Pandemic started in a lab:

[stevil]

He said nothing about his "preliminary analysis". You made that up to make your story sound better. Here's what he actually said.

Andersen wrote that he and a few fellow researchers “all find the [SARS-CoV-2] genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”​

Nothing about "preliminary analysis". He was pretty matter-of-fact in that statement. Until Fauci scheduled a conference call, and then three days later, Andersen authored a paper that said the exact opposite of what he told Fauci in the email. Those are there facts.

LOL, so funny that you are cherry picking and leaving out the very next sentence from his actual email.

" I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”"

ROFL, LOL, Oh boy!!!!!!!

Have you actually read the emails, or have you just seen what right wing propoganda media have posted about the emails?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stevil]

And regarding lives saved, we've been told 20 million lives have been saved, an astounding number. Of course that number is based on the nonsensical modeling of the eminently flawed analyses of the Imperial College of London. I've created a graphic that shows just how ludicrous that claim is.

View attachment 329322

By my calculations, if USA didn't have the vaccine your country would have experienced over 3.3 million deaths.
If you guys got completely vacinated and in the early days if you all did the lockdown and mask thing, you would have had 330K deaths.
You have experienced triple the best case scenario because you have a large amount of people refusing to get vaccinated, refusing to wear masks, pretty much complaining about any measures meant to save lives. Basically you have had well over 700K unnecessary lives lost due to stupidity.

 

[stevil]

Yes, but as the timeline shows, that's not accurate. There are only 2 potential reasons; he either misspoke, or he's lying.

You'd have to ask him to define where these two weeks were. The start date and the end date.
I personally think your timeline is inaccurate.

I assume these scientists have been investigating this virus for a very long time.

Not at all. It just goes to show that you're not even bothering to look at this stuff for yourselves, or you'd have known that Andersen authored the paper in a mere THREE DAYS, despite saying he took a couple of weeks.

If this is your belief, then get someone on your side to ask him the questions. Ask him if he investigated if the virus was engineered.
Answer: he clearly did as his private email says that he did.
Ask him if he investigated if it was not a lab leak?
Answer: he said he spent a couple of weeks investigating this side and his report says it was likely an evolutionary development
Ask him when he started and when he ended this couple of weeks?
Answer: I don't know this answer, but ask him. I don't see the issue that you see.

Get the answers first before spreading nonsense on the internet.

 

[stevil]

LOL, so funny that you are cherry picking and leaving out the very next sentence from his actual email.

" I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”"

ROFL, LOL, Oh boy!!!!!!!

Have you actually read the emails, or have you just seen what right wing propoganda media have posted about the emails?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Further to this.
Here is what Dr Anderson has to say in clarification.

Scientist Opens Up About His Early Email to Fauci on Virus Origins (Published 2021)

In early 2020, Kristian Andersen wrote to Anthony Fauci about the possibility of an engineered coronavirus. His research has since dispelled those suspicions.

www.nytimes.com

Question

You also said you found the virus’s genome to be “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”​

Answer
This was a reference to the features of SARS-CoV-2 that we identified based on early analyses that didn’t appear to have an obvious immediate evolutionary precursor. We hadn’t yet performed more in-depth analyses to reach a conclusion, rather were sharing our preliminary observations.
I cautioned in that same email that we would need to look at the question much more closely and that our opinions could change within a few days based on new data and analyses — which they did.

Question

In March, you and other scientists published the Nature Medicine paper saying that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Can you explain how the research changed your view?​

Answer
The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.

Many of these analyses were completed in a matter of days, while we worked around the clock, which allowed us to reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered, while other “lab”-based scenarios were still on the table.

Yet more extensive analyses, significant additional data and thorough investigations to compare genomic diversity more broadly across coronaviruses led to the peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine.
...
Overall, this is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis after more data become available and analyses are completed.

Question

Do you still believe that all laboratory scenarios are implausible? If not an engineered virus, what about an accidental leak from the Wuhan lab?​

Answer
As we stated in our article last March, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove specific hypotheses of SARS-CoV-2 origin. However, while both lab and natural scenarios are possible, they are not equally likely — precedence, data and other evidence strongly favor natural emergence as a highly likely scientific theory for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, while the lab leak remains a speculative hypothesis based on conjecture.

 

[stevil]

In 3 days, he changed from "looks engineered" to "lab leak is crackpot theory".

