro-weapon.
    Both you and twodot are far more knowledgeable than me on this subject and I accept your opinion. Moreover, I believe the Democrats (who share this opinion) are more inclined to make an informed opinion rather than a political opinion.

    This whole business where people create phony scientific and medical positions to drive political goals drives me crazy. The harm they do is far reaching and long lasting and I do not have the patience to entertain them here. At best it is a distraction and at worst it is destructive.
    "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?" - Groucho Marx

  6. #356
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,223

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I don't know if I should admire, or just pity, you poor folk who consider it useful to argue with the RWW/tinfoilhat brigade. Why would you do that????
    I suppose I'm one of the guilty parties here... Despite all appearances to the contrary, I don't really try to argue with everyone, nor do I think it's useful to do so in extreme cases.

    But I also don't like to let obvious falsehoods or half-truths be posted without challenging them. I consider that more like correcting the public record, and not so much arguing with those who post them. Probably doesn't do any good, though...

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  7. #357
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    34,667

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    But I also don't like to let obvious falsehoods or half-truths be posted without challenging them. I consider that more like correcting the public record, and not so much arguing with those who post them. Probably doesn't do any good, though...

    Tom
    It's an itch that is very hard not to scratch.
    "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?" - Groucho Marx

  8. #358
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Oh, yeah. And fwiw.... I was talking to the old guy I see in the mirror, as much as any here. And I agree with 'setting the record straight'. Unfortunately, I believe, in our efforts to be 'fair', we've allowed them way too much latitude. Lies just need to be quashed. No room for wiggle.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  9. #359
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    What I've heard discussed, and it's been very little, is that the by far greatest likelihood is that the virus emerged outside of a lab, not inside one. I'm not clear on the reasoning, and it is acknowledged by the folks holding that opinion that the Wuhan lab did do virus research with strains from bats. And also that there are very rare but actual examples of viruses inadvertently escaping from labs with a staffer, who was infected or took some contaminated object out by accident.

    But the notion that this was a bioweapon being developed by the Chinese which was released either accidentally or on purpose is beyond ridiculous. No matter how many tinfoil hats the conspirators wear.

    Among other things, it's a pretty crappy tactical weapon. Something like anthrax is far preferable, as it is more deadly, more containable and storable, and frankly able to be countered so you don't kill your own.
    Tom, disappointing, you normally argue mire honestly and do not stop to such strawmen arguments. Others who have followed up in your lead, it's rather expected.

    Just to be clear, I have posted nothing to indicate I think the Chinese did this on purpose. I do not, in the least, believe that to be the case. I do think there is a definite possibility, indeed it seems likely at this time, that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab and escaped. All of my posts have been along these lines.

    I also do would not accuse Bidren's administration of believing it was some sort of weapon, even though they are not ruling out the possibility if a lab origination and investigating that possibility.

