Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

public.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 792 posts

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#591

Post by lmm »

rnk wrote: post #340
kneebonian wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it isn't about the effectiveness or the blame it was that we spent 2 years where many fundamental and basic rights were suspended because of fear. For me it is not about blame it is about reminding people how fragile our rights are and that there are people all to willing and eager to take them. Combined with the massive redistribution of wealth that happened as a direct result of government action that furthe…

We had an emergency health situation and the government made emergency rules. Those rules were rescinded later when the emergency was reduced, partly because of widespread vaccination. This is not the first time that during a health emergency the US govt at various levels made temporary stringent rules. It turned out that our political argument against the rules is probably why the u.s had a much higher death rate fr…

Why do you believe that? The best available evidence (e.g. the cochrane review) suggests those stringent rules were not effective. Where I live (Japan) there were very few stringent rules and despite a high population density and an elderly population the number of excess deaths in covid waves was negative. Conversely China imposed some of the strictest rules in the world and has had one of the worst affected populations.

Authoritarianism is a very natural human response to a crisis. But the biggest lesson of the Covid-19 era is that it's thoroughly counterproductive. Responding to an uncertain situation, that everyone involved should have known was uncertain, with strict rules, that naturally had to be revised back and forth, destroyed the authorities' credibility, polarized the public, and did a lot of harm. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#592

Post by jlmorton »

Reason077 wrote: post #286
ZoomerCretin wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You won't have to wait long for confirmation. Confirmation that they were sick. Not confirmation of what they were sick with.

Given the location, the timing, the symptoms, the severity of the illness (it's unusual for 'flu to put healthy young adults in hospital) I think we can be pretty confident in our guess.

Importantly, Covid very rarely results in severe symptoms for middle aged adults. In the vast majority of adults, the symptoms are mild and nonspecific.

So the idea that all of these researchers would have contracted Covid and present with symptoms specific/indicative of Covid is absurd. The chances of that must be infinitesimally small.

If they had the typical, flu- and cold-like symptoms that most people experience, why would anyone ever even notice? It's extremely common to have illnesses with these symptoms in an office environment, to the point it would be strange if they didn't.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#593

Post by mock-possum »

artificial wrote: post #342
mock-possum wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why Politicians Are Trying To Take Your Children > California legislation would punish parents who don't affirm gender dysphoria wow yeah that's a take

AB957 is still being amended. Prior to amendment a parent not affirming gender identity would fall under child abuse. Here's the clause: (6)A parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity because it is in the best interest of the child to affirm their gender identity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Good. Not supporting your queer kid is child abuse.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#594

Post by dvzk »

harry8 wrote: post #563
dvzk wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the same people who frequently say this also cite the CIA's declassified MK-ULTRA documents as if they are unimpeachable fact (and not possibly falsehood or strategic disinformation). At the end of the day, the average forum skeptic trusts the CIA more than most normal people do. I think trusting in our system of checks and balances is a reliable way to avoid the infinite regress of Pyrrhonian skepticism, b…

>I think trusting in our system of checks and balancees No. A thousand times no. No damn way. Don't trust, observe, verify. That is the /whole/ point of it. Like really, all of it. Compromising that system is the first hurdle of any person or group seeking more unchecked power. Don't trust, verify. Without commenting on mk-ultra or any other specific thing. You assess the source. In so far as possible you assess the…

>>> You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this.

>> I think trusting in our system of checks and balances > No. A thousand times no. No damn way.

Which one is it? I paraphrased you, and you contradicted your own recommendation.

You’re proposing a flawed research methodology which uses an a priori fallacy. If the CIA says A, but an internal memo says B, B is more trustworthy. It’s equally as gullible as believing A, just inverted.

This is a treacherous assumption, especially if it concerns the CIA, which has among its stated missions information and psychological warfare. Propaganda using “accidental” disclosures is normal. By all means, use additional corroboration to update your Bayesian credences, but at that point you’ve advanced beyond the lazy skeptics being discussed.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#596

Post by jazzyjackson »

harry8 wrote: post #469
mmcwilliams wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that the funding doesn't come from a "billionaire owned outlet" doesn't really track if you look at the investors[0] in Substack. I count at least one billionaire-run fund in that list. There was also an incident a couple months ago where Elon Musk accused Taibbi of working for Substack, which he denied, but in leaked texts says they "originally hired" him[1], which I find confusing. [0] https://www.crunchb…

> if you look at the investors[0] in Substack FFS this is like claiming you are funded by BoA or JPM if your salary is deposited there. They are literally paid by their subscribers, Substack is a mere payment & publication tool. Substack do not pay them. Moreover w.r.t. Taibbi he has picked fights with his employers and quit at the first hint of them trying to influence his work. His credibility on that front is actu…

> Substack do not pay them.

