remember covid?

[john larkin]

https://archive.is/CQzbl

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."

Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

[Joe Gwinn]

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

[bitrex]

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by bitrex

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

Nah, the article is from a year ago.

Mistakes were made during the first Trump administration's handling of
the pandemic; the lies told weren't big enough and internal NIH records
indicated a lack of transparency.

They learned things from the experience and will rectify these problems
this time by only telling big lies and not keeping any records.

[john larkin]

Post by Joe Gwinn

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.

[Joe Gwinn]

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.

Good point, but the dateline is "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET", and
yet no Donald. Maybe that's the solution - do not speak the name, for
it might summon him.

This is well after the deadline for the Sunday paper. Maybe it'll be
in the Monday NYT.

Joe

[bitrex]

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by bitrex

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.

Good point, but the dateline is "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET", and
yet no Donald. Maybe that's the solution - do not speak the name, for
it might summon him.
This is well after the deadline for the Sunday paper. Maybe it'll be
in the Monday NYT.
Joe

Oops, got my date from this related one by her on the same topic:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/opinion/covid-fauci-hearings-health.html>

[Joe Gwinn]

Post by bitrex

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by john larkin

Post by Joe Gwinn

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.

Good point, but the dateline is "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET", and
yet no Donald. Maybe that's the solution - do not speak the name, for
it might summon him.
This is well after the deadline for the Sunday paper. Maybe it'll be
in the Monday NYT.
Joe

<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/opinion/covid-fauci-hearings-health.html>

Ahh. I'll look that one up, for the comparison.

Joe

[ehsjr]

Post by Joe Gwinn

Post by bitrex

<https://archive.is/CQzbl>

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

Is this in today's Sunday NYT?

The first page contains "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET"
and a Google search on the title "We Were Badly Misled
About the Event That Changed Our Lives"
results in

Opinion | We Were Badly Misled About Covid
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › covid-pandemic-lab-leak
7 hours ago — Five years after the onset of the Covid pandemic, it's
tempting to think of all that as ancient history. We learned our lesson
about lab safety ...

Ed

[Martin Brown]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."

It was a reasonable guess at the time that standing any closer together
than 2m (ROW) risked breathing in more than enough of what someone in
front of your had just exhaled along with contaminated water droplets.
Locally we settled on about 3m (10') apart (and totally ignored the UK
government's silly no more than 3 people rule since you invariably met
other couples or families sometimes more than one at a time).

It wasn't entirely without foundation. 100um droplets fall out of the
air before they get more than a couple of metres away from you.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9149

That was mostly prior knowledge from other infectious diseases like flu
which the initial pandemic response was based on. A lot more research
was done into it as a result of Covid-19.

I can smell vapers from about 10m behind them so I always wondered just
how effective it was as a strategy. However, I managed to avoid catching
Covid for over 2 years by following those guidelines.

Back then they didn't know that Covid was so infective that it was
effectively airborne and only air changes could ameliorate that.

Post by bitrex
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?

The optimum distance was as far apart as possible which is why when
things got seriously out of control we had lockdowns.

Japan probably made the best fist of a difficult situation.
(still a surprising proportion wearing masks at indoor venues today)

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.

Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.

Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT

[bitrex]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.

My bad actually there's a text message from Kristian Andersen and Dr.
Morens. So old news about two people

[bitrex]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.

My bad actually there's a text message from Kristian Andersen and Dr.
Morens. So old news about two people

[john larkin]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT

"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT

"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.

Kristian G. Andersen probably regrets that one text he sent where he
vaguely supported the lab leak hypothesis, I guess it doesn't matter how
many thousands of times he later says variants of "I thought that for a
bit but realized I was being stupid" after that, conspiracy theorists
will treat that one time he said something that they like as God's truth
and evidence of a cover-up, not evidence of an academic being stupid
which does happen sometimes but isn't nearly as interesting.

Thinking multiple things at the same time or changing one's mind does
happen but "experts" seem to almost always be punished for that kind of
flip-flopping, unlike being a politician where saying things like "I was
a Communist, that is until I realized I hated Communism" or "I was for
the war, before I was against it" seems to be some kind of rite of
passage to the big time.

Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.

[john larkin]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT

"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.

Kristian G. Andersen probably regrets that one text he sent where he
vaguely supported the lab leak hypothesis, I guess it doesn't matter how
many thousands of times he later says variants of "I thought that for a
bit but realized I was being stupid" after that, conspiracy theorists
will treat that one time he said something that they like as God's truth
and evidence of a cover-up, not evidence of an academic being stupid
which does happen sometimes but isn't nearly as interesting.
Thinking multiple things at the same time or changing one's mind does
happen but "experts" seem to almost always be punished for that kind of
flip-flopping, unlike being a politician where saying things like "I was
a Communist, that is until I realized I hated Communism" or "I was for
the war, before I was against it" seems to be some kind of rite of
passage to the big time.
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.

In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.

In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.

In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.

In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."

The bulk of the evidence seems to be from early 2020, it must have been
a suck to be one of the like, five people working in a capacity for the
first Trump administration who felt "politically forbidden" to say
pretty much any nonsense that came to mind.

The rewards surely would have been lavish for speaking out then but I
guess the threat of the Woke Mob Assassins was too much to reckon with
for the academics in question.

[john larkin]

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.

In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."

The bulk of the evidence seems to be from early 2020,

The bulk of the evidence has been concealed or destroyed by the guilty
parties.

[bitrex]

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.

In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."

The bulk of the evidence seems to be from early 2020,

The bulk of the evidence has been concealed or destroyed by the guilty
parties.

Do you believe Kristian G. Andersen, David Morens, Fauci et al had some
evidence highly supportive of the Chinese lab-leak hypothesis, evidence
which no one else was or is capable of discerning independently?

[Bill Sloman]

Post by john larkin

Post by bitrex

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT

"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.

It doesn't. Scientists disagree quite a lot, and people trained in
science are trained to read the literature and make up their own minds
about the relative merits of what has been published.

John Larkin is notorious for trusting what the climate change denial
propaganda machine has to say about the science involved.

The "scientists" who can be bribed to say what suits the climate change
denial propaganda machine, aren't even vaguely trustworthy, and Anthony
Watts - who John Larkin quotes a lot - hasn't even had any kind of
scientific training.

The people who like to push that lab leakage theory about the origin of
Covid-19 don't know much about science, but do have a political agenda.

[bitrex]

Post by Bill Sloman

Post by john larkin
"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.

It doesn't. Scientists disagree quite a lot, and people trained in
science are trained to read the literature and make up their own minds
about the relative merits of what has been published.
John Larkin is notorious for trusting what the climate change denial
propaganda machine has to say about the science involved.
The "scientists" who can be bribed to say what suits the climate change
denial propaganda machine, aren't even vaguely trustworthy, and Anthony
Watts - who John Larkin quotes a lot - hasn't even had any kind of
scientific training.
The people who like to push that lab leakage theory about the origin of
Covid-19 don't know much about science, but do have a political agenda.

There's a train of thought among some academics like the author of the
article that if virologists just let well enough alone and didn't bring
strange bat viruses back to the lab to study, they would never pose any
risk to humans.

Of course, to believe the idea that they don't pose any risk in the wild
you kind of have to be a lab-leak conspiracy theorist to begin with.

[legg]

Post by john larkin
https://archive.is/CQzbl

Oh, for the good old days, during Trump I.

Loading Image...

RL