Pandemic 3 years later: Has the COVID-19 virus won?

You when you ask for evidence already provided

You are pretending to provide evidence from a source in which its "experts" admit is not evidence.

*Although there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events**

But the biggest reason of all is that people finally woke up to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population is not in the least bit in danger should they get the glorified cold.

The scientific consensus on this is clear.

Yet you have always been completely unable to find a respected institution that supports your claim, meaning that your appeal to authority is still completely false.

Not debunked, and there is no evidence to the contrary,

Yes, completely and pretending not to see the evidence already provided is a very poor argument, it can be repeated again without any problem.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

The reports explicitly debunk this argument proving that the distribution of cases is completely incompatible with a laboratory leak and instead clearly support an origin in the market.

Any evidence saying this is 100% incontrovertibly the case?

Yes, the lack of any example of any pandemic being identified as artificial, the claim is that there is no evidence to indicate this, you could of course provide evidence of the contrary to disprove the claim but obviously you have provided nothing.

But the experts know that is not true.

The experts in the references provided clearly conclude the natural origin is the only reasonable explanation according to the evidence. What scientific evidence do you have to contradict them? none? That means you just repeated your previous claim without supporting it again and just make an invalid appeal to authority that actually contradict your personal opinion

No the argument is you would need to identify the progenitor in order to say "it came from X animal". Without that, which incidentally should be easy to find, it is a theory based on.... most likely whoever paid the researcher.

Which still would mean that Dengue was also developed artificially in a prehistoric laboratory according to this flawed argument. Most of the human viruses do not have a progenitor identified. That does absolutely nothing to prove they are artificial, that is a baseless claim. Scientific reports (including those already in the comments) make actual scientific arguments for the natural origin being the only realistic posibility, using arguments that you are not even trying to discuss, much less prove invalid.

Biggest red flags:

Originated in Wuhan, near Wuhan institute of virology where they were doing gain of function research on coronaviruses.

Already debunked in the reference provided in the comments, the distribution is completely incompatible with a laboratory leak, in a statistically significant way. Which means this "red flag" actually proves the contrary of what you want to use it.

All mayor cities of the region have laboratories dealing with virological research, specifically with coronaviruses, the region is the expected epicenter of zoonosis happening which is why it is much more convenient to put the laboratories there. You are simply misrepresenting the cause effect relationship as if it was the opposite of what it actually is.

Furin cleavage site binds to H2 receptor.

Like other viruses already identified in nature, once again an argument for the natural origin.

Human genetic sequence, not bats.

You mean a virus adapted to humans infect better human cells? That is the whole point of adaptation, all other viruses that are mainly transmitted between humans share this characteristic, it is completely expected because without it it would not be able to become pandemic.

Biggest red flags:

Originated in Wuhan, near Wuhan institute of virology where they were doing gain of function research on coronaviruses.

Furin cleavage site binds to H2 receptor.

Human genetic sequence, not bats.

Looks engineered.

No the argument is you would need to identify the progenitor in order to say "it came from X animal". Without that, which incidentally should be easy to find, it is a theory based on.... most likely whoever paid the researcher.

Whatever the virus is doing today, it’s still working on finding another winning path

I'm wondering what is meant by "winning". My understanding is that, in general, viruses thrive when they do least damage to their hosts. Hopefully, we've got close to that stage now.

It is the largest study to date.

But as the reference clearly says it did not include many studies that are relevant, it included studies that weaken the conclusions that can be made and is based in controlled studies that are statistically biased to underrepresent the effects of mask according to published evidence.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.49.2000725

"published reports" - you seem to come up with buzzwords as if they defacto prove your argument. I suspect you are just trolling at this stage.

The reference provided give a very nice explanation why your misrepresentation of the study is not valid and gives very strong arguments to prove the effect of mask wearing is much stronger than what the review can present according to its flawed design. You make absolutely no effort to refute any of the arguments included and instead make personal attacks, it is difficult to be more transparently defeated in a discussion as when you abandon it and make zero effort to defend the point you were trying to make.

This is just silly now - unless you expect them to hop in a time machine.

Your argument was that the lack of identification of the progenitor is what disprove the natural origin, these examples clearly demonstate that argument to be nonsensical. Lack of a strain that originates a zoonosis is not a requirement that proves it is artificial.

"limited study"

It is the largest study to date.

"So what" - in all previous animal sourced outbreaks, such porgenitors were found.

"published reports" - you seem to come up with buzzwords as if they defacto prove your argument. I suspect you are just trolling at this stage. Peter Bogossian et all had some very interesting peer reviewed reports "published" as well.

Dengue or Hepatitis C

This is just silly now - unless you expect them to hop in a time machine.

Well the case for masks (put forward as useful, without evidence) was as such and you probably had no problem with that. The latest cochrane review has shown the policy to be of no help.

