Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 668714 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3600 on: September 22, 2021, 09:35:02 AM »
Quote
said the research may have gone ahead even without the funding.

...so the NIH didn't fund it?  So how is it the NIH's fault?

Ambiguous phrasing. It could mean it might not have been funded, but in context it looks like it means that even if it hadn't been funded it might have gone ahead anyhow.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3601 on: September 22, 2021, 09:53:51 AM »
Part of it is the fungibility of funding and the other part is that even if the NIH wasn't funding that specific thing they were still funding the Wuhan lab and funding what many consider to be gain of function research. If the virus came out of this dangerously and incompetently run lab which everyone agrees was operating at a biosafety level that was totally inadequate for the type of work they were doing and Fauci's NIH was funding them at all then America shares in the blame. We've certainly paid a high price for Fauci's arrogance and mistakes. It's perfectly clear that we were funding them to do dangerous research over there that could never be done in such conditions, meaning on the cheap, over here or pretty much anywhere else. Apparently the idea is that if something bad happens it won't reach us. For people who are supposed to be such experts in virology they apparently didn't understand that's not how this works. Or they just didn't care. If we were going to fund the Wuhan lab we should have provided funding for them to upgrade their biosafety level from 2 to 3 or higher first and maybe then started to think about funding their Covid-19 spawning research. Maybe. Probably not. But certainly not before their lab is more secure.

These people knew they were acting like gunslingers in the Wild West, just totally lawless and with reckless abandon. They may as well have been shouting, "Yeehaw!" They knew what they were doing was extremely dangerous and risked a pandemic exactly like this one. Fauci said as much. And they did it anyway. No passes given.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3602 on: September 22, 2021, 10:13:03 AM »
The problem with not holding the people responsible for this to account for their crimes and mistakes is that means it could all happen again and it could be even worse. So far, they've all gotten away with it. In fact, they have framed themselves as heroes with the narrative that it was just an organic virus that naturally made it's way to humans and if it hadn't been for the research they were conducting we'd know even less about it and be less prepared. If the truth is that their research caused the pandemic, either through gain of function research or just unsafely collecting the bat viruses they were researching then their narrative is not just a lie but outright grotesque.

It's like a disaster movie. And the people responsible tell themselves that yes they made some tragic mistakes but their hearts were in the right place and they know they are still correct to keep doing the research because it has to be done. They'll just try to do it more safely next time. They've learned their lesson. Getting fired or publicly pilloried or put in prison won't help humanity. Their research will and they need to continue it, no matter what. At this point, the truth isn't going to do anybody any good. Not for the public and certainly not for themselves. And of course most of all the truth of what happened won't do any good for science, the god for which they are willing to sacrifice anything. Even human sacrifice.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3603 on: September 22, 2021, 11:58:55 AM »
So it looks like there are  four different conversations going on here

1) Did the Wuhan lab do any Gain of Function research
2) Did the NIH fund any Gain of Function research done in the Wuhan lab
3) Is COVID-19 the result of Gain of Function research
4) Could COVID-19 be a collected virus from the wild that escaped from the lab but not altered.

4 - of the conspiracy theories this is the most plausible but highly unlikely.  The individual doing the collecting sequenced the samples she collected and shared the sequences in public databases.  It would have been known immediately if COVID-19 shared lineage with one of her samples.

3 is an unequivocal no.  When you use CRISPR or other related technology to introduce a gene into a virus - there are particular tell-tale signs, we can essentially guarantee that COVID-19 is not the result of experimentally introduced genes.  This seems to be what cherry and others seem to think their latest link implies, I can understand if you know nothing about genetics or virology that you could be fooled into believing this.

2 is an ambiguous no - by the definition used by NIH and many virologists no, broader definitions used by few virologists - maybe.  Not really relevant if your concern is COVID-19 since we know that COVID-19 isn't the result of genetic manipulation.  Only real relevance is on NIH policy and whether you think Fauci is a 'liar' by using the widely accepted NIH definition of Gain of Function.

1 is unknown - it would actually be a bit surprising if the Wuhan lab hadn't done any GoF research broadly defined, since it is something that virologists are generally interested in.  Whether the specific research that is being claimed was done is unknown.  Again is not really relevant to a lab leak hypothesis, since we know that a leaked modified virus would have easily recognized signs of manipulation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3604 on: September 22, 2021, 12:23:56 PM »
LR, it seems good to separate the argument into its components, but actually if you're taking the entirety of cherry's position into account, I think you need two more subdivisions:

5) Did Fauci lie, perhaps more than once, about the above matters?
6) Can the American response to covid-19 (past and present) and the public's faith in it be connected to a record of the people feeling lied to?

From cherry's many posts, I feel like points (5) and (6) are chiefly the purpose of asking about points 1-4. And the way points 1-4 actually boil down seems to me to actually change how we should be responding to the information being provided. For instance, let's say Wuhan did do gain-of-function research, and charitably let's say it was done for the purposes of beneficial knowledge rather than for gaining the power to do harm. And let's say the NIH knowingly funded it, but for the same reason (putting aside that it was done in an inferior security setup in Wuhan). Now Fauci denies any connection to that funding, or to Wuhan. But if covid-19 really didn't come from any lab, and was totally, natural, that would actually lend credence to having had the foresight to try potentially risky research knowing it could help with a horrible pandemic down the road. You could actually gloat at having seen ahead to what really did happen, and say you tried to nip it in the bud. So why deny any connection, when in a way admitting a connection would be a sort of badge of honor? Maybe it's because they knew (or later found out) about the inferior level-2 security system at Wuhan. So that could be a lie meant merely to deflect from admitting that the theoretically good concept was being conducted improperly. Administrative BS, incompetence, and cutting corners; the usual. But even then you'd think it would be kind of easy to blame China for being deceptive about their security precautions (probably the case anyhow), and say that the funding was in principle and important step in preventing a pandemic. Some people might be upset, some would approve. But instead, the blanket denial can't avoid looking like lying and self-serving dissembling about semantics.

And this goes to cherry's general argument about mask mandates and flipflopping on those. I won't address whether I agree with him on this general point, but I think if you want to frame the broader argument in context, it goes something like that when you lie to people 'for their own good' it starts to feel like it's really for your own good and not theirs, and you get significant amount of people who stop believing anything at all being reported about what they should do and what the facts are. The breakdown of trust seems to me more relevant than precisely whether or not the NIH made a mistake or was visionary. And the issue of health mandates being politicized seems to be part of it too. Did many Americans refuse to comply with health recommendations because of things Trump said? Maybe. But maybe they were already pissed and distrustful enough (hence why they voted for him in the first place) that they would have been of that disposition with or without Trump. And that, too, speaks to people feeling lied to. They probably feel like that because they are in fact repeatedly lied to. Just look at the story the other day about the blatant lies about the drone strike in Afghanistan, and all credibility goes out the window. They will say anything if they think it will pass, and when it doesn't that news cycle is already over and they think they got away with it. But really they didn't because they're damaging the body politic.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3605 on: September 22, 2021, 01:26:15 PM »
It's interesting how cherry values integrity differently for the various people involved in covid-19.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3606 on: September 22, 2021, 05:51:23 PM »
There's definitely no way the NIH would ever fund lethal viruses, regardless of the lab location. With all due respect senator everyone, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

A Federal Ban on Making Lethal Viruses Is Lifted (Published 2017)
The N.I.H. will create expert panels to assess controversial research into creating pathogens that easily infect humans.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html

I believe Fauci will regret not just admitting that he was aware of this, that it was for virtuous reasons, and an accident happened.

There's a big difference between ignorant and willful negligence. Reminds me a bit of the Volkswagen diesel-gate scandal. It wasn't the largest damage settlement in history because of a few bad actors acting independently, although it could have started that way. It was because top decision-makers knowingly and continuingly lied about it until the bitter end when the evidence became irrefutable.

Same thing here, except exponentially worse damage has been done. If what appears to have happened is actually true, Fauci's descent will be one of the most dramatic in decades.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3607 on: September 22, 2021, 05:54:01 PM »
There's definitely no way the NIH would ever fund lethal viruses, regardless of the lab location. With all due respect senator everyone, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Just...uh...to make 100% certain, this was sarcasm, right?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3608 on: September 23, 2021, 12:34:39 PM »
Correct. The "you have no idea what you're talking about" was Fauci's response to Rand Paul when he cited evidence of gain of function research being funded by the NIH.

The NYtimes article from a couple years back clearly shows they had an open runway to do just that.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3609 on: September 23, 2021, 01:25:13 PM »
Scott, can you find the article somewhere that is not behind a paywall?

I would like to know if the NIH did fund the research, not whether it was allowed to do so.
Also, did the NIH fund the research at Wuhan?

You keep coming up with theoretical scenarios where all of this happened but Fauci shouldn't need to lie about it.  What about the scenario where it never was the NIH funding it?  The only article posted here about the funding said that DARPA passed on the opportunity, but it never said that the NIH (or anyone else) picked it up.  Do you have even circumstantial evidence, or just conjecture?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3610 on: September 23, 2021, 04:43:00 PM »
From my earlier post on the previous page of this thread:

Not my theories, but seems fairly obvious what was going on. I don't think Fauci even refutes the main facts but is resorting to the "depends on what the definition of is, is" tactic. Which is a common liar's trait.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/internal-documents-further-contradict-faucis-gain-of-function-research-denials/
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 04:46:12 PM by ScottF »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3611 on: September 24, 2021, 02:07:33 PM »
Well yesterday we hit 75% over 12 years old with at least one shot. And we are just over 55% of the total pop with 2 shots.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3612 on: September 24, 2021, 02:43:44 PM »
Well boy was I wrong back in late June.  June 23 we hit 600,000 dead. I thought we would not see another 10,000 dead the rest of the year.

We hit 660,000 dead yesterday.  83 days.  I guess we will hit almost 3/4 of a million dead by the end of the year.  I thought we had it beat and then the "Freedom" people decided they wanted to die instead.

Collateral damage and casualties are expected in any war.  This is a war against the democratic institutions of government, so some of these people's family members and neighbors will inevitably suffer. Too bad, but at least they died for a cause.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3613 on: September 24, 2021, 04:44:44 PM »
It hardly makes any sense to primarily blame the unvaccinated. The ones dying now made it this long without dying so what changed? They've been unvaccinated since the beginning, for round abouts two years they managed to survive, so why are they suddenly getting infected and dying now? Every day there are more people vaccinated against Covid-19 then there have ever been any time in history. And yet the deaths skyrocketed compared to just a few months ago when one fateful decision was made by Uncle Joe and his CDC lapdogs to declare victory against the virus and celebrate by telling people it was safe to take off their masks because if they were vaccinated it would be very rare for them to be able to spread the virus. Science didn't tell us that was the case with the delta variant. Joe did.


https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-masks-cdc-guidelines-9d10c8b5f80a4ac720fa1df2a4fb93e5

“Today is a great day for America,” President Joe Biden said during a Rose Garden address heralding the new guidance, an event where he and his staff went without masks. Hours earlier in the Oval Office, where Biden was meeting with vaccinated Republican lawmakers, he led the group in removing their masks when the guidance was announced.

“If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, summarizing the new guidance and encouraging more Americans to roll up their sleeves. “Get vaccinated — or wear a mask until you do.”

--------------------------------------------------------

That was the moment when great progress turned around to become massive infection and mass death, the moment when Joe Biden opened his mouth in the biggest mistake of the shortened lives of all the needlessly infected Covid victims who got infected and died because Joe senselessly, recklessly, dangerously, needlessly encouraged people to take off their masks and promised them it was safe when in fact it was deadly and for nearly two thousand Americans every day, more than a 9-11's worth of dead patriots every other day, it still is.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3614 on: September 24, 2021, 04:55:07 PM »
It hardly makes any sense to primarily blame the unvaccinated. The ones dying now made it this long without dying so what changed?

The virus mutated to a more virulent strain called Delta, that expels 1000x times the viral dose per cough/breath etc. and thus spreads exponentially faster and has the potential to cause more severe disease.  With the original strain it required significant exposure, with Delta it is possible to catch it by walking past someone who is infected.  So even if you ignored masking, etc. it was pretty easy to get lucky, especially if you lived in a location with very few local infections, now it is almost impossible to not catch it without extremely good hygiene.

Why do you keep looking for conspiracies and ignoring all evidence and try and blame Biden and the CDC?

If they would have gotten vaccinated then they wouldn't be getting sick and dying, so it is absolutely their own fault.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2021, 04:59:33 PM by LetterRip »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3615 on: September 24, 2021, 05:00:33 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

I mean you can track it from May 13th and see how the Covid deaths just went down for a while longer as people started taking off their masks, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, and then see how starting around July 18th we hit that inflection point and the deaths climbed back up.

If vaccinations were the primary cause of things then deaths would just keep going down because the numbers of the vaccinated only go up as time goes on but that's not what happened. As more people got vaccinated more people listened to Joe and took off their masks and spread the virus everywhere including to people who up until Joe started talking beyond his ability to reason clearly had managed to avoid getting it and dying. When Joe got a dumb idea into his thick head and as President ran with it without thinking it through, their luck ran out.

Masks are for Joe what Iraq was for John Kerry. He voted for them before he voted against them. After all of what we heard about masks for all of that time especially from the left it's just incomprehensible the reasoning behind the decision to suddenly throw all of that aside and get rid of them. And whatever the reasoning may have been, time his proven all of it dead wrong.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3616 on: September 24, 2021, 05:11:06 PM »
> If they would have gotten vaccinated then they wouldn't be getting sick and dying, so it is absolutely their own fault.

Well we'll never know now what the Covid landscape would look like if as a country we'd just done the sensible thing and kept the mask recommendations in place as they'd been working quite successfully up until then.

Yeah, delta is more infections. So does that make masks useless or even more important?

Common sense would say more important than ever.

With the vaccinated often times spread spreading delta with the same degree of contagiousness as the unvaccinated, it was more important than ever to keep the vaccinated masked.

I have no doubt that there are unvaccinated people who have stayed masked and safe and uninfected the entire time but just recently caught the virus and died because some vaccinated delta superspreader without a mask gave them Covid on Biden's say so and with his blessing. They'd still be alive if it wasn't for Joe Biden.

If you want to insist there are more who got Covid from unvaccinated delta superspreaders who were unmasked because Joe Biden let them easily get away with it, I agree and that's just another reason why Joe Biden is America's number one Covid superspreader.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3617 on: September 24, 2021, 05:37:35 PM »
Well we'll never know now what the Covid landscape would look like if as a country we'd just done the sensible thing and kept the mask recommendations in place as they'd been working quite successfully up until then.

The people who are unvaccinated and not masking are and were violating CDC recommendations.  The CDC never suggested that those who were unvaccinated could safely not where masks they emphatically stated the opposite.

So blame those who violated CDC recommendations.

Quote
Yeah, delta is more infections. So does that make masks useless or even more important?

You seem to be blaming the CDC for something it didn't do.  It never said unvaccinated should forget about masking.

Quote
Common sense would say more important than ever.

Yep, clearly the unvaccinated and unmasked lack common sense.  Completely agree.

Quote
With the vaccinated often times spread spreading delta with the same degree of contagiousness as the unvaccinated

Completely wrong, they NEVER spread it to the degree of contagious unvaccinated.

Quote
, it was more important than ever to keep the vaccinated masked.

Nope, the unvaccinated could be completely unmasked at all times, and it would change the number of infections by very little.  It is the unvaccinated being unmasked that are both the primary source of infection and the primary recipients of infection.  Unvaccinated are probably > 90% of transmission source in the US.

Quote
I have no doubt that there are unvaccinated people who have stayed masked and safe and uninfected the entire time but just recently caught the virus and died because some vaccinated delta superspreader without a mask gave them Covid on Biden's say so and with his blessing. They'd still be alive if it wasn't for Joe Biden.

You live in a fantasy world.
1) There is no evidence of vaccinated individuals being capable of being super spreaders
2) Individuals who are unwilling to vaccinate overlap almost 100% with those who refuse to wear a mask
3) Social circles tend to cluster on vaccination and and unvaccination
4) Almost all spread is from unvaccinated individuals

Cherry, you are yet another conservative who believes in personal responsibility except when conservatives engage in irresponsbile behavior, then try and blame everyone else.  Put the blame squarely where it belongs, on those refusing to get vaccinated and refusing to wear masks.

The fact that you are trying to blame Biden for unvaccinated people not wearing masks is such bizarrely twisted reasoning.  Republicans aren't children, quit trying to infantalize them.  If they are old enough to vote, they are old enough to take responsibility for getting vaccinated and wearing a mask.  If they can't handle such a simple responsibility, then the much greater responsibility of voting is probably more than they are capable of?  Perhaps you should write your legislature arguing it should be a felony to not wear a mask in public if you are unvaccinated?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3618 on: September 24, 2021, 07:45:59 PM »
Actually many Republicans have been acting like children when it comes to masks, like two year olds who can't be made to wear a mask because they don't know any better and they just don't wanna. It's interesting you brought up children because even before I saw your post I was thinking about how we were promised that Biden would be the adult in the room. Instead, when he had what may well have been the most important decision of his life to make, to mask or not to mask, he acted like a spoiled child, like many Republicans, and said no, no, no. No more masks. We were counting on Biden to act responsibly and when clutch time came he just didn't.

So in the leadup to the inflection point it wasn't the Republicans who changed course. They've been on the wrong side of the mask issue pretty much for the duration. So they weren't the decisive factor. It was Biden. If he had held the line we would be in a much better pandemic position right now but instead he folded like a cheap suit. And we're still getting excuses instead of the mea culpa the American people, the sick and the dead, deserve.


> "Completely wrong, they NEVER spread it to the degree of contagious unvaccinated."

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-with-delta-variant-can-transmit-virus-2-days-before-having-symptoms

"Vaccinated people with rare “breakthrough” infections may also be able to transmit the virus as easily as unvaccinated people because of elevated viral loads."

That means the unmasked vaccinated with the "rare" breakthrough infections (changed the quotes there) transmit it much more than vaccinated people who responsibly remain masked. And so it's a huge mistake to believe the vaccinated "never spread it to the degree of contagious unvaccinated." Indeed they can. Not overall of course. Maybe, probably, almost certainly it's true that the vast majority of vaccinated don't spread it much if at all and definitely less than the unvaccinated but to say that no vaccinated person can spread it as much as any unvaccinated person doesn't fit with the science according to this article. Some of the vaccinated are superspreaders just as much as the unvaccinated and even more so if the unvaccinated are wearing masks like they are supposed to while the vaccinated break through infected superspreaders are not wearing masks because they listened to Joe Biden.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3619 on: October 06, 2021, 01:29:32 PM »
Actually many Republicans have been acting like children when it comes to masks, like two year olds who can't be made to wear a mask because they don't know any better and they just don't wanna.
...

That means the unmasked vaccinated with the "rare" breakthrough infections (changed the quotes there) transmit it much more than vaccinated people who responsibly remain masked. And so it's a huge mistake to believe the vaccinated "never spread it to the degree of contagious unvaccinated." Indeed they can. Not overall of course. Maybe, probably, almost certainly it's true that the vast majority of vaccinated don't spread it much if at all and definitely less than the unvaccinated but to say that no vaccinated person can spread it as much as any unvaccinated person doesn't fit with the science according to this article. Some of the vaccinated are superspreaders just as much as the unvaccinated and even more so if the unvaccinated are wearing masks like they are supposed to while the vaccinated break through infected superspreaders are not wearing masks because they listened to Joe Biden.

Except almost all the spread is from unvaccinated to unvaccinated. Because as you pointed out many Republicans are acting like spoiled 2 year olds and refusing to mask or get vaccinated. In fact Republican governors are trying to punish schools for requiring masks for children who can't be vaccinated. Biden just said (prior to Delta spreading in the US, the policy changed after) that vaccinated people don't need to mask up because they generally aren't a danger to themselves or others. Why the CDC and the Biden administration completely underestimated the stupidity of the unvaccinated who would immediately go unvaccinated and unmasked is unclear.

Republican governors are actively trying to kill kids and teachers in schools by withholding funds for schools that require masks. Biden just made a policy that underestimated the stupidity of such people (and that was a mistake). Not sure why you feel like the entire blame belongs at his feet.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3620 on: October 06, 2021, 04:01:21 PM »
Any paper that suggests that vaccinated with breakthrough infections are as contagious as unvaccinated, and only talks about equivalent viral load among vaccinated and unvaccinated and uses PCR as the basis for that claim is completely full of BS.

PCR can't tell the difference between antibody neutralized virus, dead virus, viral fragments and live replicating virus.

Vaccinated individuals the Ct value required to get the same risk of cell infection is drastically different - which means that for vaccinated individuals the majority of the virus is antibody neutralized or dead and thus incapable of infecting.  Therefore at the same viral load as determined by PCR, vaccinated individuals are far far less contagious.

Also vaccinated individuals are only contagious for about 1/3 or less of the time.

So yes, it is complete BS claiming that vaccinated individuals (even those with breakthrough infections) are similarly capable of spreading virus as are unvaccinated individuals.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3621 on: October 06, 2021, 04:41:18 PM »
So "what about" vaccinated people with breakthrough infections who are unmasked compared to unvaccinated infected people who remain masked with N95s?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3622 on: October 06, 2021, 05:35:13 PM »
So "what about" vaccinated people with breakthrough infections who are unmasked compared to unvaccinated infected people who remain masked with N95s?

They account for a very small percentage of the spread of the delta variant. If all the unvaccinated people had stayed masked the odds of them having that break through infection would have been very, very, small. And you will note that when the Delta variant was spreading quickly the CDC and the Biden administration walked back and recommended masks again for everyone. They followed the science. If all the Trump unmasked had followed the science and the recommendations then the delta variant wouldn't have been nearly as severe.

Somehow you are fixated on what is probably between 1% and 10% of the problem while ignoring the causes of 90-99% of the problem.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3623 on: October 07, 2021, 04:22:27 AM »
"If the unvaccinated had stayed masked..."

Yeah, true enough. And who was it that put our country's guard down to let the unvaccinated get away with not wearing masks? Oh yeah, that was Joe Biden.

And even now when you go into big box stores about half the people are unmasked with no way to tell how many of them are really vaccinated and despite all of y'all's assurances that the vaccinated are unlikely to spread the virus, the WHO and the CDC recommend they be masked anyway and that's not happening. Thanks Joe. Thanks for nothing.



And here from our hard hitting journalists is another story about Joe Biden's failure to get onboard with rapid affordable testing like Germany has done and our media frames it instead of the failure it is as our government finally moving in the right direction.

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-to-buy-more-rapid-test-but-experts-say-more-are-needed-221030199.html

We've got plenty of pushback on masks and vaccines but nobody anywhere has ever had any objections to testing.

"Some have questioned why it has taken the Biden administration so long to make rapid testing a priority, given that the Food and Drug Administration first granted approval to a rapid test manufacturer in October 2020. More approvals came in the following months, but by the spring of 2021, the pandemic seemed to be on the wane, and pharmaceutical companies saw little reason to invest in diagnostic equipment."

Yeah, that's right around the time when Joe Biden said, “Today is a great day for America. If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask."

Yeah... no. Not so much. In fact not true at all. In fact, totally idiotic and prolonged the pandemic, unnecessarily killing tens if not hundreds of thousands. Right then would have been the perfect time to keep the masks on while rolling out massive and affordable rapid testing. As usual, sleepy Joe got it perfectly bass ackwards.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-masks-cdc-guidelines-9d10c8b5f80a4ac720fa1df2a4fb93e5

From the first article: "Last year Mina and other researchers concluded in a computational analysis that a nationwide rapid testing program could halt the spread of the coronavirus."

And yet under Biden with his premature declaration of victory just as the Delta force was scheming up a sneak attack, what did we get instead?

"Throughout the summer, Abbott Laboratories destroyed millions of rapid tests it figured were never going to be used."








TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3624 on: October 07, 2021, 06:28:51 AM »
Quote

We've got plenty of pushback on masks and vaccines but nobody anywhere has ever had any objections to testing.

 So, in a way, by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad. - DJT

in recent news, there are millions objecting to testing requirements.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3625 on: October 07, 2021, 06:59:33 AM »
Trump didn't have anything to do with Biden dropping the ball on testing and masking because he wanted to declare victory before we'd won anything.

"If all the unvaccinated people had stayed masked..."

Yes, and if Biden had kept the mask policy in place that was working which required everyone to mask up then the unvaccinated wouldn't have been able to take their masks off everywhere like they did. Biden thought that vaccinated couldn't spread it even if they took off their masks and he thought that the unvaccinated wouldn't take off their masks at all and he was dead wrong on both counts. He should start trying the opposite George strategy. Every time he has an inclination to do something the way he would normally do it, he should do exactly the opposite. If he'd been doing that then we might not be coming up on more Americans dying of Covid under Biden's watch than under Trump's.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3626 on: October 07, 2021, 09:53:37 AM »
Quote
then the unvaccinated wouldn't have been able to take their masks off everywhere like they did

Many (the loudest anyway) of the anti-vaccine were and are also anti-mask. Still I agree that dropping the mask ask was a error though I can imagine the noise (and who would be making that noise)  made as things seemed to improve over the summer.

As for most health issues the majority who do the work must make sacrifices for the those that are in it for themselves and their selfish sense idea of freedom.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3627 on: October 07, 2021, 11:05:56 AM »
Yes, and if Biden had kept the mask policy in place that was working which required everyone to mask up then the unvaccinated wouldn't have been able to take their masks off everywhere like they did.

I know this has been your thesis for a while, but honestly I disagree that masks can be an indefinite measure compromising quality of life. And covid has no endpoint in sight, so at a certain point you have to just make a decision and declare under what conditions certain measures will be lifted. I do not like prevaricating and ad hoc policy making depending on which way the media winds are blowing. I think a politician with integrity should say "when X happens, Y measures are lifted, period" in order to know when it can end. People can't wear masks for 10 more years, or even 5.

Now we could disagree about which measure should be sufficient for masks to be lifted. Maybe a certain % of the population being double-vaxxed? Maybe the infection rate being below a certain level? Whatever the criterion is, it should be clear. Not just 'well when we feel like it' because that truly does turn into the government deciding for you arbitrarily how your life will be, which I think is overreach. It smacks of the "emergency measures" enacted after 9/11 which were never rescinded and became a fact of life. Government always uses emergencies to grab more powers, and never gives them back. So that is why I am against a lack of clarity about a definite end point for mandatory masks.

If you ask me, the end-point of mask mandates should have been when the 2nd dose was made generally available to anyone who wanted it. Past that point if the nation gets infectious the populace has itself to blame, but I don't think double-vaxxed people should be wearing masks unless they want to. One option, as unsavory as it is for Americans, is to adopt a vaccine passport mentality, of having certain zones be cleared for double-vaxxed people, where they know they can be mask-free and not worry about unvaccinated people. That largely solves the issue of transmission in confined indoor spaces. It's either that, or allow everyone in everywhere and (a) force mask wearing forever, or (b) let it all go knowing there will be more infection. As distasteful as it is, a vaccine mandate for entrance to certain places solves a lot of these problems.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3628 on: October 07, 2021, 03:16:16 PM »
Well we hit 78% over 18 with at least one shot.  It took 30 days so 0.1% per day. We might hit 75% of over 18 fully vaccinated by the end of the year. The mandates seem to be keeping the numbers consistent.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3629 on: October 07, 2021, 04:53:41 PM »
Now we could disagree about which measure should be sufficient for masks to be lifted. Maybe a certain % of the population being double-vaxxed? Maybe the infection rate being below a certain level? Whatever the criterion is, it should be clear. Not just 'well when we feel like it' because that truly does turn into the government deciding for you arbitrarily how your life will be, which I think is overreach. It smacks of the "emergency measures" enacted after 9/11 which were never rescinded and became a fact of life. Government always uses emergencies to grab more powers, and never gives them back. So that is why I am against a lack of clarity about a definite end point for mandatory masks.

Whether they tell you about it ahead of time or not, it's arbitrary.

The government's reaction to COVID-19 has been an absolute overreach of power and authority. They undermined the legitimacy of the 2020 election, they crashed our economy into the ground, they have caused people to die isolated and alone, they have brow-beat us into being lab-rats for vaccines, they have taken control over how we socialize and how we eat and how we see each other, and they acknowledge absolutely no limit to their powers. We are quickly returning to a system where those in charge have absolute power, and are restricted from exercising that power only by their own judgment or the force of other powerful people.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3630 on: October 07, 2021, 04:56:55 PM »
How many cases of lung cancer are we going to see in the next 70 years, as a result of people being indefinitely forced to breath through cheap Chinese masks constructed with artificial fibers? 


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3631 on: October 07, 2021, 07:49:59 PM »
There may be masks that are dangerous especially if they are coming out of China which probably puts melamine in their masks just for fun but if you ever watched M*A*S*H you'll see surgeons wearing masks all day long. People wear them now all the time for their jobs such as in clean rooms for data recovery, in laboratories, at work sites like in mining or painting and even landscaping. Millions of Muslim women mask up whenever they are in public too especially in Afghanistan now after Biden screwed that pooch like he does all of them. In other words there are safe masks. The N95s protect the wearer but just about anything when worn by the asymptomatic superspreaders protects everyone around them.

If the price of not wearing a mask is more than 2000 Americans dying every day, prolonging the pandemic, and giving the virus a trillion more chances to mutate into something worse with every person it infects every time it infects them, then masks are a very small sacrifice in comparison. We've actually been lucky so far that it hasn't mutated into something with the fatality rate of MERS or the Spanish Flu, the contagiousness of Delta, and that our vaccines don't protect against, but if we keep pushing our luck eventually it's going to run out.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3632 on: October 07, 2021, 11:35:10 PM »
Personally, depending on the situations, I probably won't ever give up wearing masks. Doctors office is an obvious one, so is grocery and retail shopping. Public transit. In other cases I'm not wearing one in ways that probably violate cherrys views, like in my office today with about 2 dozen colleagues. We all spent time unmasked in the lunchroom, so little extra exposure at my desk six feet from everyone.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3633 on: October 08, 2021, 06:40:51 AM »
So with the theory that a lab had something to do with the pandemic, I've also been interested about other possible cases of research leading to the release of dangerous microbes and Lyme disease has been on the list of possibilities for a while.

https://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-weaponized-ticks-lyme-disease-investigation-1449737

"Pentagon May Have Released Weaponized Ticks That Helped Spread of Lyme Disease: Investigation Ordered"

I had seen this story a while back and was just wondering whatever happened with that investigation. That was in July of 2019 which is odd because the next story came out in August of 2017, about 2 years earlier.

I had always wondered if Native Americans experienced Lyme disease. And if not, why not?

So apparently the disease has been in America for 60,000 years or so and that was known 2 years before the investigation was ordered into possible Pentagon weaponization.  It's a bit confusing why they needed an investigation if the disease has been here for so long.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/ancient-history-of-lyme-disease-in-north-america-revealed-with-bacterial-genomes/


"A team of researchers led by the Yale School of Public Health has found that the Lyme disease bacterium is ancient in North America, circulating silently in forests for at least 60,000 years—long before the disease was first described in Lyme, Connecticut, in 1976 and long before the arrival of humans...

... The explosion of deer in the twentieth century into suburban landscapes, free of wolf predators and with strict hunting restrictions, allowed deer ticks to rapidly invade throughout much of New England and the Midwest. Climate change has also contributed. Warmer winters accelerate ticks’ life cycles and allow them to survive an estimated 28 miles further north each year.

Ticks expanded into suburbanized landscapes—full of animals like white-footed mice and robins, excellent hosts for B. burgdorferi. The expansion of ticks into habitats with ideal hosts allowed the bacterium to spread."

-----------------------------------------------------

The possibility of a human vaccine for Lyme disease is making the news now and you have to wonder about vaccine hesitancy overlap. Most people who don't want the Covid vaccine may feel they'd rather take their chances with Covid since the vast majority of people seem to do okay but how would their risk analysis calculate Lyme disease versus a vaccine if they intend on spending a lot of time outdoors in Lyme country?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/valneva-pfizer-report-further-positive-050000859.html

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3634 on: October 08, 2021, 06:45:12 AM »
As for your office TheDrake, you do you. There are a lot of variables in play and it'd be difficult for someone not there to assess them. I like to sleep with a fan and an air purifier blowing in my face both for the white noise and the clean air. I wonder if that would help at all with Covid in an office setting. Probably not very practical and I wouldn't bet even money it would help any putting one on your desk but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt any either, especially if they were very quiet and unobtrusive.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3635 on: October 08, 2021, 08:08:57 AM »
As for your office TheDrake, you do you. There are a lot of variables in play and it'd be difficult for someone not there to assess them. I like to sleep with a fan and an air purifier blowing in my face both for the white noise and the clean air. I wonder if that would help at all with Covid in an office setting. Probably not very practical and I wouldn't bet even money it would help any putting one on your desk but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt any either, especially if they were very quiet and unobtrusive.

It's really a game of percentages, all of this. I enter the office only once a week, cutting my risk by 5. I generally trust my colleagues to get tested and not come in if they have symptoms, get vaccinated, and generally act with a lower risk than the general public.

At the same time, I know that colleagues at high risk or living with high risk individuals are free to stay home and do. This means I have less concern that I could be a vaccinated, asymptomatic carrier.

By returning to the office this month, I've been able to forge a crucial relationship with a colleague in another department. If that had not happened, I might have just experimented once with the visit.

I'm also practicing to understand the hybrid methods of having most of my contacts remote while being in the office. I spent 90 minutes in a booth, one of four constructed for that purpose.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3636 on: October 08, 2021, 03:33:38 PM »
Quote
“Forcing our children to wear a mask is nothing short of psychological child abuse, period,” U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a Republican, told Buncombe County Schools officials on Thursday. “Their social skills are stunted.”

Read more at: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article253307483.html#storylink=cpy

Quote
anyone who sees a child wearing a mask outdoors should consider it a form of abuse. “Call the police immediately,” Carlson said. “Contact child protective services.” - tucker carlson

Damn you Joe Biden, if only you had not let your guard down against mask use for the vaccinated, all this could have been avoided!

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3637 on: October 10, 2021, 03:38:06 AM »
Those people have felt that way since the beginning. And we were still doing pretty well until right on the cusp of delta, Joe Biden opened his mouth and got the masks taken off across the country. Everyone was wearing them in stores and it was working. So the independent variable isn't the anti-masker conservatives. They've been a constant for the whole pandemic. The independent variable is Joe. And we still haven't gone back to the masking policy we had before, the one that worked and had infections, hospitalizations, and deaths much lower than they are now even with vaccinations much higher. We had 37 Covid deaths on July 4th and 2480 on October 8th. I'll grant that another independent variable is delta. Things may have gotten worse no matter what but now we'll never know what kind of difference staying the course on masks would have made. What we do know is it definitely didn't help. "First do no harm" is apparently nowhere in Joe Biden's game plan. Not for Covid and not for anything else either. The guy is a walking, talking man-made disaster. All he had to do was nothing. Just keep on keeping on. And he couldn't even do that. He's got the Democrat mindset of "we've got to DO something!" Yeah, sometimes you do, but other times you don't. Nobody in charge has the wisdom to know the difference. And we're seeing that mistake being made right now not just with Covid but across the policy board.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3638 on: October 10, 2021, 09:02:15 AM »
What Joe actually did was mobilize the federal government to make millions of vaccinations available as soon as possible as opposed to his predecessors "I dunno, leave it to the states" attitude. He also set an example of "stay the *censored* home" as opposed to arranging unmasked super spreader events. Not to mention adding federal masking requirements on transportation and the federal workplace.

Your attachment of deaths to biden policy doesn't account for the regionally diverse data. Florida didn't spike disproportionally because of federal policy. So I'm still waiting for the daily berating of DeSantis.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3639 on: October 13, 2021, 06:45:19 AM »
https://news.trust.org/item/20211012185352-0bl3g

Russia to test COVID-19 vaccine in form of nasal spray

"MOSCOW, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Russia will test a nasal spray form of its Sputnik V vaccine against COVID-19 among adult volunteers, according to a state document published on Tuesday, as the country struggles to rein in rising numbers of infections and deaths...

... Russian authorities said in June it a nasal spray vaccine suitable for children aged 8-12 had been tested and the plan was to launch the new product in September."

That seems like it could be some very good news especially if the other vaccines could be delivered in a spray or pill form. I wonder if more people would be willing to get them then.

Also, I wonder what would happen if adults got the child vaccines that were in spray form? For people worried about safety and side effects, it seems like a child dose might put them more at ease and even if less effective would hopefully be better than nothing, though I suppose it could also be worse than nothing if it provides a false sense of security along with little to no protection. But many adults prefer the child size versions of things like for vitamins and kids' meals because they are easier to handle. I also wonder what if you went in for a vaccine as an adult and you asked for the child sized version, if they would give it to your or not. I went to a Taco Bell in a mall one time and ordered a kid's meal and they said no I can't have it. I asked how do you know I'm not taking it home and they said because you didn't order it to go and so I said okay well how about if I take it to go then and they said no it's too late. So I went elsewhere and have avoided them as much as I can ever since. If my wife orders from there and it makes her happy I'll get it for her though, after all, I'm not an ogre. Just out of curiosity I ordered a kid's meal from a McDonald's drive-thru and I asked them if it was okay if it wasn't for my kids but for me and if I can have the toy for myself and then said sure that's fine. That's what I like to see. Options.

Hopefully we'll be getting more options for the vaccines too.

I used to get the nasal flu vaccine all the time, less because I'm afraid of needles and more because the nasal versions are individually wrapped so to speak so don't have the thimerosal the way the multi-dose vials do but a couple of years ago when I tried to get it they told me they don't offer it anymore and I asked why and they said because they found it that it didn't really do anything. I'm not sure I believe that because I always found it to make me a little bit sick for a day or two but that's what they said. Those were out for many many years too so it does make you wonder how much is really known about vaccines.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3640 on: October 13, 2021, 09:12:10 AM »
...

That seems like it could be some very good news especially if the other vaccines could be delivered in a spray or pill form. I wonder if more people would be willing to get them then.
...
I used to get the nasal flu vaccine all the time, less because I'm afraid of needles and more because the nasal versions are individually wrapped so to speak so don't have the thimerosal the way the multi-dose vials do but a couple of years ago when I tried to get it they told me they don't offer it anymore and I asked why and they said because they found it that it didn't really do anything. I'm not sure I believe that because I always found it to make me a little bit sick for a day or two but that's what they said. Those were out for many many years too so it does make you wonder how much is really known about vaccines.

The spray form of the flu vaccine usually used a live but weakened virus. I'm not sure why that would make anyone feel more comfortable to get the vaccine. We're going to spray some live virus up your nose, relax and inhale deeply. Not that it can't be safe but I don't see that being a panacea for the mental rigidity of the unvaccinated at this point.

Also Russia sputnik V for your source of hope? The Russian people don't believe their government. Not sure why you would. The vaccines developed in the West are better. We just need people to take them.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3641 on: October 13, 2021, 09:21:33 AM »
Quote
Breakthrough infections might not be a big transmission risk. Here's the evidence

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/12/1044553048/covid-data-vaccines-breakthrough-infections-transmission

Quote
Ross Kedl, an immunologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, will point out to anyone who cares to listen that basic immunology suggests the virus of a vaccinated person who gets infected will be different from the virus of an infected unvaccinated person.

That's because vaccinated people have already made antibodies to the coronavirus. Even if those antibodies don't prevent infection, they still "should be coating that virus with antibody and therefore helping prevent excessive downstream transmission," Kedl says. And a virus coated with antibodies won't be as infectious as a virus not coated in antibodies.

...

"In all these cases where you have these big breakthrough infections, there's always unvaccinated people in the room," he says.

In a recent study from Israel of breakthrough infections among health care workers, the researchers report that in "all 37 case patients for whom data were available regarding the source of infection, the suspected source was an unvaccinated person."

...

So any virus that was exhaled by a sneeze or a cough would likely be less infectious.

...

Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, says a recent study from the Netherlands looked at how well virus from vaccinated people could infect cells in the lab.

Pepper says the answer was not well.

"If you actually isolate virus from people who are getting a secondary infection after being vaccinated, that virus is less good at infecting cells," Pepper says. "It's not known why. Is it covered with an antibody? Maybe. Has it been hit by some other kind of immune mediators, cytokines, things like that? Maybe. Nobody really knows. But the virus does seem to be less viable coming from a vaccinated person."

The tracking data is a little sparser than I would like but contact tracing kind of went out the window when we decided to let the virus rage.

But the lab data is stronger that vaccinated people are much less likely a source of infection than unvaccinated people.

So the CDC's if your vaccinated you can take off your mask was likely only a mistake because they underestimated the eagerness of those who were unvaccinated to also go unmasked. And that still makes it a major mistake because it was easily predicable what the outcome of that policy would be without an easy way to verify vaccination status.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3642 on: October 14, 2021, 03:45:41 AM »
"The spray form of the flu vaccine usually used a live but weakened virus. I'm not sure why that would make anyone feel more comfortable to get the vaccine."

That's interesting because a lot of these anti-vaxxers don't seem to have much of a problem exposing themselves to the full force of the virus because the are anti-maskers and anti-social distancers too. If anything their objection might be that they don't want the weakened virus. Give me full strength of just forget about it.

Some might go for the weakened virus though. After all, it's not like they are afraid of the virus itself. Just relabel it. Don't call it a vaccine. Just call it a weakened virus exposure. We just beat it up for you a little first.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3643 on: October 15, 2021, 07:40:34 PM »
Well another month and another 60,000 dead.  We hit 720,000 yesterday and it took 30 days. Looks like we will be at 3/4 of a million dead in 1-3/4 years.  Unless the number of deaths drop off quickly.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3644 on: October 19, 2021, 08:46:50 AM »
If you have had Covid you should also get the vaccine. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/natural-immunity-good-getting-vaccinated-093009241.html

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3645 on: October 21, 2021, 01:52:25 PM »
"...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” - Anthony Fauci

As was pointed out weeks ago, Fauci clearly and unequivocally lied. Color me shocked. I'm sure our intrepid media will be all over this and not only bring the lie to the fore but challenge Fauci on one of his next 20 network cameos. Or not.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nih-admits-to-funding-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-says-ecohealth-violated-reporting-requirements/

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3646 on: October 21, 2021, 01:55:15 PM »
"...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” - Anthony Fauci

As was pointed out weeks ago, Fauci clearly and unequivocally lied. Color me shocked. I'm sure our intrepid media will be all over this and not only bring the lie to the fore but challenge Fauci on one of his next 20 network cameos. Or not.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nih-admits-to-funding-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-says-ecohealth-violated-reporting-requirements/

As was pointed out weeks ago - he did not clearly and unequivocally lie.  By one widely used definition of 'gain of function' including that used by the NIH - his statement was accurate.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3647 on: October 21, 2021, 02:16:29 PM »
As was pointed out weeks ago - he did not clearly and unequivocally lie.  By one widely used definition of 'gain of function' including that used by the NIH - his statement was accurate.

LR, he literally told Sen. Paul to his face that he didn't know what he was talking about. He didn't just say, "well, it depends on exactly the definition, so by some standards yes, and by other standards no." He definitively and firmly said it was no, full stop, with no possible way around it, no matter what Sen. Paul said to him. This was a blatant and direct lie. If what you're saying is true he was fully within his power to qualify his statement, but let's not kid ourselves, it was obviously his agenda to shut down the claims that the NIH was funding gain-of-function reseach. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Fauci was trying to nip in the bud any possibility of him or the NIH being blamed for covid-19, and that he would have said absolutely anything to close down that line of argument.

And what's more, the research being done, according to the announcement (also found in other publications including the NY Post) specifies that it was research into seeing if the bat viruses could be made to bond with a human receptor. So it was not only research into modifying viruses, but specifically the nightmare scenario (for Fauci), that it was about seeing if it could be made to be transmissible to humans. Now once again I think Fauci was a fool to deny this, since he had the chance to preemptively say that this kind of research was a risk but could have helped us save ourselves from a potentially far worse pandemic. But instead of being honest and trying to turn it into a kind of good future forecast of dangers to humans, it becomes yet another denial to go along with all the other government denials (for instance the Afghanistan drone debacle recently).

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3648 on: October 21, 2021, 02:39:30 PM »
As was pointed out weeks ago - he did not clearly and unequivocally lie.  By one widely used definition of 'gain of function' including that used by the NIH - his statement was accurate.

LR, he literally told Sen. Paul to his face that he didn't know what he was talking about. He didn't just say, "well, it depends on exactly the definition, so by some standards yes, and by other standards no." He definitively and firmly said it was no, full stop, with no possible way around it, no matter what Sen. Paul said to him. This was a blatant and direct lie.
...

The NIH is huge and gives out a lot of research grants. The grant to Wuhan was given as part of a larger grant from the NIH to some other organization for virus research. If he asked his staff, did we give any grants to the Wuhan lab and they said no. Then he may have not even known about the money Paul was talking about. Maybe he should have been more careful with his statement or his definitions. But this seems to be a bit nit picky on a couple technicalities based on a couple hundred grand that went to Wuhan from a couple million dollar grant to some organization that was doing virus or vaccine research. The NIH gives out billions in grants every year. To think Fauci (or any single individual) immediately oversees or has knowledge of each grant and sub grant is absurd.

Maybe he knew about the sub-grant, can't remember if that was part of the discussion. But can't blame him for maybe responding a bit too definitively when the questioning looked like Paul was planning on making him and the NIH a scape goat. Long term it may not play well. But neither would have sitting around discussing the technical definition of gain of function. Either way, Paul is going to get the sound bite he wants to try to discredit Fauci.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3649 on: October 21, 2021, 04:04:44 PM »
Fenring,

Quote
LR, he literally told Sen. Paul to his face that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Which we can safely say that he didn't.  See Sen. Paul's public statements on the matter as discussed previously.  He made numerous and frequent assertions of blatant falsehoods.

Quote
He definitively and firmly said it was no, full stop, with no possible way around it, no matter what Sen. Paul said to him.

He was using the legal definition as per relevant federal law and the relevant to usage by NIH.  When we use words in a legal context, we use the legal definition.  Legally he was unambiguously correct.

If you ask someone if they murdered someone in a legal context - and they reply no.  If they killed someone in a case that was adjudicated as self defense, or if they killed someone as a soldier while carrying out a lawful order and in a lawful manner - then you might personally characterize it as them having committed murder, but they in no way are being deceitful or misleading or lying simply because you prefer to define a word other than it's legal meaning.  We have legally defined meanings, specifically so that there can't be a basis for ambiguity.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2021, 04:11:55 PM by LetterRip »