Viruses / Vaccines 2

mace1229 · May 2023

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

I'm curious - those who say "it was a lab leak" vs. "it was from the wet market". The only outcome I could envision from knowing it was a lab leak, was that there would be condemnation of China, and discrimination against its people. What are the other outcomes that anyone on the lab leak side would've pursued, or thought realistic?

Would China have claimed responsibility? Would China have provided access to the lab to help reverse engineer a vaccine (if that was the case, why have their vaccines proven less effective than ours)? Would the world have united to boycott China unless helped?

My suspicion is 'no' to all of the above, so I didn't think any of the above was messaging worth promoting by anyone.

The first point, how is that outcome any different than blaming the wet market? I mean, if you tell the world its their culture that is responsible, because of the way they hold their wet markets and the food they eat, will that be any less blaming and condemnation? I think its actually worse. And we know asians took a lot of blame when the official stance was wet market.

Second point, probably not. But did they take responsibility either way? I don't see how any of this is a defense against pursuing the truth and finding out if it was a lab leak or not.

I think its important to know the cause, whether China would accept responsibility or not. If its a wet market, lets find out how we can help prevent this from happening again. If its from the lab, lets find out how we can help prevent this again. If its a lab we helped fund, withdraw funding.

But the reality is for 2 years if you even brought up the question it was from a lab you were called racist. How does that help anything? What is the point in hiding the truth and dividing the country over it, because that is what happened?

Because who gives a fuck about learning the truth if it doesn't change anything except risks adding fuel to racist fires? Talk about a waste of human energy.

How is blaming the wet market and their food culture not adding as much fire? How is calling anyone a racist who asks about the lab in the same city it started not fueling the fire? These points don't make any sense.

mace1229 · May 2023

I don't understand why anyone would not want to know the origins of covid. Seems odd to not care and insult those who want to know.

mickeyrat · May 2023

somehow, the virus jumped from an animal to a human. like other viruses in the past and surely others in the future.

mace1229 · May 2023

mickeyrat said:

somehow, the virus jumped from an animal to a human. like other viruses in the past and surely others in the future.

Unless it was created in a lab and leaked. Which seems at least equally as plausible as the wet market theory.

mace1229 · May 2023

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

he doesn't seem to care that it saved millions of lives. all he cares about is the "lies" he believes were told.

I care but..
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/vaccinated-spread-the-coronavirus/620650/

I feel like you didn't actually read what you posted. This article 100% supports what everyone here has been saying. Maybe you should read it with a different lens if you think it's anti-vaccine.

If you find one antivaccine post from me i'll buy you a cheeseburger from McDonald's..after 3 years you still don't get my point..

Then summarize it. I certainly don't know what it is at this point.

I'll do it for last time..
first lie..the virus came from the market..they knew it it was man made..please don't te;ll otherwise..
second lie..vaccines are 100% safe and effective..bullshit..
people lost their jobs and scientists lost their reputations because they expressed a different opinion..others were called crazy and others conspiracy theorists..
second time I post this article..
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

So let's pull this apart one thing at a time:

RE: "man made" vs "naturally occurring "

1. When you say "they knew it was man made", who precisely is "they" and when precisely did "they know"?
2. Let's say your statement is true (whoever "they" may be), what do you think your gov't or the US gov't should have done differently as a public health response, with that knowledge? Would they have not had mask mandates? Would the virus have killed fewer people. Tell me how the public response would have changed.

My views are probably in between you 2, but I'll answer.

I'm not convinced they (the government and those working for them) knew it was from a lab early on. But they sure weren't open to the idea for a very long time. Many would call you racist for even suggesting it. Turns out, 2 years later seems like the likely cause. So they could have, and should have been more open to it than just shoving the wet market idea down on us.

They did announce the vaccine as something like 95% effective and say you will not even get it. Within a few months that changed to it just reduces the symptoms. A lot of people seem to forget that initial promise to us. I don't know what they should have done differently, they had limited data in a short time. I'm just acknowledging their stance on how effective it was did change quite a lot.

I'm not sure your views are that different than mine, it's more about what expectations are of gov't, reasonably. Remember that gov't is filled with normal ass people just trying to do their job and go home like everyone else.

So with regards to this, remember that before most people even got their booster, the virus had mutated to the Omnicron strain. That was becoming prevalent by fall of 2021. So the very strain that the vaccine was designed to combat was the minority strain early in the roll out. So being less than 95% would not be a surprise. The flu vaccine has that very same limitation. But the flu vaccine also reduces your symptoms even if you get the other type, the one it wasn't designed to prevent.

And normal people often have their own agendas to worry about.
Didn't Fauci and others in the government dismiss the lab leak theories? That was a big blunder in my opinion. At least acknowledge its a possibility and worth exploring, don't just completely dismiss the idea. I don't know what the agenda would be, but they clearly didn't want anyone to even consider the lab leak. Possibly because it was associate with the right, so they felt they had to dismiss it? Maybe they were worried about China relations? Who knows.

They should have foreseen variations and warned the public accordingly and provided realistic expectations instead of promises of this being over if you just take it. Again, I'm not sure why they didn't and can only guess.
This whole vaccine thing is something I'm surprised more people didn't talk about, or are okay with it. Kamala was the original anti Covid vaxer. She said on TV she wouldn't take a vaccine that Trump said you should take. Added that the experts will be muzzled so they can develop this vaccine.
Biden made similar comments, stating a vaccine likely wouldn't go through all the needed tests.
So they go from that stance, to telling you it’s over 95% effective when it’s not, and then wonder why people don't trust them and blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic?

Thanks for leaving out the part where she said, “if Dr. Fauci or the ‘medical professionals’ said to take it, she’d be the first in line.”

You're welcome.
And in that same conversation, she also said this: Bash first asked Harris if she believed the scientists and medical professionals who were working on a vaccine would be the ones who had the final say on the efficacy of a vaccine. Harris said she did not:

“If past is prologue … they’ll be muzzled. They’ll be suppressed,” Harris said of health experts and scientists. “They will be sidelined because he’s looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days, and he’s grasping for whatever he can get to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he has not.”
She discredited the same scientists that gave us the vaccine she was pushing just a couple months later.
Both Biden and Harris went on record before the election questioning the very vaccines they mandated just a couple months later. You can't deny it. Well, you can and you will, but it happened.

What? No, she didn't discredit them. You usually have good takes, but I don't know where you got this. She's discrediting Trump and his strategy of politicizing everything. And she was right, we learned later that he "played it down" as you well know.

