Discussion:
Claim That Covid-19 Came From Lab In China Completely Unfounded, Scientists Say
(too old to reply)
Winfield Hill
2020-04-18 19:06:14 UTC
Permalink
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
b***@columbus.rr.com
2020-04-18 19:14:22 UTC
Permalink
I love it when people espouse a good conspiracy theory. I really love it when you cannot tell which side is pushing the crazy theories
John Larkin
2020-04-18 19:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
b***@columbus.rr.com
2020-04-18 20:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....He who pays the piper calls the tunes
John Larkin
2020-04-18 20:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....He who pays the piper calls the tunes
They are as driven by emotion and ego as musicians too. The computer
simulations are all over the place.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Phil Allison
2020-04-18 20:56:02 UTC
Permalink
John Larkin wrote:

-------------------
Post by John Larkin
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....
He who pays the piper calls the tunes
They are as driven by emotion and ego as musicians too. The computer
simulations are all over the place.
** Does anyone sensible really think that modelling future outcomes based on numerous guesses and hunches is doing science ?

It sure ain't the well founded "scientific method".

Seems the public have been conned into calling it science - because "scientists" are the ones doing it. Hmmmm....

"The science is settled" & "I believe in the science" are catchphrases trotted out to prove one's feelings about AGW have virtue.

IMO - all they really show is how gullible you are - or maybe something worse.


..... Phil
John Larkin
2020-04-18 21:04:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
Post by Phil Allison
-------------------
Post by John Larkin
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....
He who pays the piper calls the tunes
They are as driven by emotion and ego as musicians too. The computer
simulations are all over the place.
** Does anyone sensible really think that modelling future outcomes based on numerous guesses and hunches is doing science ?
It works OK for well-behaved, reasonably linear systems, which aren't
the most interesting or important systems.
Post by Phil Allison
It sure ain't the well founded "scientific method".
Seems the public have been conned into calling it science - because "scientists" are the ones doing it. Hmmmm....
TOP scientists!
Post by Phil Allison
"The science is settled" & "I believe in the science" are catchphrases trotted out to prove one's feelings about AGW have virtue.
IMO - all they really show is how gullible you are - or maybe something worse.
..... Phil
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 03:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
Post by Phil Allison
Post by John Larkin
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....
He who pays the piper calls the tunes
They are as driven by emotion and ego as musicians too. The computer
simulations are all over the place.
** Does anyone sensible really think that modelling future outcomes based on numerous guesses and hunches is doing science ?
It works OK for well-behaved, reasonably linear systems, which aren't
the most interesting or important systems.
John Larkin uses Spice to model electronic circuits. He hasn't noticed that transistors have an exponential - non-linear - relationship between base-emitter voltage and collector current.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Allison
It sure ain't the well founded "scientific method".
Of course not. But it is useful within the scientific method, when used by people who know what they doing. John Larkin doesn't know much about what they are doing (or what he's doing when he runs Spice)
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Allison
Seems the public have been conned into calling it science - because "scientists" are the ones doing it. Hmmmm....
TOP scientists!
The problem here is that John Larkin has a very strange idea of what constitutes science.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Allison
"The science is settled" & "I believe in the science" are catchphrases trotted out to prove one's feelings about AGW have virtue.
John Larkin gets all his idea about anthropogenic global warming from denialist propaganda sites, and lacks the wit to realise that they are lying to him for their own commercial advantage.
Post by John Larkin
Post by Phil Allison
IMO - all they really show is how gullible you are - or maybe something worse.
John Larkin is terminally gullible.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Tom Del Rosso
2020-04-18 21:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
"The science is settled" & "I believe in the science" are
catchphrases trotted out to prove one's feelings about AGW have
virtue.
"I believe in science" is a useful phrase because it marks the people
who wouldn't know science if it fell on them.

So does "the science is settled" to a lesser degree.
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 03:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Phil Allison
"The science is settled" & "I believe in the science" are
catchphrases trotted out to prove one's feelings about AGW have
virtue.
"I believe in science" is a useful phrase because it marks the people
who wouldn't know science if it fell on them.
So does "the science is settled" to a lesser degree.
Sadly, lots of people think this. The science about anthropogenic global warming really is settled - or as settled as a well-established scientific hypothesis can ever be. The earth is getting warmer, and it is getting warmer because the human habit of burning fossil carbon for fuel means that there is quite a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was a few hundred years ago (or has been for the past 20 million years).

The fact that today's CO2 is short of carbon-14 does mean that the extra CO2 is our CO2 - fossil carbon doesn't contain any carbon-14.

John Larkin and Tom Del Rosso don't seem to know enough about science to understand this. The denialist propaganda machine does exploit their ignorance.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 02:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Scientists are no different than musicians....He who pays the piper calls the tunes
They are as driven by emotion and ego as musicians too. The computer
simulations are all over the place.
Computer simulations are supposed to be all over the place. They are intended to demonstrate how different sets of assumption play out. Any computer model has to be a simplification of reality, and the interesting question is which set of simplifications are productive.

Scientists are quite as driven by emotion and ego as musicians - it's a theatrical profession - but what they produce is much more tightly constrained than musical compositions.

John Larkin is deeply ignorant about science, but at it's core it is a social mechanism designed to set up a coherent and cohesive view of the world. We've been working on the mechanism for the last couple of hundred years.

The Royal Society in London was the first one set up to formalise this process.

"The very first ‘learned society’ meeting on 28 November 1660 followed a lecture at Gresham College by Christopher Wren."

So far it seems to be working out pretty well.
--
Bill Sloman, sydney
whit3rd
2020-04-18 20:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.

When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.

The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The
resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
b***@columbus.rr.com
2020-04-18 20:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The
resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
Science is a funny thing. When it flies airplanes and fires guns and heals people....the funny thing is....pretty much every one believes in science. The problem is when "scientists" make grand pronouncements , that funny enough , have huge political ramifications, with no proven anything....It is pretty much should be treated as bunk. And that data you talk about....It is usually twisted and distorted to drive an agenda.
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 02:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The
resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
Science is a funny thing. When it flies airplanes and fires guns and heals people....the funny thing is....pretty much every one believes in science. The problem is when "scientists" make grand pronouncements , that funny enough , have huge political ramifications, with no proven anything....It is pretty much should be treated as bunk. And that data you talk about....It is usually twisted and distorted to drive an agenda.
It difficult to twist or distort data. Somebody else can go out and measure the same thing, and the two sets of data had better agree - within the limits of observational accuracy.