No, that is false, at much the review says that the method the followed to include studies does not allow them to make any conclusion, and it has been heavily criticized precisely for this methodological flaw.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/masks-revisited/

This recent Cochrane review is very limited in scope and is highly problematic in its methods. The most we can conclude from it is that we need better and more relevant controlled trials of mask wearing to more precisely determine its effect on the spread of COVID. But it does not show that mask wearing does not work or that mask policies don’t work. Further, if we look at the totality of the evidence (not just these trials) the best current conclusions are:

Properly wearing face masks when in public during high risk of spread reduces the risk of spread of respiratory viruses in general and COVID specifically.

During a pandemic of a respiratory virus, mask mandates are an effective public health measure.

N95 masks likely offer the best protection, but need to be worn over the mouth and nose to be effective, and need to be worn continuously when in public (not just in targeted situations).

Antiscientific groups are very eager to misrepresent this limited study and exaggerate the conclusions that can be done with it, but against the whole evidence that mask do work when used by everybody in high risk situations this is in no way enough to contradict this conclusion.

There were plenty of qualified medical professionals, from the start, for example Brett Weinstien, an evolutionary biologist, including others who took a look at the virus and said it looked most likely to be man-made.

Bret Weinstein has been heavily criticized for repeating false information during the pandemic, he has produced absolutely no evidence that can contradict the published reports that clearly point to the natural origin and his whole stance depends completely on ignoring this evidence and pretend it does not exist.

Also consider the fact that no animal coronavirus has been identified that is sufficiently similar to have served as the direct progenitor for covid 19.

So what? this is in no way an indispensable requirement to evaluate the likelyhood of the natural origin, it would be nice to have that virus (since it would facilitate the work to prevent the next coronavirus pandemic) but it makes as much sense to use this as an argument as to say Dengue or Hepatitis C was made in a prehistoric laboratory because it does not have a virus "suffciently similar to have served as the direct prgenitor".

So your argument is that when politicians constradict scientist and doctors based on no evidence presented by people without names nor credentials people should believe the politicians and not the experts?

Well the case for masks (put forward as useful, without evidence) was as such and you probably had no problem with that. The latest cochrane review has shown the policy to be of no help.

There were plenty of qualified medical professionals, from the start, for example Brett Weinstien, an evolutionary biologist, including others who took a look at the virus and said it looked most likely to be man-made.

Also consider the fact that no animal coronavirus has been identified that is sufficiently similar to have served as the direct progenitor for covid 19.

Science is not a democracy btw.

The Department of Energy is a politician?

No, the department of energy is "a completely unrelated governmental organization claiming something that the current US government finds beneficial politically."

It does not have a valid appeal to expertise on the field.

In addition, you still have no sources to back up your personal claims.

Do you have any evidence to contradict that it was a lab leak?

Two well discussed sources have been already included in my previous comments, if you are going to ask for sources you can at least read the conversation to see if those sources have already been provided.

So, what arguments do you have to refute what is included on those sources from actual experts with credentials, a carrer in the field and data that proves their conclusions?

Some people ignored the virus from the start.

No masks, no jabs, no changes in behavior.

Those people won.

By dying in much higher rates than those that were in populations that followed the recommendations? that is a terribly bad argument to say they won.

So your argument is that when politicians constradict scientist and doctors based on no evidence presented by people without names nor credentials people should believe the politicians and not the experts?

The Department of Energy is a politician?

In addition, you still have no sources to back up your personal claims.

Do you have any evidence to contradict that it was a lab leak?

Do I check the news upon which my comment is based that supports the lab leak theory the same as you?

In a word, yes.

So your argument is that when politicians constradict scientist and doctors based on no evidence presented by people without names nor credentials people should believe the politicians and not the experts?

That is not a very strong argument. It works more against your point by making it clear there is no actual expert nor evidence supporting this explanation, just a completely unrelated governmental organization claiming something that the current US government finds beneficial politically.

Yet now it seems to be that a lab leak is most likely. Quelle Surprise. What changed?

There is no such thing, the scientific consensus on the natural origin as the most likely is still the same. Scientist with names and credentials have publish many articles that support this explanation and that have not been refuted.

"A disease more likely to come from nature" - this statement is backed by, what exactly?

Of course scientific reports that coincide in considering this the only realistic explanation that is congruent with the evidence collected from many different fields and sources, molecular, epidemiological, evolutive, etc.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

Unless it is meant, most likely from nature in a wet market near a lab doing work on an identical virus? 

Not only that, but in the kind of wet market that was considered a huge risk since the first SARS scare, and with a distribution that clearly shows it is the epicenter of the outbreak, not any of the mutiple laboratories working on coronavirus in every important city of the region (no, Wuhan was not special in this).

 for previous SARS outbreaks, there was always evidence in nature

Because for the previous outbreaks the CCP did not act irresponsibly and there was no need to hide the terribly mismanagement of the initial outbreak, so they did not have any reason to obstruct the work of international scientific organizations, of course that way of acting had deep economic implications for China that they did not want to have this time, so they hid the outbreak as much as they could and we ended up with a pandemic.

