0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think you did right here.
Have to ask the people who developed it, if that is ever proven.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 21/02/2021 00:00:44I think you did right here.You don't understand the issues.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 21/02/2021 00:00:44Have to ask the people who developed it, if that is ever proven.No.Not any more so than I have to ask the guy who invented a football if he intended it to be used as a tea strainer.
Can we cut it out with the trolling claims already?
I guess I should apologise for trying to simplify the situation to a point where you can understand it.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 17:38:13you have to go with the evidenceOkay, so where's the evidence?Quote from: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 17:38:13the evidence for a lab release has increased. How do you figure? The video you posted doesn't give us such evidence. If you disagree, then tell me the relevant timestamp, because I must have missed it.
you have to go with the evidence
the evidence for a lab release has increased.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 20/02/2021 17:38:13Whereas the evidence for a natural zoological origin has been diminishingHas it? Again, your video doesn't support that.
Whereas the evidence for a natural zoological origin has been diminishing
Quote from: Jolly2 on 19/02/2021 03:12:38It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave oneHe has stated that he is 90% certain of the lab leak theory, so it sure sounds like he's come to a conclusion to me.
It's funny you suggest a conclusion Kryptid he never gave one
Who trolls again and again
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:01:51Who trolls again and againYou.Perpetually.
With the secound data set.Weekly incubation period and an R.0 of 3.Past infections . current infectionsPatient 0Week 1. 1 , 3Week 2 3 , 9Week 3 9 , 27Week 4 27 , 81Week 5 81 , 243Week 6 243 , 729Week 7 729 , 2,187Week 8 2,187 , 6,561Week 9 6,561 , 19,683Week 10 19,683 , 59,049Week 11 59,049 , 177,147Week 12 177,147 , 531,441Week 13 531,441 , 1,594,323Week 14 1,594,323 , 4,782,969After one month from patient 0You have between 30 to 80 people infected. With patient 0 in mid September.The Wuhan games are at this time Wuhan 2019, was held from October 18–27, 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.There were just under 10,000 athletes taking part in the games.That's not including people that watched them, or officials involved in referring the games.I cant find actual numbers for total people present but we could easily assume a few thousand more, watching and refereeing.There are claims by many athletes that they got sick during the games.With an R0 3 and a week incubation period. Those infected at the games would then each travel to their home countries afterwards.There is this story about French soldiers returning sick from wuhan.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.htmlThe second data set certianly matches with the wuhan games as the source.
Adds nothing to the discussion, again throws out an attack on people who are. How in anyway this not a troll thing to do?
, take his recent apology for lying, to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"
Kyripid I'm not the only one on this thread that notices that the chemist acts like a troll
he adds nothing to the discussion
and repeatedly posted comments that are intended to add disinformation
to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"
They discuss supporting evidence for a lab release in a few places,40.50
At the start of the discussion Bret cites it's clear adaptability to infect humans as evidence that points to a lab release. 19.15 on
They have no intermediary any more they are left looking at feret badgers while there is no evidence it came from feret badgers. Hence all past suggestions for a zoological origin are now dead ends, there were more hypothesis before now there are less, hence diminishing.
Where is that time stamp?
You either believe that mistakenly or are being dishonest.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18Kyripid I'm not the only one on this thread that notices that the chemist acts like a trollI haven't noticed any such thing. If the in-fighting doesn't stop, am I going to need to lock the thread?
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;BoredChemist
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18he adds nothing to the discussionHe adds rationality to the discussion.Quoteand repeatedly posted comments that are intended to add disinformationWhere?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18to paraphrase it was "I dumped down my reply for you stupid people"Just because people need answers simplified for them doesn't mean they are stupid. Many of them simply don't have the scientific expertise needed to fully understand the issues as is.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18They discuss supporting evidence for a lab release in a few places,40.50I still don't hear it. Please tell me what you think the specific supporting arguments are.Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18At the start of the discussion Bret cites it's clear adaptability to infect humans as evidence that points to a lab release. 19.15 onHow is that evidence for a lab release? There are tons of viruses that are adapted to infect humans that were not made in a lab.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18They have no intermediary any more they are left looking at feret badgers while there is no evidence it came from feret badgers. Hence all past suggestions for a zoological origin are now dead ends, there were more hypothesis before now there are less, hence diminishing.That's like interpreting a shooting murder investigation eliminating human suspects as "diminishing evidence that the murderer was human".
Do you have any idea just how many animals there are? Do you really think we've come anywhere remotely close to testing them all?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18Where is that time stamp?There is no time stamp because he didn't state it in that video (nor did I ever claim that he stated it in the video). Where he stated it was in an interview with Bill Maher: https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-maher-pushes-bonkers-steve-bannon-wuhan-lab-covid-conspiracy
Quote from: Jolly2 on 22/02/2021 16:47:18You either believe that mistakenly or are being dishonest.Really? In the interview with Bill Maher, he said, "Oh, it’s far more likely than that,” replied Weinstein, adding that “it looked to be about 90 percent” probability that it originated in a lab. How is that me being either mistaken or dishonest?