Rght-wingers do seem to be susceptible to stuff that claims to be science, but is actually propaganda. The book "The Bell Curve" comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

It was dismantled by some real scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

who - amongst other things - looked carefully at the data that Hernstein and Murray had relied on, and found that it didn't support the story that "The Bell Curve" had built on it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin
2020-04-18 20:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The
resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,
and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.

The follow-up books, a year or so from now, will be fun. The good ones
will name names.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
whit3rd
2020-04-18 21:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,
and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.
Nonsense, as usual. You've also said there's too much news coverage.
We have a pandemic on a globe with 7.8 billion inhabitants
and you pronounce a finding of 'too many opinions'?
Post by John Larkin
The follow-up books, a year or so from now, will be fun.
Oh, you have some supporting data and a good model that predicts that?
Me, I'm predicting a practical vaccine for 'a year or so from now'. That's
my idea of fun.
John Larkin
2020-04-18 22:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,
and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.
Nonsense, as usual. You've also said there's too much news coverage.
We have a pandemic on a globe with 7.8 billion inhabitants
and you pronounce a finding of 'too many opinions'?
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range. Some people say
it will be with us for 18 months, only stopping when have a vaccine in
mass production. Some people want to go back to work in two weeks.
Some want to go back now.

Some people suggest a second, bigger case surge in the fall. One big
name simulated a bouncing-ball curve of infections, multiple declining
peaks.

We are just now starting to get some antibody data.
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
The follow-up books, a year or so from now, will be fun.
Oh, you have some supporting data and a good model that predicts that?
You don't think anyone will write books about this? You don't think
they might be fun? Barry's book about the 1918 epidemic is great
reading.
Post by whit3rd
Me, I'm predicting a practical vaccine for 'a year or so from now'. That's
my idea of fun.
New cases seem to have peaked, and faded way down, in the places where
it started earliest. Look at the JHU new-case curves. Lots of european
countries are below 1/10 of peak now. It may well be gone before a
vaccine is available or useful, like most colds.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
whit3rd
2020-04-19 00:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
Post by John Larkin
Some people say
it will be with us for 18 months, only stopping when have a vaccine...
"it" being... half a hundred things. Active sickness? Travel restrictions? Gathering
discouragement? Viable virus residues? Hospital staff wearing hazmat gear?
Some of those, yes; some of them, no. #shrug
Post by John Larkin
One big
name simulated a bouncing-ball curve of infections, multiple declining
peaks.
Yeah, that can happen. So, a simulation can show that happening. #shrug
Post by John Larkin
You don't think anyone will write books about this? You don't think
they might be fun? Barry's book about the 1918 epidemic is great
reading.
So is Betty MacDonald's _The Plague and I_, about TB. Not fun,
exactly.
We ought not anticipate such writing, though, rather we should let authors
surprise us.
John Larkin
2020-04-19 00:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-19 17:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.

But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.

Grins,
James
j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
2020-04-19 17:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.

There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.

Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
Cursitor Doom
2020-04-19 17:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
We have economists so 50 or so of them (an impressive number anyway) with
no scruples can be bribed to all agree that such-and-such a proposed
course of action would result in financial catastrophe. By these means,
the briber hopes to be able to scare everyone into abandoning the
proposed course of action. Surprisingly, this tactic often doesn't have
the desired effect; the proposed course of action is proceeded with
nevertheless and all the dire predictions come to nothing. Whenever you
hear "x number of economists all agree course of action y would be
catastrophic for the economy" you can safely assume their opinion has
been bought and paid for by someone else with a vested interest.
And *that* is what economists are for, John.
Phil Hobbs
2020-04-19 18:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
2020-04-19 18:20:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 14:10:48 -0400, Phil Hobbs
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Nuance is strongly correlated to paralysis.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-20 17:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"
I was wading through a list of Ronald Reagan's quips last night, and
that one was in there :)

Another: "An economist is someone who sees something that works in
practice, and wonders if it would work in theory." -- Ronald Reagan

BONUS:
“We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don't know . . . and
those who don't know they don't know. “ - John Kenneth Galbraith

How has French revolution affected world economic growth? Too early to
say.

Did you hear of the economist who dove into his swimming pool and broke
his neck? He forgot to seasonally adjust.

There were two economists who were shipwrecked on a desert island. They
had no money but over the next three years, they made millions of
dollars selling their hats to each other.

Two economists were sitting at a nudist colony. The one said, "Have
you read Marx?" The other says, "It's these wicker chairs."

Three econometricians went out hunting and came across a large deer.
The first econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the left. The
second econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the right. The
third econometrician didn’t fire but shouted in triumph, “We got it!
We got it!”

Cheers,
James
John Larkin
2020-04-20 18:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Phil Hobbs
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
My Dad used to say that he wanted to hire a one-armed economist. People
who didn't know the wheeze would ask why: "I'm sick of being told, 'on
the one hand this, on the other hand that.'"
I was wading through a list of Ronald Reagan's quips last night, and
that one was in there :)
Another: "An economist is someone who sees something that works in
practice, and wonders if it would work in theory." -- Ronald Reagan
“We have 2 classes of forecasters: Those who don't know . . . and
those who don't know they don't know. “ - John Kenneth Galbraith
How has French revolution affected world economic growth? Too early to
say.
Did you hear of the economist who dove into his swimming pool and broke
his neck? He forgot to seasonally adjust.
There were two economists who were shipwrecked on a desert island. They
had no money but over the next three years, they made millions of
dollars selling their hats to each other.
Two economists were sitting at a nudist colony. The one said, "Have
you read Marx?" The other says, "It's these wicker chairs."
Three econometricians went out hunting and came across a large deer.
The first econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the left. The
second econometrician fired but missed by a meter to the right. The
third econometrician didn’t fire but shouted in triumph, “We got it!
We got it!”
Cheers,
James
Go ahead and joke. What the Fed and the Treasury have been doing is
serious. They have been playing the markets and riding the tiger's
back and the tiger is getting hungry.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Bill Sloman
2020-04-20 03:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
Nobody is gong to bother. You couldn't understand the answer, and wouldn't bother to try.

