COVID-19 (f/k/a "the Coronavirus")

[pacearrow02]

My link is the official press release from the Mississippi poison control center and the lead doctor associated with it. They deemed it a significant problem to issue a press release.

They later clarified the exact meaning of the 70%, but verified that there were 1282 poisonings/exposures from August 1-23rd in Mississippi alone, hence the press report indicating to stop taking medicine meant for livestock.

Nothing I posted was incorrect. Quit trolling.

70% of 2% your link was wrong.  Quit spreading misinformation

[Uncle Rico]

70% of 2% your link was wrong.  Quit spreading misinformation

Sure, Jan

[Pakuni]

70% of 2% your link was wrong.  Quit spreading misinformation

What's the acceptable number of people ingesting livestock de-wormer to own the libs?

[pacearrow02]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBC/status/1435611089388150788

You still think I’m trolling?  When the dust settles Fauci will not be looking the hero we made him out to be. 

On a separate note, my man crush on Gotty only grows.

[pacearrow02]

What's the acceptable number of people ingesting livestock de-wormer to own the libs?

I ask you.  What’s the acceptable level of lies and misinformation you’re good with to own the cons?

[jficke13]

The problem here is we've got far too many Marats and not nearly enough bathtubs and knives.

[Pakuni]

I ask you.  What’s the acceptable level of lies and misinformation you’re good with to own the cons?

Answer the question, troll.
My answer is none.

[MUBurrow]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBC/status/1435611089388150788

You still think I’m trolling?  When the dust settles Fauci will not be looking the hero we made him out to be. 

On a separate note, my man crush on Gotty only grows.

You've been connecting criticism of the gain of function explanation with criticism of Fauci for some time now.  Is the criticism that gain of function is an inappropriate explanation for what was going on "inside" the Wuhan lab, or that the Wuhan lab was insufficiently secure for the type of gain of function research it was performing?

Also how does Fauci factor into either criticism?

[forgetful]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBC/status/1435611089388150788

You still think I’m trolling?  When the dust settles Fauci will not be looking the hero we made him out to be. 

On a separate note, my man crush on Gotty only grows.

Yes, still trolling.

None of what Gottleib said is wrong, and none of it actually supports your narrative regarding Fauci. It also does nothing in relation to identifying COVID origins, or changing the calculus on where this originated.

And your narrative regarding Fauci will always be trolling, because you have zero understanding of how funding decisions are made at the NIH, and Fauci's role in those funding decisions.

[pacearrow02]

You've been connecting criticism of the gain of function explanation with criticism of Fauci for some time now.  Is the criticism that gain of function is an inappropriate explanation for what was going on "inside" the Wuhan lab, or that the Wuhan lab was insufficiently secure for the type of gain of function research it was performing?

Also how does Fauci factor into either criticism?

Because Fauci, along with Collins were the ones responsible for funding the very gain of function research that led to millions of deaths and they’ve been lying about that for over a year. 

I imagine he knew full well that there were problems with the WIV that made for an environment of a possible lab escape so to turn a blind eye to those safety gaps and continue to partner with them i feel is something he needs to be held accountable for.  And all I mean by accountable is for him to be honest and step down from his position with the NIH.  I’m sure there are perfectly good and ethical reasons for gain of function research but when that research leads to millions of deaths via a lab leak I don’t think you should be able to keep your job. 

He knew from the get go that the wet market theory was hog wash but chose instead to mislead the world to try and cover his own ass.

[pacearrow02]

Yes, still trolling.

None of what Gottleib said is wrong, and none of it actually supports your narrative regarding Fauci. It also does nothing in relation to identifying COVID origins, or changing the calculus on where this originated.

And your narrative regarding Fauci will always be trolling, because you have zero understanding of how funding decisions are made at the NIH, and Fauci's role in those funding decisions.

So who should be held responsible at the NIH for the funding if not Fauci?

[MUBurrow]

Because Fauci, along with Collins were the ones responsible for funding the very gain of function research that led to millions of deaths and they’ve been lying about that for over a year. 

I imagine he knew full well that there were problems with the WIV that made for an environment of a possible lab escape so to turn a blind eye to those safety gaps and continue to partner with them i feel is something he needs to be held accountable for.  And all I mean by accountable is for him to be honest and step down from his position with the NIH.  I’m sure there are perfectly good and ethical reasons for gain of function research but when that research leads to millions of deaths via a lab leak I don’t think you should be able to keep your job. 

He knew from the get go that the wet market theory was hog wash but chose instead to mislead the world to try and cover his own ass.

Thanks for the follow up.

[4everwarriors]

Taught FD Joe wuz gonna control da virus, aina?

[tower912]

Eef the dumm sheets wownt tayk it....

[forgetful]

So who should be held responsible at the NIH for the funding if not Fauci?

Here is more proof you are trolling.

1. You have decided, despite no evidence or knowledge at all on the subject that COVID was released from the Wuhan facility. All data still indicates the most likely source is natural.

2. You have decided, despite no knowledge on the legal or scientific definitions of "gain-of-function" research as it pertains to the government ban on such research, that what was done was in violation of that ban. Even Gottlieb acknowledged that there are specific legal and scientific definitions at play here.

3. You have decided, despite no knowledge of how funding and review of grants are conducted, that Fauci and Collins are responsible, for something that is still unsupported by actual data.

------------------------

Despite these three aspects, you declare with certainty, that COVID was released from the lab, who was conducting gain of function research, at the direction of Fauci/Collins. Pure trolling.

Now, we can address the three above if you like. And I will for information sake, but we all know you will continue to push your narrative...because a trolls gotta troll.

On 1, let me repeat, the current data still indicates the most likely origin was natural.

On 2, as Gottlieb notes, there are specific definitions to what was forbidden. By all accounts it appears as if what was being done, did not constitute gain-of-function research based on those definitions.

On 2, and 3. The ban didn't technically ban all gain-of-function research. It was allowed based on the discretion of heads of funding agencies, in this case Fauci or Collins. The decision on whether something was gain-of-function is not made by them, but through a lengthy review process.

Grants are first examined based on simply following form. If they deviate from the required form at all, they are triaged. All that follow form are peer-reviewed and scored by panels. I serve on some of these panels.

Those panels review them for merit, but also special considerations, like use of human subjects, animal subjects, and rigor and reproducibility of the methods (as well as whether the requested $ amount is justified). If it doesn't follow the moral/ethical/legal requirements it is triaged by these panels at this point.

Once they are all scored, a program officer prioritizes them based on a combination of score, demographics, and program objectives/priorities. Again, any issues related to moral/ethical/legal requirements will be reviewed at this stage before any grants are recommended for funding. The program officer recommends certain grants based on these priorities, and writes up justifications/arguments for their funding (or against for high scoring grants that are not recommended).

At this point, those grants are presented to the advisory council. Here is the current roster for the NIAID advisory council:

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/advisory-council-biographies

This is the first time anything is presented at all to Fauci. At each of these councils many grants are discussed. In total for the Jan. 2021 council, 5678 applications were discussed with final approval of 2579 grants. No one is reading all of them. They are relying on the reports, investigations, and findings of the review committees and program officers.

Even after the 2579 grants are approved/recommended for funding. They undergo further rigorous review over every detail to make sure there are no errors, and everything conforms to legal/moral/ethical guidelines. Again this is done by committees and underlings.

The final sign of by someone like Fauci/Collins is a matter of form, no additional review is done at this stage...unless it was determined in the process that it is considered "gain-of-function" research. At that junction, they do have to formally sign off on it being exempt for the ban and justified. Importantly, again there would be a paper trail at this last stage, as well as at the stages prior where it was a identified.

The reason none of this paper trail has been put forth is because it doesn't exist. Even if after the fact people view this as actually being "gain-of-function" the fault doesn't lie in Fauci or Collins, but the numerous bureaucratic layers beneath it that missed flagging it as gain of function. Even at that point, there is still no evidence indicating this resulted in the COVID outbreak.

Despite all this, I still support investigating the origins whether natural (most likely) or not. Not for any blame/fault purposes, so that we can learn and identify ways to avoid this in the future. Because that is what we do in science.

tldr: Pace is still trolling.

[pacearrow02]

Here is more proof you are trolling.

1. You have decided, despite no evidence or knowledge at all on the subject that COVID was released from the Wuhan facility. All data still indicates the most likely source is natural.

2. You have decided, despite no knowledge on the legal or scientific definitions of "gain-of-function" research as it pertains to the government ban on such research, that what was done was in violation of that ban. Even Gottlieb acknowledged that there are specific legal and scientific definitions at play here.

