I don't think this belongs on HN, can someone explain to me why this does, seeing as this is number one on the front page? This doesn't seem to stimulate good and curious discussion to me.
>and that it leaked from a lab (based on the lockdown and sequestering of lab personnel in december).
You say "sound evidence" and then name some circumstantial evidence. This is similar types of evidence used for the "Fort Detrick origin" story. It was shut down in August 2019 for safety violations, and the Wuhan military games "could be" how it spread to China.
I skimmed your article but I don't see any "sound evidence" proposed in the article either.
The line between "conspiracy theory" and "a theoretically possible hypothesis that can neither be proven nor ruled out" is kind of murky for me, but if you are claiming "there are sound evidence that COVID comes from a lab leak", then you cannot support your argument by only citing "space for reasonable doubts" (which is what your article said).
Despite that fact...the seemingly bought and paid for WHO were still claiming in late January that there was no person to person transmission. That stopped the US from doing any sort of checks of any sort and life went on...all the while the virus was spreading all over the country.
As far as I know at that time they had no proof of person to person transmission. There are many coronaviruses in the wild, across many animal hosts, some can hop from person to person, some cannot. Many/most medical professionals did they same - stuck to the evidence and refused to hypothesize.
Why do you say the WHO are bought and paid for? Do you have any real evidence of that?
Depends upon what is evidence, what is influence, what is not allow … and do not hypothesise ! The whole science is based on doing hypotheses. And imagining something not allowed or again st established thinking based on fact on the ground. Who has not. Medical journal has not. It killed us …
China refused to let the WHO in and do actual investigative work. Instead they took China's word for it and repeated whatever they said as fact. China covered up the spread of the disease and instead tried to hide it. The fact that the WHO doesn't recognize Taiwan (like there is no such place) and refused to act on information they had saying there was problems in Wuhan because China won't let them.
>That same day, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control said it sent an email to the WHO regarding rumors of at least “seven cases of atypical pneumonia,” which it said is code in China for “a disease transmitted between humans caused by coronavirus.”
Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, and the WHO says the email never mentioned human-to-human transmission. “Public health professionals could discern from this wording that there was a real possibility of human-to-human transmission of the disease,” the Taiwan CDC argues. “However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission.”
Apparently, Taiwanese officials had been alerted to Dec. 30 posts in a chat room by a doctor, Li Wenliang, in which he said that seven cases he had been treating resembled severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, a deadly form of coronavirus. Li was reprimanded by the Chinese government for illegally spreading rumors. He later died of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Taiwan actually rounded up tourists from the mainland and sent them back home, then locked down travel for all. They took it seriously from the start, ignored what the WHO and CCP were saying. I don't doubt there were many more reports from Taiwanese on the mainland, over just the posts by Li.
Yep...because if anyone has a huge amount of skepticism of Chinese information it's going to be Taiwan. They have recently taken a turn for the worse, but they managed through over a year with very little infections (<1,000) because they acted early and took every precaution...including travel bans. They saw a huge jump in May and took immediate action and the new infection rate is now low double digits per day.
I don't dispute anything in the Washington post link you sent, perhaps we are just reading it differently. I didn't think that it supported your position. Here's some of the poignant WHO statements from that article, made between Dec 31 to Jan 20 at the start of the pandemic:
> The WHO is heavily reliant on information provided by countries and cannot fine countries that fail to provide accurate information.
> However, because at the time there were as yet no cases of the disease in Taiwan, we could not state directly and conclusively that there had been human-to-human transmission
> Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses with some causing less-severe disease, such as the common cold, and others more severe disease such as MERS and SARS. Some transmit easily from person to person, while others do not. According to Chinese authorities, the virus in question can cause severe illness in some patients and does not transmit readily between people.
> Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported
> Based on experience with SARS and MERS ... protect health workers recommending droplet and contact precautions when caring for patients, and airborne precautions
> At this stage, there is no infection among healthcare workers, and no clear evidence of human to human transmission.
> The way these patients became infected is not yet known.
> based on the available information there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission
> Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission
> It is still early days, we don’t have a clear clinical picture
> There is the possibility that transmission can be amplified. Most notably in health-care facilities
> some limited human-to-human transmission occurring between close contacts
> It is now very clear from the latest information that there is at least some human-to-human transmission of #nCoV2019. Infections among health care workers strengthen the evidence for this
So it looks to me like the WHO is in the position of relaying the data they get from China. They said this. They also relayed other very relevant info about the behaviour or other coronaviruses, saying that human-to-human transmission could go either way. Furthermore they relayed new information as it became available.
