The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Scarlet]

Still the most plausible source but that won't stop MAGA from wanting to see Fauci executed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00426-3

"Today, mounting evidence from more than a dozen studies point to a person, or people, catching the virus from a wild animal or animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, the city at the epicentre of the outbreak. And the animal at the top of the list is the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)."

“There is a large focus on raccoon dogs,” says Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California."

"One of the reasons raccoon dogs were suggested as a prime candidate early on is because they were probably involved in passing another, related, virus to people. In 2003, researchers isolated close matches of the virus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in several civets and a raccoon dog at a live-animal market in Guangdong, China."

"This finding prompted researchers in Germany to investigate these animals’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-21.

They found that raccoon dogs can be infected by SARS-CoV-2, and — despite not getting that sick themselves — can pass on the infection to other animals."

 

[Archy1221]

[No message]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's always a good idea to listen to the scientists who study this stuff and adjust their views as better information becomes available.

Looks like the French Academy of Medicine also recommends that people continue to take the threat of COVID seriously. 

 

[Lorewarn]

It's always a good idea to listen to the scientists who study this stuff and adjust their views as better information becomes available.

Looks like the French Academy of Medicine also recommends that people continue to take the threat of COVID seriously. 

The genuine trouble in this case is how much of the scientific community not just disagreed, but vehemently insisted and threw their weight around through bureaucratic and media influence that the lab leak theory was entirely and utterly false, fake, conspiratorial and dangerous.

The "trust the science" brigade of our populace spent a good long while shouting down and scapegoating anyone who had even the most basic curiosity and questions about it. Like, how hard is it to imagine a 2021 knapplc post along the lines of, "The science is clear, and your questions echoing right wing talking points couldn't be any more revealing."

 

[teachercd]

The genuine trouble in this case is how much of the scientific community not just disagreed, but vehemently insisted and threw their weight around through bureaucratic and media influence that the lab leak theory was entirely and utterly false, fake, conspiratorial and dangerous.

The "trust the science" brigade of our populace spent a good long while shouting down and scapegoating anyone who had even the most basic curiosity and questions about it. Like, how hard is it to imagine a 2021 knapplc post along the lines of, "The science is clear, and your questions echoing right wing talking points couldn't be any more revealing."

There are still people in my neighborhood that have old "trust the science" or "We trust science" yard signs up!

Since FOREVER people have always been like, "yeah, I saw the doctor and he/she said..." and it is followed by "So I am going to get a second opinion" 

But covid changed all that.  

With that said, I have literally never got a second opinion on anything except a pool quote and I ended up not even getting one put in.  

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The genuine trouble in this case is how much of the scientific community not just disagreed, but vehemently insisted and threw their weight around through bureaucratic and media influence that the lab leak theory was entirely and utterly false, fake, conspiratorial and dangerous.

The "trust the science" brigade of our populace spent a good long while shouting down and scapegoating anyone who had even the most basic curiosity and questions about it. Like, how hard is it to imagine a 2021 knapplc post along the lines of, "The science is clear, and your questions echoing right wing talking points couldn't be any more revealing."

No, it wasn't a good moment for scientific objectivity, or more to the point how non-scientists were rewarding the scientists who worked within their political narratives. Given the generic and far-reaching mistrust of Donald Trump, perhaps it made sense not to fan the "Kung Flu" and China Virus flames in that moment. I wish more people displayed genuine curiosity and a willingness to question authority, but COVID was full of misinformation that was spread in spite of the evidence, not because of it.  

And with all due respect to the French Academy of Medicine, the scientific community at large remains split on Lab Leak vs. Wet Market theories, with a lot of weight still leaning to animal transmission. Scientists on both sides agree that the evidence needed to confirm may never be available. Zoonosis believers still think the world needs more stringent lab controls, protocols, and international cooperation either way. Nobody trusts the information provided by the Chinese government.   

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10117112/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03026-9

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/do-covids-origins-matter

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/origin-sars-cov-2-animal-transmission-or-lab-leak

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24

And if you are genuinely curious, you'll read the actual report rather than the social media headline, in which the French Academy of Medicine concedes animal transmission remains a possibility, and the undermining of scientific inquiry is perhaps the bigger danger:

However, there is no question of overlooking the possibility of natural emergence of the virus, especially since the future occurrence of a new pandemic is not a matter of debate among scientists. The recommendations of the French Academy of Medicine therefore extend to strengthening surveillance of viral emergence through medical and veterinary networks. "We must not wait for an epidemic to start to strengthen surveillance of virus circulation. We would like veterinary and human virological networks to work together, strengthen sample banks, and harmonize databases," explains Christine Rouzioux.

