Conavirus......

[JaneV2.0]

Wuhan lab, eh? The last I saw, scientists had generally ruled that out.

Washington saw a decline in COVID cases in the last few days. Good news.

[iris lilies]

Wuhan lab, eh? The last I saw, scientists had generally ruled that out.

Washington saw a decline in COVID cases in the last few days. Good news.

Yes, ruling it out is likely, but we will never really know given the lies that come out of China.

The big improvement in The Science in recent many months is that reasonable people were allowed to examine the Wuhan-lab leak theory without jeering at them.

[JaneV2.0]

Science is the best tool we have, but it's subject to all the same human frailties (politics, greed, ambition, envy...) as other human endeavors.

[LDAHL]

The big improvement in The Science in recent many months is that reasonable people were allowed to examine the Wuhan-lab leak theory without jeering at them.

Much like the Hunter Biden laptop story. Banned in social media one day, grudgingly allowed the next.

Maybe “the Science” has become one of those rhetorical devices like “experts say” or “violating norms”. A vague but important-sounding smokescreen from which to attack uncongenial arguments.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The degree to which it was ever banned is probably way overstated, I think the Wuhan-lab leak theory has gone in and out of favor at times, sure there were times it was out of favor. The arguments against it were mostly that the characteristics of the virus meant it couldn't be a lab leak. Is almost anyone who would want to opine on that actually remotely qualified to? In most cases no. The degree to which China lies, oh please, all governments lie.

But it also struck me as not the most relevant question either, I think what many people wanted was better policy responses to the coronavirus. And some endless debate about orgins is just oh so fascinating, hey look at that squirrel over there, when the point is dealing with it now. Unless you are going to go full conspiracy, the virus was deliberately developed and released, not by accident, to say kill off some surplus population. And then well it is a simple explanation of why policy responses have been so bad. But hmm. But if it was a lab leak it could happen again. Yea maybe, I don't see whether it happened or not as being that informative of the possibility of a lab leak in the future. I mean the virus could have nothing to do with a lab leak, and study of gain of function and loose procedures could still have the possibility of leading to a lab leak sometimes in the future. I guess if everyone knew it was a lab leak and it was accidental, it would have some positive inhibiting effect, of the "omg what have we done, we need to stop this from happening again!" sort.

So people who said "listen to the science" I think mostly wanted better policy responses. I mean we had advocacy of utterly unproved medicines (hydroxychloroquine for one) coming as a response from the white house while people were getting sick and dying. Of course we did also have actual vaccine development.

[jp1]

Maybe “the Science” has become one of those rhetorical devices like “experts say” or “violating norms”. A vague but important-sounding smokescreen from which to attack uncongenial arguments.

If you're going to be dismissive of everything you disagree with you should at least include the ultimate in meaningless dismissive statements. "cancel culture"

But seriously, the reason some people have become dismissive of "the science" is because for the last two years we've watched "the science" happen in real time. In broad public view. Prior to covid "the science" happened in academic journals and academic conferences and the only people who paid attention were the academic people who work in that field. By the time "the science" was presented to the public years and years of study, discussion, revision, further study, further discussion, and finally, broad consensus was reached and the results would be shared with the broader public. Covid brought that normally messy process out into public from the start, on a very condensed timeline.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But seriously, the reason some people have become dismissive of "the science" is because for the last two years we've watched "the science" happen in real time. In broad public view.

honestly does much if any of this have anything to do with actual science or are we just talking about politically appointed talking heads discussing "the science", and others who are bribed political operatives. Blaming scientists for what those people do, doesn't seem a fair critique of science.

Prior to covid "the science" happened in academic journals and academic conferences and the only people who paid attention were the academic people who work in that field. By the time "the science" was presented to the public years and years of study, discussion, revision, further study, further discussion, and finally, broad consensus was reached and the results would be shared with the broader public.

And otoh this seems a highly romanticized and idealized view of science, almost a fairy tale. Like I don't think that's how almost anything happens in an often messy field like medicine, which is kind of what we are dealing with. It's not that noone is working on any actual science. If it's funded they are. But treatment decisions may be made on incomplete information etc..

And then issues of replicability have been raised (even in actual not just social science) but I don't know how significant that is. The problem is then scientists find themselves dealing with dishonest actors that just want to raise doubt like with tobacco or climate change (merchants of doubt). Anyway I think all anyone wanted out of "follow the science" from Trump was: do something to control this @#$# virus, don't just push a bunch of cures that don't work like so much snake oil!

[JaneV2.0]

According to this article, J&J has impressive staying power:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/20/healt...ine/index.html

[jp1]

honestly does much if any of this have anything to do with actual science or are we just talking about politically appointed talking heads discussing "the science", and others who are bribed political operatives. Blaming scientists for what those people do, doesn't seem a fair critique of science.



And otoh this seems a highly romanticized and idealized view of science, almost a fairy tale. Like I don't think that's how almost anything happens in an often messy field like medicine, which is kind of what we are dealing with. It's not that noone is working on any actual science. If it's funded they are. But treatment decisions may be made on incomplete information etc..

And then issues of replicability have been raised (even in actual not just social science) but I don't know how significant that is. The problem is then scientists find themselves dealing with dishonest actors that just want to raise doubt like with tobacco or climate change (merchants of doubt). Anyway I think all anyone wanted out of "follow the science" from Trump was: do something to control this @#$# virus, don't just push a bunch of cures that don't work like so much snake oil!

If it came across that I think science happens in a leave it to beaver world of politeness and perfect honesty then i failed to make my point. My point was simply that before covid science didn’t happen on the front page of every newspaper. Now it does. Sometimes honestly and messily. Sometimes dishonestly because it’s a politician or partisan hack media figure with an agenda. But to the average person it can easily end up looking like no one knows what the eff they are doing so why trust any of it.

[Yppej]

If it came across that I think science happens in a leave it to beaver world of politeness and perfect honesty then i failed to make my point. My point was simply that before covid science didn’t happen on the front page of every newspaper. Now it does. Sometimes honestly and messily. Sometimes dishonestly because it’s a politician or partisan hack media figure with an agenda. But to the average person it can easily end up looking like no one knows what the eff they are doing so why trust any of it.

If only it were out in the open. The CDC is hiding data and medical practitioners are having to get data from places like Israel.

The reason? The data shows people, with a few rare immunocompromised exceptions, do not need boosters if they are under age 65, but the CDC is looking out for the interests of Big Pharma.