[Bored chemist]

Who says it wasn't? 

The death toll.
In the US at the moment the single biggest cause of death is covid.
That's what happens if you have the virus and no effective countermeasures.
And you are saying that was the case in Spain last March.

Do you really think that people wouldn't notice if more people were dying from some odd respiratory  illness tan from anything else?

Many people have died from Corona due to bad treatment, like being placed on a ventilator as an example.

Thank you for airing the  depths of your medical knowledge.

You still for got to include any evidence.

[Bored chemist]

You need to explain why this didn't happen in spain last year.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/the-rapid-increase-of-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-in-one-graphic.html

[Jolly2]

You need to explain why this didn't happen in spain last year.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/the-rapid-increase-of-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-in-one-graphic.html

I dont need to explain anything.

Reality is the current Coronavirus has been arround a lot longer then the official narrivite suggests.

They have only started recording deaths as Corona in this last year.(which could be an explanation) And there have been complaints from some quarters of medicine that they are feeling pressure to list deaths as Corona and so exzarergate the numbers.

Possibly the secound wave is more deathly.... maybe 2020 is the secound wave. Can only speculate. 

[Bored chemist]

You need to explain why this didn't happen in spain last year.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/the-rapid-increase-of-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-in-one-graphic.html

I dont need to explain anything.

Reality is the current Coronavirus has been arround a lot longer then the official narrivite suggests.

They have only started recording deaths as Corona in this last year.(which could be an explanation) And there have been complaints from some quarters of medicine that they are feeling pressure to list deaths as Corona and so exzarergate the numbers.

Possibly the secound wave is more deathly.... maybe 2020 is the secound wave. Can only speculate. 

So, you reckon that the death rate could more than double without anyone noticing.

It didn't matter if the called it "covid" or not; people would have noticed the queue at the crematorium.

[Bored chemist]

Reality is the current Coronavirus has been arround a lot longer then the official narrivite suggests.

So far, you have put forward absolutely no evidence for this idea.

[set fair]

New York city, northen Italy... if the virus were around last spring we would have seen mass death much sooner. We know that unckecked, cases double in less than a week. Even at at a doubling of just once a week there would be a billion cases in 7 months.

It's possible that what they found in Barcelona was SARS CoV2 minus a significant later mutation - a significant mutation can be as small as you like.

I am baffled by the genetic sequence of the Barcelona find not being published, nor any reason given. It seems the obvious next step.

[set fair]

app

And apparently there are 6 inserts in Covid19. 4 of the inserts make the virus more infectious in humans.

OK, first problem- can you provide some sort of citation.

https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860 Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen - so info only, I'm not expressing an opinion.

[Bored chemist]

I am baffled by the genetic sequence of the Barcelona find not being published, nor any reason given. It seems the obvious next step.

"The paper is currently being subject to critical review by outside experts in preparation for publication in a scientific journal. Until this process of peer review has been completed, though, the evidence needs to be treated with caution."
from
https://www.independent.co.uk/health_and_wellbeing/coronavirus-here-earlier-march-europe-2019-a9590801.html

[Bored chemist]

Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen -

Well in that article, he says re. the virus and Wuhan
"There are very few who still believe that the epidemic started there,".
Well, that's an interesting interesting assertion- because that's where people started dying. I think that most people think the outbreak started there.

Obviously, I haven't asked everyone on the planet, but I think what he has done there is make a false statement.

[set fair]

Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen -

Well in that article, he says re. the virus and Wuhan
"There are very few who still believe that the epidemic started there,".

Come on you can do better than that, he said Wuhan Seafod Market not Wuhan

[Bored chemist]

I'm sorry I thought you all read the news.

Yes.
We may have read these bits
"The research has been submitted for a peer review."
"There was the potential for a false positive due to the virus’ similarities with other respiratory infections.

“But it’s definitely interesting, it’s suggestive,” Villalbi said."


So we may still be waiting for evidence.

Honestly love watching you nit pick😊

Pointing out that the guy says stuff that's almost certainly not true isn't "nit picking", is it?

So, you have an unpublished report and a man who says things that seem very wrong.

As I said.

So far, you have put forward absolutely no evidence for this idea.

On the other hand, if it was true, we would know about it; as Set Fair points out.
 

Even at at a doubling of just once a week there would be a billion cases in 7 months.

So, if you think it's true, how did you explain that to yourself?
How come the bodies weren't piling up?

[Jolly2]

Honestly love watching you nit pick😊

Pointing out that the guy says stuff that's almost certainly not true isn't "nit picking", is it?

So, you have an unpublished report and a man who says things that seem very wrong.

As you said yourself

Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen -

Obviously, I haven't asked everyone on the planet, but I think what he has done there is make a false statement.

You don't know, you think maybe, hence you're more accusing him of lying based on a hunch. And accusing him of lying over semantics actually. The majority of people he talks with may well now conclude the same as him.

Rather than go on... you come across as not picking much

I'll yawn on the peer review.

[Bored chemist]

The majority of people he talks with may well now conclude the same as him.

If most people don't agree with him, it's not semantics; he's wrong.
And it doesn't matter what his friends say.

Do you not understand that you aren't only failing to understand the science here; you are failing to understand common sense?

I'll yawn on the peer review.

If you are not interested in science, what are you doing here?
Just trolling?

Are you somehow hoping that will distract people from the real hole in your world-view?

How come the bodies weren't piling up?

[Bored chemist]

Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen -

Well in that article, he says re. the virus and Wuhan
"There are very few who still believe that the epidemic started there,".

Come on you can do better than that, he said Wuhan Seafod Market not Wuhan

And....?
Do you still think that most people don't think that's where it started?

[Jolly2]

The majority of people he talks with may well now conclude the same as him.

If most people don't agree with him, it's not semantics; he's wrong.
And it doesn't matter what his friends say.

maybe it's just nit picking.

Do you not understand that you aren't only failing to understand the science here; you are failing to understand common sense?

The science of defining 'most people' and it's meaning... I think it's more in the realm of linguistics then science.

I'll yawn on the peer review.

If you are not interested in science, what are you doing here?
Just trolling?

Well it's all relative to who does the review isnt it? If the corporate sponsors want an position or narrative maintained, they pay for it, and scientists will often sadly oblige. The system is broken. I question your faith in a broken system, it's a more scientific approach surely, to be sceptical.

Are you somehow hoping that will distract people from the real hole in your world-view?

Clearly I can't see it... you'll have to help..oh wait... it is related to this question below?
 

How come the bodies weren't piling up?

Like there is no hole there? There is a straw hole...

I actually already answered.  1 we can only speculate. But!

If the virus has been around longer then 2020 could have been the secound wave of the virus in 2020.

 And as people love to point out with spainish flu as an example, but also with concern for a second wave of the current Covid19 pandemic, the first wave was no where nead as deadly as the secound.

So there wouldn't need to be, a pile up of bodies(as you put it) for a first wave of covid 19 happening in 2018 or early 2019.  Hence no hole at all.

[Bored chemist]

If the corporate sponsors want an position or narrative maintained, they pay for it, and scientists will often sadly oblige.

If you were a scientist, you would no that we don't get paid to do peer review.

You also need to explain how a virus knows if this is wave 1 or wave 2 before you can use that as possible reason why the bodies are not piling up.

maybe it's just nit picking.

No.
What do you think the phrase "nit picking" actually means?

[Bored chemist]

The science of defining 'most people' and it's meaning... I think it's more in the realm of linguistics then science.

It's in the realm of being able to count.
Are you saying that's beyond you?

[Bored chemist]

it's a more scientific approach surely, to be sceptical.

Yes.
But you aren't being.
You are swallowing essentially one man's view without any criticism

[Jolly2]

, what are you doing here?

If the corporate sponsors want an position or narrative maintained, they pay for it, and scientists will often sadly oblige.

If you were a scientist, you would no that we don't get paid to do peer review.

maybe that's how it started

You also need to explain how a virus knows if this is wave 1 or wave 2 before you can use that as possible reason why the bodies are not piling up.

I think actually your gonna have to explain how a virus can know anything.

maybe it's just nit picking.

No.
What do you think the phrase "nit picking" actually means?

Essentially it's looking for any tiny flaw you can, in ordered to rubbish a position or the person making it, while ignoring the actual point of the arguement or position taken.

His position was about covid coming from a lab, which you ignored, and simply jumped on a statement about 'most people' as a lie.

It's nit picking to me.

[Bored chemist]

I think actually your gonna have to explain how a virus can know anything.

No, you have missed my point.
That's your problem, not mine.
You are saying that there's a difference between the 1st and 2nd waves.
If the virus can't count, how does it know to be extra virulent the second time?

Essentially it's looking for any tiny flaw

So, pointing out that he can't even get the easy bits right isn't "nit picking" because it's not a tiny flaw, it's a huge hole in his credibility.
 (do you remember, that's what we were on about at the time?0

Don't know anything about Birger Sørensen

My point is that I know exactly one thing about him.
He gets the easy stuff wrong.

maybe that's how it started

It's how peer review still goes on, at least when I have done it.
What was your experience - were you ever asked to be a peer?