Consider the context. Her intent was to put doubt in our minds about trump's handling of the vaccine. No one thought trump was in the basement making the vaccine himself. We all knew about operation warp speed and the developments that were going on. For her to say she doesn't trust trump, and that the health experts will be muzzled, was to discredit the trump and the vaccines created while he was in office.

Less than 2 months before the election Biden said "If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done." and "Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?"
But somehow 2 months later that's not an issue anymore? He had the same agenda. Discredit trump and the progress towards the vaccines created under his administration.

The whole purpose of making those statements was to discredit any progress towards a vaccine while trump was in office. Then mandate the exact same vaccines a few months later. Nobody on this planet thought trump was personally involved in any vaccine. If he would tell people to get the vaccine it would only be because companies like Pfizer did all the appropriate work and scientists told him it was safe. The only reason even bring him up is to discredit the work on the vaccine and give the impression if you want the pandemic to end and a proper vaccine, we need new leadership.

The funny thing is every single person I know who didn't take the vax, says exactly what I bolded above. They think it was developed too quickly and corners were cut. It was ok to say that before the election, but unAmerican to say it after. In truth we know it to be a fact as it was given emergency authorization and didn't go through the same process as every other vaccine we have available. So what changed in November 2020, other than the election, that makes that not a valid point anymore?

I disagree fundamentally with this italicized/bolded statement. Of course no one thought the president was working on the vaccine. But what Harris was saying, IMO, was that if Trump said the vaccine was safe, she wouldn't necessarily believe him UNLESS the professionals at the CDC said the same. I couldn't agree more. If Trump said "it's safe" and the professionals said "um, we're not done testing. Not so fast", wouldn't that give you pause? It would be if Biden said it was safe and the CDC said it wasn't. The difference is that Biden would not say it's safe without the support of his professionals. Neither would Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush. Or any normal president.

But all that goes without saying. No one on this planet would take a vaccine just because trump said so and without the backing of medical professionals (except maybe that one guy who drank the fish tank cleaner because it sounded similar to a drug trump mentioned). Trump was working with several big Pharma companies that were already in phase II of trials at the time. I think it goes without swaying he isn't going to announce a vaccine without a lot of support. So to say you won't take a vaccine because Trump said to, to me is trying to discredit the progress.Either that or you're just mansplaining the obvious.
We can disagree, that's how it comes across to me.

You can argue that the question to Harris was infused with liberal bias and wasn't a good question because it would never happen. Sure, maybe. I don't care about that because media gets to be biased. I don't have any issue. But considering Trump mused about bleach, light rays and said that he likes to downplay the virus, nothing can be considered "out of bounds" for him. His whole being is out of bounds for norms.

There was nothing wrong with the question. Pretty straight forward “would you take an approved vaccine?” No mention Trump or short cuts. Her first response was “I don’t trust a trump.” Her comment before that question was saying the medical experts will be silenced and muzzled to get this approved.
Noone thinks trump was working on a vaccine. No one expected him to encourage any vaccine that wasn’t developed by a major pharma company that was already undergoing trials. Everyone was aware of the many big pharmacies companies working in it with operation warp speed. Therefore I interpret her answer as not trusting just trump, but any vaccine associated with working with his administration. To me it seems clear the only reason for that response was to put doubt on the progress of the vaccines the weeks prior to the election. It was 2 months before the election, of course every response was going to be carefully thought out and political.
Covid was what the dems were running on. Economy was doing well. Trumps was thought to have a great chance of a win before the pandemic hit. They were running in the Covid response, or lack of. And putting doubt on the progress of any vaccine was part of that plan.
In the end I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s what’s expected. Put down your opponent and minimalism his accomplishments. It is what it is.
Show me a single clips where Biden or Harris said they were impressed with the speed and validity of the vaccines prior to the election and I’ll say I’m wrong.

the bolded is the part I don't get. She very clearly said she trusted Fauci, just not Trump. How do you jump from that to her mistrusting the vaccine developers? There's no connection there.

Like I said yesterday, show me 1 clip where Biden or Harris said anything that resembles "We have many big Pharma companies working around the clock on this. I think we can safely develop a vaccine much faster than anything we've seen before with their hard work" and I'll admit I'm wrong. Instead I showed you a clip where Biden says he doesn't believe one can be created without cutting corners, and one where Harris says they are under too much pressure and influence and won't have the final word.
I've heard was criticism about the speed and safety the weeks prior to the election, then within a few weeks after it was the cure, without any question to the speed it was developed.
Seems like too much of a coincidence for some of the comments to not just be political jargon. I'm not saying the vaccine is unsafe. I'm saying they downplayed it before the election, then overplayed it after. As I'm sure any candidate in that position would have.

mrussel1 · May 2023

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

he doesn't seem to care that it saved millions of lives. all he cares about is the "lies" he believes were told.

I care but..
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/vaccinated-spread-the-coronavirus/620650/

I feel like you didn't actually read what you posted. This article 100% supports what everyone here has been saying. Maybe you should read it with a different lens if you think it's anti-vaccine.

If you find one antivaccine post from me i'll buy you a cheeseburger from McDonald's..after 3 years you still don't get my point..

Then summarize it. I certainly don't know what it is at this point.

I'll do it for last time..
first lie..the virus came from the market..they knew it it was man made..please don't te;ll otherwise..
second lie..vaccines are 100% safe and effective..bullshit..
people lost their jobs and scientists lost their reputations because they expressed a different opinion..others were called crazy and others conspiracy theorists..
second time I post this article..
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

So let's pull this apart one thing at a time:

RE: "man made" vs "naturally occurring "

1. When you say "they knew it was man made", who precisely is "they" and when precisely did "they know"?
2. Let's say your statement is true (whoever "they" may be), what do you think your gov't or the US gov't should have done differently as a public health response, with that knowledge? Would they have not had mask mandates? Would the virus have killed fewer people. Tell me how the public response would have changed.

My views are probably in between you 2, but I'll answer.

I'm not convinced they (the government and those working for them) knew it was from a lab early on. But they sure weren't open to the idea for a very long time. Many would call you racist for even suggesting it. Turns out, 2 years later seems like the likely cause. So they could have, and should have been more open to it than just shoving the wet market idea down on us.