  10. #360
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  11. #361
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Myth 1: The novel coronavirus was engineered in a lab in China. Because the pathogen first emerged and began infecting people in Wuhan, China, President Donald Trump has claimed—without evidence—that it started in a laboratory there. Some conspiracy theorists have even speculated it was engineered as a bioweapon, although U.S. intelligence agencies have categorically denied this possibility, stating that the intelligence community “concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.” No credible evidence has emerged to support an accidental lab release either. As Scientific American reported earlier this year, Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli—who studies bat coronaviruses and whose laboratory Trump and others had suggested was COVID-19’s source—compared the pathogen’s sequence against that of other coronaviruses her team had sampled from bat caves and found that it did not match any of them. Zhengli also explained in detail why her lab could not have been the source of the virus in a lengthy response in Science. In reaction to calls for an independent, international investigation into how the virus originated, China has invited researchers from the World Health Organization to discuss the scope of such a mission. But the evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was not created in a lab.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  12. #362
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Myth 4: You don’t need to wear a mask. Although early guidance on masks from the CDC and the WHO was confusing and inconsistent, there is now a strong consensus among public health authorities—supported by numerous studies—that wearing a face covering can limit the transmission of the coronavirus through small exhaled droplets. Masks have long been known as an effective means of source control (preventing a sick patient from spreading a disease to others), but the early guidance was based, in part, on the fact that there was a shortage of high-quality “N95” and surgical masks. We now know that cloth face masks can be an effective alternative. But despite the evidence, many people still refuse to wear one, considering it a violation of civil liberties or emasculating. Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp went so far as to sign an executive order banning city governments from implementing mask mandates. And he sued Atlanta’s mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms when she instituted one, although he has now dropped the lawsuit. But as coronavirus cases have spiked around the U.S. in recent months, even states that were once staunch holdouts have now implemented mask orders.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  13. #363
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Myth 8: We can achieve herd immunity by letting the virus spread through the population. Early on in the pandemic, some speculated that the polices chosen by the U.K. and Sweden gave the impression that they planned on letting the virus circulate through their population until they reached herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to the virus to prevent it from spreading to others. (Both nations’ governments have denied that this idea was their official strategy, but the U.K. was late to issue a full lockdown, and Sweden had decided against widespread restrictions.) There is a fundamental flaw with this approach, however: Experts estimate that roughly 60 to 70 percent of people would need to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. And given the relatively high mortality rate of the disease, letting it infect that many individuals could lead to millions of deaths. That tragedy is what happened during the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which roughly 50 million people are thought to have perished. The U.K.’s COVID-19 death rate is among the world’s highest. Sweden, for its part, has had significantly more deaths than neighboring countries, and its economy has suffered, despite not shutting down. It is likely that many lives could have been saved if these countries had acted sooner.
    Myth 9: Any vaccine will be unsafe and a bigger risk than getting COVID-19. As scientists race to develop a vaccine against the disease, worrying reports have emerged that many people may refuse to get one once it is available. Conspiracy theories about potential vaccines have circulated among anti-vax groups and in viral videos. In Plandemic, Mikovits falsely claims that any COVID-19 vaccine will “kill millions” and that other vaccines have done so (in fact, vaccines save millions of lives each year). Another conspiracy theory asserts that Bill Gates has a secret plan to use vaccines to implant trackable microchips in people; Gates has denied the claim, which is not supported by evidence. Most Americans still support vaccination, yet the few voices of opposition have been growing. A recent study observed that although clusters of anti-vaxxers on Facebook are smaller than pro-vaccination groups, they are more heavily interconnected with clusters of undecided people. A recent Gallup poll found that one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today, with Republicans being less likely to be vaccinated than Democrats. There is good reason to be cautious about the safety of a new vaccine, but that need for prudence is why the top contenders are currently conducting large-scale clinical trials in tens of thousands of people to determine safety and efficacy. If one or more of them pass muster, it will be critical for people to get vaccinated to save lives—including, perhaps, their own.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  14. #364
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vids-origins1/


    The report was the result of a joint investigation between Chinese and international researchers that included a four-week trip earlier this year to Wuhan, China, where COVID-19 was first detected.
    The details in the report were helpful, but didn’t include much new information, says David Robertson, a virologist at the University of Glasgow, UK. “The extensive data presented confirmed a lot of what was already known, particularly on the timing of events and early cases in Wuhan.”

    The report describes the results of many lines of investigation, including when SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in people and which animals might have harboured it. It places the start of the outbreak in the months before mid-December, when the virus could have been spreading undetected. It was perhaps introduced to the community through an unknown animal that acted as an intermediary between bats, which carried an ancestral virus, and people.
    The team didn’t find that species, even though researchers in China tested tens of thousands of wildlife and livestock samples, but team members point to wild-animal markets for future leads. They also conclude that it is “extremely unlikely” that the virus leaked from a laboratory.....

    Will scientists ever find the origin of the virus?

    Given the politics and the many unanswered questions, some scientists have wondered whether the origins of the pandemic might forever remain elusive. But those familiar with tracing origins say that it takes time, and a bit of luck.
    The sources of many human viruses took years to understand, says Robertson. “Viruses are tricky, as rare events can have massive implications.” However, with sufficient sampling of animals, researchers should be able to identify where, and in which animals, the ancestors of SARS-CoV-2 were circulating, he says.
    Courtier is optimistic that studies of molecular evolution will help to confirm whether the outbreak was the result of a laboratory accident or a natural spillover, because they will show whether viruses have been stored or manipulated.
    But Lentzos argues that the origins might forever be shrouded in uncertainty. “I seriously doubt we’ll find a smoking gun,” she says. “There won’t be an undisputable origins answer. All we’ll have are likelihoods and probabilities.”
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  15. #365
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    From https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...gin/index.html


    Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked by NBC's Chuck Todd if he could guarantee that we will ultimately understand how the virus originated.

