[Petrochemicals]

I'm building a hypothesis from the information we have, not grabbing a hypothesis out of the air then looking for data to support it,  the latter is bad science. Clues from the genetics of the virus lead to certain hypotheses.

You are building up a hypothesis from your chosen amount of very inconclusive evidence and imagining a very complex chain of events. You have set out to support a theory of conspiracy and are trying to pick evidence to support it. Possibilities and "yeh but it could have happened" are nothing more than conjecture. Theories here are supposed to have some supporting evidence and no evidence concrete to the contrary.

Given you think a mutation happened, the corona 19 was not released in the USA by your own admission.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I'm building a hypothesis from the information we have, not grabbing a hypothesis out of the air then looking for data to support it,  the latter is bad science. Clues from the genetics of the virus lead to certain hypotheses.

You are building up a hypothesis from your chosen amount of very inconclusive evidence

No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.

The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.

and imagining a very complex chain of events. You have set out to support a theory of conspiracy and are trying to pick evidence to support it.

In your imagination, not in reality.

Possibilities and "yeh but it could have happened" are nothing more than conjecture. Theories here are supposed to have some supporting evidence and no evidence concrete to the contrary.

I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing.

Given you think a mutation happened, the corona 19 was not released in the USA by your own admission.

Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.

You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion

[Petrochemicals]

No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.

The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

In your imagination, not in reality.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.

I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate

but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source

Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.

You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable
Your rejection of facts, lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.

The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Again it's not my hypothesis,  the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary,  and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.

In your imagination, not in reality.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.

No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.

The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international

And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone,  to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.

If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.

espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.

Not espionage more sabotage.

I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate

but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source

Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.

Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.

You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Not mine,  as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.

Your rejection of facts,

What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?

lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.

That would be you currently,  if you have some facts then present them

[Kryptid]

Generally because Laboratories are indoors, and if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones, then taking any that get sick and repeating the process as a means to increase the virus' transmission as a part of that gain of function research.
It's all a process that takes place indoors, where the virus wouldn't adapt to contend with the outdoor environment. 

The flu survives better indoors than outdoors as well. Is that evidence that the flu is lab-made?

There is evidence that sunlight destroys covid19, showing that it must have evolved either in a nocturnal critter, or in an environment without sunlight,  a laboratory with electrical lighting also would qualify.

Again, that's also true of the flu: https://medium.com/@ra.hobday/coronavirus-and-the-sun-a-lesson-from-the-1918-influenza-pandemic-509151dc8065

A cover up isnt involved in the development of the virus

But, as I said...

It's an essential part of the scenario you posit. Without evidence of a cover-up, another unevidenced claim is tacked on to your explanation. That hurts its plausibility.

It's just another reason why something like the Moon-landing hoax is implausible. An unevidenced cover-up is required in order to hold the hoax explanation together.

[Petrochemicals]

No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.

The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Again it's not my hypothesis,  the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary,  and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.

In your imagination, not in reality.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.

No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.

The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international

And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone,  to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.

If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.

espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.

Not espionage more sabotage.

I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate

but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source

Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.

Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.

You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Not mine,  as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.

Your rejection of facts,

What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?

lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.

That would be you currently,  if you have some facts then present them

But the sum total is the R rate of your hypothesised mutant is that of the virus that originated in wuhan, Corona 19. The corona19 virus originated in wuhan.

Anything else is just conjecture, as in Randy Marsh in South park.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

No, the only hypothessis I personally have been looking at and developing is the use of the R0 and incubation to find the time patient 0.

The other hypothesis of a laboratory escape or intentional release are not mine. As the hypothesis of zoological origin not mine.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Again it's not my hypothesis,  the WHO is currently looking into ferret badgers as the intermediary,  and until the ancestor virus is found, we can only speculate on the properties it had.

In your imagination, not in reality.

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is.

No one disputes covid19 is a mutation from another Corona virus, doesnt change that we don't know the properties of the ancestor virus.

The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable that an escape from a lab was somehow covered up by an elaboratey staged misinformation campaign featuring virus trial runs, hidden deaths and international

And here you are adding characteristics that we dont know the ancestor virus had, its possible the ancestor virus wouldn't have killed anyone,  to suggest it would have is an addition you are adding.

If a virus escaped a laboratory a cover up by authorities is a later development and possible.

espionage by way of an athletic event in Wuhan.

Not espionage more sabotage.

I agree and the evidence points more to a gain of function virus then a zoological evolution in nature. As Bret Weinstein stated the evidence towards a laboratory virus has been increasing and the evidence of a zoological origin diminishing. Plus a mutation to vary the R rate

but 6 months prior to Wuhan it does not. The R rate is not dependant upon the source

Of covid not the ancestor it evolved from. This repetition from you is rather mundane.

Under one hypothesis, there are others where it could have.

You are simplifying and it's not really helpful to a discussion

the virus you are looking at is your mutation, this is corona 19 the R number is what it is. The prior hypothesised virus of yours is incalculable

Not mine,  as stated before the WHO along with many other scientists are looking for the intermediary and the ancestor of covid19.

Your rejection of facts,

What "Facts"? your just making statements with no "facts", so please what facts?

lack of evidence and rejection ofdiscussion and the application of reason in it are stifling the debate.

That would be you currently,  if you have some facts then present them

But the sum total is the R rate of your hypothesised mutant is that of the virus that originated in wuhan, Corona 19. The corona19 virus originated in wuhan.

