I have a question. In retrospect, lockdowns were not appropriate or necessary.
Is there a scenario where lockdowns might truly be necessary, and if so, given the COVID debacle, would lockdown even be feasible?
To me, this is the important question, because sooner or later, sh!t is going to escape from a lab again and it may be much more contagious and lethal than this first draft of The Stand that we lived through.
I did not hear a whisper - not a whisper - of acknowledgement of the early concern of how bad the pandemic could be. The Manhattan Institute is driving to much of these of these podcasts.
Has Jay ever been in a public conversation on this topic with a colleague who pushes back?
I'm not trying to be funny. If he has, I would love to see it. If not, can somebody please make it happen? Those of us who don't know this stuff don't wanna hear analysis from one side left unchallenged, especially at this point.
Up until now, JB's media appearances have been (seemingly) steeped in sympathetic waters--like Megyn Kelly.
That’s always a fair point, Charles - .present both sides. Today, however, it’s getting harder to find someone who’s willing to defend the zoonotic origins argument that Fauci insisted on. First, China destroyed and removed records that could’ve helped confirm the origins of the virus. Several Chinese scientists close to the Lab suddenly disappeared or, in one case, “fell off a building “. The animals in question weren’t present at the wet market and in fact reside hundreds of miles away. The distinguishing furin cleavage site was heretofore unknown among similar coronaviruses. The French, who built the Wuhan Lab, were kicked out by China and complained of very lax safety standards, of which the U.S. was well aware. The Dr. Fauci-Dr. Dayak-Wuhan Lab GOF money flows have been well-established. Only China can confirm with absolute certainty what happened, and that’s not going to occur. But the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to a lab leak(many of which have occurred including here in the U.S.). Fauci and Collins don’t want to debate - they want this whole story to disappear like they tried to do during the COVID coup. I’d like to see that debate also. Maybe Glenn knows some Ivy Leaguer willing to defend what even the US and China are no longer doing.
I had much the same reaction. He's "very very very" convinced it was a lab leak -- why? What's the convincing evidence one way or the other? His beliefs are not facts. Fauci's pushback against the gain-of-function accusations don't pass the "colloquial" understanding of the science (paraphrasing) -- what does that even mean, and why should it matter? My colloquial understanding of quantum physics isn't worth a thimble full of piss. This kind of thing in a political environment that saw Dr. Fauci facing death threats is wildly irresponsible. And let's not forget that Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian and a man of impeccable scientific and moral credentials, was Dr. Fauci's boss at NIH and refused pressure from Trump officials to fire Dr. Fauci. Instead he defended his work, describing Dr. Fauci as "the most important voice for the truth on infectious diseases." I would LOVE to see JB discuss his beliefs with Sr. Collins present. Leave Fauci out of it if you want. But something's off in this presentation, a bit too much chicken-little-hair-on-fire and too much "I believe it so it must be so."
Even the liberal, mRNA vax-loving New York Times reported (see link below) that intelligence services now believe the odds are it came from the lab leak. It's pretty clear the lab was doing gain-of-function research, and it's pretty clear Fauci approved its financing, so connect the dots. You don't have to be a physicist!
The subtitle to the article you cited, which concerns the Dept of Energy opinion, reads: "The conclusion, which was made with 'low confidence,' came as America’s intelligence agencies remained divided over the origins of the coronavirus." So you misrepresented the article you think proves your point. As for what you think is "pretty clear," I'd say the evidence is slim to none. But if you have another article you'd like to mischaracterize to "prove" your point, have at it. Finally, "connect the dots" is what you say when your evidentiary links are weak or non-existent.
1) The Wuhan lab was working on those types of viruses
2) Patient One was a scientist in the Wuhan lab
3) The epidemic started around the Wuhan area.
If you don't consider that an "evidentiary link," I can't help you.
Seriously, are you just a China troll (but I'm not anti-China)? If not, what's your argument then? Where do you think it came from?
The article said they believe the "odds are it came from the Chinese lab." The "low confidence" qualifier is diplomatic mumbo-jumbo, because no one is saying we yet have conclusive proof. But I believe it's coming.