They did announce the vaccine as something like 95% effective and say you will not even get it. Within a few months that changed to it just reduces the symptoms. A lot of people seem to forget that initial promise to us. I don't know what they should have done differently, they had limited data in a short time. I'm just acknowledging their stance on how effective it was did change quite a lot.

I'm not sure your views are that different than mine, it's more about what expectations are of gov't, reasonably. Remember that gov't is filled with normal ass people just trying to do their job and go home like everyone else.

So with regards to this, remember that before most people even got their booster, the virus had mutated to the Omnicron strain. That was becoming prevalent by fall of 2021. So the very strain that the vaccine was designed to combat was the minority strain early in the roll out. So being less than 95% would not be a surprise. The flu vaccine has that very same limitation. But the flu vaccine also reduces your symptoms even if you get the other type, the one it wasn't designed to prevent.

And normal people often have their own agendas to worry about.
Didn't Fauci and others in the government dismiss the lab leak theories? That was a big blunder in my opinion. At least acknowledge its a possibility and worth exploring, don't just completely dismiss the idea. I don't know what the agenda would be, but they clearly didn't want anyone to even consider the lab leak. Possibly because it was associate with the right, so they felt they had to dismiss it? Maybe they were worried about China relations? Who knows.

They should have foreseen variations and warned the public accordingly and provided realistic expectations instead of promises of this being over if you just take it. Again, I'm not sure why they didn't and can only guess.
This whole vaccine thing is something I'm surprised more people didn't talk about, or are okay with it. Kamala was the original anti Covid vaxer. She said on TV she wouldn't take a vaccine that Trump said you should take. Added that the experts will be muzzled so they can develop this vaccine.
Biden made similar comments, stating a vaccine likely wouldn't go through all the needed tests.
So they go from that stance, to telling you it’s over 95% effective when it’s not, and then wonder why people don't trust them and blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic?

Thanks for leaving out the part where she said, “if Dr. Fauci or the ‘medical professionals’ said to take it, she’d be the first in line.”

You're welcome.
And in that same conversation, she also said this: Bash first asked Harris if she believed the scientists and medical professionals who were working on a vaccine would be the ones who had the final say on the efficacy of a vaccine. Harris said she did not:

“If past is prologue … they’ll be muzzled. They’ll be suppressed,” Harris said of health experts and scientists. “They will be sidelined because he’s looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days, and he’s grasping for whatever he can get to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he has not.”
She discredited the same scientists that gave us the vaccine she was pushing just a couple months later.
Both Biden and Harris went on record before the election questioning the very vaccines they mandated just a couple months later. You can't deny it. Well, you can and you will, but it happened.

What? No, she didn't discredit them. You usually have good takes, but I don't know where you got this. She's discrediting Trump and his strategy of politicizing everything. And she was right, we learned later that he "played it down" as you well know.

Consider the context. Her intent was to put doubt in our minds about trump's handling of the vaccine. No one thought trump was in the basement making the vaccine himself. We all knew about operation warp speed and the developments that were going on. For her to say she doesn't trust trump, and that the health experts will be muzzled, was to discredit the trump and the vaccines created while he was in office.

Less than 2 months before the election Biden said "If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done." and "Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?"
But somehow 2 months later that's not an issue anymore? He had the same agenda. Discredit trump and the progress towards the vaccines created under his administration.

The whole purpose of making those statements was to discredit any progress towards a vaccine while trump was in office. Then mandate the exact same vaccines a few months later. Nobody on this planet thought trump was personally involved in any vaccine. If he would tell people to get the vaccine it would only be because companies like Pfizer did all the appropriate work and scientists told him it was safe. The only reason even bring him up is to discredit the work on the vaccine and give the impression if you want the pandemic to end and a proper vaccine, we need new leadership.

The funny thing is every single person I know who didn't take the vax, says exactly what I bolded above. They think it was developed too quickly and corners were cut. It was ok to say that before the election, but unAmerican to say it after. In truth we know it to be a fact as it was given emergency authorization and didn't go through the same process as every other vaccine we have available. So what changed in November 2020, other than the election, that makes that not a valid point anymore?

I disagree fundamentally with this italicized/bolded statement. Of course no one thought the president was working on the vaccine. But what Harris was saying, IMO, was that if Trump said the vaccine was safe, she wouldn't necessarily believe him UNLESS the professionals at the CDC said the same. I couldn't agree more. If Trump said "it's safe" and the professionals said "um, we're not done testing. Not so fast", wouldn't that give you pause? It would be if Biden said it was safe and the CDC said it wasn't. The difference is that Biden would not say it's safe without the support of his professionals. Neither would Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush. Or any normal president.

But all that goes without saying. No one on this planet would take a vaccine just because trump said so and without the backing of medical professionals (except maybe that one guy who drank the fish tank cleaner because it sounded similar to a drug trump mentioned). Trump was working with several big Pharma companies that were already in phase II of trials at the time. I think it goes without swaying he isn't going to announce a vaccine without a lot of support. So to say you won't take a vaccine because Trump said to, to me is trying to discredit the progress.Either that or you're just mansplaining the obvious.
We can disagree, that's how it comes across to me.

You can argue that the question to Harris was infused with liberal bias and wasn't a good question because it would never happen. Sure, maybe. I don't care about that because media gets to be biased. I don't have any issue. But considering Trump mused about bleach, light rays and said that he likes to downplay the virus, nothing can be considered "out of bounds" for him. His whole being is out of bounds for norms.

There was nothing wrong with the question. Pretty straight forward “would you take an approved vaccine?” No mention Trump or short cuts. Her first response was “I don’t trust a trump.” Her comment before that question was saying the medical experts will be silenced and muzzled to get this approved.
Noone thinks trump was working on a vaccine. No one expected him to encourage any vaccine that wasn’t developed by a major pharma company that was already undergoing trials. Everyone was aware of the many big pharmacies companies working in it with operation warp speed. Therefore I interpret her answer as not trusting just trump, but any vaccine associated with working with his administration. To me it seems clear the only reason for that response was to put doubt on the progress of the vaccines the weeks prior to the election. It was 2 months before the election, of course every response was going to be carefully thought out and political.
Covid was what the dems were running on. Economy was doing well. Trumps was thought to have a great chance of a win before the pandemic hit. They were running in the Covid response, or lack of. And putting doubt on the progress of any vaccine was part of that plan.
In the end I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s what’s expected. Put down your opponent and minimalism his accomplishments. It is what it is.
Show me a single clips where Biden or Harris said they were impressed with the speed and validity of the vaccines prior to the election and I’ll say I’m wrong.

the bolded is the part I don't get. She very clearly said she trusted Fauci, just not Trump. How do you jump from that to her mistrusting the vaccine developers? There's no connection there.