We dont know that,  that statement is conjecture. They isolated the virus from infections in wuhan, 
we don't know how it started there,  with 80% having mild flu like symptoms or being asymptomatic, possible it started somewhere else and an infected person caught a train to Wuhan,  also possible it came to wuhan at the military games or It escaped the wuhan laboratory Or someone bought ferret badger steaks at the local wuhan market, that were inflected at the farm somewhere else in Asia.

[Bored chemist]

if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones,

But there's no reason to imagine that they were doing that sort of research, is there?

You made that up.
It's just a guess- and not a very plausible one.

Generally because Laboratories are indoors,

The virus does not know that.
So that fact can't influence the virus, can it?

In your imagination, not in reality.

No.
In this thread.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

if as part of gain of function research they were housing sick animals next to healthy ones,

But there's no reason to imagine that they were doing that sort of research, is there?

You made that up.
It's just a guess- and not a very plausible one.

I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.

Generally because Laboratories are indoors,

The virus does not know that.

Another nonsense reply.

So that fact can't influence the virus, can it?

In your imagination, not in reality.

No.
In this thread.

Grow up.

[Bored chemist]

I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.

OK you posted something which someone else made up.
Do you think that's really different?

Do you think that viruses understand, or are aware of, the fact that labs are inside?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I didn't make up anything, it is a mechanism discussed by Bret Weinstein.

OK you posted something which someone else made up.
Do you think that's really different?

Do you think that viruses understand, or are aware of, the fact that labs are inside?

No I think indoor transmission is different to outdoor transmission, as they have different environments,  and for a virus to transmit effectively has to be adapted to their environment to do so.

Sarscov1 isnt adapted to transmit outside but is adapted to indoor transmission. Sunlight kills it.

Your just as always making nonsense points.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand. Neither are adapted to human transmission,  but it could be either the initial virus used for gain of function research or the source of the virus that jumped to an intermediary somewhere in nature. The samples were found after re-examination of frozen samples kept in storage, so the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.

I suppose the WHO will be looking at Thailand ferret badger farms now.

[Bored chemist]

Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand.

OK, so that confirms that bats have been harbouring  a covid like virus for long enough that it has had time to travel between China, Cambodia and Thailand.

In doing so, they have pretty much eliminated that idea that this virus is man made- it's not plausible that a man made virus would move that quickly through a non-human population (Bats might fly, but not on aircraft).

So we know that the covid 19 virus is of natural origin.

but it could be...

Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.

the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.

As you would expect.
There was a lot of interest in this sort of virus when the SARS  outbreak happened.

the initial virus used for gain of function research

There is still no evidence for that research ever having happened.
Do you understand that?

[Bored chemist]

Sunlight kills it.

Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.

[Bored chemist]

Your just as always making nonsense points.

Pointing out things like the universal susceptibility of DNA and RNA to UV isn't nonsense.
Nor is it nonsense to  point out that there is no evidence for any "gain of function" research in covid.

What is nonsense is to carry on as if those facts aren't there.
So, are you about to post nonsense?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Sunlight kills it.

Sunlight kills all viruses.
But thank you for explaining the root of your misunderstanding.

Yes and a virus adapted to outdoor transmission would need higher levels of light intensity to work.

Back to bats, Chinese scientists have found a SARS cov virus 91% and 96% similar to sars cov2 in Bats in Cambodia and Thailand.

OK, so that confirms that bats have been harbouring  a covid like virus for long enough that it has had time to travel between China, Cambodia and Thailand.

In doing so, they have pretty much eliminated that idea that this virus is man made-

🤣🤣
The virus they found doesnt transmit to humans. They have only found one of the potential ancestors.  The initial virus that still had to have evolved into covid19 in an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human population or a ferret badger.

it's not plausible that a man made virus would move that quickly through a non-human population (Bats might fly, but not on aircraft).

More nonsense. Not plausible a gain of function virus designed for human infection would more quickly through the population. Its rapid spread through the population and its clear adaptability to human infection, is one of Bret Weinsteins main reasons for citing a laboratory released as the source.

So we know that the covid 19 virus is of natural origin.

No you don't,  terrible science chemist.

but it could be...

Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.

the virus was clearly recorded at some point in the past.

As you would expect.
There was a lot of interest in this sort of virus when the SARS  outbreak happened.

the initial virus used for gain of function research

There is still no evidence for that research ever having happened.
Do you understand that?

There is tons of evidence laboratories were doing gain of function research with bat Corona virus'. More nonsense

[Bored chemist]

Stop begging the question.
It's a logical fallacy.

You can't talk about things that happen because of "gain of function" research unless you can show  that the research happened.
Otherwise it's like blaming it on unicorns.

Without strong evidence the "gain of function" research is still implausible because- as I keep pointing  out- Covid is a rubbish bioweapon.

So the assumption is that nobody would be doing that research.
So you can't use that research( which almost certainly never happened) as the basis for anything.

More nonsense

It was, and we would be better off if you stopped posting more nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human

Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human

Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.

More nonsense which I'm not replying to

[Bored chemist]

an intermediary, which could be a laboratory, or a human

Quote from: Jolly2 on Today at 11:50:09
but it could be...
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 26/02/2021 20:58:00
Randy Marsh and Micky Mouse on a bender in China.

More nonsense which I'm not replying to

You just did...
It is not nonsense to point out that you are assuming something as true when at best it's a remote possibility.