Corona virus, Port and the AFL.

[Forzaport]

Looks like some people have been digging through the academic literature to support the lab theory.

Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China

project-evidence.github.io

 

[OneGreatClub]

The UK situation and the difficulty of achieving herd immunity https://www.theguardian.com/comment...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1587033539

 

[chiwigi]

Take a walk around the CBD, there's already several shops that are for lease due to this. The government money won't save a lot of businesses, it might delay the end but people need to understand this.

Isn’t that ideal capitalism?
Kill off the weak, the corporations survive!
Worry about the social implications when business dips.

 

[El Zorro]

Looks like some people have been digging through the academic literature to support the lab theory.

Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China

project-evidence.github.io

"We are an anonymous group of researchers."

 

[Alberton Proud]

When your country has a quarter of the worlds population there’s a fair chance it may have come from within your borders

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

Looks like some people have been digging through the academic literature to support the lab theory.

Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China

project-evidence.github.io

This is incredibly dangerous material - unscientific methodology presented in a way to convince people of their point of view with absolutely no accountability (note the anonymous authors).

If you read the article its very clearly biased from the beginning from the way information is presented. Despite its claims to not presume anything and only present the facts it ends almost as an argumentative essay: "we have been presenting each of our claims in a vacuum. Let us put them together". This is not a scientific presentation of facts.

Its actually a good example of why everyone should be incredibly skeptical of any and all articles and journals that do not have an author attached. It presents itself as some scientific literature review when it has a clear bias / agenda it seeks to push without the reader's recognition.

 

[Forzaport]

RussellEbertHandball I missed one - lab workers illegally selling lab animals would certainly qualify as a potential source of virus outbreak.

 

[Forzaport]

This is incredibly dangerous material - unscientific methodology presented in a way to convince people of their point of view with absolutely no accountability (note the anonymous authors).

If you read the article its very clearly biased from the beginning from the way information is presented. Despite its claims to not presume anything and only present the facts it ends almost as an argumentative essay: "we have been presenting each of our claims in a vacuum. Let us put them together". This is not a scientific presentation of facts.

Its actually a good example of why everyone should be incredibly skeptical of any and all articles and journals that do not have an author attached. It presents itself as some scientific literature review when it has a clear bias / agenda it seeks to push without the reader's recognition.

Give me an example of bias within the text.

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

Give me an example of bias within the text.

Sure.

"Because 34% of cases did not have exposure to the market yet were exposed to the virus, it is highly unlikely the market is the origin point of SARS-CoV-2"

This is simply not true as many of the 34% that did not have exposure to the market had exposure to people that did. There was one family cluster and at least one wife that also caught it without exposure to the market. This is not reflected in the biased report

Note that the original source article uses the terminology "direct exposure to the market" clarifying any possible misunderstanding here.

 

[Forzaport]

Sure.

"Because 34% of cases did not have exposure to the market yet were exposed to the virus, it is highly unlikely the market is the origin point of SARS-CoV-2"

This is simply not true as many of the 34% that did not have exposure to the market had exposure to people that did. There was one family cluster and at least one wife that also caught it without exposure to the market. This is not reflected in the biased report

Note that the original source article uses the terminology "direct exposure to the market" clarifying any possible misunderstanding here.

Wrong. The authors conclusions are reasonable based on the information provided by that journal article.

Here's why: The key takeaway from that paper is bolded for you: "No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases". This forms the rational basis for suggesting the market is unlikely the origin point of COVID-19.

The cited paper provides a single example of a person to person transmission between husband and wife where the wife did not frequent market, there is nothing in the paper to suggest the remaining patients that didn't have direct exposure to the market were even known to the patients that did have exposure to the market. Your claim that many of the 34% that did not have exposure to the market had exposure to people that did has no basis in the facts presented in the paper and is a logical leap, also known as a bias, your bias.

I don't know why you seem to have taken such an opposition to the lab theory or why it would be viewed as dangerous. The authors do not claim their website is a scientific presentation of the facts but they do a good job of reviewing the literature. A viral outbreak from a wet market doesn't make China less culpable than a viral outbreak from a lab. The outcomes are the same. It's probably better that the outbreak came from a lab because that's easier to control than a wet market. The WHOs support for wet markets is odd but less so if they believe the outbreak originated from the lab.