The only science you think you understand are the hard experimental sciences, and you get them wrong from time to time too.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Flyguy
2020-04-20 03:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by j***@highlandsniptechnology.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
There are death projections that cover a 20:1 range.
From folk with credible models, and for the same region and time period?
One of them is possibly credible. We just don't know which one.
I once had a model of a Ferrari. It wasn't anything like an actual
Ferrari.
But then it didn't come out of a computer -- if it had come out of
a computer it wouldda been just like an actual Ferrari. Because
computers.
Grins,
James
There's a joke that if you want 10 opinions on economics, ask 5
economists.
There's a wonderful article in this morning's NY Times by an
economist. He argues both sides of an issue and comes to no
conclusions. His trained professional skill is ambiguity.
Someone remind me, why do we have economists?
Nobody is gong to bother. You couldn't understand the answer, and wouldn't bother to try.
The only science you think you understand are the hard experimental sciences, and you get them wrong from time to time too.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
The ChiComm disinformation machine is in full force:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/04/china-fake-news-coronavirus-164652
Ricky C
2020-04-19 00:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
New cases seem to have peaked, and faded way down, in the places where
it started earliest. Look at the JHU new-case curves. Lots of european
countries are below 1/10 of peak now. It may well be gone before a
vaccine is available or useful, like most colds.
Not very likely. While the EU may be doing better most of the world is not. John literal not only doesn't understand math, he doesn't even understand numbers.

The world figures show over 1.5 million current cases growing by 53,000 each day. So every day we have more and more transmission. I don't understand why Larkin can't understand that we are still on the up ramp side of things across the world.

Even in the US we have 600,000 active infections, growing by around 30,000 each day. This isn't dropping currently.
Even the rate of new infections isn't dropping.

What Larkin seems totally incapable of understanding is that the infection rate is not dropping off anywhere because that is the natural path of the infection. It is dropping off in some places as a result of the measures they are taking to prevent the spread of the disease.

Even when Larkin focuses on "lots of european
countries", he is cherry picking a few that suit his ideas. The UK is not dropping at all. Germany is still around half the peak values. Italy is half. Spain is no less than half, likely more (rather spiky data). The Swiss have managed to get their new infection rate down to around a quarter. The French are headed in the right direction, but they are nowhere near a tenth unless he is looking at a single day with a very high reported number which is obviously a reporting glitch. That doesn't qualify as "lots" of countries.

So while Larkin usually cherry picks data, in this case he is just plain lying through his teeth.
--
Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 02:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,
and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.
Sadly, the deficit in observation and reliable data describes John Larkin's situation, rather the science that he thinks he is commenting on.
Post by John Larkin
The follow-up books, a year or so from now, will be fun. The good ones
will name names.
I doubt if John Larkin will feature as an example of ill-informed comment - there are too many other around, and Donald Trump's pratfalls will probably get pride of place.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Tom Gardner
2020-04-19 08:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
The problem now is too little observation, too little reliable data,
There's plenty of observation, but the data is still
far from perfect since the measurement tools and
procedures are so poor.[1]

That doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the
air and shout "it is God's will" or "the Rapture
is coming".
Post by John Larkin
and too many opinions and simulations that are having gigantic
consequences.
Simulations are like business plans: neither survive
contact with reality.

Their point is that they give a hand-waving feel for
which tweakable parameters are more and less important.

Two of particular relevance to the UK are the effect
of schools being open and of preventing incoming
travellers from China. Both were deemed relatively
unimportant, and allowed to continue.

If I survive I'll be interested to see which are
true/false.


[1] A good article written by people whose job is to
understand and communicate risks and *relative* risks.
Spiegelhalter in particular is known for trying to get
people to think about whether parachuting is more/less
dangerous than smoking/drinking at different ages :)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/coronavirus-statistics-what-can-we-trust-and-what-should-we-ignore
Winfield Hill
2020-04-18 20:50:32 UTC
Permalink
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
You should re-read the material. Here's one statement:
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."

https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1

That's one of many such strong statements. Alexandre Hassanin,
"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not
take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related
to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially)
in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/
December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."
Hassanin said: "These two points suggest therefore that the current
outbreak was not the consequence of a laboratory accident."

Eric Hundman, an Assistant Professor at NYU Shanghai, had stern
words for anyone still spreading this misinformation. "Insinuating
that the virus escaped from a lab in China by saying 'well, there's
no evidence that it didn't' is not only untrue, it amounts to
disinformation that could further ratchet up US-China tensions
and distract from more urgent priorities. There actually is
scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."
--
Thanks,
- Win
b***@columbus.rr.com
2020-04-18 21:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1
That's one of many such strong statements. Alexandre Hassanin,
"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not
take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related
to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially)
in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/
December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."
Hassanin said: "These two points suggest therefore that the current
outbreak was not the consequence of a laboratory accident."
Eric Hundman, an Assistant Professor at NYU Shanghai, had stern
words for anyone still spreading this misinformation. "Insinuating
that the virus escaped from a lab in China by saying 'well, there's
no evidence that it didn't' is not only untrue, it amounts to
disinformation that could further ratchet up US-China tensions
and distract from more urgent priorities. There actually is
scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."
--
Thanks,
- Win
It really matters not if it escaped from a lab or if it was some crazy bat virus from a slaughter market in Wuhan. What matters is why the immediate coverup. Why stopping those other scientists (you know the ones in China that were trying to get the word out about this thing and the Communists did what communists do....they lied, and punished their scientists. So the real question is what do we do with a communist country that want the benefits of interacting with the world, but refuses to play by the rules. What do all these scientists have to say about that. Also , are these scientists bothered that the Commies shut down Chinese scientists......Funny, I never read any stories about the comradary of scientists regarding these things.
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 02:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Post by Winfield Hill
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1
That's one of many such strong statements. Alexandre Hassanin,
"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not
take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related
to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially)
in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/
December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."
Hassanin said: "These two points suggest therefore that the current
outbreak was not the consequence of a laboratory accident."
Eric Hundman, an Assistant Professor at NYU Shanghai, had stern
words for anyone still spreading this misinformation. "Insinuating
that the virus escaped from a lab in China by saying 'well, there's
no evidence that it didn't' is not only untrue, it amounts to
disinformation that could further ratchet up US-China tensions
and distract from more urgent priorities. There actually is
scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."
It really matters not if it escaped from a lab or if it was some crazy bat virus from a slaughter market in Wuhan. What matters is why the immediate coverup.
That seems to have been driven by the local politicans in Wuhan, who didn't like the idea that there might be an epidemic getting under way in their city.

The doctors who were worried about the new disease they were seeing didn't have enough data to spell out what was going on.