    "I think we have to, because we need to do that precisely so we fully understand what happened in order to have the best shot possible at preventing it from happening again," Blinken said.

  16. #366
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    'Have to'.... meet 'making every scientific effort'.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  17. #367
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    This is interesting - and gives some perspective on the numbers, and statistics:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ure-epidemics/

    When the novel coronavirus jumped to humans in late 2019—adapting so well to its new host species that it caused a pandemic—it was beating the odds. Although scientists estimate that roughly 60 percent of known human pathogens and up to 75 percent of those associated with emerging diseases originate in animals, successful “spillover” remains exceedingly rare. According to scholars, anywhere from 260,000 to more than 1.6 million animal viruses exist in nature. Yet with slightly more than 200 viruses documented to affect humans, far less than 0.1 percent of those from other species have “ever caused a known human infection,” a 2019 PLOS Biology paper notes.

    For a virus to hop from animals to people and then survive, replicate and spread efficiently among its new hosts, a number of factors must align—including ecological and viral characteristics. In recent decades, population growth, environmental disruption and the rise of industrial agriculture have altered the so-called human-animal interface. This change has led to the emergence of several zoonotic diseases, from Ebola to avian and swine influenzas and several coronaviruses.

    Microbes do not make the cross-species leap in just one direction, however. Several cases of COVID-19 patients infecting pet dogs and cats have been reported. And in early April a tiger at the Bronx Zoo was confirmed to have the virus (seven of the zoo’s other big cats have since tested positive as well). Evolutionary genetic analyses indicate that during the 2002–2003 SARS outbreak, transmission between humans and small carnivores went both ways. Further, during the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic, 21 countries reported infections among animals, most of which arose in the wake of the human outbreaks. In fact, since the 1980s, researchers have documented cases of humans infecting wildlife, companion animals and livestock with a wide range of pathogens, including viruses, fungi and bacteria.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  18. #368
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    'Have to'.... meet 'making every scientific effort'.
    It looks like it will take more than scientific effort, certainly some level of diplomatic effort will be needed, as the Chinese are not cooperating. I will note that with Sarah, they did cooperate and the answer was arrived at in a relatively short amount if time.

  19. #369
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    The word likely, by itself, was perhaps a little strong. I would say "more likely" would be a better wording.
    Why? Well as has been posted by several of us, the jumping if a virus from bats to humans is not an immediate, not direct process. It takesultiple mutations, and has typically taken a path through an intermediate species in the past. This leaves a trail. Those intermediate viruses don't just disappear. In the past, scientists were able to discover the evidence quite quickly. On top of that, the trail should be spread out over a 1500km distance. But so far we have little evidence at all.
    OTOH, we now know (this was not always clear), that the Wuhan lab was doing gain if function research on corona viruses, directly infecting humanized mice and infecting cultured human respiratory cells. This was funded, in part, by grants of our NHI. And the virus first community spread was in Wuhan.

    Also, there are scientists who are disputing the early claims if no genetic engineering signs in sars-cov2.

    On top of that, there has been a lack of transparency by the Chinese as to the research records from the lab (an understatement). We also have the scientist managing those NIH grants who led the effort to convince us it was natural.

    We also know the lab security level was either 2 or 3, as opposed to the most stringent level 4. And the lab had had problems in the past.

    So I choose lab escape as more likely origin. Occam's Razor.

  20. #370
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Yup. But I found it interesting they're still pursuing all angles. The next go-round might be even more challenging.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  21. #371
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    I'd disagree. The articles I linked would suggest the consensus also disagrees. What scientists and articles are you referencing?
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  22. #372
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    I'd disagree. The articles I linked would suggest the consensus also disagrees. What scientists and articles are you referencing?
    Consensus seems a rather strong word, if one reads that Scientific American article all the way through. Yea, it starts out quoting the WHO report's quote if "extremely unlikely", but if you read the whole article that becomes less and less apparent, actually nothing much to back it up.

    As to my readings, I would start you looking into Nicholas Wade's blog on the matter and the several sources he provides.

    https://nicholaswade.medium.com/orig...es-6f03564c038

    Now I need to go turn in my neurons (so many jerks on this forum).

  23. #373
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,223

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    The last sentence of the abstract: 'While an undiscovered “facilitating” intermediate species cannot be discounted, collectively, our results support the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 being capable of efficient human–human transmission as a consequence of its adaptive evolutionary history in bats, not humans, which created a relatively generalist virus.'