Like I said yesterday, show me 1 clip where Biden or Harris said anything that resembles "We have many big Pharma companies working around the clock on this. I think we can safely develop a vaccine much faster than anything we've seen before with their hard work" and I'll admit I'm wrong. Instead I showed you a clip where Biden says he doesn't believe one can be created without cutting corners, and one where Harris says they are under too much pressure and influence and won't have the final word.
I've heard was criticism about the speed and safety the weeks prior to the election, then within a few weeks after it was the cure, without any question to the speed it was developed.
Seems like too much of a coincidence for some of the comments to not just be political jargon. I'm not saying the vaccine is unsafe. I'm saying they downplayed it before the election, then overplayed it after. As I'm sure any candidate in that position would have.

Yeah I'm not going to go hunting for random quotes to go satisfy that request, no offense. If you want to believe Biden was anti-vaccine and then was pro-vaccine, you can believe that. I'm not sure to what end. I believe that Biden is pro-science and pro-professional, and thinks Trump is a liar. I agree with that perspective. Here is politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/

Merkin Baller · May 2023

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

mace1229 · May 2023

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

he doesn't seem to care that it saved millions of lives. all he cares about is the "lies" he believes were told.

I care but..
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/vaccinated-spread-the-coronavirus/620650/

I feel like you didn't actually read what you posted. This article 100% supports what everyone here has been saying. Maybe you should read it with a different lens if you think it's anti-vaccine.

If you find one antivaccine post from me i'll buy you a cheeseburger from McDonald's..after 3 years you still don't get my point..

Then summarize it. I certainly don't know what it is at this point.

I'll do it for last time..
first lie..the virus came from the market..they knew it it was man made..please don't te;ll otherwise..
second lie..vaccines are 100% safe and effective..bullshit..
people lost their jobs and scientists lost their reputations because they expressed a different opinion..others were called crazy and others conspiracy theorists..
second time I post this article..
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

So let's pull this apart one thing at a time:

RE: "man made" vs "naturally occurring "

1. When you say "they knew it was man made", who precisely is "they" and when precisely did "they know"?
2. Let's say your statement is true (whoever "they" may be), what do you think your gov't or the US gov't should have done differently as a public health response, with that knowledge? Would they have not had mask mandates? Would the virus have killed fewer people. Tell me how the public response would have changed.

My views are probably in between you 2, but I'll answer.

I'm not convinced they (the government and those working for them) knew it was from a lab early on. But they sure weren't open to the idea for a very long time. Many would call you racist for even suggesting it. Turns out, 2 years later seems like the likely cause. So they could have, and should have been more open to it than just shoving the wet market idea down on us.

They did announce the vaccine as something like 95% effective and say you will not even get it. Within a few months that changed to it just reduces the symptoms. A lot of people seem to forget that initial promise to us. I don't know what they should have done differently, they had limited data in a short time. I'm just acknowledging their stance on how effective it was did change quite a lot.

I'm not sure your views are that different than mine, it's more about what expectations are of gov't, reasonably. Remember that gov't is filled with normal ass people just trying to do their job and go home like everyone else.

So with regards to this, remember that before most people even got their booster, the virus had mutated to the Omnicron strain. That was becoming prevalent by fall of 2021. So the very strain that the vaccine was designed to combat was the minority strain early in the roll out. So being less than 95% would not be a surprise. The flu vaccine has that very same limitation. But the flu vaccine also reduces your symptoms even if you get the other type, the one it wasn't designed to prevent.

And normal people often have their own agendas to worry about.
Didn't Fauci and others in the government dismiss the lab leak theories? That was a big blunder in my opinion. At least acknowledge its a possibility and worth exploring, don't just completely dismiss the idea. I don't know what the agenda would be, but they clearly didn't want anyone to even consider the lab leak. Possibly because it was associate with the right, so they felt they had to dismiss it? Maybe they were worried about China relations? Who knows.

They should have foreseen variations and warned the public accordingly and provided realistic expectations instead of promises of this being over if you just take it. Again, I'm not sure why they didn't and can only guess.
This whole vaccine thing is something I'm surprised more people didn't talk about, or are okay with it. Kamala was the original anti Covid vaxer. She said on TV she wouldn't take a vaccine that Trump said you should take. Added that the experts will be muzzled so they can develop this vaccine.
Biden made similar comments, stating a vaccine likely wouldn't go through all the needed tests.
So they go from that stance, to telling you it’s over 95% effective when it’s not, and then wonder why people don't trust them and blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic?

Thanks for leaving out the part where she said, “if Dr. Fauci or the ‘medical professionals’ said to take it, she’d be the first in line.”

You're welcome.
And in that same conversation, she also said this: Bash first asked Harris if she believed the scientists and medical professionals who were working on a vaccine would be the ones who had the final say on the efficacy of a vaccine. Harris said she did not:

“If past is prologue … they’ll be muzzled. They’ll be suppressed,” Harris said of health experts and scientists. “They will be sidelined because he’s looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days, and he’s grasping for whatever he can get to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he has not.”
She discredited the same scientists that gave us the vaccine she was pushing just a couple months later.
Both Biden and Harris went on record before the election questioning the very vaccines they mandated just a couple months later. You can't deny it. Well, you can and you will, but it happened.

What? No, she didn't discredit them. You usually have good takes, but I don't know where you got this. She's discrediting Trump and his strategy of politicizing everything. And she was right, we learned later that he "played it down" as you well know.

Consider the context. Her intent was to put doubt in our minds about trump's handling of the vaccine. No one thought trump was in the basement making the vaccine himself. We all knew about operation warp speed and the developments that were going on. For her to say she doesn't trust trump, and that the health experts will be muzzled, was to discredit the trump and the vaccines created while he was in office.

Less than 2 months before the election Biden said "If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done." and "Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?"
But somehow 2 months later that's not an issue anymore? He had the same agenda. Discredit trump and the progress towards the vaccines created under his administration.

The whole purpose of making those statements was to discredit any progress towards a vaccine while trump was in office. Then mandate the exact same vaccines a few months later. Nobody on this planet thought trump was personally involved in any vaccine. If he would tell people to get the vaccine it would only be because companies like Pfizer did all the appropriate work and scientists told him it was safe. The only reason even bring him up is to discredit the work on the vaccine and give the impression if you want the pandemic to end and a proper vaccine, we need new leadership.