In this context, the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO and its financial support is of great concern to physicians. "The cut in American funding effectively puts us in a risk zone, because Europe cannot compensate. We are all very worried," confirms Jean-François Delfraissy, immunologist and President of the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE). "This report does not seek to ban dangerous experiments, which are sometimes necessary or justified, but rather to regulate them and raise awareness in the scientific community," he concludes.

 

[Lorewarn]

No, it wasn't a good moment for scientific objectivity, or more to the point how non-scientists were rewarding the scientists who worked within their political narratives. Given the generic and far-reaching mistrust of Donald Trump, perhaps it made sense not to fan the "Kung Flu" and China Virus flames in that moment. I wish more people displayed genuine curiosity and a willingness to question authority, but COVID was full of misinformation that was spread in spite of the evidence, not because of it.  

And with all due respect to the French Academy of Medicine, the scientific community at large remains split on Lab Leak vs. Wet Market theories, with a lot of weight still leaning to animal transmission. Scientists on both sides agree that the evidence needed to confirm may never be available. Zoonosis believers still think the world needs more stringent lab controls, protocols, and international cooperation either way. Nobody trusts the information provided by the Chinese government.   

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10117112/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03026-9

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/do-covids-origins-matter

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/origin-sars-cov-2-animal-transmission-or-lab-leak

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24

And if you are genuinely curious, you'll read the actual report rather than the social media headline, in which the French Academy of Medicine concedes animal transmission remains a possibility, and the undermining of scientific inquiry is perhaps the bigger danger:

However, there is no question of overlooking the possibility of natural emergence of the virus, especially since the future occurrence of a new pandemic is not a matter of debate among scientists. The recommendations of the French Academy of Medicine therefore extend to strengthening surveillance of viral emergence through medical and veterinary networks. "We must not wait for an epidemic to start to strengthen surveillance of virus circulation. We would like veterinary and human virological networks to work together, strengthen sample banks, and harmonize databases," explains Christine Rouzioux.

In this context, the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO and its financial support is of great concern to physicians. "The cut in American funding effectively puts us in a risk zone, because Europe cannot compensate. We are all very worried," confirms Jean-François Delfraissy, immunologist and President of the National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE). "This report does not seek to ban dangerous experiments, which are sometimes necessary or justified, but rather to regulate them and raise awareness in the scientific community," he concludes.

Good thoughts all around.

"the undermining of scientific inquiry is perhaps the bigger danger"

I would agree this certainly is a bigger danger, but I don't know that I've seen much efficacy in our rudimentary attempts to combat it. I think a fairly justified big stroke worry is that in the age of dis and misinformation everywhere, with the erosion of gatekeepers stamping and approving content (which has great and terrible consequences), there's a bit of an absolutist, ends-justify-the-means attitude with the undermining of scientific inquiry being the thing which ought to be protected most, and thus we need to shut down any... scientific inquiry which undermines scientific inquiry.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Good thoughts all around.

"the undermining of scientific inquiry is perhaps the bigger danger"

I would agree this certainly is a bigger danger, but I don't know that I've seen much efficacy in our rudimentary attempts to combat it. I think a fairly justified big stroke worry is that in the age of dis and misinformation everywhere, with the erosion of gatekeepers stamping and approving content (which has great and terrible consequences), there's a bit of an absolutist, ends-justify-the-means attitude with the undermining of scientific inquiry being the thing which ought to be protected most, and thus we need to shut down any... scientific inquiry which undermines scientific inquiry.

It's a bumpy road and doesn't play to the public, but because science lives and breathes peer reviews the self-correcting mechanisms are built in. Some people mistake scientists for policy makers. They are treated -- at best -- as advisers, and nobody likes it when they warn about the still unanswered questions and cautious conclusions. 

Then 50 years later we find out the conventional wisdom we trusted was wrong. At least it was with Dark Matter and margarine. 

Still, if you take the long view -- like the past 150 years -- scientific inquiry has an incredible record, including adding more than 30 years to the average American's lifespan.

 

[teachercd]

Science also helped make fake cans.  Sure, the first ones were not great BUT those scientists REFUSED to give up...they would not stop until they made amazing fake cans.

 

[teachercd]

These doctors also discovered something amazing

https://theonion.com/male-orgasm-captured-on-film-1819565337/

 

[Jason Sitoke]

There are still people in my neighborhood that have old "trust the science" or "We trust science" yard signs up!

Since FOREVER people have always been like, "yeah, I saw the doctor and he/she said..." and it is followed by "So I am going to get a second opinion" 

But covid changed all that.  

With that said, I have literally never got a second opinion on anything except a pool quote and I ended up not even getting one put in.  