It didn't take all that many more cases to get people outside Wuhan interested, and their reaction was much more realistic, and the cover-up stopped pretty much as soon as they got enough data to make it clar what was going on.
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Why stopping those other scientists (you know the ones in China that were trying to get the word out about this thing and the Communists did what communists do....they lied, and punished their scientists.
The people who were told to shut up were the hospital doctors who were treating patients who were presenting with an unfamiliar disease. As soon as there was any scientific investigation of their suspicions, the cover-up stopped.
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
So the real question is what do we do with a communist country that want the benefits of interacting with the world, but refuses to play by the rules.
As soon as they knew that that were dealing with a new disease, they did play by the rules.
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
What do all these scientists have to say about that.
At least one of the clinicians who got told to shut up died of the disease, so we can't ask him.
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
Also , are these scientists bothered that the Commies shut down Chinese scientists......Funny, I never read any stories about the comradery of scientists regarding these things.
You are confusing the medical doctors treating patients with the scientists tasked with finding out why the doctors suspected that they were dealing with a new disease.

The local authorities did tell the doctors to shut up about their suspicions, but when the higher authorities got interested, the results of the scientific investigations did get published pretty promptly.

Try to learn a bit more about what actually did happen.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Tom Gardner
2020-04-19 08:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@columbus.rr.com
It really matters not if it escaped from a lab or if it was some crazy bat
virus from a slaughter market in Wuhan. What matters is why the immediate
coverup. Why stopping those other scientists (you know the ones in China
that were trying to get the word out about this thing and the Communists did
what communists do....they lied, and punished their scientists. So the real
question is what do we do with a communist country that want the benefits of
interacting with the world, but refuses to play by the rules. What do all
these scientists have to say about that. Also , are these scientists
bothered that the Commies shut down Chinese scientists......Funny, I never
read any stories about the comradary of scientists regarding these things.
Ignoring scientists, actively ignoring scientific advice,
and not taking necessary steps to prevent spread is deplorable.

At least /China/ has stopped being deplorable in that way.

When will the current US administration stop being deplorable?
John Robertson
2020-04-18 21:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1
That's one of many such strong statements. Alexandre Hassanin,
"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not
take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related
to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially)
in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/
December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."
Hassanin said: "These two points suggest therefore that the current
outbreak was not the consequence of a laboratory accident."
Eric Hundman, an Assistant Professor at NYU Shanghai, had stern
words for anyone still spreading this misinformation. "Insinuating
that the virus escaped from a lab in China by saying 'well, there's
no evidence that it didn't' is not only untrue, it amounts to
disinformation that could further ratchet up US-China tensions
and distract from more urgent priorities. There actually is
scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."
The fact that this and SARS both appeared in November (2002 and 2019) is
interesting.

Any meteor showers that peak at that time of the year? Mostly the Leonid
occur at that time. Perhaps someone has some time to poke around
archives a bit to see if any other disease outbreaks happened after
meteor showers.

So I did a brief search and found this scientist who proposes more or
less exactly that:

https://profchandra.org/

Didn't recall seeing any mention of him before. I also see that Fred
Hoyle and Prof Chandra had written a book on the subject...

Perhaps other scientists will look into this without preconceptions and
either refute it or endorse the theory as needing more attention.

John
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-18 21:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1
But that's a profoundly unscientific statement on its face -- who
cares whether it's a "virus backbone" previously used in Western
research? How would that prevent anyone who wanted to, at any time,
from acquiring a sample and studying it? And how does this individual
purport to know the particulars of every virus and viral experiment
in all the world's labs?

It's a preposterous statement. Further, who cares? That he's not
aware of anyone using it before, does not mean Wuhan virologists
could not have collected it, collected then modified it, or even
synthesized it.

I'm not arguing for any theory. But these are thoroughly unscientific
rebuttals.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Phil Hobbs
2020-04-18 22:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
whit3rd wrote...
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-
came-from-
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's
normal, and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school
science education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science.
The resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
"The genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is
not derived from any previously used virus backbone."
https://nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uox9g9kgq2h8r3v/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf?dl=1
That's one of many such strong statements. Alexandre Hassanin,
"Even if it is difficult to prove that a laboratory accident did not
take place, you should know that SARS-CoV-2 is not closely related
to any previous viruses; it was never sequenced (even partially)
in previous studies, and the COVID-19 outbreak began in November/
December, as in previous SARS epidemic events (2002 and 2003)."
Hassanin said: "These two points suggest therefore that the current
outbreak was not the consequence of a laboratory accident."
Eric Hundman, an Assistant Professor at NYU Shanghai, had stern
words for anyone still spreading this misinformation. "Insinuating
that the virus escaped from a lab in China by saying 'well, there's
no evidence that it didn't' is not only untrue, it amounts to
disinformation that could further ratchet up US-China tensions
and distract from more urgent priorities. There actually is
scientific evidence against the "escaped from a lab" theory."
Funny how having several colleagues get disappeared for saying otherwise
will do that.

Cheers

Phil
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Phil Hobbs
2020-04-18 22:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by whit3rd
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
No scientists trusts a scientist's words, rather we trust the data.
What do you mean "we", paleface? ;)
Post by whit3rd
The 'say almost anything' phrase suggests that you've been finding
scientists entertaining hypotheses that aren't in agreement. That's normal,
and wouldn't surprise anyone with a good elementary school science
education. It's not noteworthy.
When a scientist, in this case, says a claim is unfounded, it means the
claim alone is worthless, absent a supporting observation; that doesn't
mean the claim is right or wrong, it means it's untested.
The dramatic-form 'he said, she said' squabbling is irrelevant in science. The
resolution will always come from observations, not words and syllables.
Dream on. You should see some of the dreck I get sent to peer-review.
Thirty years of watching the average quality go straight into the tank
would probably cure even you of that Pollyanna view of science you keep
trotting out.

It's a great pity, but 21st Century science has fallen a long way from
the 20th Century.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 02:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
These days, you can find scientists to say most anything.
Particularly when you haven't got a clue what constitutes "science".
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Tom Del Rosso
2020-04-18 21:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
I didn't know you had to be a scientist to determine that. But it was a
lab if a food market is a lab.

