You're using a proposition here, the truth value of which you do not know, assume it as true and then conclude that that is any type of evidence. — Benkei

I just don't see where you get that from. It seems really clear in the paragraph you cite.

If there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence — boethius

I'm saying here is that "if there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence"; in other words, a fact of the case.

(and, please note, I say "assuming this is true" in my analysis) — boethius

I was analyzing the Nobel Laureates argument, of which my first step is to see if it's sound or not, and I conclude it's unsound (i.e. if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow; it's pretty normal to assume the premises are true in prefacing an analysis of soundness; if the argument is sound, then validity becomes the next step to check; since I conclude it's not sound, I simply don't care about the premises).

However, simply because the argument is not sound does not render the purported facts that the argument is based on untrue and furthermore not-evidence.

This is all I'm explaining in saying:

that would need to be established if one wanted to argue that the virus was genetically engineered with HIV (if other evidence came to light, such as testimony of a researcher claiming they were involved in mixing HIV and coronavirus, it would of course be necessary to establish whether HIV genes really are in coronavirus in the first place, because it's important evidence to such an argument). — boethius

If it's true, then it's relevant evidence. This seems obvious to me for the reason I explain.

I'm making an "if" based statement: If it is true, it would have some relevance and be counted as evidence, as it's plausibly connected to the case.

This is in contrast to things that are true but don't have any plausible connection to the case (i.e. "the moon orbits the earth" I think we would agree is true, but also agree is not evidence in the coronavirus origins case), and also in contrast to things that are simply untrue (i.e. "Trump went on national television and admitted to personally creating coronavirus", I think we would agree is false and therefore not evidence because it is simply not a fact).

Again, you seem to just want to gatekeep what counts as evidence and so what arguments are allowed to be made in the first place. I am simply doing no such gatekeeping. If facts are consistent with a theory, I'm willing to admit that those facts are consistent with the proposed theory, why pretend otherwise. If the theory is plausibly connected to the origins of coronavirus I am willing to label such facts "evidence". Doesn't make the theory true, but if I'm not able to rule it out then the facts it's based on seem to me relevant evidence in the case (i.e. something we would want to keep a note of in the event further evidence starts to confirm the theory in question).

If you have no issue with any of my analysis, that your only issue is with labeling things evidence until "the case is closed" and we know the truth and can thus separate the relevant facts from the irrelevant (i.e. make a box of the "evidence that proved the case"), then I'd have no problem keeping to the more rigorous terminology of "potential evidence"; that everything that is a fact and plausibly connected to the case, has merely only the "potential" to become "evidence" in the event the case can be closed and we can go through the "evidence locker" and throw out all the details that turned out to be irrelevant (i.e. throw out the "evidence" from the "evidence locker" that we no longer need and therefore is "not evidence"). But if that's our disagreement, it seems your issue is with your own profession and not with me; it seems simply the case that detectives and lawyers claim to be "collecting evidence" and do not scrupulously stick to the more rigorous "collecting potential evidence" to put in the "potential evidence locker" to then "throw out potential evidence that turns out not to be actual evidence"; and so, evidence is used both in the context of "potential evidence to make a given case provided further evidence comes to light that proves it" (which is inclusive of everything that might be relevant) as well as in the context of "the case was proven based on this body of evidence" (which is exclusive of the things that turned out to be irrelevant). I completely agree that a profession which prides itself on rigorous thinking simply makes a fool of itself in using the word evidence to have different extension referents in different contexts and in the same case (before and after it is closed), and it is this sloppy non-rigorous diction that gives rise to the idea that "there's evidence that supports an argument" being true can be seen to imply, to the general public, that "the argument is the most likely because there is evidence" (i.e. the legal community has setup the opportunity for bait-and-switch fallacy on the ambiguity of the meaning of evidence; a crime? I think that is a case here we can settle).

I think the fact is that COVID-19 will surely be a focus of research even after the pandemic, hence there will be a lot of scrutiny about it. Hence I think this question can be answered. Simply too many labs are focusing on COVID-19 now. Yet unfortunately the answer won't make everybody happy, so it can remain quite vague as many things do at the present and you have to know your biology.