I don't see any of this as an indication that they were bought and paid for. Do you assume that the WHO could force their way into places the Chinese government wouldn't allow them? That's not how international organizations work.
It would make more sense if you suspected that the Chinese were witholding data. But you haven't provided any evidence that WHO did.
The WHO refuses to acknowledge that Taiwan exists...because of China. A supposedly independent organization that is supposed to be above politics...won't recognize an island of more than 30 million people. Taiwan proved that they knew something was up and did the right thing early on...all while trying to get the word out. The WHO never passed that information on and instead only repeated what China told it...then the US followed the advice of the WHO and utterly failed in it's response.
About 90% of the countries in the world, including the U.S., do not recognize Taiwan, because of diplomatic pressure from China. In China's view Taiwan is a rebellious state that only exists due to foreign interference.
That's not something that the WHO decided to do. The WHO is an international organization setup by participating countries to operate under rules they, as a group, specify and sign onto. The U.S. was involved in this. The WHO can't do whatever they want.
So I would agree with you that it appears that the WHO may not have relayed the Dec 31 email from Taiwan, as per the Washington Post article you linked to. It's probably safer to blame this more on bureaucratic stupidy than malice. But they did have a release 6 days later on Jan 6, with many more releases over the month relaying the information they received, including warnings about and suspicion of human transmission several days later, then on Jan 14, confirmation of human to human transmission.
You earlier claimed that delayed reporting from the WHO "stopped the US from doing any sort of checks of any sort and life went on...all the while the virus was spreading all over the country."
So when did the U.S. first take action? February? March? Are you saying that the delay between the Dec 31 email from Taiwan and the WHO release on Jan 6 made a difference? If so, then why did the U.S. wait so long to react after the reports of human to human transmission?
Do you understand why I don't follow your logic? You seem to be insisting on a conspiracy where I'm not seeing the link between cause and affect that you are. Perhaps you are looking too hard for a scapegoat?
> WHO > That stopped the US from doing any sort of checks
Rubbish. Since when does the US listen to overseas authorities - only when you can use them as an excuse.
Taiwan instigated their procedures to start lockdown on people from China on December 31st, 2019.
The US has their own sources of information, and chose to ignore them, and the US has been burdened by the consequences of the poor decision making of your authorities.
Disclaimer: I am from New Zealand, that has so far done pretty well, which isn’t simply because we are a pacific island.
Yes, that's why they no longer in the control group. Informed consent can be withdrawn at any time during a trial, and people are not obligated to not take a vaccine when in the control group. The only thing you can do is remove someone from the study, or possibly move them to the other study arm.
I don't have a link, but I've noticed that quite a few videos in the similar corner of topics need an "age check" (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI , the creator of which was (according to them) visited by DHS for "anti-american sentiments" [1] )
So glad you mentioned this, I've also noticed this. Agreed, it's scary and crazy what happened to JT Chapman/Second Thought. This 'age check' is also a pretty convenient way for Google to 'passively' create a list of people who watch "anti-american sentiment" videos.
>Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation.
If only the US would live by that when looking at other countries. Sanctions, embargos, trade-restrictions, threats are used against other countries by the US, why should they be treated any different themselves?
Because US is hegemon and can essentially do as it pleases without immediate consequence. This is why Russia and China have been focusing on destabilizing the US and minor geopolitical moves to chip away as opposed to directly challenging US authority.
The US is powerful and can do that. Well, at least up to some extend but even then it turns to be ineffective but as we see with the recent developments.
because for the US, to sanction basically any country is a blip on their economy, but for any other country, indeed blocs of countries to reciprocate that means not only losing your second or third largest trade partners but also shutting you economy off for electronics, software, international financial services, etc
Thanks to US we already know how to handle this - there is a plenty of secret locations in various different countries where the perpetrators can be safely tried and then handled according to the sentence.
I doubt the US would take their citizens suddenly disappearing in a country very well either, and keeping it hidden would be difficult. Maybe you could secretly convict a soldier who desecrated corpses or something, but people like Gina Haspel would be nearly impossible without ramifications.
Especially considering this is a multiple testing issue. When checking a lot of politicians there is likely going to be someone who is doing really well, even if it's just by chance.
>On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement, which leaves very little room for a confrontational political message.
I think hopeful instead of optimistic. Even going with optimistic, it seems to be optimistic about the opportunity and possibility of (political) change.
