Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind. Meanwhile, people who actually know what they're doing are waiting until the facts have been examined:
The current CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, said at Friday's briefing that she didn't "have any indication for or against" the hypotheses and that the White House team is "looking forward" to a report from the World Health Organization that "examines the origin of this pandemic and of SARS-CoV-2 in humans."
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it
Err, there has been studies done. Lots of them. In the virology world analysis of SARS-CoV-2 and it's origins have been the singular thing the entire virology and epidemiology fields have been focused on.
Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind. Meanwhile, people who actually know what they're doing are waiting until the facts have been examined:
The current CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, said at Friday's briefing that she didn't "have any indication for or against" the hypotheses and that the White House team is "looking forward" to a report from the World Health Organization that "examines the origin of this pandemic and of SARS-CoV-2 in humans."
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
What fucking troupe of intellectually damaged idiots moderated you insightful?
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
That person you cited literally just said there's "no evidence".
Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind
Of course you blame the press. Blaming the Trump Administration for what they clearly did is a step too far.
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
Hold a sec. The Trump Administration pushed this notion that CoVID-19 was made in a lab with almost no evidence, but you are not focusing on those allegations. Instead you are trying to paint that it is "politicization" by the press for pointing out the lack of evidence.
The politicization is that the people trying to shut this hypothesis down because there is "no evidence" are instead pushing an alternative hypothesis with equal amounts of "no evidence".
The crossover-from-wildlife hypothesis is essentially appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance. That hypothesis assigns zero weight to the fact that the WIV is the closest known place to have the closest known wild relative of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13), and zero weight to the behavior of the Chinese government, but almo
The politicization is that the people trying to shut this hypothesis down because there is "no evidence" are instead pushing an alternative hypothesis with equal amounts of "no evidence".
So according to you: Publishing the fact that that we have no evidence for something == politicization. Are you high?
The crossover-from-wildlife hypothesis is essentially appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance.
Please explain how we have evidence that cross-overs have occurred in the past == appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance.
That hypothesis assigns zero weight to the fact that the WIV is the closest known place to have the closest known wild relative of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13),
You do know both humans and bats can travel right? By "zero weight", you mean people know understand biology and transportation.
So why do people argue based on appeals to the authorities who profess irrelevant ignorance?
You keep using those terms. I do not think you know what they mean. We have almost no evidence. You can do the search yourself but it s
The crossover-from-wildlife hypothesis is essentially appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance.
Seems evidence-based to me, given remarkably similar viruses were found in other animals. It also seems to happen often enough to be notable, indeed the first vaccine was based upon a virus that routinely passed from cows to humans. Meanwhile, COVID-19 is well documented to be capable of infecting dogs and cats [cdc.gov], which, well, I mean, that's pretty much proof it's a multi-species virus right there.
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
??? "before a study is done" is literally the ONLY time when there's no evidence about something.
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
That what they said was accurate and that the person who made the claim without any evidence was not? Especially if it's the kind of thing that would be studied if there was any likelihood of it?
I mean if someone out of the blue claimed Davide Marney was a pedophile, and someone else said "There's no evidence of that!", would you complain that the
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
Typical politicization of Teh Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind. Meanwhile, people who actually know what they're doing are waiting until the facts have been examined:
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
Re: (Score:1)
It can only help him politically to make up such bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it
Err, there has been studies done. Lots of them. In the virology world analysis of SARS-CoV-2 and it's origins have been the singular thing the entire virology and epidemiology fields have been focused on.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind. Meanwhile, people who actually know what they're doing are waiting until the facts have been examined:
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
No studies have been made? GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
That person you cited literally just said there's "no evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the press has to politicize this and make it into a "narrative" of some kind
Of course you blame the press. Blaming the Trump Administration for what they clearly did is a step too far.
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
Hold a sec. The Trump Administration pushed this notion that CoVID-19 was made in a lab with almost no evidence, but you are not focusing on those allegations. Instead you are trying to paint that it is "politicization" by the press for pointing out the lack of evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The politicization is that the people trying to shut this hypothesis down because there is "no evidence" are instead pushing an alternative hypothesis with equal amounts of "no evidence".
The crossover-from-wildlife hypothesis is essentially appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance. That hypothesis assigns zero weight to the fact that the WIV is the closest known place to have the closest known wild relative of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13), and zero weight to the behavior of the Chinese government, but almo
Re: (Score:2)
The politicization is that the people trying to shut this hypothesis down because there is "no evidence" are instead pushing an alternative hypothesis with equal amounts of "no evidence".
So according to you: Publishing the fact that that we have no evidence for something == politicization. Are you high?
The crossover-from-wildlife hypothesis is essentially appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance.
Please explain how we have evidence that cross-overs have occurred in the past == appeals to authority and arguments from ignorance.
That hypothesis assigns zero weight to the fact that the WIV is the closest known place to have the closest known wild relative of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13),
You do know both humans and bats can travel right? By "zero weight", you mean people know understand biology and transportation.
So why do people argue based on appeals to the authorities who profess irrelevant ignorance?
You keep using those terms. I do not think you know what they mean. We have almost no evidence. You can do the search yourself but it s
Re: (Score:2)
Seems evidence-based to me, given remarkably similar viruses were found in other animals. It also seems to happen often enough to be notable, indeed the first vaccine was based upon a virus that routinely passed from cows to humans. Meanwhile, COVID-19 is well documented to be capable of infecting dogs and cats [cdc.gov], which, well, I mean, that's pretty much proof it's a multi-species virus right there.
Meanw
Re: (Score:2)
I ask you, if someone claims that there's "no evidence" of something before a study is even done about it, then what ought that to tell you about that person?
??? "before a study is done" is literally the ONLY time when there's no evidence about something.
Re: (Score:2)
That what they said was accurate and that the person who made the claim without any evidence was not? Especially if it's the kind of thing that would be studied if there was any likelihood of it?
I mean if someone out of the blue claimed Davide Marney was a pedophile, and someone else said "There's no evidence of that!", would you complain that the