The 'We believe that science is real' signs were some of the silliest things I ever saw.  Science does not require belief.  Science isn't 'anything a scientist says'.  It is a methodology that guides critical thinking.  Which was/is severely lacking, regardless of what side of whatever argument you anchored yourself to.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The 'We believe that science is real' signs were some of the silliest things I ever saw.  Science does not require belief.  Science isn't 'anything a scientist says'.  It is a methodology that guides critical thinking.  Which was/is severely lacking, regardless of what side of whatever argument you anchored yourself to.

I think I agree with your over-arching point, but you appear to be saying that science is the critical methodology we need to make informed decisions, not simply belief in what a certain scientist says. That's not really at odds with saying "science is real" other than the word "believe" which is inherent in any statement. I don't find it silly in the current context, in which people are throwing their belief to people uniquely unqualified in both experience and methodology, i.e. an actual war on science itself.  

 

[JJ Husker]

I think I agree with your over-arching point, but you appear to be saying that science is the critical methodology we need to make informed decisions, not simply belief in what a certain scientist says. That's not really at odds with saying "science is real" other than the word "believe" which is inherent in any statement. I don't find it silly in the current context, in which people are throwing their belief to people uniquely unqualified in both experience and methodology, i.e. an actual war on science itself.  

Yes, it is/was a strange dynamic. I don’t recall a prior time when such large swaths of people chose to not believe science was real. The signs may have been silly and redundant but not nearly as silly or damaging as the people who, for political purposes, decided to believe science was not worth listening to (aka didn’t believe). Unfortunately those people are still around and running our government now. RFKjr being one of them in the most dangerous position.

 

[teachercd]

Yes, it is/was a strange dynamic. I don’t recall a prior time when such large swaths of people chose to not believe science was real. The signs may have been silly and redundant but not nearly as silly or damaging as the people who, for political purposes, decided to believe science was not worth listening to (aka didn’t believe). Unfortunately those people are still around and running our government now. RFKjr being one of them in the most dangerous position.

I still think (and again, I am not as smart as most of the posters here) is that the timing of it was the "issue"

It hit in March...which meant it was easy to close down the biggest thing in America...Schools

So "summer break" started 60 daysish early.

Summer hit, everything was fine(ish) by July BUT every work place decided it was not safe.  BUT

Parents realized they hated being with their f#&%ing kids 24/7, so all of a sudden Covid was not a thing anymore.  Even thought it was...but parents would rather risk the lives of their kids, other kids and all teachers...instead of being home with their kids.

 

[Lorewarn]

Yes, it is/was a strange dynamic. I don’t recall a prior time when such large swaths of people chose to not believe science was real. The signs may have been silly and redundant but not nearly as silly or damaging as the people who, for political purposes, decided to believe science was not worth listening to (aka didn’t believe). Unfortunately those people are still around and running our government now. RFKjr being one of them in the most dangerous position.

Before I say anything else, I want to make abundantly clear that I am enthusiastically pro scientific method and do or at least try to have my first lens of perspective through an empirical/material framework.

With that said, what the hell does, "people chose not to believe science was real" mean? Surely not real as an antonym to imaginary... nobody, as far as I can tell, is claiming or believing that science is fake or made up. So I don't actually know what we're talking about.

What did "science is real" mean in the 20th century when eugenics was a widely accepted framework in the US, UK and elsewhere?

Did "science is real" have culpability in the BS of the food pyramid and and demonization of cholesterol and saturated fats (with sugar and refined carbs getting a pass) from the 70s to the 90s? Along those lines, remember when the "real" science inundated with non-stop narrative about how incredible and amazing milk was for our calcium and bone strength, with everything from school nutritional guidelines to savvy ad campaigns pushing this conclusion only to find out way later that not only did milk have no effect (or possibly a negative effect) on bone strength or density, but that this was all clever lobbying and messaging by the dairy industry with their deep lobbying power?

How long did it take for "science is real" to begrudgingly accept the plausibility or even likelihood of a lab leak of COVID? 

What "realness" of science led to the Tuskegee syphilis study?

Surely "science is real" has some blood on its hands for the opioid epidemic, with the FDA and medical schools tacitly going along with the idea that opioids are perfectly safe and non-addictive when prescribed by doctors, with a "trust your doctor" narrative leading to an addiction pipeline.

All of these examples and a million more took place under the flag of scientific credibility with little to no active present dissent, with folks being bullied into submission because "science is real". Science is nothing more than a lens - a methodology - to see and observe the world and make predictions. Saying "science is real" is like saying "cooking is real". I mean, you're right, but what does that mean? Does it being real imply that the kitchen isn't full of smoke, that Nestle isn't paying the chef to use their products, that nobody burns their food, that the food is healthy, the chef is honest and that nobody would ever poison the food?