Amazing how ancient people in the middle east figured out that some
things are not safe to eat and the Chinese still haven't.
John Larkin
2020-04-18 22:48:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 17:07:13 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
I didn't know you had to be a scientist to determine that. But it was a
lab if a food market is a lab.
Amazing how ancient people in the middle east figured out that some
things are not safe to eat and the Chinese still haven't.
The Japanese discovered a lot of sanitary stuff before bacteria were
imagined.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
John Doe
2020-04-19 00:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Tom Del Rosso
I didn't know you had to be a scientist to determine that. But
it was a lab if a food market is a lab.
Amazing how ancient people in the middle east figured out that
some things are not safe to eat and the Chinese still haven't.
The Japanese discovered a lot of sanitary stuff before bacteria
were imagined.
Could be, but the Japanese aren't the Chinese.

Yes, I know "they all look alike".

The Japanese realized how useful branding is. Something the Chinese
haven't figured out even though they have had more than enough time.
John Doe
2020-04-19 00:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
I didn't know you had to be a scientist to determine that. But it
was a lab if a food market is a lab.
Amazing how ancient people in the middle east figured out that
some things are not safe to eat and the Chinese still haven't.
lol
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-18 21:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.

ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.

Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.

There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.

The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.


Cheers,
James Arthur
George Herold
2020-04-18 22:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
Cheers,
James Arthur
I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)

George H.
John Larkin
2020-04-18 22:57:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 15:25:58 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
Post by George Herold
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
Cheers,
James Arthur
I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)
George H.
No, the slants are extreme lately. You can read the first paragraph of
a news report and predict which camp it came from.

There must be a new Recommended Insults appendix to the NY Times Style
Book.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
John Doe
2020-04-19 00:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Herold
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any
scientific arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their
speculations being tossed around non-scientifically by
non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China
were a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections
for traces of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's
excluded. And we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find
the first cases. However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have
been studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected
SARS-CoV2, then lost control. Or synthesized something, or
collected, then modified something wild, etc. Or that none of
that happened.
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most
news almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the
source. It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my
tolerance is much lower. (grumpy old man complex)
Racist!
Given the Internet, getting news from the source is much easier
nowadays. Like directly from courts and legislatures. I was watching
C-SPAN long before the Internet, but now it's super easy. Access to
court proceedings not very difficult.
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-19 16:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Herold
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)
George H.
That's a good question about news sources. I had to think a bit to
re-trace my process.

In my youth I was exposed to some honest-to-goodness communist
propagandizing from directly across the Iron Curtain, which has affected
the way I process information later in life. I've seen Orwellian police
states personally and heard their official voices deny obvious truths.
And all of that has bred a keen sense for when I'm getting incomplete
information, straw-men, narratives, and rhetorical devices instead of
facts. I can usually spot con-men instantly, too. Same thing.

I think my staying-informed process consists essentially of collecting
seeds from wherever, suggesting possibly interesting happenings to
investigate. From there, I'll possibly read a few treatments of the
issue first to see what's being argued, then go directly to the source
so that I can evaluate the arguments being made.

When I go to the source and watch the actual person saying the actual
thing, or read the law itself, or proposed legislation, I often find
the popular reporting omits critical details, or flat-out
mischaracterizes or even misstates what was actually said.

So when reading an article in the popular press, I just read through
the slant gleaning objective facts. For example, this AP article says

" The punishment of eight doctors for “rumor-mongering,” broadcast
on national television on Jan. 2, sent a chill through the city’s
hospitals.

“Doctors in Wuhan were afraid,” said Dali Yang, a professor of Chinese
politics at the University of Chicago. “It was truly intimidation of
an entire profession.” "
https://apnews.com/68a9e1b91de4ffc166acd6012d82c2f9

Okay, on Jan. 2, China was aware of and suppressing news of their
epidemic. That's useful. But later, after making a balanced
presentation about why Chinese leaders might have wanted to avoid
public panic, the article takes a swipe at President Trump for the
same thing with no such mitigation. Orange Man is Bad, you see.
That's slant.

In pursuit of their Orange Man Bad thesis the AP article makes
ignorant statements about the U.S. response, such as "However, even
the public announcement on Jan. 20 left the U.S. nearly two months
to prepare for the pandemic."

The AP is clearly trying to argue that the U.S. failed to act, and paint
that on The Donald. But I already know the U.S. didn't have its first
known case until Jan. 21st -- by that measure we had exactly one day
to prepare for the pandemic. It's a lame argument. And I also know
that on Jan. 20th, Dr. Fauci had announced the National Institutes
of Health was already working on a vaccine for the coronavirus. That
doesn't sound like inaction or inattention to me. That sounds like our
officials were on high alert, working aggressively to counter the
threat. But the AP doesn't mention those things I already know,
important things devastating to their argument. So, I immediately know
the AP is cherry-picking, poorly-informed, or they're pitching me.

So, I try to dig out the facts wherever I can, read through the slant,
and reach a reasonable understanding of reality.

And never forget -- the most insidious power of the media is the power
to ignore. Whenever you're getting only the costs of a thing but not
the benefits, or only the benefits but not the cost, you're not being
informed, you're being played.

Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
2020-04-20 03:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by George Herold
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
I agree. Say James, what news sources do you read? I find most news
almost impossible to read, because of the 'slant' of the source.
It's not that the 'slants' have gotten worse, but my tolerance is
much lower. (grumpy old man complex)
George H.
That's a good question about news sources. I had to think a bit to
re-trace my process.
In my youth I was exposed to some honest-to-goodness communist
propagandizing from directly across the Iron Curtain, which has affected
the way I process information later in life. I've seen Orwellian police
states personally and heard their official voices deny obvious truths.
And all of that has bred a keen sense for when I'm getting incomplete
information, straw-men, narratives, and rhetorical devices instead of
facts. I can usually spot con-men instantly, too. Same thing.
And the expertise you developed is put to use in the material you post here, which is full of incomplete information, straw man examples and rhetorical devices.

<snip>
Post by d***@yahoo.com
In pursuit of their Orange Man Bad thesis the AP article makes
ignorant statements about the U.S. response, such as "However, even
the public announcement on Jan. 20 left the U.S. nearly two months
to prepare for the pandemic."
The AP is clearly trying to argue that the U.S. failed to act, and paint
that on The Donald. But I already know the U.S. didn't have its first
known case until Jan. 21st -- by that measure we had exactly one day
to prepare for the pandemic.
But that case didn't start the US epidemic - the US was already quite well enough aware of what was going on to shunt the patient into effective isolation.

The first one that got away and started US epidemic did so some weeks later.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
It's a lame argument.
Not as lame as the one James Arthi]ur is peddling here.

