quote:

Originally posted by AdagioM:

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:
Thanks Adagio and RP for your links!

Luckily, I subscribe to the NYT, but if there's any workaround to access WSJ articles, I'd love to know it, Adagio.

Mr. AM has a subscription, so I used the free share button. I don’t know of a way to get around, without a subscription. But here it is!

quote:

Originally posted by AdagioM:
The assessment by the Energy Department was made with low confidence. In case that matters.

Here’s a link that should let you read the WSJ article online.

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:

quote:

"Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity
The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided
throughout the pandemic.

The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.

“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses."

I don't know what the source of the quote was, but it's not helpful science journalism. Comments like "three years late" indicate to me that the writer is probably more interested in getting people riled than reporting on new information. Three years ago, we didn't have this information. Now we do. That's really the story but it probably doesn't get the clicks.

I posted the NBC article (written by a doctor) about the Nature study right around the time it came out. Worth reading.

http://well-temperedforum.grou...983950897#3983950897

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:

quote:

Originally posted by AdagioM:
The assessment by the Energy Department was made with low confidence. In case that matters.

Here’s a link that should let you read the WSJ article online.

Yes, it matters. Statements like this mean, in very simple terms, "We think the virus was probably released from the lab, but would we bet the house on that conclusion? no way."

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:

quote:

Originally posted by AdagioM:
The assessment by the Energy Department was made with low confidence. In case that matters.

Here’s a link that should let you read the WSJ article online.

Yes, it matters. Statements like this mean, in very simple terms, "We think the virus was probably released from the lab, but would we bet the house on that conclusion? no way."

Phrased in another way, out of all the possible explanations, a lab leak may have been the most likely explanation, but that still doesn't mean it's more likely than not. (And, even if it does, it doesn't mean that the probabilities are substantially above 51%.)

quote:

“Yep, they think Covid started in a lab, but said, ‘They only have low confidence in the report.’ ‘Low confidence,’ which is just one notch above, ‘We have no freaking idea.’” — JIMMY FALLON

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:
Kind of hard to follow the controversy without being able to read the WSJ owing to the paywall.

To the best of my recollection there were three basic themes of controversies (having to do with the origin of the pandemic - not counting whether there were any sleazy doings to do with its spread across borders):

1) whether the virus originated via bat consumption.

2) whether the virus originated by a leak from Chinese labs where they were experimenting on it

3) whether the Chinese had been conducting secret "gain of function" research (ways to make the original virus more powerful by some kind of reverse genomic engineering which - ? - involved recombinant studies), Also, that the US had funded this at least in part, by contributing $ and/or cooperative studies.

(Spearheaded especially by the Evil Fauci.)

Apart from your virulent [sic] hatred of Fauci and his alleged lies, I thought the third claims were thes one you most supported and which was most rebutted on WTF.

*Still don't have a clue why you or anybody would think the Chinese had a motive for this "gain of function" research, all the less why the US would support it.
(But again, since I don't have access to your linked articles, I don't know just what developments to the various controversies they discuss - and to which you are pointing.)

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
"Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says
U.S. agency’s revised assessment is based on new intelligence

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.

The shift by the Energy Department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines’s office."

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
This is not new news. Redfield was talking lab leak two years ago.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...leak-who-compromised