Official live update of spread of COVID19

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not spam, saw this on BBCAmerica.

What are the roles of the IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

"Five pounds a patient vice 500 pounds/patient with the other leading add-on drug."

[The Architect Of Fate]

It wasn't created in a freaking lab, Jesus! Is there any contrarian position AI won't take? And running around propping up absurd conspiracy theories is reckless, And FYI it's not a fallacy of authority if the person is actually qualified to make said judgment.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coro...sis-nature

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-...in-the-lab

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/...oronavirus

[Irreligious Atheist]

It wasn't created in a freaking lab, Jesus! Is there any contrarian position AI won't take? And running around propping up absurd conspiracy theories is reckless, And FYI it's not a fallacy of authority if the person is actually qualified to make said judgment.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coro...sis-nature

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-...in-the-lab

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/...oronavirus

Of course you would call scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It wasn't created in a freaking lab, Jesus! Is there any contrarian position AI won't take? And running around propping up absurd conspiracy theories is reckless, And FYI it's not a fallacy of authority if the person is actually qualified to make said judgment.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coro...sis-nature

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how-...in-the-lab

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/...oronavirus

Of course you would call scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

Of course you would confuse scientific inquiry and the scientific process with peddling long-debunked drivel, And of course you wouldn't consider the spread of misinformation a deadly virus to be dangerous 

[Rev. Rye]

The same scientific process that’s demonstrating that what can be inferred about the virus’ origins seem consistent with a natural origin and not a lab-created origin in a study that isn’t funded by the WHO.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Also, you gotta love the irony of someone who claims that COVID-19 was likely created in a lab accusing someone else of calling scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

[Irreligious Atheist]

The same scientific process that’s demonstrating that what can be inferred about the virus’ origins seem consistent with a natural origin and not a lab-created origin in a study that isn’t funded by the WHO.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Also, you gotta love the irony of someone who claims that COVID-19 was likely created in a lab accusing someone else of calling scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

That's not what I posted at all. I said there's a good chance it came from the lab, which plenty of scientists think could be the case, and which is now starting to become acceptable to discuss and taken more seriously in mainstream media, which is a step in the right direction and a nice surprise. I am agnostic about where it came from.

[Rev. Rye]

The same scientific process that’s demonstrating that what can be inferred about the virus’ origins seem consistent with a natural origin and not a lab-created origin in a study that isn’t funded by the WHO.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Also, you gotta love the irony of someone who claims that COVID-19 was likely created in a lab accusing someone else of calling scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

That's not what I posted at all. I said there's a good chance it came from the lab, which plenty of scientists think could be the case, and which is now starting to become acceptable to discuss and taken more seriously in mainstream media, which is a step in the right direction and a nice surprise. I am agnostic about where it came from.

Ummm, IA? Didn't you just 24 hours ago call the public airing of the lab-origin claim "taking about the obvious?" Doesn't sound so agnostic about where it came from to me.

No one knows for sure where it came from yet, but it's finally becoming more acceptable in mainstream media to talk about the obvious. There's a good chance it came from the lab. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...heory.html

This article shows how the investigation team is riddled with conflicts of interest and they called it a conspiracy theory long before their investigation began. https://www.wired.com/story/if-covid-19-...-ever-know.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Yes, the obvious is that there's a good chance it came from the lab. I do not lean one way or the other though. I don't know where it came from, but the investigation teams were compromised, and they only got what the lab wanted to give them. The WHO said right after this all started that an investigation of the lab was not needed.

[HappySkeptic]

Yes, the obvious is that there's a good chance it came from the lab. I do not lean one way or the other though. I don't know where it came from, but the investigation teams were compromised, and they only got what the lab wanted to give them. The WHO said right after this all started that an investigation of the lab was not needed.

It is obvious that the possibility exists.  It is NOT obvious that there is a "good chance".  That can only be determined by looking at the evidence, which so far supports the "little chance" conclusion. 

There are some voices pushing the opposite view, but they don't have evidence, and most of them aren't virologists or geneticists.  I saw a couple on Bill Maher last week that said "There is a 90% chance that the virus was created in a lab".  Where did they get the 90% number?  The people were biologists, not virologists, and they were likely getting the 90% number from online discussion groups. 

Their argument was also bad -- that the virus needed two functional mutations from the known in-the-wild forms to cause the pandemic.  Nature could create one, but two must mean it was man-made.  That is a completely false argument, unless one would expect us to have samples of all the natural "transitional forms" of the virus.  That is not something we would expect.

The other argument is that Chinese researchers have written papers about Coronavirus -- therefore it must be one of their creations.  That is a bad argument, but perfect for people who already are prone to conspiracy theories.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The same scientific process that’s demonstrating that what can be inferred about the virus’ origins seem consistent with a natural origin and not a lab-created origin in a study that isn’t funded by the WHO.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Also, you gotta love the irony of someone who claims that COVID-19 was likely created in a lab accusing someone else of calling scientific inquiry and the scientific process dangerous.

That's not what I posted at all. I said there's a good chance it came from the lab, which plenty of scientists think could be the case, and which is now starting to become acceptable to discuss and taken more seriously in mainstream media, which is a step in the right direction and a nice surprise. I am agnostic about where it came from.

There is more of a chance the moon is made of cheese then Covid being a lab born virus and no CREDIBLE scientist says otherwise

---

Yes, the obvious is that there's a good chance it came from the lab. I do not lean one way or the other though. I don't know where it came from, but the investigation teams were compromised, and they only got what the lab wanted to give them. The WHO said right after this all started that an investigation of the lab was not needed.

No there freaking isn't a good chance at all and the rest is a giant non-sequitur