"When we started Substack in mid-2017, the future for writers was frightening. [...] We started experimenting with advances, paying a small number of writers sums ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 to cover them for a few months as they got established on Substack. [...] With Substack Pro, we pay a writer an upfront sum to cover their first year on the platform. [...] In return for that financial security, a Pro writer agrees to let Substack keep 85% of the subscription revenue in that first year."

https://on.substack.com/p/why-we-pay-writers

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#597

Post by harry8 »

dvzk wrote: post #594
harry8 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think trusting in our system of checks and balancees No. A thousand times no. No damn way. Don't trust, observe, verify. That is the /whole/ point of it. Like really, all of it. Compromising that system is the first hurdle of any person or group seeking more unchecked power. Don't trust, verify. Without commenting on mk-ultra or any other specific thing. You assess the source. In so far as possible you assess the…

>>> You trust a system of checks and balances precisely because of this. >> I think trusting in our system of checks and balances > No. A thousand times no. No damn way. Which one is it? I paraphrased you, and you contradicted your own recommendation. You’re proposing a flawed research methodology which uses an a priori fallacy. If the CIA says A, but an internal memo says B, B is more trustworthy. It’s equally as gu…

>I paraphrased you

No. And I hope the clarification is understood.

The difference is between trusting that a system of checks and balances is required and trusting some particular implementation of something calling itself a system, without verifying what is actually happening now. Close your eyes, the system is perfect, I trust the system.

I highly recommend the formal study of history and the analysis of sources in particular for all of us. There is always more to learn.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#598

Post by logifail »

jlmorton wrote: post #592
Reason077 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the location, the timing, the symptoms, the severity of the illness (it's unusual for 'flu to put healthy young adults in hospital) I think we can be pretty confident in our guess.

Importantly, Covid very rarely results in severe symptoms for middle aged adults. In the vast majority of adults, the symptoms are mild and nonspecific. So the idea that all of these researchers would have contracted Covid and present with symptoms specific/indicative of Covid is absurd. The chances of that must be infinitesimally small. If they had the typical, flu- and cold-like symptoms that most people experience…

> Covid very rarely results in severe symptoms for middle aged adults

Correct, but I don't recall this being the narrative the media were following in 2020, despite stuff like this:

"After nearly 45,000 Covid deaths in England and Wales, we can see that people of different ages have been exposed to dramatically differing risks. Fatalities among school-children have been remarkably low. Taking women aged 30–34 as an example, around 1 in 70,000 died from Covid over the 9 peak weeks of the epidemic. Since over 80% of these had pre-existing medical conditions, we estimate that a healthy women in this age-group had less than a 1 in 350,000 risk of dying from Covid, around 1/4 of the normal risk of an accidental death over this period.

Healthy children and young adults have been exposed to an extremely small risk during the peak of the epidemic, which would normally be deemed an acceptable part of life. Risks can be far higher for the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions."

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-have-been-the-fatal-ris...

"Data on deaths from covid-19 show an association with age that closely matches the “normal” age-related risk of death from all other causes that we all face each year, says statistician David Spiegelhalter in The BMJ today.

His findings are based on analysis of death certificate data for England and Wales over a 16 week (112 day) period between 7 March and 26 June 2020."

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/covid-deaths-closely-ma...

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#599

Post by throwawaylinux »

seattle_spring wrote: post #575
baja_blast wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WIV has BSL-4, BSL-3 and BSL-2 labs. But the research involving insertion of human specific furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses sampled in the wild was done in BSL2 which just means a thin medical mask and gloves. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

It's not at all just a "thin mask and gloves." Just because Joe Rogan said this nonsense doesn't make it the truth. Here are the actual BSL2 requirements: https://uwm.edu/ibc/bsl2_requirements/

Yeah, no mask at all it seems.

Re: First people sickened by Covid-19 were scientists at WIV: US government sources

#600

Post by harry8 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #596
harry8 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you look at the investors[0] in Substack FFS this is like claiming you are funded by BoA or JPM if your salary is deposited there. They are literally paid by their subscribers, Substack is a mere payment & publication tool. Substack do not pay them. Moreover w.r.t. Taibbi he has picked fights with his employers and quit at the first hint of them trying to influence his work. His credibility on that front is actu…

> Substack do not pay them. "When we started Substack in mid-2017, the future for writers was frightening. [...] We started experimenting with advances, paying a small number of writers sums ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 to cover them for a few months as they got established on Substack. [...] With Substack Pro, we pay a writer an upfront sum to cover their first year on the platform. [...] In return for that finan…

Oh come on. Seriously. No. Come on.

If we're discussing Freddy De Boer this is relevant. He was on that deal. Which they won't renew and can't easily withdraw fwiw. Kinda different to being fired by Rupert Murdoch. Or having your story spiked, when it was 100% true but went against "the narrative" when that narrative was also false.

Do you have evidence that Taibbi is on this deal and has lied about it? Because that's a huge claim to make.

Post reply on HN