This part is interesting. Not the 3 days part. Who cares if in just three days he changed his professional opinion. Opinions are formed based on data and evidence. These guys are openminded enough to see data and evaluate and even change their minds quickly. They don't need to let it sink in, sit on it, sleep on it, and finally, reluctantly admit that in the past they were wrong. LOL


But really, a quick internet search and you can find that Dr Anderson has addressed this question already.

The Mysterious Case of the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory

Did the virus spring from nature or from human error?

www.newyorker.com

Some comments about the meeting, e-mailed among the group after the call, were redacted. But three days later, on February 4th, Andersen’s perspective shifted. In an e-mail to a different group of scientists, which was recovered by U.S. Right to Know, an investigative group, Andersen wrote, “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”
...
On a recent Zoom call, Andersen sat at his desk, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. He told me that his initial suspicions reflected the fact that he hadn’t known enough about coronaviruses. His use of the term “crackpot theories,” he said, was a reference, in part, to an article that was circulating at the time, which claimed that sars-CoV-2 was engineered with genetic inserts from H.I.V. He also had referred to himself as a crackpot in earlier discussions, he said, since his suspicions about viral engineering were not widely shared. “I think there were people that thought I was an idiot for even suggesting it came from a lab.”

 

[probinson]

By my calculations, if USA didn't have the vaccine your country would have experienced over 3.3 million deaths.

Based on what?

Let's look at the graph again, that compares actual deaths to what you say would have happened.

What is it that makes you believe that there would have been a sudden and sharp increase in deaths?

If you guys got completely vacinated and in the early days if you all did the lockdown and mask thing, you would have had 330K deaths.

Really?

You have experienced triple the best case scenario because you have a large amount of people refusing to get vaccinated,

That don't need it, because they have natural immunity.

refusing to wear masks,

Because they don't work in community settings.

pretty much complaining about any measures meant to save lives.

Personally, I like my life-saving mitigation measures to be evidence-based and proven. Not emotionally-charged nonsense.

Basically you have had well over 700K unnecessary lives lost due to stupidity.

It's hard to believe that you actually think this is true.

 

[probinson]

LOL, so funny that you are cherry picking and leaving out the very next sentence from his actual email.

" I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”"

ROFL, LOL, Oh boy!!!!!!!

Have you actually read the emails, or have you just seen what right wing propoganda media have posted about the emails?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I have. It still doesn't change the fact that Fauci, Farrar and Collins were all part of the study without being credited, and that Fauci acted like the study was something he'd just heard about at the presidential briefing.

It also doesn't explain why, if both theories were plausible, there was such a concerted effort to censor any discussion of the lab-leak theory. Your position has been that we just don't know, and that's true. So why did they work so very diligently to silence anyone who even suggested that the lab-leak theory was plausible?

 

[probinson]

Let's take a look at Sweden's all-cause mortality from 2001-2022. Remember that Sweden took a much more relaxed approach to the pandemic than nearly everywhere else in the world.

If you look at this all-cause mortality data, you'd be forgiven for not even realizing there was a pandemic in Sweden.

But how can that be? Masks were never mandated. Schools remained open. Lockdowns were never implemented. We were told all of these things and more were necessary to prevent mass mortality. How can it be that all-cause mortality actually decreased in Sweden without any of these interventions?

 

[rambot]

Yes, I have. It still doesn't change the fact that Fauci, Farrar and Collins were all part of the study without being credited, and that Fauci acted like the study was something he'd just heard about at the presidential briefing.

It also doesn't explain why, if both theories were plausible, there was such a concerted effort to censor any discussion of the lab-leak theory. Your position has been that we just don't know, and that's true. So why did they work so very diligently to silence anyone who even suggested that the lab-leak theory was plausible?

I don't recall censoring discussion. I DO recall it being labelled as "speculative" or "wrong". I recall it being discouraged before more data and study was considered but I don't recall censoring.

Do you have some concrete examples of people being literally, silenced or de-platformed for this talk?

 

[stevil]

Yes, I have.

And yet, when you post your stuff, you don't put the very next sentence where Anderson says his findings are only preliminary and that more investigation is required.

And when I pointed this out you came back to me and said
He said nothing about his "preliminary analysis". You made that up to make your story sound better. Here's what he actually said.

Andersen wrote that he and a few fellow researchers “all find the [SARS-CoV-2] genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

Nothing about "preliminary analysis".