Noone said those deaths would happen anyway - covid did kill people, we know this. We also know the profile that such people were from, enough to label them "high risk".

And they (and countless low risk people that can still have serious health problems or die from the infection) were spared because of the measures used. If your point is that the measures were not justified then there is no other way to interpret this, you are saying the millions of deaths that were prevented by the measures should have happened.

No, there is no consensus that this disease is much more likely to come from nature, hence the argument to the alternative that arose at the start of the pandemic, and its resurgence now.

Of course you can prove this by bringing an official communication from a well recognized institution of the field (virology, epidemiology, for example) that says the the natural origin is not the most likely explanation, right?

Because if you can't that means there is a consensus, just one you don't want to accept.

Yes, but the entire response and official narrative were such utter failures that an increasing number of people are awakening to the capture of the government, agencies, and media.

Such a failure? not at all, at least not according to the experts in public health that attribute a lot of lives saved thanks to them. The evidence of the efficacy of those measures is clear and strong, "awakening" to baseless conspiracy theories is not something desirable, except of course for the people that already fell for the disinformation and hope for more people to do the same mistake to feel validated by the numbers.

zulanderToday  01:18 pm JST

Really? Where did you hear that? I haven't heard a consensus on this matter anywhere.

Do you check the news?

"The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress."

WSJ

Do I check the news upon which my comment is based that supports the lab leak theory the same as you?

In a word, yes.

Really? Where did you hear that? I haven't heard a consensus on this matter anywhere.

Do you check the news?

"The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress."

WSJ

Every single thing in this comment is wrong, a disease that is much more likely to come from nature the same as every other before it, clasiffied as a pandemic without any actual scientific argument against it, and that increase the risk of every person it can infect (justifying vaccination). 

No, there is no consensus that this disease is much more likely to come from nature, hence the argument to the alternative that arose at the start of the pandemic, and its resurgence now.

You obviously would have provided references supporting your personal claim if such existed and the fact they do not means you are actually arguing in favor of the lab leak theory.

Yet now it seems to be that a lab leak is most likely.

Really? Where did you hear that? I haven't heard a consensus on this matter anywhere.

"Demonstrated as false"

Yet now it seems to be that a lab leak is most likely. Quelle Surprise. What changed?

"A disease more likely to come from nature" - this statement is backed by, what exactly?

Unless it is meant, most likely from nature in a wet market near a lab doing work on an identical virus? for previous SARS outbreaks, there was always evidence in nature, yet there was "no animal coronavirus  identified that is sufficiently similar to have served as the direct progenitor for covid 19". I think that is indeed what they call science.

Noone said those deaths would happen anyway - covid did kill people, we know this. We also know the profile that such people were from, enough to label them "high risk".

If only some people had said from the start that even though its most likely leaked from a lab, that the fatality rate for the avg person is low enough to not merit a pandemic and that only at risk groups should get vaccinated.........

Every single thing in this comment is wrong, a disease that is much more likely to come from nature the same as every other before it, clasiffied as a pandemic without any actual scientific argument against it, and that increase the risk of every person it can infect (justifying vaccination). People saying things that can be demonstrated as false would have been irrelevant since the medical community of the world did much better and that is why millions of deaths were prevented. Saying those deaths should have happened anyway is just complete lack of empathy and understanding of the role of public health.

If only some people had said from the start that even though its most likely leaked from a lab, that the fatality rate for the avg person is low enough to not merit a pandemic and that only at risk groups should get vaccinated.........

With 10 million dead, covid had always won.

I think people won, again. In fact humans have won against every single evolutionary foe, ever. That's why we're still here destroying the planet and reclassifying covid to be the flu that it always was. Humans: 1, virus: 0

The real winners are the people who followed official guidelines, over their personal opinions.

They can rest easy with a clear conscience.

one thing the pandemic taught us is that we have the tech and know how to work and study remotely.

this is something we should explore more, pandemic or not.

Why you hate capitalism bro? You don't think they deserve money for creating drugs that saved thousands if not millions of lives?

Whoa, are you saying that you have a theory that there was a conspiracy to put money in the pocket of Big Pharma?!

I'm saying they made a killing out of it. It's not a conspiracy "theory," the links are blatantly obvious.

But the real winners are companies like Pfizer and ModeRNA, Amazon, and their investors, who've done very nicely out of jab and mask mandates and lockdowns.

Whoa, are you saying that you have a theory that there was a conspiracy to put money in the pocket of Big Pharma?!

Has the COVID-19 virus won?

Well, it will endure in some form or another.

But the real winners are companies like Pfizer and ModeRNA, Amazon, and their investors, who've done very nicely out of jab and mask mandates and lockdowns. Not to mention their political and bureaucrat toadies who made it possible while partying hard maskless as the general public was told to stay home, jab up and put face coverings on under threat of fines, arrest and losing employment.