Okay, I now see the problem. What you refer to as "connecting the dots" is something I call "jumping to conclusions." The Covid virus was a novovirus -- one not seen before ("novo" meaning "new"). Due to the refusal of the Chinese government to cooperate meaningfully in the investigation we do not know and may never know whether the virus originated in the lab or in the wet market in the same vicinity as the lab that was notorious for keeping and selling the kinds of bats previously known to cause the spread of previous novovirus outbreaks. The fact patient one worked at the lab does not conclusively prove that said patient didn't contract the virus from the nearby wet market as others had done before. We just don't know. (As for your remark I'm a Chinese troll -- oh ffs, grow up.) So you've not only conveniently omitted a known vector for viruses of this type from your "argument," you've blithely dismissed the "low confidence" the DOE had in its assessment as "mumbo jumbo," which is the kind of thing my math professors used to refer to as "hand-waving," i.e., what a magician does to distract the audience's attention from what he's really doing, which is what one does when his argument is weak. (BTW: your actual claim was that the intelligence agencies had confirmed the leak came from a lab, and the article you cited flatly contradicted that -- there was and is no such consensus.) Now, fortunately I have much better uses for my time than to continue this conversation. I hope you do as well. Let us get to those better things.
I would only add that the data head been around for a couple of years now. Where was the NYT when we needed to defend people like Jay and oppose censorship? The NYT has just followed the government’s position all along. Hard to call that journalism.
Fauci has gotten away with murder and has been richly rewarded for this. Everyone knows this but since he has the protection of important people there will be no repercussions. Even though there was a lack of intent as a top official he should have known better and will never pay a price.
You are not rational. Fauci was concerned with far more than your screw humanity perspective could ever allow. He fucked up, but he fucked up as he SHOULD HAVE. You are a juvenile logic defender.
Julius Caesar. Fauci is Brutus, Trump is Caesar, Covid-19 is the assassination attempt, De Santis is Mark Anthony.
I have a question. In retrospect, lockdowns were not appropriate or necessary.
Is there a scenario where lockdowns might truly be necessary, and if so, given the COVID debacle, would lockdown even be feasible?
To me, this is the important question, because sooner or later, sh!t is going to escape from a lab again and it may be much more contagious and lethal than this first draft of The Stand that we lived through.
Dr. Bhattacharya is a true American hero. He stood firm during persecution for speaking the truth to Dr. Fauci and the scientific power establishment.
I did not hear a whisper - not a whisper - of acknowledgement of the early concern of how bad the pandemic could be. The Manhattan Institute is driving to much of these of these podcasts.
I favor putting Dr. Fauci on trial for crimes against humanity. If convicted, he loses what is most precious to him: His reputation.
Has Jay ever been in a public conversation on this topic with a colleague who pushes back?
I'm not trying to be funny. If he has, I would love to see it. If not, can somebody please make it happen? Those of us who don't know this stuff don't wanna hear analysis from one side left unchallenged, especially at this point.
Up until now, JB's media appearances have been (seemingly) steeped in sympathetic waters--like Megyn Kelly.
Which is fine if you don't wanna hear pushback.
That’s always a fair point, Charles - .present both sides. Today, however, it’s getting harder to find someone who’s willing to defend the zoonotic origins argument that Fauci insisted on. First, China destroyed and removed records that could’ve helped confirm the origins of the virus. Several Chinese scientists close to the Lab suddenly disappeared or, in one case, “fell off a building “. The animals in question weren’t present at the wet market and in fact reside hundreds of miles away. The distinguishing furin cleavage site was heretofore unknown among similar coronaviruses. The French, who built the Wuhan Lab, were kicked out by China and complained of very lax safety standards, of which the U.S. was well aware. The Dr. Fauci-Dr. Dayak-Wuhan Lab GOF money flows have been well-established. Only China can confirm with absolute certainty what happened, and that’s not going to occur. But the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to a lab leak(many of which have occurred including here in the U.S.). Fauci and Collins don’t want to debate - they want this whole story to disappear like they tried to do during the COVID coup. I’d like to see that debate also. Maybe Glenn knows some Ivy Leaguer willing to defend what even the US and China are no longer doing.