You purposefully ommitted the very next sentence and pretended as if Anderson hadn't said it.

This is wild man, I mean, please try to be honest.

It still doesn't change the fact that Fauci, Farrar and Collins were all part of the study without being credited,

Fauci didn't write the document and shouldn't be credited for it.

and that Fauci acted like the study was something he'd just heard about at the presidential briefing.

Reference please

It also doesn't explain why, if both theories were plausible, there was such a concerted effort to censor any discussion of the lab-leak theory. Your position has been that we just don't know, and that's true. So why did they work so very diligently to silence anyone who even suggested that the lab-leak theory was plausible?

You still don't understand some basics. You try to make out that it is an argument of 50% nature, 50% lab leak.
And you also try to make out that there was some big consipiracy about "mainstram" and "officials" trying to shutdown the possibility of a lab leak.

Trump, Fox news opinion show hosts and no doubt others on the far far far right were saying that it WAS a lab leak (without any supporting evidence). Reasonable people were pushing back against that narrative.
Scientist had determined that it was unlikely to be a lab leak. Even though they say it is in the realms of possibility, they are maintaining that it is very unlikely.

 

[stevil]

Let's take a look at Sweden's all-cause mortality from 2001-2022. Remember that Sweden took a much more relaxed approach to the pandemic than nearly everywhere else in the world.

View attachment 329336

If you look at this all-cause mortality data, you'd be forgiven for not even realizing there was a pandemic in Sweden.

But how can that be? Masks were never mandated. Schools remained open. Lockdowns were never implemented. We were told all of these things and more were necessary to prevent mass mortality. How can it be that all-cause mortality actually decreased in Sweden without any of these interventions?

Are you still on about this? Even though your narrative has been thoroughly debunked.
Really, just gonna spread inaccurate nonsense all over the internet.

Here are the overall death figures for Sweden by year
2015 90,907
2016 90,982
2017 91,972
2018 92,185
2019 88,786
2020 98,124
2021 91,958
2022 94,737

From this we can see there is a massive jump in deaths in 2020. Also 2022 looks pretty bad but not as bad as 2020.
2020 looks about 6-8k worse than usual, 2022 looks about 2-4k worse than usual.

Now lets look at the deaths attributed to Covid in Sweden per year
2015 0
2016 0
2017 0
2018 0
2019 0
2020 9,706
2021 5,639
2022 7,028

So they had an excess mortality of around 6-8k in 2020 and they had 9,706 deaths from Covid that year. This more than accounts for the entire excess mortality.
They also had a high Covid death count in 2021. There excess mortality is about 0-2k, so the Covid deaths more than accounts for the entire excess mortality rate.
They had a very high Covid death count in 2022. There excess mortality is about 2-4k, so the Covid deaths more than account for the entire excess mortality rate for that year.

Can you please try to explain to me what point you are trying to claim.

 

[stevil]

Based on what?

Let's look at the graph again, that compares actual deaths to what you say would have happened.

What is it that makes you believe that there would have been a sudden and sharp increase in deaths?

Your graph is just made up nonsense.



Let's instead look at actual numbers

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The worldometer says we have

683,118,566 confirmed cases and 6,824,700 deaths
This is almost exactly 1% of confirmed case are deaths.

This is very crude and has flaws because
1. Not all infections are confirmed
2. Not all deaths are confirmed to be related to/caused by Covid
3. Some Covid deaths would have been deaths anyway, but were attributed to Covid
4. Doesn't take into account the vaccine status.

But as a crude overall value here we have a 1% death rate.


Now rather than looking at the entire world, lets narrow down on 1st world countries where we trust they have a good testing program and ability to track infections and deaths and are less likely to lie.
USA at just above (1.09%)
106,082,759 confirmed cases
1,153,526 Covid deaths

UK (0.85%)
24,423,396 confirmed
208,458 deaths

Sweden (0.88)
2,701,192 confirmed
23,823 deaths

Denmark (0.26)
3,177,438 confirmed
8,344 deaths

Finland (0.62)
1,465,256 confirmed
9,028 deaths

Australia (0.17)
11,301,219 confirmed
19,760 deaths

New Zealand (0.18)
2,250,952 confirmed
3,966 deaths

As you can see, countries that did well at controlling the spread in the early days (before vaccine) did significantly better than countries that had a poor Covid response.
Countries that held off the outbreak to get their population vaccinated were able to achieve a 0.17% deathrate where countries that did poorly got around a 0.8 to 1% deathrate of those confirmed infected.