 

[afl2004]

I want sport back mainly afl , can go another 2 months then I'll crack mentally

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

Wrong. The authors conclusions are reasonable based on the information provided by that journal article.

Here's why: The key takeaway from that paper is bolded for you: "No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases". This forms the rational basis for suggesting the market is unlikely the origin point of COVID-19.

The cited paper provides a single example of a person to person transmission between husband and wife where the wife did not frequent market, there is nothing in the paper to suggest the remaining patients that didn't have direct exposure to the market were even known to the patients that did have exposure to the market. Your claim that many of the 34% that did not have exposure to the market had exposure to people that did has no basis in the facts presented in the paper and is a logical leap, also known as a bias, your bias.

I don't know why you seem to have taken such an opposition to the lab theory or why it would be viewed as dangerous. The authors do not claim their website is a scientific presentation of the facts but they do a good job of reviewing the literature. A viral outbreak from a wet market doesn't make China less culpable than a viral outbreak from a lab. The outcomes are the same. It's probably better that the outbreak came from a lab because that's easier to control than a wet market. The WHOs support for wet markets is odd but less so if they believe the outbreak originated from the lab.

Oh good, thanks for mentioning that bolded section as I almost chose it as my example of bias.

The reason being its a logical fallacy to infer that because the first patient to present with symptoms had no epidemiological link to the others identified then it couldn't have originated there - this is because we dont know patient zero. If patient zero gave it to the first symptomatic patient then they could easily have also given it to all others at the wet market without an epidemiological link.

Consider the example where you have Patient 0 transmission -> patient 1 and 0->2, 2 -> 3, 2-> 4. If you are unaware of patient 0 then you have no epidemiological link between patient 1 and 2/3. You therefore cannot rule out the wet market / patient zero at the wet market as the origin point, just that patient 1 cannot actually be patient zero.

Its a biased review of literature, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Magus]

Sure.

"Because 34% of cases did not have exposure to the market yet were exposed to the virus, it is highly unlikely the market is the origin point of SARS-CoV-2"

This is simply not true as many of the 34% that did not have exposure to the market had exposure to people that did. There was one family cluster and at least one wife that also caught it without exposure to the market. This is not reflected in the biased report

Note that the original source article uses the terminology "direct exposure to the market" clarifying any possible misunderstanding here.

Is 66% of people having had exposure to the market enough for definitive proof? Because that's the only shred of evidence so far.
Someone could have gotten the virus from somewhere else and then spread it in the high density area.

 

[Jonts]

You know what is more depressing than being unable to socialise it’s coming on here reading conspiracy theories and quotes from unstable Americans.

do you think sanfl will introduce an U19s seeing as the U18s missed their season?

SANFL to cancel reserves thisyear and probably next is what I'm hearing

Am introduction of an u20 comp is being discussed

 

[Forzaport]

Oh good, thanks for mentioning that bolded section as I almost chose it as my example of bias.

The reason being its a logical fallacy to infer that because the first patient to present with symptoms had no epidemiological link to the others identified then it couldn't have originated there - this is because we dont know patient zero. If patient zero gave it to the first symptomatic patient then they could easily have also given it to all others at the wet market without an epidemiological link.

Consider the example where you have Patient 0 transmission -> patient 1 and 0->2, 2 -> 3, 2-> 4. If you are unaware of patient 0 then you have no epidemiological link between patient 1 and 2/3. You therefore cannot rule out the wet market / patient zero at the wet market as the origin point, just that patient 1 cannot actually be patient zero.

Its a biased review of literature, nothing more, nothing less.

The authors don’t claim the virus couldn’t have originated at the wet market, only that it’s highly unlikely based on the reporting in the paper. Your example would be on the lower end of possibilities because in that scenario the expectation would be that most, if not all, cases would trace back to the wet market (providing an epidemiological link) even without patient zero being known.

I’m happy to agree with you about the bias but I need to see some actual evidence of it.