<snip>
Post by d***@yahoo.com
So, I try to dig out the facts wherever I can, read through the slant,
and reach a reasonable understanding of reality.
And then post a comment with a slant that makes Trump and his repulbican clown car look good - or at least less fatuously incompetent.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And never forget -- the most insidious power of the media is the power
to ignore. Whenever you're getting only the costs of a thing but not
the benefits, or only the benefits but not the cost, you're not being
informed, you're being played.
James Arthur is extremely fond of ignoring inconvenient facts, and the most obvious fact here is that the US - which has about a quarter of China's population - has now had 764,265 people infected with Covid-19 - a number that is rising by about 30,000 a day - while China managed to limit the number infected to 82,747 and had twelve new cases today (probably all returning travellers).

That makes the US response decidedly inadequate. Other people have managed to do better - with less time to prepare - so the word incompetent isn't out of place.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin
2020-04-18 22:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
Maybe they just transported some bat virus from a cave for research
purposes, and it infected a lab tech and got loose.

There was a guy on NPR this morning, a bat collector who does crawl
into caves and traps bats and takes varuous iccky samples to look at
their viruses. Bats host huge ranges of viruses that apparently do
them little or no harm. Like another virus I could name.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
Shanghai resident Assistant Professor? Of course he is an objective
expert.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Cheers,
James Arthur
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
d***@yahoo.com
2020-04-19 15:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Despite the deference to "scientists," I didn't see any scientific
arguments, merely "scientists" speculating, and their speculations
being tossed around non-scientifically by non-scientists.
ISTM it's a forensic matter rather than scientific. If China were
a free country, we'd simply scour their labs' collections for traces
of the Wuhan Scourge. If it's not there, the lab's excluded. And
we'd look at personnel records too, maybe, to find the first cases.
However, China won't allow it.
Absent that, it's entirely possible this group -- known to have been
studying coronavirus reservoirs in the wild -- collected SARS-CoV2,
then lost control. Or synthesized something, or collected, then
modified something wild, etc. Or that none of that happened.
Maybe they just transported some bat virus from a cave for research
purposes, and it infected a lab tech and got loose.
That's what I meant by "collected...then lost control." One of the
workers could've gotten ill just crawling around in caves.

Anyway, early on in this panic attack I read that several of the lab
workers fell ill with China's Gift, which might pertain to the
question at hand, or maybe not.
Post by John Larkin
There was a guy on NPR this morning, a bat collector who does crawl
into caves and traps bats and takes varuous iccky samples to look at
their viruses. Bats host huge ranges of viruses that apparently do
them little or no harm. Like another virus I could name.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
There are manifold possibilities that can't be excluded -- it's a
mystery.
The NYU Shanghai prof's Twitter thread is full of gaping holes.
Shanghai resident Assistant Professor? Of course he is an objective
expert.
Yes. And not being dead, in prison, or disappeared definitely adds
both expertise and credibility.

Cheers,
James
b***@gmail.com
2020-04-18 22:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Anyway, latest genetic analysis on extant virus samples from China exclude the whole city of Wuhan as the origin. They're zooming in on Guangdong as the origin, and possibly as early as September.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-outbreak-september-not-wuhan-1498566
speff
2020-04-18 23:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Anyway, latest genetic analysis on extant virus samples from China exclude the whole city of Wuhan as the origin. They're zooming in on Guangdong as the origin, and possibly as early as September.
https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-outbreak-september-not-wuhan-1498566
If it has natural origins with an intermediate animal, GD makes a lot more sense than Wuhan because they're far more into weird stuff there.

“The Cantonese will eat everything on four legs except the table.”

Wuhan is more boring- their famous dish is just spicy noodles.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
John Doe
2020-04-19 00:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Not getting enough attention...
--
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Winfield Hill <winfieldhill yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Claim That Covid-19 Came From Lab In China Completely Unfounded, Scientists Say
Date: 18 Apr 2020 12:06:14 -0700
Organization: Rowland Institute
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <r7fj3602eaj drn.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pcfc06bd2c6bfd79507cbd98de39c9c3a7609940083c15d2f.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Received-Bytes: 751
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1302565358
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:590662
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
--
Thanks,
- Win
Tom Del Rosso
2020-04-19 01:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy. A
lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
Phil Allison
2020-04-19 02:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Tom Del Rosso wrote:

--------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy.
** What idiocy.

The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.

Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.

So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
Post by Tom Del Rosso
A lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
** My god you are dumb.

The conspiracy bit relates to ALL those aware being complicit and silent.



.... Phil
Tom Del Rosso
2020-04-19 02:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
--------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they
don't agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a
conspiracy.
** What idiocy.
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number
of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly
indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme
improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying
saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
Post by Tom Del Rosso
A lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
** My god you are dumb.
The conspiracy bit relates to ALL those aware being complicit and silent.
That's not a conspiracy either. That's a dictatorial government telling
people what to do.

My god you are in need of therapy.
John Doe
2020-04-19 02:36:30 UTC
Permalink
<blather>
Post by Tom Del Rosso
My god you are in need of therapy.
lol
Ricky C
2020-04-19 03:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
<blather>
Post by Tom Del Rosso
My god you are in need of therapy.
lol
You can laugh, but you are right there sitting next to him on the group W bench.
--
Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 03:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky C
Post by John Doe
<blather>
Post by Tom Del Rosso
My god you are in need of therapy.
lol
You can laugh, but you are right there sitting next to him on the group W bench.
That's unkind and inaccurate. John Doe is a complete idiot. Phil Allison does have some useful information to impart, even if he is prone to fly off the handle if even minimally provoked.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Phil Allison
2020-04-19 02:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Tom Del Rosso Cannot Read wrote:

-------------------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Phil Allison
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they
don't agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a
conspiracy.
** What idiocy.
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number
of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly
indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme
improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying
saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
Post by Tom Del Rosso
A lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
** My god you are dumb.
The conspiracy bit relates to ALL those aware being complicit and silent.
That's not a conspiracy either. That's a dictatorial government telling
people what to do.
** All you wrote was "lab accident" .

No mention of a govt forced cover up.

Go fuck yourself.



..... Phil
bitrex
2020-04-19 03:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
--------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy.
** What idiocy.
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
Post by Tom Del Rosso
A lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
** My god you are dumb.
The conspiracy bit relates to ALL those aware being complicit and silent.
.... Phil
Who needs "conspiracies" when politicians can openly tell Americans "I
could shoot one of you and get away with it" and they actually seem
extremely happy someone is finally being honest with them.
Ricky C
2020-04-19 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
--------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy.
** What idiocy.
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret by the government for many years before they finally were revealed and acknowledged. One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.

