|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: COVID vaccine works - we're saved! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
The choice of journal should be a bit of a red flag. It’s not the usual venue for this subject. From my own reading around it seems that the lab leak hypothesis is still unlikely even if it can’t be definitively ruled out.
Orac gives the lab leak hypothesis some Respectful Insolence Wade’s article is not the first mentioned, but it’s there:
Basically, Wade’s argument seems to be that because a furin cleavage site of this sort hasn’t been seen in SARS-related beta coronaviruses before it must have been engineered. The problem is that such furin cleavage sites are common in a wide variety of viruses, including coronaviruses, and that scientists already had identified plausible mechanisms by which it could have ended up where it did in SARS-CoV2 last year… More on site
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Because it’s not a journal with a great deal of expertise in this area.
quote: No. Why on earth would it be?
quote: And that makes him an expert on the genetics ? And I note that the controversial book you refer to was noted for getting the science wrong.
quote: Wade does claim that it was engineered.
quote: Even if it’s unusual in coronaviruses that makes it less than good evidence for engineering. I’d also like to know why you feel that engineering is at least as likely as a natural origin, given the weakness of the evidence. Orac points out that tracking down natural sources is not easy, so the failure to do so is not especially strong as an argument either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
To further add, this paper published in Nature states that
It is clear from our analysis that viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been circulating in horseshoe bats for many decades. - although these viruses were not known, This rather emphasises the point that tracking down a natural source is difficult - there are so many viruses in circulation and we only know of a fraction of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It’s not about judging a book by it’s cover it’s simply a concern that the choice of venue indicates that the article might not have had sufficient review.
quote: Wrong again. It’s that we can’t consider him a reliable authority.
quote: Really? This is what the scientists said:
As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade’s implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not. Presenting an “incomplete and inaccurate account” is more than simply speculating beyond the evidence. 139 scientists signed that letter and another 4 added their names after publication.
quote: The only thing that makes the furin cleavage special is that it increases infectivity in humans - but we’re only looking that this virus because it is highly infectious in humans. So an unusual but known feature - with a plausible natural origin - isn’t exactly strong evidence. Surely we’d expect something of the sort.
quote: I’ve explained about the furin cleavage above, and I’ve pointed out that we don’t have a strong expectation of finding the natural source. But apparently you won’t explain why you think that the evidence makes a lab release as likely as a natural origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It isn’t and I’m not judging it on that, simply noting that it likely hasn’t had the checks that it would receive before publication in a more appropriate peer-reviewed journal.
quote: A journalist - which he is - with a record of misreporting science.
quote: You’re asserting that he did not misrepresent their work? That the letter is untrue in that respect? That’s a pretty serious accusation to throw at the signatories to the letter.
quote: There are plenty of unknown viruses out there, all mutating all the time. There are much fewer engineered viruses, and those are handled in controlled conditions. If there isn’t good evidence to support the lab release hypothesis we must prefer the natural origin. It’s inherently more probable.
quote: In fact you did say “something like that” in Message 86 The possibility that the 12-nucleotide insertion appeared naturally cannot be excluded (and Wade says this) but neither can it be considered more likely than engineering, Now will you explain what evidence is strong enough to raise the inherently improbable lab release hypothesis to the same level as natural origin ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which means that it isn’t something to place great reliance on.
quote: So you think that being a journalist makes him an expert. That explains part of the problem.
quote: Pointing out reasons why we shouldn’t take Wade’s word for it is not poisoning the well. Can we just agree that Wade’s opinions should not be considered persuasive in themselves? That his arguments require evaluation.
quote: Just as that statement is open to the suspicion that you are defending Wade here because you support his racist views.
quote: Until your argument gets beyond “Wade says so” pointing out that Wade is not an especially reliable source is a valid reply. Yet I’m the one addressing Wade’s arguments, not you.
quote: So you have a high profile article, but not much solid argument.
quote: In fact he doesn’t give any valid reasons to consider the “engineered” hypothesis as likely as a natural origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: They often are, but that isn’t my point. The point is that he’s it an expert and his personal opinions - which is what he’s offering - shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than the personal opinions of someone who isn’t an expert.
quote: Which still doesn’t make him an expert.
quote: And they don’t have to be. You obviously have a lot invested insetting up Wade as an authority but he simply isn’t in this matter. Let us also remember that I did address his arguments.
quote: No, you go further than that. You take the article as putting the engineered hypothesis on at least a rough par with the natural origin hypothesis, but the evidence is pretty weak and it really needs to be better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Is he? It doesn’t look that way to me. Which scientists claim that the furin cleavage is evidence of engineering? Is it a consensus view? What about the scientists who disagree?
quote: And I’ve always said that reading the original paper is better than trusting the science writers.
quote: It is your defence of Wade that has “gone of the deep end”. That’s how I can tell that you are deeply invested.
quote: This are contradictory claims. By default the natural origin is more likely by far, for reasons I’ve explained. Indeed, it seems too me that you really want support for the engineered hypothesis which is why you are so determined to defend Wade as an authority (to the point of attacking justified criticism). Certainly you have done nothing to defend his arguments. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Your problem is that I refuse to accept Wade as an expert, and dare to believe 143 scientists who say that Wade misrepresented the science. It certainly isn’t that I refuse to discuss his arguments - because I did. You are the one who won’t do that.