    In other words, if you are in Wyoming and hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolog...l.pbio.3001115
    Oh, I think it's zebras all the way down with this one...

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  24. #374
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    That theory is covered in Wade's article. And he rightly points out it is not at odds with the lab escape theory. Which humans would have been most likely infected by bats in that area? Wuhan virologists is one answer.
    But that, it seems to me, is somewhat if a stretch.

    Also, this paper addresses the direct bats to human theory.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...11-021-01211-0

    Of course, Dr Jung considers that tripe.

  25. #375
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    16,477

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    How do you know that the virus jumped directly from bats? Afterall, the virus also has similarity to pangolin coronaviruses.



    It takes multiple mutations? Are you sure? How do you know that pangolins weren't the intermediate species?



    It does? In what way?



    But, what if they haven't been found yet?



    Who are these 'scientists' that you are referring to?



    It should? Says who?



    Does the virus have hallmarks that suggest that it was the result of gain of function mutations? Were the gain of function experiments of the sort that might lead to a virus such as found in the human patients?



    Do you think that it was appropriate for Trump to pull funding by his hand, or does that smell like, rather, he was looking for a scapegoat?



    Are you sure that is where the virus originated?



    Really? Who? And what is their expertise? Because, there are many, highly qualified virologists who say that there is no evidence of genetic engineering. Why do you take the word of a few scientists, refer to scientists, but then ignore the consensus of scientists?



    Are you sure that isn't just the Chinese government being, well, the Chinese government?



    Or, one of the people most familiar with the situation was saying that it was likely natural? Why shouldn't he be believed? Perhaps because Trump was looking to distract?



    What is the security level of a marketplace selling pangolins? Level 4?



    Or, does Occam's Razor suggest that you are attracted to right wing conspiracy theories?
    oh the humanity.

    peb=led zeppelin

  26. #376
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Oh, yeah; Wade is a 'science writer' with, AFA I can tell, absolutely no expertise in genetics or epidemiology. But he is feted by National Review and other RW sources. I also came across this, in a search for background/credentials:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...f-white-power/

    A new book argues race and genetics explain “the rise of the West.” Bad science explains the downfall of its ideas.

    Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world's economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances." It's not prejudice; it's science.

    What makes Wade's book so troublesome is that he offers no scientific evidence to support his racial hypothesis. None. In fact, Wade acknowledges himself that his ideas on this topic are “leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.” Nevertheless, because he thinks academics have suppressed the importance of genetics and race in human history for political reasons, Wade charges ahead and concludes, confidently, that Western civilization is a Darwinian success story.
    Not a good source on which to base your argument. And I have to say - to see one of usually sensible, if RW, folks go down this rabbit hole.... is disconcerting. 5 years ago, I don't believe it would have happened. Where the trumpublicans have gone is, perhaps, beyond recovery. And that is just sad.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  27. #377
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Oh, yeah; Tanya Lewis is a 'science writer' with, AFA I can tell, absolutely no expertise in genetics or epidemiology.

  28. #378
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    SMRITI MALLAPATY is a 'science writer' with, AFA I can tell, absolutely no expertise in genetics or epidemiology.

  29. #379
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    No, they are science reporters, which disqualifies them according to George. I think the article by MALLAPATY makes some really good points.

  30. #380
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Oh the humanity.
    Avril Haines=led zeppelin

  31. #381
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    13,939

  32. #382
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    26,698

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Ya got that bone purty chewed up, peb. Yeah - I don't consider a 'science reporter', in particular Wade (based on his lack of background and credentials) to be a credible counter argument to those folks with advanced degrees and actually working in these fields. You appear to be avidly searching for corroboration of a preconceived outcome. Come on - I know that you know, that's not science. That partisanship. And you're backing the wrong team.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  33. #383
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    110,025

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by George Jung View Post
    That partisanship. And you're backing the wrong team.
    doubling down on stupid
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  34. #384
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    38,186

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    doubling down on stupid
    On the theory that two negatives make a positive.
    Rattling the teacups.

  35. #385
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN Mississippi River Milepost 840.2
    Posts
    13,645

    Default Re: Constructive shaming

    Good grief. Influenza routinely moves between birds, pigs, and humans. New variants come from Asia where domestic waterfowl, pigs and people live in close proximity at scale. This happens every year.

    Sure, a coronavirus escaping from a lab is a much more likely mechanism. (Roll eyes emoji here.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •