Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 198205 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3550 on: September 13, 2021, 12:02:26 PM »
Ok so with the new rules for large companies to require either vax or test now in place, companies such as Fox and NewsMax are following those rules and do not plan to fight them, even as their shows continue to rail about how they are so bad.
Rep
In fact Fox has had vax or test rules in place since July and Aug.  A great example of Do as we say not as we do.

Given that Fox is a news organization, that's kind of a valid position for them to take. Reporters have to travel and speak with people, often in person. Which means their "social bubble" is huge. That they go back to the news room where they potentially come in contact with others further explodes the size of that "social bubble" for everyone who works in, or near to, that newsroom.

Probability of Covid in the newsroom basically approaches 100% for them.

Flight attendants, and certain elements of the service sector(cashiers, waiters/waitresses) are in the same general situation, where their "bubble" is massive as a consequence, and anyone who shares a work/break space with them shares in that risk.

However, the guy working an assembly line style job that isn't "customer facing?" Their risk factors are wildly different. It's almost like one size doesn't fit all.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3551 on: September 13, 2021, 12:08:05 PM »
So the Mississippi Gov is opposed to the Biden vaccine mandates. Even though his state has one of the strictest vaccine mandates for schools in the country, not even allowing for religious exemptions.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-seethes-biden-mandate-even-114322019.html

What a bunch of hypocrits.  Of course they crow about how high their vax rate is for the "accepted" vaccines are. They lead the country since they do not allow for "philosophical, moral or ethical" exemptions. And now they have an issue.

It is almost like they believe Federalism exists in the United States and that the States are supposed to handle some things, and the Federal Government is only supposed to advise and assist rather than decide for them.

And while invoking OSHA was very clever, I don't think it'll hold up well in court.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 12:10:57 PM by TheDeamon »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3552 on: September 13, 2021, 12:15:07 PM »
Or they did not know what form the delta variant would take.

If the next variant is 50% lethal to non vaccinated people, will Republicans keep the same rhetoric as they do now?

Again, against the original version of Covid, we may not have needed a vax mandate. but with the change in the dominate virus now being much more aggressive, mandating vaccines may make sense now.  This "he said something a year ago and now he is changing his mind, so he is lying" is a crap argument.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3553 on: September 13, 2021, 12:27:21 PM »
Or they did not know what form the delta variant would take.

If the next variant is 50% lethal to non vaccinated people, will Republicans keep the same rhetoric as they do now?

Child vaccination hopefully start next month for Pfizer, and Moderna hopefully follows in November.

If it hits in December, after the vaccination rates drop off for the under 12 cohort, I'm inclined to say "if they want to self-select for death, let them."

At certain point, you have to accept you're not going to save everyone, especially so when it comes to saving them from themselves.

It'll still suck for those like two of my sister's who have auto-immune issues making the vaccines ill-advised for them, but we're nearing the limit of what "reasonable accommodations" can be made for the willfully stupid without setting precedents for authoritarian governments the world over, including the United States. I'd rather not open those doors.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3554 on: September 14, 2021, 02:38:58 PM »
Parsing time.

I'm pro-vax but I'm also pro-accuracy and doctors are not being totally accurate. Some are, but some are expressing certainty when it's just not there yet. We can see the difference between accuracy and just not quite with statements that insist with certainty that the vaccines do not affect fertility at all versus statements pointing out that there's no evidence of it yet.

https://news.yahoo.com/experts-espn-allison-williams-covid-19-vaccine-fertility-statement-185711326.html

Jennifer Gunter@DrJenGunter-
"The vaccine does not affect fertility and the literal fertility experts recommend covid-19 vaccination during the work up for infertility for anyone who is unvaccinated. It is safe and life saving."

Then you have this one that jumps both ways:

"Sorry, your decision is wrong. Point blank," wrote urologist Dr. Ashley Winter. "Vaccination has not been shown to have any negative impact on fertility. Please do not spread false information. You are stepping down from you job for a non-evidence based reason. Please say that in your statement."

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

So the last statement goes from saying that vaccination has not been shown to have a negative impact on fertility to implying that means there absolutely is no negative impact on fertility. That's a leap too far. The assumption is that not having proof of the negative is all the proof you need. And then it accuses the lady of spreading false information? There was no false information spread. There was a concern. Expressing a concern is not spreading false information. Going down that path is very dangerous and we're already well on the way.

Then you get the anecdote about someone who got the vaccine and was fine which proves nothing. Was there every any unvaccinated woman who got Covid while pregnant, didn't even notice, and was also fine? Where's her anecdote? Now having said that I do see the stories, lots of them, of pregnant unvaccinated women who are dying of Covid while that's not happening with vaccinated women.  You'll never see the story of the pregnant unvaccinated woman who tested positive for Covid-19 and yet never had any problems at all. But it looks like any and every pregnant unvaccinated women who dies makes the front page of the internet. Again, overall I agree that the vaccines are great and are saving lives and people should be encouraged to get them. But the way the media is going about it smacks of propaganda.

Now I will agree that there's quite conclusive proof and evidence that the statement is true that people vaccinated people "... had far better outcomes than those who were unvaccinated and caught the virus." Especially if they had to be hospitalized for it.

There's apparently no room left though for people who choose not to get the vaccine but also not to get the virus either.

There are plenty of accurate statements about there being no evidence the vaccine causes fertility issues and that's fine but the kicker comes when they bring up the incidents of women having menstruation issues.

"There have also been some reports that some vaccinated women had irregular menstrual cycles after being vaccinated, Dr. Barry Witt, medical director at WINFertility, tells Yahoo Life. But, he says, "there is nothing in the vaccines that could explain this, and experts suggest that stress is more likely the cause of these menstrual irregularities."

Even so, Witt says, "these disruptions are transient and resolve quickly, so they are not likely to have a significant effect on fertility."

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

Um... that's kind of a big deal. So we went from the vaccines absolutely having no effect on fertility to suddenly there are menstrual issues after getting the vaccines and doctors have absolutely no idea what could be causing them except maybe "stress". Sorry but that's a huge red flag. How many problems, new and real health issues that were simply not understood by the "experts", were attributed to "stress"?

Gulf War Syndrome anyone?

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/146/9/695/57304

"Is Gulf War Syndrome Due to Stress? The Evidence Reexamined"

Robert W. Haley
American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 146, Issue 9, 1 November 1997

And I'm no doctor but the last time I played one on tv menstruation had something to do with fertility so an issue with one is an issue with the other. It may not be a serious problem and it may not impair fertility but to say it's not an issue at all doesn't seem accurate.

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

Okay so just to reiterate I certainly agree that getting the vaccine is a lot better than getting Covid when you're pregnant. I'd just suggest that anyone who doesn't get the vaccine make very sure they don't get Covid while they're pregnant. That may be difficult but it's not impossible. I mean if you've gone this long without getting it that's just beyond luck. It means you're doing something right so keep doing what you've been doing. And if you've have gotten it and didn't even notice then that's probably some good news too.

And I'm getting tired of people claiming things for a certainty when we're not there yet and maybe never will be.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 02:45:57 PM by cherrypoptart »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3555 on: September 14, 2021, 02:41:33 PM »
So the last statement goes from saying that vaccination has not been shown to have a negative impact on fertility to implying that means there absolutely is no negative impact on fertility.  That's a leap too far. The assumption is that not having proof of the negative is all the proof you need.

No it isn't.  Vaccines introduce an antigen to induce antibodies.  They aren't a drug - they don't alter cellular physiology.  For a vaccine to impact fertility, there would need to be triggered autoantibodies to reproductive proteins or homones.  So absence of evidence here is evidence of absence.

Quote
And then it accuses the lady of spreading false information? There was no false information spread. There was a concern. Expressing a concern is not spreading false information. Going down that path is very dangerous and we're already well on the way.

Implying there is a possible concern where there is no rational basis for one, and that one should be aware of through their professional training that there is no rational basis is indeed spreading false information.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3556 on: September 14, 2021, 02:49:07 PM »
If the vaccines affect menstruation how is that not affecting fertility?

Did I misunderstand my teacher in high school biology class?

Does menstruation not affect fertility?

Or are we just going along with the assumption that it's stress and has nothing to do with the vaccines?

And notice that's not saying it has a negative affect on fertility. But to say it has no affect on fertility if it does have an affect on menstruation doesn't seem technically accurate.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3557 on: September 14, 2021, 02:52:58 PM »
Quote
There's apparently no room left though for people who choose not to get the vaccine but also not to get the virus either.

Unless you can go live on a yacht in the middle of an ocean or a isolated cabin in the woods, and be completely isolated - there isn't a reasonable chance to avoid infection.  The virus is simply too contagious.

 
Quote
Um... that's kind of a big deal. So we went from the vaccines absolutely having no effect on fertility to suddenly there are menstrual issues after getting the vaccines and doctors have absolutely no idea what could be causing them except maybe "stress". Sorry but that's a huge red flag. How many problems, new and real health issues that were simply not understood by the "experts", were attributed to "stress"?

The phrase "Cause infertility" is generally meant to mean sterilization or long term.  A transient stress response isn't really relevant.  Temporary reduction in fertility is not infertility.

Also the amount of stress from vaccination is trivial compared to that from catching the virus.

Any increase in inflammatory cytokines can increase cortisol etc - so the vaccine does indeed trigger a stress response.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3558 on: September 14, 2021, 02:54:54 PM »
What if the vaccines are causing the stress that's affecting the menstruation cycles?

Does stress affect fertility?

Well yes, stress does.

Can the vaccines cause the stress?

I don't know. But it seems like women are getting these menstruation problems after their vaccines so even if the vaccines are only causing stress and that's affecting menstruation which affects fertility how can it then be accurate to say that the vaccines aren't affecting fertility at all?

Or are we just going to keep attributing anything that happens after vaccination to pure coincidence and totally unrelated?

Like they did at first with the people stroking out after getting vaccinated. We were told for a while there that it was the same as background rates.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3559 on: September 14, 2021, 02:59:00 PM »
You are confusing terms, we don't say that "exercise causes infertility", we don't say that "stress causes infertility", nor do we say "poor nutrition causes infertility" - all of those can cause a transient change in menstruation and reduce likelihood of implantation.

Anything that damages the reproductive tract or sterlizes actually "causes infertility".

Infertility is defined as "the inability to conceive within 12 months" - so a single missed menstruation cycle isn't infertility.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 03:01:16 PM by LetterRip »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3560 on: September 14, 2021, 03:01:45 PM »
"Unless you can go live on a yacht in the middle of an ocean or a isolated cabin in the woods, and be completely isolated - there isn't a reasonable chance to avoid infection.  The virus is simply too contagious."

I disagree.

And I admit that though I disagree there's a good chance that I'm totally wrong.

But I still think you can avoid infection if you're careful.

Only do the curbside pickup for shopping. Only dine out with curbside pickup and drive-thru orders.

If you have to go inside anywhere then double mask and use goggles. Double N95 mask. One N95 takes out 95% of the bad guys so two will effectively be an N190 mask. 190% filtration. Nothing dangerous is getting through there. Unfortunately not even oxygen. Well... I've been using it like that and I haven't suffocated yet so I guess oxygen actually can get through so that's good.

If anyone out of your trust circle has to come into your place for instance to repair something they should wear a mask, you have air purifiers in each room, and as soon as they leave you Lysol the hell out the place. Two full cans. You could also open all the doors and windows but honestly I don't go that far. Don't want to seem crazy.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3561 on: September 14, 2021, 03:05:29 PM »
Well that could be the heart of the disagreement then. This lady might not want to risk anything even minutely affecting her fertility even a minimal amount, any amount whatsoever, and the doctors are telling her don't worry because the vaccines are not going to sterilize you.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3562 on: September 14, 2021, 03:50:24 PM »
Well that could be the heart of the disagreement then. This lady might not want to risk anything even minutely affecting her fertility even a minimal amount, any amount whatsoever, and the doctors are telling her don't worry because the vaccines are not going to sterilize you.

Then she should probably get the vaccine. Pregnant women and their fetuses tend to not fair well getting COVID (particularly delta). Most reports have been of a single heavy menstruation period following vaccination not long term impacts on menstruation. And if there were significant impacts on fertility the effects would be starting to show now. Because a lot of people have been vaccinated and I'm sure some of them are now pregnant.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3563 on: September 14, 2021, 04:15:41 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-says-supports-vaccine-mandates-225220026.html

Sorry but this picture was just too hilarious not to comment on.

Fauci is wearing a mask that says, "NIH Research Keeps Us Safe!"

He is proven now to have lied about funding gain of function research in Wuhan and he said that even if it releases a virus like Covid-19 it would be worth it. If the research is what caused this pandemic then the irony of his mask takes the cake. I'm pretty sure he sees it too.

We could ask Rob Bilott about this kind of irony since he was the lawyer who exposed  "a brazen, decades-long history of chemical pollution" by DuPont while they bragged about "Better Living Through Chemistry".

That's what you call chutzpah.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3564 on: September 14, 2021, 05:19:13 PM »
It is also hard to conceive if you die of covid. Dumb anecdotes aren't science, neither is a self-selected survey. You could have a few million women eat a banana, and a certain number of them will have a menstrual cycle change. It doesn't mean bananas will make you infertile. My grandpa got the covid shot and he died of a stroke three days later! Boogie boogie boogie!

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3565 on: September 14, 2021, 06:14:32 PM »
He is proven now to have lied about funding gain of function research in Wuhan and he said that even if it releases a virus like Covid-19 it would be worth it. If the research is what caused this pandemic then the irony of his mask takes the cake. I'm pretty sure he sees it too.

Could you point specifically to what "lie" he is claimed to have made, and the proof that such was a lie?

I think that yet again you've been duped by people who are either lying to you, or simply too ignorant to know the difference between the truth and what they are claiming.


LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3566 on: September 14, 2021, 06:34:46 PM »
Here is a good overview by MIT Tech Review, they address the accussations and statement by Fauci,

Quote
Paul repeatedly confronted Fauci and demanded to know if he had funded gain-of-function research in that country. Fauci denied the accusation, stating categorically: “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

The denial rests on the NIH’s specific definition of what was covered by the moratorium: work that would have deliberately enhanced SARS-like viruses, MERS, or flu by—for example—making them easier to spread through the air. The Chinese research did not have the specific goal of making the viruses more deadly, and rather than SARS itself, it used SARS’s close cousins, whose real-world risk to humans was unknown—in fact, determining the risk was the point of the research.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3567 on: September 14, 2021, 08:11:32 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3568 on: September 14, 2021, 09:54:42 PM »
He is proven now to have lied about funding gain of function research in Wuhan and he said that even if it releases a virus like Covid-19 it would be worth it. If the research is what caused this pandemic then the irony of his mask takes the cake. I'm pretty sure he sees it too.

Could you point specifically to what "lie" he is claimed to have made, and the proof that such was a lie?

I think that yet again you've been duped by people who are either lying to you, or simply too ignorant to know the difference between the truth and what they are claiming.

I'm most of the way through the article you linked to just below covering Rand vs Fauci, and honestly I don't see how you can have this attitude if you think the article is any good. The article makes it pretty clear that Fauci was only telling the truth based on an extremely narrow defining of "gain of function" which involves specifically trying to make it airborn, notwithstanding the fact that if you watch the footage in the Senate, Paul very specifically defined gain of function in a more general (and reasonable) way, i.e. making it more potent OR more virulent, to which Fauci told him repeatedly he didn't know what he was talking about. Here's the bit about that:

Quote
Fauci denied the accusation, stating categorically: “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

The denial rests on the NIH’s specific definition of what was covered by the moratorium: work that would have deliberately enhanced SARS-like viruses, MERS, or flu by—for example—making them easier to spread through the air.

Earlier in the article it says this:

Quote
The NIH decided the risk was worth it. In a potentially fateful decision, it funded work similar to Baric’s at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which soon used its own reverse-genetics technology to make numerous coronavirus chimeras.

Unnoticed by most, however, was a key difference that significantly shifted the risk calculation. The Chinese work was carried out at biosafety level 2 (BSL-2), a much lower tier than Baric’s BSL-3+.

What caused the covid-19 pandemic remains uncertain, and Shi says her lab never encountered the SARS-CoV-2 virus before the Wuhan outbreak. But now that US officials have said the possibility of a lab accident needs to be investigated, the spotlight has fallen on American funding of the Wuhan lab’s less safe research. Todaya chorus of scientists, including Baric, are coming forward to say this was a misstep. Even if there is no link to covid-19, allowing work on potentially dangerous bat viruses at BSL-2 is “an actual scandal,” says Michael Lin, a bioengineer at Stanford University.

Senator Paul was extremely clear that he was not accusing Fauci of causing the covid pandemic, and was strictly addressing gain-of-function research being funded in China. Your article calls funding that research "an actual scandal." Fauci himself, later in the article, is quoted as saying this:

Quote
“Consider this hypothetical scenario,” Fauci wrote. “An important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?”

Fauci's answers to Sen. Paul were not only evasive, but they were outright lies in any reasonable definition of the word "lie". At best he was responding in a Lawful Evil manner. And he comes off as a sleaze as well, btw, so it's not like calling this otherwise upstanding gentleman a liar just because he says something one side disagrees with. He just reeks of dissimulation.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3569 on: September 14, 2021, 11:30:07 PM »
Fenring,

Quote
The article makes it pretty clear that Fauci was only telling the truth based on an extremely narrow defining of "gain of function" which involves specifically trying to make it airborn, notwithstanding the fact that if you watch the footage in the Senate, Paul very specifically defined gain of function in a more general (and reasonable) way, i.e. making it more potent OR more virulent, to which Fauci told him repeatedly he didn't know what he was talking about.

NIH defines 'gain-of-function' as 'any change that increases virus transmissiability or lethality to humans'.

Here is what Rand Paul claimed the NIH was doing,

Quote
"the U.S. has been collaborating with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH."

That is what Rand Paul was stating is 'gain-of-function' research funded by the NIH.

So by Rand Paul's usage of the term and the NIH's usage - Fauci correctly stated that the NIH was not funding gain-of-function research.

Quote
Your article calls funding that research "an actual scandal."

You misread/misunderstood, the scandal is that the researchers were using BSL-2 protocols rather than BSL-3.  Using BSL-2 at a lab that should be using higher safety protocols is indeed 'scandalous'.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3570 on: September 14, 2021, 11:57:32 PM »
Also the research being done was working on virus variantions that were likely to have already arisen or that could reasonably be expected to arise within that family of viruses. 

There was zero 'creation of super viruses' which would be taking virulence properties of unrelated species and combining them (for instance combining the lethality of ebola with the aerosol asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 , and the immune evasiveness of HIV).

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3571 on: September 15, 2021, 01:11:02 AM »
I was also wondering if the article you linked meant that you were agreeing with Rand that Fauci lied or if it was supposed to support the idea that Fauci didn't lie about gain of function research funding.

If it comes down to a narrow definition of what gain of function research is, Fauci's definition as opposed to the common sense definition, that hurts Fauci's case more than helps it.

So is it the contention that the Wuhan lab wasn't doing any gain of function research?

Or is it that if they were the funds provided from America didn't cover that but only covered other stuff? Because then we'd get away from definitions and into the fungibility of research dollars.

But here's another article and their expert says it was gain of function research:

https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

"One prominent scientist supporting this view - and quoted by Senator Paul - is Prof Richard Ebright of Rutgers University.

He told the BBC that the research in both papers showed that new viruses (that did not already exist naturally) were created, and these "risked creating new potential pathogens" that were more infectious.

"The research in both papers was gain-of-function research", he said.

He added that it met the official definition of such research outlined in 2014 when the US government halted funding for such activities due to biosafety concerns."


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3572 on: September 15, 2021, 01:22:05 AM »
There's also another issue apart from gain of function research.

Let's say this was a naturally occurring virus from a regular bat.

Now you had this bat lady going around collecting viral samples from these bats.

So one of those samples of a naturally occurring virus got out and that's Covid-19.

Now, we still get back to the research we funded being the cause of the Covid-19 outbreak even without gain of function.

There's still the tragic irony of our research directly causing the pandemic which we wouldn't be enjoying right now without human intervention, literally looking for trouble. And finding it. Maybe we'd have it a few years from now, or decades from now, or maybe even never. Instead we found what we were looking for and we got what we got.

Yeah, maybe the virus would have found it's way from that bat poop into the population but then again maybe if hadn't been collected by someone going into a cave looking for it and then bringing it out to put into an unsafe lab where it could get out to infect a very large population center then we wouldn't be in this mess right now, so Fauci's mask statement about research making us safer still hits the mark.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't do that research. But if that's what happened it's worth noting.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3573 on: September 15, 2021, 09:53:45 AM »
There are three common usages of gain-of-function.

Quote
If it comes down to a narrow definition of what gain of function research is, Fauci's definition as opposed to the common sense definition, that hurts Fauci's case more than helps it.

Rand that tends to agree with the common person's 'common sense' meaning - altering viruses to make them 'super viruses'.
NIH's - 'altering human pathogens to make them more virulent'
Virologist - 'altering any virus to add different functionality'

Fauci used the meaning of the common man, and NIH.

A virologists meaning would cover any therapeutic virus for treating cancer, etc. Pretty sure noone is worried that viruses are being altered to treat cancer.  They are afraid that viruses are being weaponized and might escaped the lab and kill people.

So if you ask a virologist - some will use a meaning in which cancer therapeutics are 'gain of function' research, others will understand that the question asker is using the more typical meanings.

Also you read only half of the article - the first half is Rand's claim, the second is Fauci, NIH, and a variety of virologists arguing the opposite.  I'm aware that Rand Paul could find a virologist to agree with him, but I'm also aware that the virologist is mistaken (the virus absolutely doesn't meet the NIH guidelines definition of gain-of-function).
« Last Edit: September 15, 2021, 10:03:44 AM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3574 on: September 15, 2021, 10:10:17 AM »
Yet another definition, which the research also didn't meet,

Quote
Gain-of-function research refers to the serial passaging of microorganisms to increase their transmissibility, virulence, immunogenicity, and host tropism by applying selective pressure to a culture.

https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Gain-of-Function-Research.aspx

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3575 on: September 15, 2021, 11:06:24 AM »
LR, Paul did not exclusively define gain-of-function as "making superviruses", that is false reporting on your part. I watched plenty of the video of his interrogations of Fauci, and he made it plain that he was referring to research into increasing the potency or virulence of viruses. He wasn't even outright calling this type of research a bad idea, but was directly asking Fauci if the U.S. was funding such research in China. It would entirely have been possible for the answer to have been "yes, but not the very dangerous type", but instead Fauci felt he was cornered and kept denying it outright. But based on your own article they were indeed doing tests to see if the virus could be made to jump to humans. This certainly meets the definition of increasing virulence. Whether this type of research is a good idea or not is completely beside the point.

Quote
You misread/misunderstood, the scandal is that the researchers were using BSL-2 protocols rather than BSL-3.  Using BSL-2 at a lab that should be using higher safety protocols is indeed 'scandalous'.

I didn't misread or misunderstand anything, and I find it interesting that anytime anyone disagrees with you on the topic of covid your conviction is that the only possible way they could be disagreeing with you is some kind of error on their part. It is *precisely* because the U.S. was funding research at a Chinese facility which very predictably wasn't using proper protocols that it's a scandal. Fauci's own quote in the article predicts this exact scenario, that research that in theory is safe would be carried on in a less safe place, get out, and cause a pandemic. And then his organization goes on to fund a Chinese lab, a place more or less guaranteed to cut corners. You don't care about accountability? That doesn't mean covid-19 can be laid at the feet of Fauci, but Fauci's answers to Sen. Paul read as him defending himself against this accusation, even though it was never made (and possibly never was going to be made). It was like, "we are not discussing covid-19. Did you fund gain of function research in China?"  "YOU CAN'T BLAME ME FOR COVID!!" And the caps lock is in keeping with Fauci's tone during these sessions.
 

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3576 on: September 15, 2021, 11:38:00 AM »
LR, Paul did not exclusively define gain-of-function as "making superviruses", that is false reporting on your part.

One of his public statements - which I quoted - implied/used that definition.  So it isn't a false report.  A false report would be if it was something he didn't actually say.

Quote
I didn't misread or misunderstand anything, and I find it interesting that anytime anyone disagrees with you on the topic of covid your conviction is that the only possible way they could be disagreeing with you is some kind of error on their part. It is *precisely* because the U.S. was funding research at a Chinese facility which very predictably wasn't using proper protocols that it's a scandal.

So here is the exact quote,

Quote
Even if there is no link to covid-19, allowing work on potentially dangerous bat viruses at BSL-2 is “an actual scandal,” says Michael Lin, a bioengineer at Stanford University.

So yes, you misread or misunderstood, the exact quote contradicts what you said and is exactly what I said.  It is the BSL-2 that is the scandal, not the research.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3577 on: September 15, 2021, 11:45:44 AM »
One of his public statements - which I quoted - implied/used that definition.  So it isn't a false report.  A false report would be if it was something he didn't actually say.

Are you now in the practice of cherry picking one statement made among many, when during the actual Senate questioning he used other definitions? It's a false report on your part because you're telling at best a half-truth to make it sound like Sen. Paul's definition was very wide of what Wuhan was doing.

Quote
Quote
Even if there is no link to covid-19, allowing work on potentially dangerous bat viruses at BSL-2 is “an actual scandal,” says Michael Lin, a bioengineer at Stanford University.

So yes, you misread or misunderstood, the exact quote contradicts what you said and is exactly what I said.  It is the BSL-2 that is the scandal, not the research.

No, this IS what I said. What is it you're misunderstanding? it really seems to like you're prevaricating to avoid admitting that the article you linked contradicts (or at minimum does not support) the comments you made above.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3578 on: September 15, 2021, 12:02:35 PM »
One of his public statements - which I quoted - implied/used that definition.  So it isn't a false report.  A false report would be if it was something he didn't actually say.

Are you now in the practice of cherry picking one statement made among many, when during the actual Senate questioning he used other definitions? It's a false report on your part because you're telling at best a half-truth to make it sound like Sen. Paul's definition was very wide of what Wuhan was doing.

This is classic "Bailey and Motte" behaviour - define the usage in an extreme manner in one context, claim a different meaning in a different context.  You are the one cherry picking - the definition of weaponizing viruses was the almost exclusive usage by Rand Paul in every public statement he made.

Quote
No, this IS what I said.

No, what you actually said was

Quote
Your article calls funding that research "an actual scandal."

Funding research into those viruses wasn't the scandal, the BSL-2 was the scandal, had the lab used BSL-3 it wouldn't have been a scandal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3579 on: September 15, 2021, 12:32:50 PM »
This is classic "Bailey and Motte" behaviour - define the usage in an extreme manner in one context, claim a different meaning in a different context.  You are the one cherry picking - the definition of weaponizing viruses was the almost exclusive usage by Rand Paul in every public statement he made.

I never claimed that everything Sen Paul has ever said on the topic is pristine. I was referring only to the Senate questioning. You were talking about whether Fauci lied to him in that specific venue, and as far as I'm concerned he did, quite blatantly. Whether Sen. Paul has been grandstanding some of the time or otherwise inconsistent is beside the point.

And incidentally, "weaponizing" is a term that doesn't only have one meaning. It can mean "trying to create biological weapons", but could also be taken to mean "creating more dangerous viruses", which arguably Wuhan was doing. In fact your article also states that part of the reason one might not consider the Wuhan lab to have been doing gain-of-function research is because that definition strictly speaking requires the intent to create the gain of function, whereas if the research is throwing crap against a wall just to see what happens, with no particular intent, but where a possible outcome is worse viruses, then that's not gain of function according to the technical definition of "intent". So that's sort of like saying "oh no, I wasn't trying to create more virulent viruses, I was just doing work that could create that result." Which to probably every normal person sounds like simply denying responsibility while still doing whatever you want. Sure, it's not weapons research, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous research, which was (probably) Sen. Paul's main concern.

Quote
No, what you actually said was

Quote
Your article calls funding that research "an actual scandal."

Funding research into those viruses wasn't the scandal, the BSL-2 was the scandal, had the lab used BSL-3 it wouldn't have been a scandal.

It just seems like you're nitpicking semantics to win an argument. It doesn't matter which way you put it - whether the research itself is theoretically ok but the BSL-2 isn't ok, or whether to call the entire endeavor being done in Wuhan "not ok." You're just playing around with parenthesis. The funding went to Wuhan, to do research, in a BLS-2 facility. That is "not ok", and so therefore doing that research is "not ok". If you did it in some other manner (according to the article), then the whole thing becomes ok. It becomes nonsensical to try to compartmentalize and say, as you appear to be saying, that Wuhan's research was totally ok, but just their lab wasn't. Their lab and the conditions therein WAS their research.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3580 on: September 15, 2021, 02:30:33 PM »
Fenring,

Quote
I never claimed that everything Sen Paul has ever said on the topic is pristine.

You stated,

Quote
LR, Paul did not exclusively define gain-of-function as "making superviruses", that is false reporting on your part.

I never claimed exclusive.  So it wasn't "false reporting" - I was completely accurate.  His primary and nearly exclusive usage was to imply it was engineering viruses to be weaponized 'super viruses'.

Quote
And incidentally, "weaponizing" is a term that doesn't only have one meaning.

He stated "creating super viruses" - so the meaning is rather clear.

Regarding lying - the US and EU have different altitude definitions for astronaut.  Branson wasn't lying when he claimed to have reached an altitude to be an astronaut even though the altitude required for the definition of astronaut he used is consistent with only the USA's usage (50 miles).  The EU uses a different higher altitude (100 km, 62 miles).

Reasonable people can use widely accepted though inconsistent definitions and not be lying.  As long as Fauci was using a widely accepted definition he wasn't lying even if you felt he should adhere to a different definition.

Quote
In fact your article also states that part of the reason one might not consider the Wuhan lab to have been doing gain-of-function research is because that definition strictly speaking requires the intent to create the gain of function, whereas if the research is throwing crap against a wall just to see what happens, with no particular intent, but where a possible outcome is worse viruses, then that's not gain of function according to the technical definition of "intent".

Yes, viruses will mutate at random.  So any time a virus replicates it has the potential to become more pathogenic (unless it is already at peak pathogenicity in which case all local mutations will result in it becoming less pathogenic).

Quote
So that's sort of like saying "oh no, I wasn't trying to create more virulent viruses, I was just doing work that could create that result."

If a virus replicates, there is always that chance.  There are so many virus replication events in a day (380 trillion viruses are living in each per person on average, similar numbers proportional to body size for each animal in the world, and of course in the soil etc, there are 800 million viruses per square meter that settle out of the air each day and 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of earth) , that the trivial number that occur in a lab is like fearing you can cause a nuclear explosion by bashing two rocks together.  Theoretically possible but such an absurdly low probability event that no reasonable individual would be concerned about it.

Quote
Which to probably every normal person sounds like simply denying responsibility while still doing whatever you want.

Yeah see above, weaponizing a coronavirus by accident would take more 'luck' than winning the powerball 3 times in a row.  We've had about a billion people infected with COVID-19 each person making up to 100,000,000,000 viral particles and we've had a handful of significant mutations.

Now something like influenza, that has processes akin to sex, you could have a reasonable chance if you bring two strains with different capabilities together that the 'offspring' will have characteristics of both that is more dangerous.  Again though that happens all the time in the wild which is why we have new influenza strains each year (birds migrate and nest, the bird influenzas get swapped around, new variant occurs, birds migrate back and either drop food or poop or get eaten and transfer the strain to an animal with frequent human contact - new influenza pandemic).  Any strain that would occur in a lab, will almost certainly occur in the near future so there is no marginal increase in danger.

Quote
Sure, it's not weapons research, but that doesn't mean it's not dangerous research,

Do you see how absurd that idea is?


Quote
which was (probably) Sen. Paul's main concern.

Sen. Paul's concern has always been himself.  He is trying to find a scapegoat to distract from the Republican parties in general, and his in particular, absurdly bad handling of the pandemic.   He spreads lies regularly regarding the pandemic  He called the pandemic a hoax.  He claimed it was a lab leak.  He claimed HCQ to be effective. His latest is 'Hatred for Trump' prevents studying Ivermectin - ignoring that it has had significant studies and found useless, and the one study that had enough power and that seemed to support it turning out to have had significant issues suggesting it was fraudulent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3581 on: September 15, 2021, 03:06:32 PM »
LR, you're making your case stand (more or less) on exactly what Sen Paul said in his wording during the Senate interviews, re: "superviruses". I dunno if there's a transcript, and I don't have time anytime in the near future to listen to the video again. I personally don't recall Paul telling Fauci he was funding research into superviruses, but I'd have to listen again to double check. But your case rests on that, because whatever else Sen Paul has said in public, Fauci lying to Congress or not rests on what he said in response to the specific questions he was asked there. His opinion on what Sen. Paul says on TV is immaterial to answering direct questions before the Congress.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3582 on: September 15, 2021, 03:38:52 PM »
Here is the transcript,

here is Rand Paul's claim,

Quote
This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among animals is gain of function.

and what Fauci states,

Quote
He keeps talking about gain of function. This has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain of function definition. I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/fauci-walensky-covid-19-response-testimony-senate-hearing-transcript-july-20


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3583 on: September 15, 2021, 04:49:02 PM »
Thanks, I'll try to check it out later on, might be a day or two.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3584 on: September 15, 2021, 04:51:42 PM »
Quote
I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.

Lol, he's literally on record lying to the public when he repeatedly stated masks were neither necessary nor recommended.

Whether or not Fauci lies hasn't been in question for a year -  it's well documented public record. But he only lies when it's for our own good. You know, to protect us.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3585 on: September 15, 2021, 05:17:10 PM »
One can only hope that Fauci's denials via careful massaging of definitional terms around what constitutes true gain of function, when clearly the output appears to be a virus that confers new or enhanced activity, is ultimately in our best interest.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3586 on: September 15, 2021, 05:53:21 PM »
Lol, he's literally on record lying to the public when he repeatedly stated masks were neither necessary nor recommended.

Whether or not Fauci lies hasn't been in question for a year -  it's well documented public record. But he only lies when it's for our own good. You know, to protect us.

His initial recommendations in February of 2020, were to wear a mask if you were infected or caring for someone infected, but that the general public should engage in social distancing.  Part of the concern was that people often quit social distancing when they wore masks and social distancing was viewed as more effective.  At the time that recommendation was made there was not significant evidence of asymptomatic transmission.

Here is what Fauci said in March 8th of 2020,

Quote
Fauci says "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask,” though adds he’s not “against masks,” but worried about health care providers and sick people “needing them,” and says masks can lead to “unintended consequences” such as people touching their face when they fiddle with their mask.

and a short time later said he was in discussion of reversing masking guidance, due to evidence of asymptomatic transmission,

Quote
March 29 Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb publishes a paper outlining a “roadmap” to reopening the country that calls for widespread mask use: "Face masks will be most effective at slowing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 if they are widely used, because they may help prevent people who are asymptomatically infected from transmitting the disease unknowingly.”

March 31 Fauci says he is in “very active discussion” with health officials about reversing guidance on mask use when the U.S. gets in a “situation” where it has a sufficient mask supply, and explains that experts were beginning to believe that Covid-19 spreads in the air among asymptomatic people who do not cough or sneeze.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/10/20/is-trump-right-that-fauci-discouraged-wearing-masks/?sh=18f8420b4969

When it became clear that asymptomatic transmission was a significant issue, guidance changed to include everyone wearing a mask.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-dr-fauci-wants-you-to-know-about-face-masks-and-staying-home-as-virus-spreads

So again, a mischaracterization of what he said being a lie.

He was mistaken in an email but I doubt it was a lie,

Quote
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Fauci wrote back in a Feb. 5 message. “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/03/fact-check-missing-context-claim-mask-emails-fauci/7531267002/

This appears to be the common misunderstanding of not realizing that most viral particles are incapable of surviving independent of moisture, and thus the size of a viral particle isn't the relevant size of concern but the size of a viral particle embedded in a large enough drop of moisture to survive.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3587 on: September 16, 2021, 11:25:44 AM »
In late December 2020, in an interview with Donald McNeil of the NY Times, Fauci said:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85."

I can nudge this up a bit. The ethics can be debated, but the fact that he's perfectly willing to make stuff up based on what he wants the outcome to be seems quite clear.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3588 on: September 16, 2021, 12:43:11 PM »
In late December 2020, in an interview with Donald McNeil of the NY Times, Fauci said:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85."

I can nudge this up a bit. The ethics can be debated, but the fact that he's perfectly willing to make stuff up based on what he wants the outcome to be seems quite clear.

Herd immunity is going to depend on a lot of estimated variables. Anything between 70% and 85% is probably justifiable based on different estimates for the things that are hard to measure precisely. Exactly how infectious it is and how many people interact with an infected person during the period they are infectious. Move those numbers around a little and you'll get different answers about what percentage of people need vaccines for herd immunity. The UK and delta variants being more infectious definitely moved the number higher for herd immunity.

His reasons for using a conservative or aggressive estimates for those figures seems to be to encourage more people to get vaccinated. Too high originally and people see the target as unachievable, as we get closer to the target it may be reasonable to switch to the estimates that are more safely in the herd immunity territory, particularly if it would encourage another 5% of people to get vaccinated.
Getting people to get vaccinated isn't a hidden agenda. He's been really open about wanting people to get vaccinated. So treating this statement as Fauci is a crazy liar, liar, pants on fire who will say anything is absurd.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3589 on: September 16, 2021, 03:45:34 PM »
In late December 2020, in an interview with Donald McNeil of the NY Times, Fauci said:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85."

I can nudge this up a bit. The ethics can be debated, but the fact that he's perfectly willing to make stuff up based on what he wants the outcome to be seems quite clear.

His reasons...

I've never doubted he had reasons. The NY comments are less about lies and more a clear example that he's more than willing to tweak the "science" messaging if he feels it's justified. We'll all tweak numbers and/or lie, given the right circumstances and reasons. Claiming "I've never lied" when it is obvious he has is what I'm calling out.

If you can show me a quote stating his initial mask guidance was because at the time he really believed they weren't necessary, I'd respect it. Then it actually wouldn't be a lie, simply a mistake.

Quote
So treating this statement as Fauci is a crazy liar, liar, pants on fire who will say anything is absurd.

It would be if anyone was claiming that.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3590 on: September 17, 2021, 05:24:05 PM »
Quote
The US Department of Health and Human Services announced Monday that it has "transitioned from a direct ordering process to a state/territory-coordinated distribution system," saying the change will provide "health departments maximum flexibility to get these critical drugs where they are needed most."

Seven Southern states -- including Florida -- took up 70 percent of the orders of monoclonal antibodies in early September, according to Politico. As a result, the Biden administration reallocated some 158,000 doses this week.

...

Jen Psaki on Thursday said the federal government has to look at the nationwide picture after the HSS said it was acting to ensure availability for current and future patients.

In other words, the Biden administration is taking it from red states that actually need the treatment right now in order to stockpile it for blue states which might need it in the future.

Out of the people in Florida treated with monoclonal antibodies, more than 50% were vaccinated.  Because DeSantis is resisting the illegal federal vaccine mandates, those who need this life-saving treatment will not get it. Biden will literally kill American citizens to impose his will on them.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3591 on: September 18, 2021, 01:48:22 PM »
Dr. Richard Ebright, biosafety expert and professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, has also disputed Fauci’s claims. Primarily, he has rebutted Fauci’s chief declaration that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” as “demonstrably false.”

Ebright told National Review that the NIH-financed work at the WIV “epitomizes” the definition of gain-of-function research, which involves working with “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” or those pathogens “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/internal-documents-further-contradict-faucis-gain-of-function-research-denials/


Oops. Fauci demonstrably lied and then tried to weasel out of a lie through semantic skullduggery.

I suppose he could always stick with his "you do not know what you are talking about" response to all these claims in the same way he tried to dismiss Rand Paul on the senate floor. Luckily for him our media doesn't appear to be that curious about whether the main person at the head of covid response is the same person leading the organization that is likely responsible for it in the first place. Nothing to see here, carry on.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #3592 on: September 18, 2021, 04:25:34 PM »
Is the NIH responsible for funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab? Bill Clinton can tell you better than Fauci.

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”