Because you are clearly not paying attention.
Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll has
Oh my you actually read any of his posted
he has been suggesting an R0 of 7
The R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%
That covid evolved in bats which is a total lie
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say and as petrochemicals stated harresses people.
Nice it's the chemist calling people stupid not me.
Ask Bret if actually watched the video. You know as much as me.
Yes diminishing suspects absolutely.
Not an arguement only some animals can have been the intermediary, not all.
You should have referenced the link as your evidence in the first place, by not doing so I was left believing you were talking about the video we were discussing originally.
Oh my you actually read any of his posts? He has been suggesting an R0 of 7
defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%,
claimed that covid evolved in bats,
by effectively saying he was dumping down
He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say
To not see his trolling is willful blindness.
He says "I believe back in June I said the chances of covid comming from a lab looked to me to be about 90%"
Well rather then stating an opinion you have to go with the evidence and as Bret Weinstein stated in the video you clearly still have not watched,
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Because you are clearly not paying attention.I haven't read all of this thread,
but it doesn't sound like Bored Chemist to intentionally post false information. He can be blunt and brazen at times, but he mostly seems to avoid direct insults.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Locking the thread and stopping a discussion is the main agenda a troll hasIf you really think he is a troll, then you can do your part to stop it by not responding to him.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Oh my you actually read any of his postedI admittedly haven't read all of this thread.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47he has been suggesting an R0 of 7I haven't researched it, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's no doubt a variable number, though. EDIT: Having done some research, I found a reported R0 value of 5.7: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0QuoteThe R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%The death rate has varied over time and from one place to another. The statistics show a case fatality rate range of less than 1% to above 14%: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid The case fatality rate worldwide does seem to be below 4% at the present moment, though.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47That covid evolved in bats which is a total lieHow do you know?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47He reaptedaly seeks to twist what people say and as petrochemicals stated harresses people.When has he harassed people?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Nice it's the chemist calling people stupid not me.If he's called anyone stupid in this thread, please show me the quote.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Ask Bret if actually watched the video. You know as much as me.I did watch the video. I'm not going to ask Bret when you are the one here supporting his views. If you are promoting his arguments, it's up to you to defend them.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Yes diminishing suspects absolutely.And is it at all sensible to seriously consider that an alien or ghost or some other non-human entity shot someone simply because the police have eliminated several possible human suspects?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47Not an arguement only some animals can have been the intermediary, not all.And all of those individuals have been checked?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47You should have referenced the link as your evidence in the first place, by not doing so I was left believing you were talking about the video we were discussing originally.I'll accept that as my fault. I should have posted the link.
Well the WHO and CDC both Cite 1.4 to 2.5.
Once he starts trolling he generally doesn't stop,
Which drops even lower after you account for unrecorded cases.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 17:54:46Well the WHO and CDC both Cite 1.4 to 2.5.No. They do not.They cite that range for the virus TODAY.But not for its growth in the city of Wuhan before it was known that there was an outbreak.And that is the value that you need to use to model how the disease would spread in a naïve population.And that was the issue under discussion at the time.So there's no question about the current value being something like 1.4 to 2.5.But that's not relevant.The trouble is that Jolly can't accept any sensible value for R0 in the early stages of the outbreak of covid, because it makes it clear that his suggestion that it might not have started in Wuhan is even more absurd.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 17:54:46Once he starts trolling he generally doesn't stop,You forgot something.There is, of course, no evidence of me trolling.As I pointed out, it isn't trolling to explain why you are hopelessly wrong.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 17:54:46Which drops even lower after you account for unrecorded cases. Because unrecorded cases are unrecorded, there is no way to know what their effect is.You can't allow for something that you can't measure. That's just wishful thinking, not data.However, I was able to provide real numbers to show that about 5% You have not been able to provide any data to show that you are right.So, once again, showing that you are flat out wrong, is not trolling.
If that were true
that I'm not replying to anymore.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47he has been suggesting an R0 of 7I haven't researched it, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's no doubt a variable number, though. EDIT: Having done some research, I found a reported R0 value of 5.7: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#covid-19-r-0QuoteThe R0 for COVID-19 is a median of 5.7, according to a study published online in Emerging Infectious Diseases. That’s about double an earlier R0 estimate of 2.2 to 2.7Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/02/2021 00:37:47defended ideas related to a mortality of 4%The death rate has varied over time and from one place to another. The statistics show a case fatality rate range of less than 1% to above 14%: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid The case fatality rate worldwide does seem to be below 4% at the present moment, though.