Or is this the beginning of a deadly pandemic? — Punshhh

Covid-19 is officially a Pandemic by definition (all people) and by declaration (WHO). Like the Spanish Flu of 1918, it affects the whole (pan-) world. You should "worry" about it though, only only to the extent that you can do something about it. Right now, about all non-specialists can do is wear masks and practice social distancing. But for those who think it's a hoax, we should be worried about them, because they could be asymptomatic carriers. All you can do in that case is shun those who don't wear protection. For example, some men don't wear condoms during casual sex, so it's up to the woman to shun them, or accept the fetal consequences. :joke:

Covid-19 vs Spanish Flu :
"Generally speaking, the fatality rate for the Spanish flu is calculated at about 2%. . . . .
the global fatality rate for COVID-19 as of April 1 is about 5%, although in the U.S. it is about 2.16%. . . . Some experts, . . . project the fatality rate will be about 1%, which is still about 10 times the fatality rate of a typical seasonal influenza of 0.1%."
https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/

World population 2020 = 7,800,000,000 x 2% = 156,000,000 people dead :fear:

But for those who think it's a hoax, we should be worried about them, because they could be asymptomatic carriers. — Gnomon

This....

As someone who works in the emergency room this is exactly why my hospital in particular is facing an uptick in admissions because younger people as well as conspiracy theorists think exactly like this.

But for those who think it's a hoax, we should be worried about them, because they could be asymptomatic carriers. — Gnomon

This.... — Anaxagoras

(y)


Conspiracy theorist died of coronavirus after trying to catch it at Covid party to prove it was a hoax (Jimmy McCloskey, Metro News, Jul 2020)

Darwin Award material?

"If countries having an outbreak [are] deciding to not share that information, there have to be consequences."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/27/china-truth-coronavirus-panorama-xi-jinping?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0nkxojQMyCQuw7oZz3iwxCsgZkQ2WQub8Jq08RGuzC6_LM2tUMlitt0JQ

Darwin Award material? — jorndoe

Yup and the unfortunate thing for him that award if for life.

I think the fact is that COVID-19 will surely be a focus of research even after the pandemic, hence there will be a lot of scrutiny about it. Hence I think this question can be answered. Simply too many labs are focusing on COVID-19 now. Yet unfortunately the answer won't make everybody happy, so it can remain quite vague as many things do at the present and you have to know your biology. — ssu

The problem is that the question is simply not resolvable in a lab. All three scenarios do not form a refutable hypothesis (a recipe that if followed, can confirm the hypothesis to any good faith actor).

For instance, it's been reported yesterday that the particular strain of coronavirus that COVID19 came from has found in the host bats. This does not rule out a lab accident, nor does it rule out a bioweapon. Obviously, labs collecting bat viruses could accidentally release one even without ever knowing they even had it. Likewise, bioweapons creators may seek to find viruses in nature that are the closest to being a strategic threat (either to create a weapon or investigate such potential weapons to mount a defense); indeed, this is "plan A" in the bioweapon creation tool box.

So, unless extremely obvious gene-editing techniques are used, none of the scenarios are really resolvable in a lab.

In terms of "what's mostly likely" given the available evidence, the problem is likelihood requires a null hypothesis to form. Getting a royal flush does not indicate in itself cheating as the null hypothesis is that royal flushes happen, as do "lucky streaks" etc. Following an individual player we need some time for "lucky hands" to happen in enough frequency to indicate cheating. However, if we're looking at a whole population of gamblers there is going to be people on entirely natural lucky streaks on the tail end.

The problem with calculating a null hypothesis for the pandemic is that a pandemic can happen at any time starting essentially anywhere, and has, so far, happened only once in our modern economy (which is very different from the 1918 or black plague economy; so these reference events inform us a type of phenomena can happen, but don't really provide a statistical natural background context of some sort). The statistical problems approaching this kind of unique event that can happen anywhere on the planet over a long period of time are essentially non-resolvable; any event of this kind is going to have all sorts of "peculiarities" associated with it, and there's little way to calculate what we should expect in terms of the "natural peculiarities" of a big unique event that can happen anywhere.

We all knew this was going to happen but we locked everything down anyway. Those who mocked and derided those worried about the economy can now witness the fruit of their labor.

From Latin America to South Asia to sub-Saharan Africa, more families than ever are staring down a future without enough food. The analysis published Monday found about 128,000 more young children will die over the first 12 months of the virus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/virus-linked-hunger-tied-to-10000-child-deaths-each-month/2020/07/27/84d349ca-d059-11ea-826b-cc394d824e35_story.html

The economic, food, and health systems disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to continue to exacerbate all forms of malnutrition. Estimates from the International Food Policy Research Institute suggest that because of the pandemic an additional 140 million people will be thrown into living in extreme poverty on less than US$1·90 per day in 2020.4 According to the World Food Programme, the number of people in LMICs facing acute food insecurity will nearly double to 265 million by the end of 2020.5 Sharp declines are expected in access to child health and nutrition services, similar to those seen during the 2014–16 outbreak of Ebola virus disease in sub-Saharan Africa.6 Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, UNICEF estimated a 30% overall reduction in essential nutrition services coverage, reaching 75–100% in lockdown contexts, including in fragile countries where there are humanitarian crises.7

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31647-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1HQCA_VMDyK-yPRQEdUM6HghHR0YrSX3VhI1VSYrMzG6vJsTqd5GT4gyM

Well Hermain Cain died of coronavirus after most likely contracting it at Trump's Tulsa rally

Hermain Cain — Maw

Hercain Main.

German Cain Nein Nein Nein

Well Hermain Cain died of coronavirus after most likely contracting it at Trump's Tulsa rally — Maw

Excellent news. One of the founders of Turning Point carked it too. Can't wait till more of these fucks drop dead.

Excellent news. One of the founders of Turning Point carked it too. Can't wait till more of these fucks drop dead. — StreetlightX

God I would hate to die this ironically

There a huge discussion here if masks should be obligatory or not. Using a mask is quite rare here. People don't use them.

I think this is it's understandable: the pandemic is quite low now. Nobody has died in a week and the 7 days before only one person died. There are eight people hospitalized in the whole country for covid-19 and none are critical. Daily new confirmed infections are now below ten. For now.

How those numbers compare to the US, multiply them by 66. And here you spot the difference: if there would be 528 people in hospitalized for COVID-19 in all of US and similar amount of infections observed daily in a population of 330 million, not the nearly 300 000 observed now, would there be a huge discussion for making use of masks obligatory in the US?

If the government will make the use of them obligatory (for example in public transports), likely people will obey.

Well Hermain Cain died of coronavirus after most likely contracting it at Trump's Tulsa rally — Maw

Meh. Correlation, causation let's call the whole thing off. Yes, for the record I did read your "most likely" but the message is the same.
~shrugs~

If the government will make the use of them obligatory (for example in public transports), likely people will obey. — ssu

I'm mystified at the suggestion that as Americans, we would somehow "obey" better than self regulate, calculate our own risks and act accordingly. As an American, I can tell you what incentives us to act, even if it goes against our own perspectives, is capatilisim. For better and/or for worse our behavior is chosen, to a point and that point is at the transaction of the dollar.
If a store that I want to shop at demands the wearing of a facial mask if I choose to shop there, I do so by their rules. There are a plethora of reasons why people should wear masks and if they don't want to wear one then they will have to find somewhere else to shop. That is the way the USA operates and I know you know this but I am not sure how you cannot see that thread running through this entire pandemic. When I look around my guesstimate is that 85% of people are wearing masks maybe 90,%? But 100% of my youngest indian entering his senior year, in person, on campus living as his University is an hour away, are required to wear masks unless they are in their dorm room. The University has quarentine hotel/dorms, daily temperature checks, the Wellness center that will triage if necessary.
Once again these are just a few of the changes but it follows the money. With a tuition of 52k, unless you have additional fuel costs for flight time to become a Pilot, the University WILL find a way to do it safely.
I've suggested plexy glass enclosed podium squares to allow the older professors to safely teach in person. And have also asked the admission for the risk ratio they are using. Is it a certain % of infected students that could shut things down? Tragically the death of a student or a Professor? Other parents and students want to know and they better have a plan.

I'm mystified at the suggestion that as Americans, we would somehow "obey" better than self regulate, calculate our own risks and act accordingly. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hi Tiff!

Oh I was talking about the Finns.

In fact it's very American to believe in self regulation. We Finns on the other hand are a very small country with few people (5+ million, so there's more Arizonians than Finns). Everybody here across party lines understands how truly expendable we are, so we really cherish having our own country and own government and hence take seriously what the government then tells us to do (even if many distrust the EU). For us there really are bigger potential enemies than our own government. People here may think that politicians are inept, but they don't think they are corrupt. They trust the police and the military. Just to prove the point I'll give a telling anecdote: The speed limit in urban areas is 50 km/h. A patrolling police car usually drives slower than this typically at 40 km/h. This creates a problem in Finland: the police car forms a queue behind it of hesitant Finnish drivers who don't dare pass the police car, because they fear that they might get a ticket for speeding. Hence they form a mini traffic jam. (Yes, there are those who do know what the speed limit is and will overtake the police car, but these kind of drivers driving behind the slow police car you genuinely do find.)

Another case example is the Hollywood catastrophe-movies. The ones where the heroic American dad struggles to get his family into safety against all odds fighting his way through hostile neighbors (who act like zombies!) and an insidious ominous government that doesn't care of it's people and on the way reconnects with his wife and gets the respect and admiration of his children. You surely know how the plot goes. If Finns would be depicted in this film, they would be the ones who go and stay inside their homes and listen from the TV or radio what the authorities are saying what they should to do, because, obviously, the authorities know. Americans would call these people sheeple, naive idiots who trust the government and follow it into their own doom.

Yet as you and I are now really living that catastrophe-movie (and there surely will be those movies made about this time for sure!), this difference genuinely shows in real life. Once the leftist-centrist administration (filled with young female women politicians btw.) here decided in agreement with the opposition to introduce a lock down because of covid-19, the public response was different. There really weren't any public discussion of government overreach, of freedoms of the individual being crushed (even if we have a similar constitution) or anybody openly saying that the whole issue was a hoax. The only outcry before the lock down decision was from city and municipality authorities that they wanted decisions and action taken by the central government as it wasn't their job to decide about these issues during a pandemic. And there we find the crux of the difference in culture, in the legal framework, history and why the US is so different from many European countries.

I've suggested plexy glass enclosed podium squares to allow the older professors to safely teach in person. And have also asked the admission for the risk ratio they are using. Is it a certain % of infected students that could shut things down? Tragically the death of a student or a Professor? Other parents and students want to know and they better have a plan. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And again here you see the difference.

In my job we are (also) pondering how to start again our voluntary courses. Surely we can decide what to do, but above every discussion is the acknowledgement that our own decisions are meaningless if the government, lead by the ruling administration, decides something else. The school semester will start for my 8 and 12 year old children in two weeks, and there's no reason to believe that the two different schools won't apply the same uniform code that basically comes down from the decisions taken by the administration on how to prevent a second surge of the pandemic in the fall. An individual school making up their own rules would likely create contempt and scorn from the parents and questions why the school officials would differ from the government rules. So there are truly differences in culture, I might say.

He's such a fuckin' embarrassment of a human being.

I think when he speaks like that lots of people see him as a strong leader sticking to his cards. Performing certainty. It is sad.

There's even more to the interview.

Suggesting that Epstein was murdered (don't seem able to post just that video).

I'm mystified at the suggestion that as Americans, we would somehow "obey" better than self regulate, calculate our own risks and act accordingly. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And Americans do such a good job of that. Have you not observed that a great many - too many - Americans, for a variety of reasons, are a whole lot stupider than the average bear? Drive much? Go to the store much? Socialize much? Converse much? Even get out much?

When everyone's on the same page, that's a beautiful thing. At the mall two days ago I counted at least 35 people without masks, in a city that requires them and in the presence of signs that require them. Interesting was that among the 35 were zero adult males (males looking at older than 25). And the trouble with Covid is that it's not just "your own" risk - if only it were!

Joining the party late, so pardon me if this was already discussed (and please point me to where it was).

Many people at my workplace are restless from stay-at-home, and have begun to very vocally express their skepticism about the severity of the pandemic. As far as I can tell, the underlying points include:

• Most people who get COVID-19 will recover (so what's the big deal?),
• Influenza kills more people than COVID-19 does, and influenza already has a vaccine (so what's the big deal?),
• There are known and effective treatments for COVID-19 (so this is all just hysteria).
• Many of those who are counted as deaths from COVID-19 actually died from something else, but happened to have COVID-19 in them when they died (so the statistics are exaggerated).
• The damages to the economy due to the quarantine will hurt more people than the pandemic will (education, recession, etc),
• The state does not have the right to control the behavior of the population in the way it has been doing, and that doing so is a slippery slope into tyranny.

I am not so dumb as to express my opinions at work and risk alienating myself from people I have to work with every day, but my views on this are:

• Tens-of-thousands of people could still be alive if we had acted quicker, and enforced the shutdown earlier. These deaths can be directly attributed to negligence.
• We should be glad COVID-19 is not as bad as influenza, and be glad that influenza has a vaccine. Deaths are still deaths.
• WHO would disagree.
• I cannot say I have an opinion on this one, only that I trust the word of an epidemiologist over the word of a programmer smh.
• If damages to the economy hurt more people than the response to COVID-19, the blame is not to be placed on the response, but to those who hoard a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and refuse to distribute it to those who need it most. Furthermore the pandemic is made worse because of this wealth inequality.
• LOL at this point.

What do y'all think?

It’s worse than that where I live. I’d estimate it to be about 50/50..on a good day. There have been several occasions where I was the only person in the store wearing a mask, including employees. This isn’t even mentioning the many people I’ve seen wearing masks inappropriately with their nose remaining uncovered. Granted, these are small stores with maybe 15 people in them, but still. Making mask wearing “mandatory,” as it is in my state, is ineffective without some type of enforcement.

Massachusetts, good. Over the line in NH, not so good. But they're the "Live Free or Die" state.

It strikes me the world is at war, about 706,000 dead already. And the enemy is right here with us. For a comparison, total US military personnel, all branches, in 1940, about 460,000. Total US military killed in WW2, 1939 - 1945, 407,316.

And that simply means that folks who aren't paying attention or are being stupid are aiding and abetting the enemy. Florid language maybe. But some careless or stupid man, woman, or child could kill your whole family, or maybe just a spouse, child, parent, or sibling. Or, in short, it is all very serious, and the people who want to sell you something have made it crystal clear they cannot be trusted - at all.

What do y'all think?

I agree, here in the UK it is the populist press which fuels the ideas that it is not a serious disease and that greater harm is being done to the economy. There are commentators saying that a mask is like a muzzle and is an affront to civil liberties etc. In reality it is the billionaire barons who own such media outlets and who fund the government who are scared, because they milk the system and it's their assets will are now devaluing big time. That is why there is a campaign to make people go back to the office rather than work from home, even though productivity might be up and bosses are happy with their workforce working remotely. The landlords who own the high rises office blocks who are loosing out and who hobnob with the Conservative government, the bribery is in plain sight now. The plan is to turn worker against worker and shame people to go back to the office.

Our government makes me sick, they are holding on by their fingernails and have been spiralling down since the financial crisis of 2008. Turning to more desperate means to keep in office and likely to take us all down with them, Brexit being a symptom of this trend.