The funny thing is every single person I know who didn't take the vax, says exactly what I bolded above. They think it was developed too quickly and corners were cut. It was ok to say that before the election, but unAmerican to say it after. In truth we know it to be a fact as it was given emergency authorization and didn't go through the same process as every other vaccine we have available. So what changed in November 2020, other than the election, that makes that not a valid point anymore?

I disagree fundamentally with this italicized/bolded statement. Of course no one thought the president was working on the vaccine. But what Harris was saying, IMO, was that if Trump said the vaccine was safe, she wouldn't necessarily believe him UNLESS the professionals at the CDC said the same. I couldn't agree more. If Trump said "it's safe" and the professionals said "um, we're not done testing. Not so fast", wouldn't that give you pause? It would be if Biden said it was safe and the CDC said it wasn't. The difference is that Biden would not say it's safe without the support of his professionals. Neither would Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush. Or any normal president.

But all that goes without saying. No one on this planet would take a vaccine just because trump said so and without the backing of medical professionals (except maybe that one guy who drank the fish tank cleaner because it sounded similar to a drug trump mentioned). Trump was working with several big Pharma companies that were already in phase II of trials at the time. I think it goes without swaying he isn't going to announce a vaccine without a lot of support. So to say you won't take a vaccine because Trump said to, to me is trying to discredit the progress.Either that or you're just mansplaining the obvious.
We can disagree, that's how it comes across to me.

You can argue that the question to Harris was infused with liberal bias and wasn't a good question because it would never happen. Sure, maybe. I don't care about that because media gets to be biased. I don't have any issue. But considering Trump mused about bleach, light rays and said that he likes to downplay the virus, nothing can be considered "out of bounds" for him. His whole being is out of bounds for norms.

There was nothing wrong with the question. Pretty straight forward “would you take an approved vaccine?” No mention Trump or short cuts. Her first response was “I don’t trust a trump.” Her comment before that question was saying the medical experts will be silenced and muzzled to get this approved.
Noone thinks trump was working on a vaccine. No one expected him to encourage any vaccine that wasn’t developed by a major pharma company that was already undergoing trials. Everyone was aware of the many big pharmacies companies working in it with operation warp speed. Therefore I interpret her answer as not trusting just trump, but any vaccine associated with working with his administration. To me it seems clear the only reason for that response was to put doubt on the progress of the vaccines the weeks prior to the election. It was 2 months before the election, of course every response was going to be carefully thought out and political.
Covid was what the dems were running on. Economy was doing well. Trumps was thought to have a great chance of a win before the pandemic hit. They were running in the Covid response, or lack of. And putting doubt on the progress of any vaccine was part of that plan.
In the end I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s what’s expected. Put down your opponent and minimalism his accomplishments. It is what it is.
Show me a single clips where Biden or Harris said they were impressed with the speed and validity of the vaccines prior to the election and I’ll say I’m wrong.

the bolded is the part I don't get. She very clearly said she trusted Fauci, just not Trump. How do you jump from that to her mistrusting the vaccine developers? There's no connection there.

Like I said yesterday, show me 1 clip where Biden or Harris said anything that resembles "We have many big Pharma companies working around the clock on this. I think we can safely develop a vaccine much faster than anything we've seen before with their hard work" and I'll admit I'm wrong. Instead I showed you a clip where Biden says he doesn't believe one can be created without cutting corners, and one where Harris says they are under too much pressure and influence and won't have the final word.
I've heard was criticism about the speed and safety the weeks prior to the election, then within a few weeks after it was the cure, without any question to the speed it was developed.
Seems like too much of a coincidence for some of the comments to not just be political jargon. I'm not saying the vaccine is unsafe. I'm saying they downplayed it before the election, then overplayed it after. As I'm sure any candidate in that position would have.

Yeah I'm not going to go hunting for random quotes to go satisfy that request, no offense. If you want to believe Biden was anti-vaccine and then was pro-vaccine, you can believe that. I'm not sure to what end. I believe that Biden is pro-science and pro-professional, and thinks Trump is a liar. I agree with that perspective. Here is politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/

I did use the word "anti-vax" yesterday, and that was too far. My criticism was 2-fold, and in response to 23's comment about not being accurate with the efficacy of the vax.
Simply put, I believe they questioned the process more than they would have if the election was not weeks away. After the election, they oversold it. They should have known it would not be as effective as the trials and not create immunity, but they told us it would and the pandemic would be over if we just got the shot.
Do I think they were anti-tax? No. Do I think they made some statements that unfairly criticized the speed and process of the vaccines because of the election being weeks away? Of course they did.
I have no idea why they didn't take into account mutations and real world scenarios when promoting the vaccine, but that is something they definitely should have considered and they did not.

mace1229 · May 2023

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Merkin Baller · May 2023

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Yeah, it's a weird thing how when known liars push a narrative, people are prone to not believe it.

It sucks, but that's life.

mrussel1 · May 2023

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

mrussel1 said:

23scidoo said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

he doesn't seem to care that it saved millions of lives. all he cares about is the "lies" he believes were told.

I care but..
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/vaccinated-spread-the-coronavirus/620650/

I feel like you didn't actually read what you posted. This article 100% supports what everyone here has been saying. Maybe you should read it with a different lens if you think it's anti-vaccine.

If you find one antivaccine post from me i'll buy you a cheeseburger from McDonald's..after 3 years you still don't get my point..

Then summarize it. I certainly don't know what it is at this point.

I'll do it for last time..
first lie..the virus came from the market..they knew it it was man made..please don't te;ll otherwise..
second lie..vaccines are 100% safe and effective..bullshit..
people lost their jobs and scientists lost their reputations because they expressed a different opinion..others were called crazy and others conspiracy theorists..
second time I post this article..
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/covid-response-forgiveness/671879/

So let's pull this apart one thing at a time:

RE: "man made" vs "naturally occurring "

1. When you say "they knew it was man made", who precisely is "they" and when precisely did "they know"?
2. Let's say your statement is true (whoever "they" may be), what do you think your gov't or the US gov't should have done differently as a public health response, with that knowledge? Would they have not had mask mandates? Would the virus have killed fewer people. Tell me how the public response would have changed.

My views are probably in between you 2, but I'll answer.