I had much the same reaction. He's "very very very" convinced it was a lab leak -- why? What's the convincing evidence one way or the other? His beliefs are not facts. Fauci's pushback against the gain-of-function accusations don't pass the "colloquial" understanding of the science (paraphrasing) -- what does that even mean, and why should it matter? My colloquial understanding of quantum physics isn't worth a thimble full of piss. This kind of thing in a political environment that saw Dr. Fauci facing death threats is wildly irresponsible. And let's not forget that Dr. Francis Collins, a Christian and a man of impeccable scientific and moral credentials, was Dr. Fauci's boss at NIH and refused pressure from Trump officials to fire Dr. Fauci. Instead he defended his work, describing Dr. Fauci as "the most important voice for the truth on infectious diseases." I would LOVE to see JB discuss his beliefs with Sr. Collins present. Leave Fauci out of it if you want. But something's off in this presentation, a bit too much chicken-little-hair-on-fire and too much "I believe it so it must be so."
100% lab leak .. for the simple reason Fauci said it was 100% not a lab leak.
Even the liberal, mRNA vax-loving New York Times reported (see link below) that intelligence services now believe the odds are it came from the lab leak. It's pretty clear the lab was doing gain-of-function research, and it's pretty clear Fauci approved its financing, so connect the dots. You don't have to be a physicist!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html
The subtitle to the article you cited, which concerns the Dept of Energy opinion, reads: "The conclusion, which was made with 'low confidence,' came as America’s intelligence agencies remained divided over the origins of the coronavirus." So you misrepresented the article you think proves your point. As for what you think is "pretty clear," I'd say the evidence is slim to none. But if you have another article you'd like to mischaracterize to "prove" your point, have at it. Finally, "connect the dots" is what you say when your evidentiary links are weak or non-existent.
1) The Wuhan lab was working on those types of viruses
2) Patient One was a scientist in the Wuhan lab
3) The epidemic started around the Wuhan area.
If you don't consider that an "evidentiary link," I can't help you.
Seriously, are you just a China troll (but I'm not anti-China)? If not, what's your argument then? Where do you think it came from?
The article said they believe the "odds are it came from the Chinese lab." The "low confidence" qualifier is diplomatic mumbo-jumbo, because no one is saying we yet have conclusive proof. But I believe it's coming.
Okay, I now see the problem. What you refer to as "connecting the dots" is something I call "jumping to conclusions." The Covid virus was a novovirus -- one not seen before ("novo" meaning "new"). Due to the refusal of the Chinese government to cooperate meaningfully in the investigation we do not know and may never know whether the virus originated in the lab or in the wet market in the same vicinity as the lab that was notorious for keeping and selling the kinds of bats previously known to cause the spread of previous novovirus outbreaks. The fact patient one worked at the lab does not conclusively prove that said patient didn't contract the virus from the nearby wet market as others had done before. We just don't know. (As for your remark I'm a Chinese troll -- oh ffs, grow up.) So you've not only conveniently omitted a known vector for viruses of this type from your "argument," you've blithely dismissed the "low confidence" the DOE had in its assessment as "mumbo jumbo," which is the kind of thing my math professors used to refer to as "hand-waving," i.e., what a magician does to distract the audience's attention from what he's really doing, which is what one does when his argument is weak. (BTW: your actual claim was that the intelligence agencies had confirmed the leak came from a lab, and the article you cited flatly contradicted that -- there was and is no such consensus.) Now, fortunately I have much better uses for my time than to continue this conversation. I hope you do as well. Let us get to those better things.
I would only add that the data head been around for a couple of years now. Where was the NYT when we needed to defend people like Jay and oppose censorship? The NYT has just followed the government’s position all along. Hard to call that journalism.
Completely agree.
"My colloquial understanding of quantum physics isn't worth a thimble full of piss."
I am totally stealing this one. Just letting you know.
The best writing advice I ever got was from the novelist and educator Oakley Hall: "Steal wisely."
Fauci has gotten away with murder and has been richly rewarded for this. Everyone knows this but since he has the protection of important people there will be no repercussions. Even though there was a lack of intent as a top official he should have known better and will never pay a price.
You are not rational. Fauci was concerned with far more than your screw humanity perspective could ever allow. He fucked up, but he fucked up as he SHOULD HAVE. You are a juvenile logic defender.