Here is an article which tries to account for the undercounting of infections and undercounting of Covid deaths in NY

Coronavirus Death Rate (COVID-19) - Worldometer

Case Fatality Rate (CFR), Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), and Crude Mortality Rate (CMR) latest estimates for the COVID-19 disease from the SARS-CoV-2 virus originating from Wuhan, China

www.worldometers.info

They conclude a 1.4% death rate of those infected.

As we know (in a previous post I showed the deathrates by vaccine status), unvaccinated people have around 10x more likelihood of death by Covid than people that are fully vaccinated.
And in these wealthy developed countries the majority of people catching and dying of the disease are vaccinated people (because these countries got the majority of their population vaccinated before the disease spread to them)
The unvaccinated are going to have a deathrate somewhere in the vicinity of the 1-1.4% and the vaccinated are going to have a deathrate somewhere in the vicinity of the 0.1-0.18%

 

[stevil]

That don't need it, because they have natural immunity.

1st point. Your only talking about the survivers here. if they had bothered to get vaccinated in the first place, then more of them would be alive today.

2nd point. It has been proven that a person with natural immunity as well as subsequently getting vaccinated are significantly better protected from hospitalisation and/or death from a subsequent infection.

 

[stevil]

How does a vaccine that doesn't stop disease transmission "make the workplace safe"?

Two ways.

1. People that are vaccinated are less likely to catch the disease and spread it.
2. People that are vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalised and/or die from the disease

Item 1 saves other workers and their families
Item 2 saves the person who has decided to take the personal risk.

Workplace is often indoors and is often in close proximity to others.
A concerned employer will not want a vulnerable employee risking others or themselves in the place of work.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let's take a look at Sweden's all-cause mortality from 2001-2022. Remember that Sweden took a much more relaxed approach to the pandemic than nearly everywhere else in the world.

View attachment 329336

If you look at this all-cause mortality data, you'd be forgiven for not even realizing there was a pandemic in Sweden.

I'd imagine someone interested in looking at the impact of a pandemic for which a vaccine was produced in less than a year wouldn't average data over multiple years.
I also can't help but notice that following the link in this chart doesn't actually lead one to the chart, but instead to a way to get the data. Which means that someone intentionally chose to smooth out the peak in 2020 rather than show it in the chart.

 

[stevil]

I'd imagine someone interested in looking at the impact of a pandemic for which a vaccine was produced in less than a year wouldn't average data over multiple years.
I also can't help but notice that following the link in this chart doesn't actually lead one to the chart, but instead to a way to get the data. Which means that someone intentionally chose to smooth out the peak in 2020 rather than show it in the chart.

It really is odd to combine 2020 with 2019 and do an average and use this to present data in relation to Covid (which started to kill people in Sweden in 2020 and none at all in 2019). For some reason Sweden had a better than average year in 2019.
But anyway, this approach to presenting data, isn't an honest one, isn't a best efforts approach. The graph is meant to mislead.
Thankfully, most of us are smart enough not to be fooled by it.

 

[probinson]

I don't recall censoring discussion. I DO recall it being labelled as "speculative" or "wrong". I recall it being discouraged before more data and study was considered but I don't recall censoring.

Do you have social media accounts? Particularly on Twitter and Facebook, posting about the lab-leak theory could get your posts deleted and in extreme cases, a complete ban. It was also quite common for social media platforms to de-amplify, or "shadow ban", accounts that posted about the lab-leak theory. They worked with the government on a nearly daily basis to do this.

Do you have some concrete examples of people being literally, silenced or de-platformed for this talk?

There is a lawsuit against the Biden administration that just survived motion to dismiss and will be moving forward on this very topic. In the decision to reject the motion to dismiss, the judge said this.

“The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”​

​

In NCLA Win, Federal Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Government-Induced Censorship Lawsuit - New Civil Liberties Alliance

Washington, DC (March 20, 2023) – In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has denied government defendants’ motion to dismiss in State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. The New Civil...

nclalegal.org

​

 

[probinson]

This is wild man, I mean, please try to be honest.

I will if you will.

Fauci didn't write the document and shouldn't be credited for it.

Sure he should. Dr. Andersen said Fauci prompted the paper and provided "advice and leadership" on the paper. I doubt he was showing him how to format a Word document.

Reference please

Are you serious right now? The reference is all over the last few pages of this thread. Fauci stood up at a presidential briefing just a day after Collins had emailed and asked if there was anything more they could do to put down the lab-leak theory and said there was a "new study" that had just come out, as if he was just hearing about it.

You still don't understand some basics. You try to make out that it is an argument of 50% nature, 50% lab leak.

You're right. In some of the emails, the scientists were originally "60/40", but I don't think any of them were actually "50/50".

And you also try to make out that there was some big consipiracy about "mainstram" and "officials" trying to shutdown the possibility of a lab leak.

Because there was. The media coalesced around calling anyone who even suggested a lab-leak theory a conspiracy theorist, and the government worked hand-in-hand with social media companies to censor any discussion of the topic.

Trump, Fox news opinion show hosts and no doubt others on the far far far right

Please. Stop. Politicizing. This. I couldn't care less what Trump and Fox News say. Stick to the evidence and the facts, if you can.

were saying that it WAS a lab leak (without any supporting evidence). Reasonable people were pushing back against that narrative.

That's some crazy historical revisionism.

Scientist had determined that it was unlikely to be a lab leak. Even though they say it is in the realms of possibility, they are maintaining that it is very unlikely.

We shall see.

 

[probinson]

Are you still on about this? Even though your narrative has been thoroughly debunked.

Funny.

Really, just gonna spread inaccurate nonsense all over the internet.

I have to continue to respond to your nonsensical postings.

Here are the overall death figures for Sweden by year
2015 90,907
2016 90,982
2017 91,972
2018 92,185
2019 88,786
2020 98,124
2021 91,958
2022 94,737

From this we can see there is a massive jump in deaths in 2020. Also 2022 looks pretty bad but not as bad as 2020.
2020 looks about 6-8k worse than usual, 2022 looks about 2-4k worse than usual.

Hmm. No mention of the drop in 2019? You're just gonna gloss right over the fact that Sweden's mortality rate was~4K lower than normal in 2019, and therefore they were ripe for higher mortality in 2020?

Can you please try to explain to me what point you are trying to claim.

You said (at least I think it was you) that if it weren't for lockdowns and masking and school closings and all of the draconian mitigation measures that were implemented pretty much everywhere but Sweden that there would have been much worse mortality. But we can see that's not true at all when we look at Sweden, who implemented none of those measures.

 

[probinson]

Two ways.

1. People that are vaccinated are less likely to catch the disease and spread it.

Hmm. You might want to rethink that. Just ask all of your vaccinated and boosted friends how many times they've had COVID.

2. People that are vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalised and/or die from the disease

Not so sure that's true either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinated-people-now-make-up-majority-covid-deaths/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/04/29/covid-deaths-unvaccinated-boosters/

Now before we start talking about base-rate fallacies, I understand that. But there are an awful lot of vaccinated people getting sick, being hospitalized and dying, likely because they are high-risk. And those that aren't getting sick, being hospitalized or dying are younger, healthier people, who were extremely unlikely to have severe complications from COVID with or without a vaccine.

Item 1 saves other workers and their families

Wait what? We already know that if you are vaccinated and get COVID, you're just as likely to spread it to someone who is not vaccinated. We also know that a large percentage of cases are "asymptomatic", and that vaccinated people aren't required to test. So you might want to rethink that premise that being vaccinated somehow makes your co-workers any safer. It might make you safer (depending on your age and your risk factors), but it doesn't make anyone else around you any safer, and it never. did.

Item 2 saves the person who has decided to take the personal risk.

This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting others, which is ostensibly the purpose of any vaccine mandate.

Workplace is often indoors and is often in close proximity to others.
A concerned employer will not want a vulnerable employee risking others or themselves in the place of work.

This is the most ridiculous take to come out of the pandemic. To listen to most people talk, you'd think SARS-CoV-2 was the first communicable respiratory virus that they'd ever seen or heard of. For centuries, people have been working indoors in close proximity to others with vulnerable co-workers and viruses flying around the room willy-nilly and NO ONE ever said a word about it. Now all of a sudden, people have created this new moral burden (that is unsustainable) to "protect" other people from the literally hundreds of viruses, bacteria, fungi and other nasties that are amongst all of us.