I'm not convinced they (the government and those working for them) knew it was from a lab early on. But they sure weren't open to the idea for a very long time. Many would call you racist for even suggesting it. Turns out, 2 years later seems like the likely cause. So they could have, and should have been more open to it than just shoving the wet market idea down on us.

They did announce the vaccine as something like 95% effective and say you will not even get it. Within a few months that changed to it just reduces the symptoms. A lot of people seem to forget that initial promise to us. I don't know what they should have done differently, they had limited data in a short time. I'm just acknowledging their stance on how effective it was did change quite a lot.

I'm not sure your views are that different than mine, it's more about what expectations are of gov't, reasonably. Remember that gov't is filled with normal ass people just trying to do their job and go home like everyone else.

So with regards to this, remember that before most people even got their booster, the virus had mutated to the Omnicron strain. That was becoming prevalent by fall of 2021. So the very strain that the vaccine was designed to combat was the minority strain early in the roll out. So being less than 95% would not be a surprise. The flu vaccine has that very same limitation. But the flu vaccine also reduces your symptoms even if you get the other type, the one it wasn't designed to prevent.

And normal people often have their own agendas to worry about.
Didn't Fauci and others in the government dismiss the lab leak theories? That was a big blunder in my opinion. At least acknowledge its a possibility and worth exploring, don't just completely dismiss the idea. I don't know what the agenda would be, but they clearly didn't want anyone to even consider the lab leak. Possibly because it was associate with the right, so they felt they had to dismiss it? Maybe they were worried about China relations? Who knows.

They should have foreseen variations and warned the public accordingly and provided realistic expectations instead of promises of this being over if you just take it. Again, I'm not sure why they didn't and can only guess.
This whole vaccine thing is something I'm surprised more people didn't talk about, or are okay with it. Kamala was the original anti Covid vaxer. She said on TV she wouldn't take a vaccine that Trump said you should take. Added that the experts will be muzzled so they can develop this vaccine.
Biden made similar comments, stating a vaccine likely wouldn't go through all the needed tests.
So they go from that stance, to telling you it’s over 95% effective when it’s not, and then wonder why people don't trust them and blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic?

Thanks for leaving out the part where she said, “if Dr. Fauci or the ‘medical professionals’ said to take it, she’d be the first in line.”

You're welcome.
And in that same conversation, she also said this: Bash first asked Harris if she believed the scientists and medical professionals who were working on a vaccine would be the ones who had the final say on the efficacy of a vaccine. Harris said she did not:

“If past is prologue … they’ll be muzzled. They’ll be suppressed,” Harris said of health experts and scientists. “They will be sidelined because he’s looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days, and he’s grasping for whatever he can get to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he has not.”
She discredited the same scientists that gave us the vaccine she was pushing just a couple months later.
Both Biden and Harris went on record before the election questioning the very vaccines they mandated just a couple months later. You can't deny it. Well, you can and you will, but it happened.

What? No, she didn't discredit them. You usually have good takes, but I don't know where you got this. She's discrediting Trump and his strategy of politicizing everything. And she was right, we learned later that he "played it down" as you well know.

Consider the context. Her intent was to put doubt in our minds about trump's handling of the vaccine. No one thought trump was in the basement making the vaccine himself. We all knew about operation warp speed and the developments that were going on. For her to say she doesn't trust trump, and that the health experts will be muzzled, was to discredit the trump and the vaccines created while he was in office.

Less than 2 months before the election Biden said "If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done." and "Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?"
But somehow 2 months later that's not an issue anymore? He had the same agenda. Discredit trump and the progress towards the vaccines created under his administration.

The whole purpose of making those statements was to discredit any progress towards a vaccine while trump was in office. Then mandate the exact same vaccines a few months later. Nobody on this planet thought trump was personally involved in any vaccine. If he would tell people to get the vaccine it would only be because companies like Pfizer did all the appropriate work and scientists told him it was safe. The only reason even bring him up is to discredit the work on the vaccine and give the impression if you want the pandemic to end and a proper vaccine, we need new leadership.

The funny thing is every single person I know who didn't take the vax, says exactly what I bolded above. They think it was developed too quickly and corners were cut. It was ok to say that before the election, but unAmerican to say it after. In truth we know it to be a fact as it was given emergency authorization and didn't go through the same process as every other vaccine we have available. So what changed in November 2020, other than the election, that makes that not a valid point anymore?

I disagree fundamentally with this italicized/bolded statement. Of course no one thought the president was working on the vaccine. But what Harris was saying, IMO, was that if Trump said the vaccine was safe, she wouldn't necessarily believe him UNLESS the professionals at the CDC said the same. I couldn't agree more. If Trump said "it's safe" and the professionals said "um, we're not done testing. Not so fast", wouldn't that give you pause? It would be if Biden said it was safe and the CDC said it wasn't. The difference is that Biden would not say it's safe without the support of his professionals. Neither would Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush. Or any normal president.

But all that goes without saying. No one on this planet would take a vaccine just because trump said so and without the backing of medical professionals (except maybe that one guy who drank the fish tank cleaner because it sounded similar to a drug trump mentioned). Trump was working with several big Pharma companies that were already in phase II of trials at the time. I think it goes without swaying he isn't going to announce a vaccine without a lot of support. So to say you won't take a vaccine because Trump said to, to me is trying to discredit the progress.Either that or you're just mansplaining the obvious.
We can disagree, that's how it comes across to me.

You can argue that the question to Harris was infused with liberal bias and wasn't a good question because it would never happen. Sure, maybe. I don't care about that because media gets to be biased. I don't have any issue. But considering Trump mused about bleach, light rays and said that he likes to downplay the virus, nothing can be considered "out of bounds" for him. His whole being is out of bounds for norms.

There was nothing wrong with the question. Pretty straight forward “would you take an approved vaccine?” No mention Trump or short cuts. Her first response was “I don’t trust a trump.” Her comment before that question was saying the medical experts will be silenced and muzzled to get this approved.
Noone thinks trump was working on a vaccine. No one expected him to encourage any vaccine that wasn’t developed by a major pharma company that was already undergoing trials. Everyone was aware of the many big pharmacies companies working in it with operation warp speed. Therefore I interpret her answer as not trusting just trump, but any vaccine associated with working with his administration. To me it seems clear the only reason for that response was to put doubt on the progress of the vaccines the weeks prior to the election. It was 2 months before the election, of course every response was going to be carefully thought out and political.
Covid was what the dems were running on. Economy was doing well. Trumps was thought to have a great chance of a win before the pandemic hit. They were running in the Covid response, or lack of. And putting doubt on the progress of any vaccine was part of that plan.
In the end I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s what’s expected. Put down your opponent and minimalism his accomplishments. It is what it is.
Show me a single clips where Biden or Harris said they were impressed with the speed and validity of the vaccines prior to the election and I’ll say I’m wrong.

the bolded is the part I don't get. She very clearly said she trusted Fauci, just not Trump. How do you jump from that to her mistrusting the vaccine developers? There's no connection there.