 

[Forzaport]

Fox News has updated their story. Baier digging in:

US officials confirm full-scale investigation of whether coronavirus escaped from Wuhan lab — Fox News

The U.S. is conducting a full-scale investigation into whether the novel coronavirus, which went on to morph into a global pandemic that has brought the global economy to its knees, escaped from a lab in Wuhan China, Fox News has learned.

apple.news

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

 

[raptalia]

Donald Trump complaining about the State Governors complaining. They are fighting each other in the USA.

Rather significant that the so called 'leader of the free world' uses terms like 'we' and 'you' when complaining about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's allegtion that the White House is not doing enough to help. Maybe a 'we are all in this together' attitude might be a better approach.

Has Donald Trump actually been to New York to see the COVID-19 situation for himself? It might give the citizens of New York a lift if they saw their President in the streets in the fashion of Churchill in London during the Blitz or more recently Xi Jinping in Wushan.

 

[Leaveit2charlie]

Fox News has updated their story. Baier digging in:

US officials confirm full-scale investigation of whether coronavirus escaped from Wuhan lab — Fox News

The U.S. is conducting a full-scale investigation into whether the novel coronavirus, which went on to morph into a global pandemic that has brought the global economy to its knees, escaped from a lab in Wuhan China, Fox News has learned.

apple.news

Looking more like a Trump propaganda opportunity rather that a serious investigation?
The outcome is predetermined to become a smokescreen for Donald’s incompetence.
You could make it sound plausible without proving a thing.

Is there anyone out there that believes this investigation is going to show a conclusion other than the conclusion Donald wants?

 

[Power Raid]

Last night, the ABC reported that the federal government will pledge $165 million to underwrite domestic Virgin Australia and Qantas flights to capital cities and around a dozen regional centres, over the next eight weeks. After suspending domestic flights last week, Virgin Australia will today begin operating 64 return services from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth. This follows existing support for both airlines to maintain international routes to Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong and Auckland.

it is reported China airlines is circling virgin

imagine the uproar from some parts of the community, if china capitalised on this opportunity

 

[philreich]

The numbers are frightening. 83 days to register the first 50,000 deaths, and less than 3 weeks later the figure has now tripled. Let's just be thankful we're in Australia!!!!!!

 

[Power Raid]

The numbers are frightening. 83 days to register the first 50,000 deaths, and less than 3 weeks later the figure has now tripled. Let's just be thankful we're in Australia!!!!!!

we can be thankful if we come up with a vaccine or the virus just goes away. otherwise we are delaying the inevitable.

 

[Forzaport]

Looking more like a Trump propaganda opportunity rather that a serious investigation?
The outcome is predetermined to become a smokescreen for Donald’s incompetence.
You could make it sound plausible without proving a thing.

Is there anyone out there that believes this investigation is going to show a conclusion other than the conclusion Donald wants?

Is this why there’s so much push back on the lab theory - because orange man bad?

How on earth is it propaganda? It’s still a virus that originated from China. Knowing the origin will help to prevent a future outbreak.

 

[Del165198]

Donald Trump complaining about the State Governors complaining. They are fighting each other in the USA.

Rather significant that the so called 'leader of the free world' uses terms like 'we' and 'you' when complaining about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's allegtion that the White House is not doing enough to help. Maybe a 'we are all in this together' attitude might be a better approach.

Has Donald Trump actually been to New York to see the COVID-19 situation for himself? It might give the citizens of New York a lift if they saw their President in the streets in the fashion of Churchill in London during the Blitz or more recently Xi Jinping in Wushan.

Probably not, it's not like he has many fans in NYC. It might be popular if he went there and caught the virus though

 

[Schulzenfest]

I like how you picked on the females.

Malcolm Roberts is blaming the virus on the UN and socialism, but yeah it's Sarah Hanson-Young who's the problem.

Even Jacqui Lambie isn't too bad. I don't agree with a lot of our views but at least I get the vibe that she's genuine, and not just cruel for the sake of being cruel. I think Lambie actually is what Trump supporters (extremely incorrectly) think Trump is. Not for me, but I see the appeal.