This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general public.
--
Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
bitrex
2020-04-19 03:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
--------------------
Post by Tom Del Rosso
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy.
** What idiocy.
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret by the government for many years before they finally were revealed and acknowledged. One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general public.
Likely few involved thought they were doing anything "wrong" and it's
unlikely most of the American public would've cared much either prior to
1972 anyway there wouldn't be anyone to tell. Yeah they're doing some
medical experiments on poor black men, whatever.

Doesn't seem like they did much extremely proactive to keep those
experiments much of a "secret" for the majority of the 40 years nobody
gave a shit for the most part.

To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as I know.
bitrex
2020-04-19 03:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by bitrex
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct  -  from flying
saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate.  There have been many events that were kept
secret by the government for many years before they finally were
revealed and acknowledged.  One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of
Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.”  The experiment went on for 40
years from 1932 to 1972.  It involved who knows how many people in the
government knowingly participating.  It was only when an employee of
the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment
ended.
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
Likely few involved thought they were doing anything "wrong" and it's
unlikely most of the American public would've cared much either prior to
1972 anyway there wouldn't be anyone to tell. Yeah they're doing some
medical experiments on poor black men, whatever.
Doesn't seem like they did much extremely proactive to keep those
experiments much of a "secret" for the majority of the 40 years nobody
gave a shit for the most part.
Take that "story" to any major American newspaper in 1955 and the editor
would laugh at you "What do you think you have here, they're doing some
medical tests on broke niggers for the benefit of everyone's public
health and you want me to run a headline about it? what the fuck kind of
story is this"
Ricky C
2020-04-19 03:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bitrex
To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as I know.
Not the first time you'd think wrong.

Seems like someone disagreed with your opinion. A lot of someones once the news broke.
--
Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
bitrex
2020-04-19 04:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky C
Post by bitrex
To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as I know.
Not the first time you'd think wrong.
Seems like someone disagreed with your opinion. A lot of someones once the news broke.
There was a class-action ethics lawsuit that was settled. Who went to
jail? on what charges? what criminal laws were broken?

"It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public
to the press that the experiment ended. "

Not exactly, the study was known about by medical professionals and
academics before 1972 and professionals in the field had accused the
organizers of unethical practice a number of times before and attempted
to draw attention to the matter. Nobody cared:

<https://tenor.com/view/nobody-cares-nobody-cares-spongebob-imagination-gif-8176136>

Not much of a "conspiracy." More like an "open secret"
bitrex
2020-04-19 04:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bitrex
Post by Ricky C
Post by bitrex
To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as I know.
Not the first time you'd think wrong.
Seems like someone disagreed with your opinion.  A lot of someones
once the news broke.
There was a class-action ethics lawsuit that was settled. Who went to
jail? on what charges? what criminal laws were broken?
"It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public
to the press that the experiment ended. "
Not exactly, the study was known about by medical professionals and
academics before 1972 and professionals in the field had accused the
organizers of unethical practice a number of times before and attempted
<https://tenor.com/view/nobody-cares-nobody-cares-spongebob-imagination-gif-8176136>
Not much of a "conspiracy." More like an "open secret"
Moreover the authors had published data under their own names in
journals about the study's results that's how other medical
professionals read about it and sent them letters of protest. They used
their real names and they prolly found their addresses in the fucking
phone book! what kind of "secret" is this!
Tom Del Rosso
2020-04-19 20:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by bitrex
To have an actual conspiracy I'd argue some significant part of the
conspirators have to believe they're actually doing something bad or
against the law they weren't breaking any laws of the time as far as I know.
My point was that to conspire they have to make a choice. Obeying
authority because you are afraid or believe you have no choice isn't
conspiracy. Conspiracies are needed only by people who are not in
power. Whatever the Chinese government did they didn't conspire. It
doesn't matter then if they think they're breaking the law.
Phil Allison
2020-04-19 04:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Ricky C wrote:

---------------
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret
by the government for many years before they finally were revealed
and acknowledged.
** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.

But this it not a conspiracy, which is an agreement between persons carrying out an nefarious act.

One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.

** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.
Post by Ricky C
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.




.... Phil
Ricky C
2020-04-19 04:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
---------------
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret
by the government for many years before they finally were revealed
and acknowledged.
** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.
That's total BS. I was a federal employee and I never had to sign anything about secrets. You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact. Why?
Post by Phil Allison
But this it not a conspiracy, which is an agreement between persons carrying out an nefarious act.
Post by Ricky C
One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.
** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.
Nope. You are just wrong... again. Sometimes you are a bit like the guy they call alwayswrong.
Post by Phil Allison
Post by Ricky C
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.
Yes, exactly. So now you are agreeing that this was a conspiracy. That's why you need whistle blowers, to rat out the conspirators. It's not about revealing secrets. The only secrets the government can enforce are sensitive documents they classify as such. That is a whole different matter where you can and will go to jail for releasing.

Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you. I don't recall any time you have ever backed down from being wrong in any discussion with anyone. So what's the point of endlessly explaining anything to you?

Enjoy..
--
Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
bitrex
2020-04-19 05:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
---------------
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
The term refers to hypotheses of events that require and large number of persons be involved and yet silent on the fact - seemingly indefinitely.
Any believer is required to suspend disbelief about the extreme improbability of that actually being the case.
So far, no such hypotheses have ever proved correct - from flying saucers, flat earth and space aliens running the world and worse.
That's not accurate. There have been many events that were kept secret
by the government for many years before they finally were revealed
and acknowledged.
** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.
That's total BS. I was a federal employee and I never had to sign anything about secrets. You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact. Why?
Post by Phil Allison
But this it not a conspiracy, which is an agreement between persons carrying out an nefarious act.
Post by Ricky C
One good example is the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. It involved who knows how many people in the government knowingly participating. It was only when an employee of the Public Health Service went public to the press that the experiment ended.
** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.
Nope. You are just wrong... again. Sometimes you are a bit like the guy they call alwayswrong.
Post by Phil Allison
Post by Ricky C
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.
Yes, exactly. So now you are agreeing that this was a conspiracy. That's why you need whistle blowers, to rat out the conspirators. It's not about revealing secrets. The only secrets the government can enforce are sensitive documents they classify as such. That is a whole different matter where you can and will go to jail for releasing.
Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you. I don't recall any time you have ever backed down from being wrong in any discussion with anyone. So what's the point of endlessly explaining anything to you?
Enjoy..
I don't think it was a conspiracy either because again, AFAIK nobody did
anything illegal. It was not illegal for medical professionals running a
study to lie to negro males in 1932.