Like I said yesterday, show me 1 clip where Biden or Harris said anything that resembles "We have many big Pharma companies working around the clock on this. I think we can safely develop a vaccine much faster than anything we've seen before with their hard work" and I'll admit I'm wrong. Instead I showed you a clip where Biden says he doesn't believe one can be created without cutting corners, and one where Harris says they are under too much pressure and influence and won't have the final word.
I've heard was criticism about the speed and safety the weeks prior to the election, then within a few weeks after it was the cure, without any question to the speed it was developed.
Seems like too much of a coincidence for some of the comments to not just be political jargon. I'm not saying the vaccine is unsafe. I'm saying they downplayed it before the election, then overplayed it after. As I'm sure any candidate in that position would have.

Yeah I'm not going to go hunting for random quotes to go satisfy that request, no offense. If you want to believe Biden was anti-vaccine and then was pro-vaccine, you can believe that. I'm not sure to what end. I believe that Biden is pro-science and pro-professional, and thinks Trump is a liar. I agree with that perspective. Here is politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/

I did use the word "anti-vax" yesterday, and that was too far. My criticism was 2-fold, and in response to 23's comment about not being accurate with the efficacy of the vax.
Simply put, I believe they questioned the process more than they would have if the election was not weeks away. After the election, they oversold it. They should have known it would not be as effective as the trials and not create immunity, but they told us it would and the pandemic would be over if we just got the shot.
Do I think they were anti-tax? No. Do I think they made some statements that unfairly criticized the speed and process of the vaccines because of the election being weeks away? Of course they did.
I have no idea why they didn't take into account mutations and real world scenarios when promoting the vaccine, but that is something they definitely should have considered and they did not.

You think the presidential candidates should have taken into account mutations and KNOWN that it would be less effective against future mutations that did not yet exist? Why do you have that expectation? It could have mutated and been more effective, in theory. I think that's an unreasonable expectation for Biden and Trump. The reality is that the trials were 95% effective for moderna and Phizer. Johnson was like 70%, as it was one shot. And I'm not sure I have seen data that said the two main vaccines were not that effective against the original strain.

mace1229 · May 2023

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Yeah, it's a weird thing how when known liars push a narrative, people are prone to not believe it.

It sucks, but that's life.

I actually don't know a single person who supports the lab leak theory, or even considered it, because Trump did. Everyone I know considered it because there were some obvious questions that were being shut down.
There was a gain of function lab in Wuhan, where the virus started. But you couldn't talk about it. That raises suspicion right there, that's enough to at least ask how safe is this lab and what do they do? But if you even just asked that question you were racist.
Even still insulting people who want to know what role the lab played. Seems cray to me that wanting to know the truth is insulting.

Halifax2TheMax · May 2023

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Yeah, it's a weird thing how when known liars push a narrative, people are prone to not believe it.

It sucks, but that's life.

I actually don't know a single person who supports the lab leak theory, or even considered it, because Trump did. Everyone I know considered it because there were some obvious questions that were being shut down.
There was a gain of function lab in Wuhan, where the virus started. But you couldn't talk about it. That raises suspicion right there, that's enough to at least ask how safe is this lab and what do they do? But if you even just asked that question you were racist.
Even still insulting people who want to know what role the lab played. Seems cray to me that wanting to know the truth is insulting.

Stop with the revisionist history, please.”You couldn’t talk about it.” Sure. It was discussed in detail and part of how Covid was politicized. What people objected to was HOW it was being discussed. POOTWH and his minions looking for anyone or anything else to blame other than the POOTWH administration’s total bungling of the initial response and then doubling and tripling down on their incompetence. POOTWH taking over press briefings and speaking on subjects he had absolutely no business speaking on. Fauci being demonized because he dared speak truth to power, testifying before congress several times to answer questions from a group whose sole purpose was to politicize Covid pre election. And that wuhan lab funding? Where’s the indictment for Fauci’s alleged misappropriation of funds and personal profiteering we were promised?

Couldn’t talk about the wet market? What a crock of shit. Sure you could but it was HOW people talked about it. A lot of people discussed it with little to no knowledge of China, it’s people or it’s culture, including POOTWH, who then turned it into a racist scapegoat, again, all in an effort to deflect responsibility from his enormous bungling of a response, particularly after MAGA refused the jab.

I wonder what Covid would have looked like had the US had an 85%-90% vaccination rate right out of the gate as opposed to running herd and horse dewormer?

Kamala didn’t trust POOTWH, oh heavens. Please.

Merkin Baller · May 2023

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Yeah, it's a weird thing how when known liars push a narrative, people are prone to not believe it.

It sucks, but that's life.

I actually don't know a single person who supports the lab leak theory, or even considered it, because Trump did. Everyone I know considered it because there were some obvious questions that were being shut down.
There was a gain of function lab in Wuhan, where the virus started. But you couldn't talk about it. That raises suspicion right there, that's enough to at least ask how safe is this lab and what do they do? But if you even just asked that question you were racist.
Even still insulting people who want to know what role the lab played. Seems cray to me that wanting to know the truth is insulting.

I don't know anyone who doesn't want to know how the virus started. We should all want to know for posterities sake. As others have asked repeatedly, however, what difference would knowing the origin have made in 2020 or 2021 besides feeding resentment rooted in xenophobia, and also, racism?

It's too bad that the narrative that was emphatically endorsed and pushed by the liar known for his racism was lumped in as another one of his racist lies.

It's sucks, but that's life.

Go Beavers · May 2023

mace1229 said:

I don't understand why anyone would not want to know the origins of covid. Seems odd to not care and insult those who want to know.

It’s asking the question why do people
want to know. I’d lime to know for the sake of science and future implications it has. Others seem to want to drive the conclusion of a lab leak. So why the insistence on the lab leak origins? What pre-formulated conclusions would this reinforce?