3. You have decided, despite no knowledge of how funding and review of grants are conducted, that Fauci and Collins are responsible, for something that is still unsupported by actual data.

------------------------

Despite these three aspects, you declare with certainty, that COVID was released from the lab, who was conducting gain of function research, at the direction of Fauci/Collins. Pure trolling.

Now, we can address the three above if you like. And I will for information sake, but we all know you will continue to push your narrative...because a trolls gotta troll.

On 1, let me repeat, the current data still indicates the most likely origin was natural.

On 2, as Gottlieb notes, there are specific definitions to what was forbidden. By all accounts it appears as if what was being done, did not constitute gain-of-function research based on those definitions.

On 2, and 3. The ban didn't technically ban all gain-of-function research. It was allowed based on the discretion of heads of funding agencies, in this case Fauci or Collins. The decision on whether something was gain-of-function is not made by them, but through a lengthy review process.

Grants are first examined based on simply following form. If they deviate from the required form at all, they are triaged. All that follow form are peer-reviewed and scored by panels. I serve on some of these panels.

Those panels review them for merit, but also special considerations, like use of human subjects, animal subjects, and rigor and reproducibility of the methods (as well as whether the requested $ amount is justified). If it doesn't follow the moral/ethical/legal requirements it is triaged by these panels at this point.

Once they are all scored, a program officer prioritizes them based on a combination of score, demographics, and program objectives/priorities. Again, any issues related to moral/ethical/legal requirements will be reviewed at this stage before any grants are recommended for funding. The program officer recommends certain grants based on these priorities, and writes up justifications/arguments for their funding (or against for high scoring grants that are not recommended).

At this point, those grants are presented to the advisory council. Here is the current roster for the NIAID advisory council:

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/advisory-council-biographies

This is the first time anything is presented at all to Fauci. At each of these councils many grants are discussed. In total for the Jan. 2021 council, 5678 applications were discussed with final approval of 2579 grants. No one is reading all of them. They are relying on the reports, investigations, and findings of the review committees and program officers.

Even after the 2579 grants are approved/recommended for funding. They undergo further rigorous review over every detail to make sure there are no errors, and everything conforms to legal/moral/ethical guidelines. Again this is done by committees and underlings.

The final sign of by someone like Fauci/Collins is a matter of form, no additional review is done at this stage...unless it was determined in the process that it is considered "gain-of-function" research. At that junction, they do have to formally sign off on it being exempt for the ban and justified. Importantly, again there would be a paper trail at this last stage, as well as at the stages prior where it was a identified.

The reason none of this paper trail has been put forth is because it doesn't exist. Even if after the fact people view this as actually being "gain-of-function" the fault doesn't lie in Fauci or Collins, but the numerous bureaucratic layers beneath it that missed flagging it as gain of function. Even at that point, there is still no evidence indicating this resulted in the COVID outbreak.

Despite all this, I still support investigating the origins whether natural (most likely) or not. Not for any blame/fault purposes, so that we can learn and identify ways to avoid this in the future. Because that is what we do in science.

tldr: Pace is still trolling.

Thanks for that detailed response, sincerely.

So in your opinion if this does end up being considered gain of function there should be no accountability for Fauci/Collins because of the bureaucratic layers below them?  Nothing at all, just chalk it up to a learning experience?

If in your opinion it’s not considered gain of function what would you call it?  Seems what they were funding and what the WIV was doing fits the textbook definition for gain of function.

Still not trolling!!

[Uncle Rico]

Thanks for that detailed response, sincerely.

So in your opinion if this does end up being considered gain of function there should be no accountability for Fauci/Collins because of the bureaucratic layers below them?  Nothing at all, just chalk it up to a learning experience?

If in your opinion it’s not considered gain of function what would you call it?  Seems what they were funding and what the WIV was doing fits the textbook definition for gain of function.

Still not trolling!!

Lol

[Jockey]

Taught FD Joe wuz gonna control da virus, aina?

So, you are calling for mandatory vaccine for every American? What should Joe do when the people on your side start using their guns to keep from being vaccinated.

Instead of some inane scoop-bonics comment, how about a solution?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So, you are calling for mandatory vaccine for every American? What should Joe do when the people on your side start using their guns to keep from being vaccinated.

Instead of some inane scoop-bonics comment, how about a solution?

They have something far more powerful to keep people from getting vaccinated: Fox, OAN, Newsmax, 1500 AM radio stations, etc. etc.

[Hards Alumni]

so if one had covid, they should pay higher insurance rates and be sent to dental offices? 

judging from your reactions and responses, i'm not so sure you will ever have a "normal life"  take care of yourself, get vaccinated if you want(which i'm sure you already have) and wear a mask.  wear a shield and 2 masks...whatever.  if that doesn't protect you, sorry, there is not much more. 

should one be denied medical care, tests etc due to their political or religious beliefs?  how about sexual orientation?

No, if one is unvaccinated for no reason other than bullcrap excuse than, "I don't wanna" and calls it 'political' then yes, they should absolutely pay for the increased burden they are putting on the system.

I certainly never suggested denying anyone medical care. 

[MU82]

Four NC medical professionals, including two infectious disease experts, are asked if folks should feel safe going to well-attended sporting events. All four say no.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article253976318.html?

[JWags85]

Four NC medical professionals, including two infectious disease experts, are asked if folks should feel safe going to well-attended sporting events. All four say no.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article253976318.html?

That summation is a bit dramatic but I did think there was some good nuance in there.  One specifically spoke of risk tolerance and assessing individual factors which I think is important.  One seemed to be speaking generally, mentioning unvaxxed and elderly in the same breath as vaccinated when giving advice.

But it’s nothing you wouldn’t expect.  That’s a group of people who naturally are imbued with extra caution given both what they’ve seen and their medical specialities.

 It always makes me think of my old dermatologist.  He said you should have a minimum of SPF 50 whenever the UV was above a 3 or 4.  He always wore broad hat whenever he left the house in the spring/summer/fall.  His wife was also a practicing Derm and wore long sleeves and gloves during sunny warmer times.  They were great doctors and great people, but was always helpful to remember they were very black and white and life is often shades of grey

As has come up a lot the last few days, listen to experts and make your own assessments of risk…after you’ve been vaccinated cause FFS

[MU82]

That summation is a bit dramatic but I did think there was some good nuance in there.  One specifically spoke of risk tolerance and assessing individual factors which I think is important.  One seemed to be speaking generally, mentioning unvaxxed and elderly in the same breath as vaccinated when giving advice.

But it’s nothing you wouldn’t expect.  That’s a group of people who naturally are imbued with extra caution given both what they’ve seen and their medical specialities.

 It always makes me think of my old dermatologist.  He said you should have a minimum of SPF 50 whenever the UV was above a 3 or 4.  He always wore broad hat whenever he left the house in the spring/summer/fall.  His wife was also a practicing Derm and wore long sleeves and gloves during sunny warmer times.  They were great doctors and great people, but was always helpful to remember they were very black and white and life is often shades of grey

As has come up a lot the last few days, listen to experts and make your own assessments of risk…after you’ve been vaccinated cause FFS

Lots of common sense there, Wags.

[jesmu84]

That summation is a bit dramatic but I did think there was some good nuance in there.  One specifically spoke of risk tolerance and assessing individual factors which I think is important.  One seemed to be speaking generally, mentioning unvaxxed and elderly in the same breath as vaccinated when giving advice.

But it’s nothing you wouldn’t expect.  That’s a group of people who naturally are imbued with extra caution given both what they’ve seen and their medical specialities.

 It always makes me think of my old dermatologist.  He said you should have a minimum of SPF 50 whenever the UV was above a 3 or 4.  He always wore broad hat whenever he left the house in the spring/summer/fall.  His wife was also a practicing Derm and wore long sleeves and gloves during sunny warmer times.  They were great doctors and great people, but was always helpful to remember they were very black and white and life is often shades of grey

As has come up a lot the last few days, listen to experts and make your own assessments of risk…after you’ve been vaccinated cause FFS

The last part is key. Too many unvax

[rocket surgeon]

No, if one is unvaccinated for no reason other than bullcrap excuse than, "I don't wanna" and calls it 'political' then yes, they should absolutely pay for the increased burden they are putting on the system.

I certainly never suggested denying anyone medical care.

  what if someone got an std and didn't practice "safe sex" should they be ignored or pay higher premiums or go to back of the line?