quote: No, I asked if Wade was really simply relaying the science or if it was his opinions. So I will ask again. Is it scientists who claim that the furin cleavage is adequate evidence of engineering or is that Wade’s opinion? And if it is scientists, who and where?
quote: Which includes science writers.
quote: The contradiction is still there. Without evidence the natural hypothesis is more likely tha the engineered hypothesis.
quote: And it’s true. You claim that it is unreasonable to believe tha 143 scientists, just because the brief letter did not detail the criticisms and because you suspect that they were just saying that to hide the racist implications of their work (which is the standard racist excuse). You didn’t even do even a minimal investigation - the criticisms aren’t secret and you could easily find at least some It’s pretty clear who is being unreasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I think you mean vaccines which only protect against the symptoms - which is not the case of any of the COVID vaccines available.
quote: That’s pretty much true of every vaccine, so it doesn’t seem especially likely to be a problem with these,
quote: The massive reduction in hospitalisations alone saves lives. The reduced number of infections slows the spread. And fewer infected people means less risk of catching the disease - and fewer mutations in the virus. It’s the unvaccinated who are the problem.
quote: The rise of the Delta variant may have made it impossible to stop the virus right now, but vaccination is still a good thing.
quote: Sounds like the lies of someone who wants people to die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
And Forbes takes down the nonsense.
The essential points are as I said. The situation is different. Most of the virus evolution - including the emergence of the Delta variant - is taking place in the unvaccinated. And, another point: Vaccine development doesn’t stand still. If we need new vaccines they can be produced. It even worked for the chickens - the whole claim is based on a study of chickens - so it can certainly work for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
An insurance surcharge for the unvaccinated (Ars Technica). Hospitalisation for serious COVID cases is expensive and insurers are losing money. Delta Airlines is the first company to impose a surcharge on its employees - it’s not likely to be the last.
Given the infection risk of air travel I hope that vaccination is already mandatory for all aircrew - especially cabin staff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Texas, of course.
Governor Abbott has reacted to the FDA approval of a COVID vaccine - by extending his order banning vaccination mandates so that it covers FDA approved vaccines. The Republicans continue to be the pro-COVID party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then it’s odd that you cite a study based on a vaccine which only protects against the symptoms. See also Message 110 quote: Just because the Right has decided to support the virus doesn’t mean that the science isn’t being done.
quote: No, I did not “bypass your point”. I pointed out that the vaccine is saving lives and went on to point out relevant issues. The fact that vaccinated people are less likely to catch and spread the virus is relevant - that is not the case with Marek’s disease in chickens. I’ll grant that people shouldn’t take the vaccine as a license to return to pre-COVID behaviour - but that isn’t a problem with the vaccine. Right now the unvaccinated are the major problem.
quote: Well I’m glad you recognise that your opinions don’t deserve respect. And thank you for not inflicting them on us, even for a short while. I raised rational points against your argument and you just ignored them.
quote: The fact that you are scaremongering about the vaccine undercuts those assertions.
quote: Which was obvious hyperbole! Not to be taken seriously
quote: No, you are NOT near herd immunity. Herd immunity requires something in the range of 80-88% immune. (Wikipedia)Only 60% of the total population of New York City is fully vaccinated (71% of adults) and rates are worse outside the city. Spreading doubt about the vaccine will not help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I missed this, hence de,Ahmed reply,
quote: I remember that Trump’s response was incoherent. I also note that the Right is strongly opposed to vaccine and masking mandates. DeSantis in Florida and Abbott in Texas are being problematic.
quote: That’s right, don’t blame the people who’ve made it political, just blame the people who point it out.
quote: And again, I didn’t bypass it, I refuted it.
quote: Of course the fact that the vaccines effects are quite different in ways that directly relate to the issue is a rational point. The fact that the researcher who wrote the original study agrees is also a rational point. And I didn’t imply a motive either. But what motive would fit the spread of misinformation - obvious misinformation- that could lead to death ?
quote: You are scaremongering and you’re the one refusing to engage in factual discussion. The facts are that the two vaccines have very different effects, and claiming that they will produce similar results is scaremongering. The differences are very relevant.
quote: I read your link and there doesn’t seem to be much difference.
quote: No, if we don’t reach herd immunity it will be because of people like you opposing the effort.
quote: Since the best evidence is that it didn’t come from a lab, calling that a lie is hardly honest. I don’t see one demonstrated lie in the lot (and that means proving that it was said, and that it was untrue to the best of our knowledge at the time it was said)
quote: You are just against the COVID vaccines. You’ve proved that with your scaremongering. And doubling down on it and lying after it was exposed.
quote: Everyone caring for the elderly does need to be vaccinated. Care homes are the last place you want an outbreak. Criticise Cuomo (and Boris) all you like for sending COVID patients into care homes - but don’t insist that the residents should be put at risk because you don’t want to be vaccinated.
quote: But here you are opposing the right decision, on spurious grounds.Vaccine mandates in the care sector are a necessity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024