HughFreakingDillon · May 2023

I felt like people shut down the lab leak theory early on, and I've said this before, because it could have been a driver of racist attacks against Chinese people by certain groups (we literally saw it happen). It had to be carefully navigated. of course it was always plausible, and still is, but the pandemic was full of so much confusion and anger, that pinning the blame of millions of deaths and the shutdown of the global economy on one country, and for many, one race, needed to be handled with kid gloves.

I think it's best to explore these types of things once it can be dealt with more objectively (like now). finding out the origins of it really wouldn't have caused us to deal with it any differently, just hopefully to mitigate future pandemics if it was indeed to be human error, or human intention.

bootlegger10 · May 2023

I would expect throughout the history of humanity there has been a distrust of government/authority.

Masks:
Were told that mask weren't necessary in order to make sure there wasn't a run on masks and health care professionals wouldn't have enough. This was a lie but for a benevolent reason in Fauci/government's mind.

Lab origin:
We were told it was not from a lab in order to avoid racism against the Chinese. It even went so far that socials would ban people who suggested it came from a lab. Another lie for benevolent reasons.

My own personal comment: I would think the vaccine makers would like to know if what they are dealing with is made from nature and not in a lab. My personal guess is that the symptoms were so varied and strange because it was indeed formed in a lab funded by government that we must always trust.

Vaccine:
We were told this is safe. A reasonable person may conclude that in fact it may not be safe to a certain % of the public, but these benevolent leaders want to protect the masses. When 1st world, forward thinking countries like Sweden and Norway don't recommend the vaccine for certain age populations, I'm fine with some healthy questioning.

Merkin Baller · May 2023

Maybe people are still skeptical of the lab leak theory because bio labs have become another right wing boogey man? Just spit balling here.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1087910880/biological-weapons-far-right-russia-ukraine

"How the false Russian biolab story came to circulate among the U.S. far right

March 25, 20225:23 AM ET

By

Bill Chappell

Odette Yousef

Image: https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/03/21/gettyimages-1332866552_custom-4ae4628fd5e36a090b3bace20d586e715ac327ea-s1100-c50.jpg

Tucker Carlson speaks during the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) Feszt last summer in Esztergom, Hungary.

Janos Kummer/Getty Images

It was a lurid and difficult to believe claim: that Ukraine was developing biological weapons with the assistance of the U.S. government. In fact, U.S. assistance to Ukrainian biological labs has been targeted at strengthening public health measures. Both the U.S. and Ukraine have also signed a treaty vowing never to produce or use biological weapons.

But unlike most Russian efforts to spread false narratives justifying its invasion of Ukraine, this one found a receptive audience in the United States among far-right social media channels, Fox News and followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory.

"It's clearly a case where the U.S. government has been lying; it has mounted a disinformation campaign, if you will, designed to cover up what it is doing," said Fox News host Tucker Carlson recently. He did not offer specific evidence to back that claim.

The false biolab story spread quickly both in the U.S. and overseas, where Chinese state media joined in the effort to push the narrative.

"The Kremlin is intentionally spreading outright lies that the United States and Ukraine are conducting chemical and biological weapons activities," U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price said earlier this month. He and other officials warn that Russia was working to create pretexts for its attacks on a sovereign nation...."

mace1229 · May 2023

HughFreakingDillon said:

I felt like people shut down the lab leak theory early on, and I've said this before, because it could have been a driver of racist attacks against Chinese people by certain groups (we literally saw it happen). It had to be carefully navigated. of course it was always plausible, and still is, but the pandemic was full of so much confusion and anger, that pinning the blame of millions of deaths and the shutdown of the global economy on one country, and for many, one race, needed to be handled with kid gloves.

I think it's best to explore these types of things once it can be dealt with more objectively (like now). finding out the origins of it really wouldn't have caused us to deal with it any differently, just hopefully to mitigate future pandemics if it was indeed to be human error, or human intention.

But how is saying it was from a lab leak going to be worse for them than saying it came from the poor health conditions in a wet market? That actually sounds worse to me, opens the doors to mock their culture and food even more, so I don't see how it was to protect the Asian people.

mace1229 · May 2023

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

It sucks that people dismissed the origin theory being pushed by the pathological liar.

It also sucks that people completely dismiss a very plausible explanation for the origin of the virus just because someone they don't like supports it, and therefore also label anyone who thinks it's possible as a conspiracy nut. That really sucks.

Yeah, it's a weird thing how when known liars push a narrative, people are prone to not believe it.

It sucks, but that's life.

I actually don't know a single person who supports the lab leak theory, or even considered it, because Trump did. Everyone I know considered it because there were some obvious questions that were being shut down.
There was a gain of function lab in Wuhan, where the virus started. But you couldn't talk about it. That raises suspicion right there, that's enough to at least ask how safe is this lab and what do they do? But if you even just asked that question you were racist.
Even still insulting people who want to know what role the lab played. Seems cray to me that wanting to know the truth is insulting.

Stop with the revisionist history, please.”You couldn’t talk about it.” Sure. It was discussed in detail and part of how Covid was politicized. What people objected to was HOW it was being discussed. POOTWH and his minions looking for anyone or anything else to blame other than the POOTWH administration’s total bungling of the initial response and then doubling and tripling down on their incompetence. POOTWH taking over press briefings and speaking on subjects he had absolutely no business speaking on. Fauci being demonized because he dared speak truth to power, testifying before congress several times to answer questions from a group whose sole purpose was to politicize Covid pre election. And that wuhan lab funding? Where’s the indictment for Fauci’s alleged misappropriation of funds and personal profiteering we were promised?

Couldn’t talk about the wet market? What a crock of shit. Sure you could but it was HOW people talked about it. A lot of people discussed it with little to no knowledge of China, it’s people or it’s culture, including POOTWH, who then turned it into a racist scapegoat, again, all in an effort to deflect responsibility from his enormous bungling of a response, particularly after MAGA refused the jab.

I wonder what Covid would have looked like had the US had an 85%-90% vaccination rate right out of the gate as opposed to running herd and horse dewormer?

Kamala didn’t trust POOTWH, oh heavens. Please.

I never said you couldn't talk about the wet market.

You don't remember the labels people got for even asking about the lab? Racist, conspiracy nut, etc?

Not everyone who questioned the lab theory was crazy. It only takes a small amount of common sense to ask if it was a coincidence that the virus started in the same exact city where the research was happening.

Viruses / Vaccines 2

Comments

"How the false Russian biolab story came to circulate among the U.S. far right

Categories