It caused a public outcry and they stopped for the same reason like,
using recycled oil in the deep fryer at fast food restaurants. it wasn't
illegal and they didn't hang a lampshade on it but people eventually
found out and decided collectively it was gross.

you have to do something illegal to have a conspiracy! That's why they
call it a conspiracy! that's why they fucking call it non-stick:

Phil Allison
2020-04-19 07:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Ricky C wrote:

---------------
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.
That's total BS.
** No it's not.

Govt employees are all sworn not to discuss their work, any persons/businesses they deal with or guide rules they are directed to follow.

The prohibition includes family and friends.

The usual penalty is dismissal with no chance of re-employment.
Post by Ricky C
I was a federal employee ...
** Yawnnn...
Post by Ricky C
and I never had to sign anything about secrets.
** Likely cos a fool like you was never gonna know any.
Post by Ricky C
You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact.
** Your arrogant pig ignorance is your only point.
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.
Nope.
** Fuck me, this wanking fuckwit is soooo stupid.
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
Post by Ricky C
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.
Yes, exactly.
** But such are never evil conspiracies - just bad policies.
Post by Ricky C
Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you.
** You are totally incapable of debating me or anyone with a modicum of genuine intelligence.

Cos you simply don't have any.


.... Phil
Ricky C
2020-04-19 07:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Allison
---------------
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
** Governments rely on privacy/secrecy provisions that all public servants must sign before taking up employment. Sometimes there are anonymous leaks to journalists.
That's total BS.
** No it's not.
Govt employees are all sworn not to discuss their work, any persons/businesses they deal with or guide rules they are directed to follow.
The prohibition includes family and friends.
The usual penalty is dismissal with no chance of re-employment.
Post by Ricky C
I was a federal employee ...
** Yawnnn...
Post by Ricky C
and I never had to sign anything about secrets.
** Likely cos a fool like you was never gonna know any.
Post by Ricky C
You make up stuff and then try to pass it on as fact.
** Your arrogant pig ignorance is your only point.
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
** So not a conspiracy - the employee had to risk their future career to do that.
Nope.
** Fuck me, this wanking fuckwit is soooo stupid.
Post by Ricky C
Post by Phil Allison
Post by Ricky C
This is just one notable example of many people needing to keep quiet
to maintain a secret that would not be well received by the general
public.
** Such situations are common, in business and government organisations. It is why "whistle blower" laws were created in many places.
Yes, exactly.
** But such are never evil conspiracies - just bad policies.
Post by Ricky C
Whatever. I'm not going to debate this with you.
** You are totally incapable of debating me or anyone with a modicum of genuine intelligence.
Cos you simply don't have any.
.... Phil
I am blown away by your debating technique. You are truly the master debater.

But it is pretty amazing that you are so full of it. How do you know this about government work? Have you worked for the federal government?
--
Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Phil Allison
2020-04-19 09:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Ricky C wrote:

=================
Post by Ricky C
I am blown away by your debating technique.
You are truly the master debater.
** While you my narcissistic friend ...

are just another pathetic, public masturbater.




.... Phil
Ricky C
2020-04-19 03:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy. A
lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
When they say "conspiracy theory" they are referring to the fact that the idea is believed in without much evidence... or in most cases, any substantial evidence.

I posted a day or two ago that there was information that indicated this infection coming from a Wuhan lab was thin, but not unbelievable or however I put it at the time. While the supporting information is scant, there is also very little evidence of the virus originating spontaneously from natural causes and showing up in the wet market.

Our friend Bill seems to be very dismissive of this idea. I agree that the evidence is very thin so at this point it is only a possibility. But the theory that it came from natural means via the Wuhan wet market is equally thin and also only a possibility. As usual Bill can't discuss a topic reasonably, something he has in common with a number of people here. So I won't debate it with him just as I try not to respond to DLU (Deluded Unix User).

I am interested in any evidence anyone has about either theory of the origin of this virus.
--
Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bill Sloman
2020-04-19 03:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky C
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy. A
lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
When they say "conspiracy theory" they are referring to the fact that the idea is believed in without much evidence... or in most cases, any substantial evidence.
I posted a day or two ago that there was information that indicated this infection coming from a Wuhan lab was thin, but not unbelievable or however I put it at the time. While the supporting information is scant, there is also very little evidence of the virus originating spontaneously from natural causes and showing up in the wet market.
Our friend Bill seems to be very dismissive of this idea. I agree that the evidence is very thin so at this point it is only a possibility. But the theory that it came from natural means via the Wuhan wet market is equally thin and also only a possibility. As usual Bill can't discuss a topic reasonably, something he has in common with a number of people here.
Rick C.'s idea of a reasonable discussion is one in which other people agree with his - frequently sily - ideas. He can't get it into his head that he might be wrong.
Post by Ricky C
So I won't debate it with him just as I try not to respond to DLU (Deluded Unix User).
Of course not. He ends up looking like an idiot when he tries.
Post by Ricky C
I am interested in any evidence anyone has about either theory of the origin of this virus.
The theory that Covid-19 evolved naturally, in the same way as SARS and MERS and (much earlier) measles, is pretty persuasive. Why invoke an virus lab when you don't have to? William of Occam spelled out the principle some time ago
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
bitrex
2020-04-19 03:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by Winfield Hill
https://science.slashdot.org/story/20/04/18/1836218/claim-that-covid-19-came-from-
lab-in-china-completely-unfounded-scientists-say
People always use the term "conspiracy theory" for any theory they don't
agree with, whether or not it has anything to do with a conspiracy. A
lab accident, if it happened, is not a conspiracy.
Your wife or girlfriend may very well be having gang bangs with five
dudes every weekend when you're not home but unless you can come up with
hard evidence of these events it's you that tends to end up looking like
the villain, not her, if one goes around talking about one's suspicions
to anyone who will listen.

The irony being the man in question is indeed sometimes correct, but 95%
of the time the man in question has also been jumping at shadows and
making all sorts of accusations based on circumstantial evidence for a
long time before the truth comes out, and when it finally does the only
thing people seem to remember is him being the "bad guy", and don't seem
to care too much about her behavior, anyway.
Piotr Wyderski
2020-04-19 08:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Winfield Hill wrote:


https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/4/21207927/5g-towers-burning-uk-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-link

Best regards, Piotr
Loading...