What do y'all think? — darthbarracuda

What you depict and what and tell means that the US would have failed in it's pandemic response even without the absolute inability of Trump (which made it an absolute fail).

Because really, under a Hillary Clinton administration, would things have been so much better? Would your co-workers would have different attitudes? The last President that could have made Americans act as the government wants would have been Eisenhower.

Ike my North Star for modern Republicanism, and by which it is possible to navigate how far that party has departed its roots, course, and basic morality. Not that simple, of course.

In my fantasy, Hillary, channeling FDR and Barack, would have convened an open-ended series of chats in which she made clear that that we were in it, and the fan still blowing, and that as best science we were all going to have to do X, Y, and Z.

By the measure of deaths, today almost 720,000 reported, we're well into a world war, but in this case our enemy is not over there, but here and everywhere.

Imo, I think there would be no comparison between Hillary and the shithead/criminal/traitor/fool currently in office. Granted there would still be casualties, and maybe many, but those mostly and mainly people who played with fire and got burned. And I think Hillary might have sought laws making some stupidity an offense, because the stupidity itself a public hazard.

But no mistake, until and unless a successful vaccine is available in about 7-odd billion-with-a-B doses, we're at war, and until, it's imo going to get much worse. One can hope, though.

Because really, under a Hillary Clinton administration, would things have been so much better? — ssu

The answer to this really depends on how easily influenced the general population is, which itself somewhat depends on how charismatic the president is. I don’t have an answer to that question, but I’d imagine that if you took the time to pour over all the data you would find an uptick in certain areas since Trump took office. Racist behaviors would likely be one example. It is also obvious that Trump is viewed/portrayed as a racist by much of the population. Therefore, you could at least assume a correlation between the two. Having a president that is largely viewed as racist at least has some affect on racist behavior. However, even this doesn’t show that people’s beliefs on race were actually changed by Trump being in office. It could be that those who were already racist felt more comfortable in exhibiting racist behavior.

So, I’m not naive enough to believe that having a president that embraces conspiracy theories over science, makes his name by mocking all things “liberal” (which includes health and safety concerns), and generally endorses typical macho male behaviors (i.e. risk taking by not wearing masks) has no affect on the population. But at the same time I’m not sure of what Clinton’s response to the virus would have been, or how she would have been viewed/portrayed by those who oppose her. Answering how different things would have been requires knowledge of how different they would have been, as well as countless other variables that need to be factored in to account for something as complex as human behavior/beliefs. So I can’t answer this question with any certainty whatsoever, and at the same time you cannot assume that things would have been more or less similar had Clinton been elected instead.

But at the same time I’m not sure of what Clinton’s response to the virus would have been, or how she would have been viewed/portrayed by those who oppose her. — Pinprick

Obama administration did deal with things like ebola outbreaks, so you can extrapolate from there. And the relationship Hillary Clinton has with Republicans is obvious and likely wouldn't have changed.

Why I asked this is simply because:

a) I believe that the vitriolic juxtaposition and the divisive polarization would also continue under a Hillary Clinton presidency. This isn't just about Trump, even if he makes things worse. If you think how little the Hillary scandals were, the missing emails or Benghazi, how about then a scandal like Jeffrey Epstein, a sex ring organizer with ties to the ex-president husband of the sitting president getting killed in prison when on suicide watch? Just one example.

b) How do you think the relations would have gone with Hillary Clinton and the republican governors? You think that would have been a great team effort everybody?

Let's look at what the Trump administration did do: it poured trillions of dollars into the economy without a blink of the eye and the democrats came along with this. Steve Mnuchin did do something (and now it's the Republicans dragging their feet). Think of this situation when a democratic administration and with the opposition being the Republicans. Would they play ball?

The unfortunate thing is that except if the country is under a terrorist attack, there's not unity that the two ruling parties will show to each other because they know that if the other fails, then the other will have the next administration. That's the logic behind all the vitriol and non-existent bi-partisanship.

It comes down to even issues like fighting a pandemic.