Coronavirus thread

[Florestan]

It's not reasonable at all. It may be right or wrong and you may think as you like but it's not reasonable if you're defining reason in the usual fashion. I mean, if it's a fallacy then it's unreasonable by definition. So, this is called "shifting the burden of proof" and it also fits into the formal "argument from ignorance fallacy."
see here:
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
and here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You can certainly say, "I believe this" and even, like my sister, say something like, "it's too coincidental." However, IMHO, you can't claim it's rational for the reasons I stated.

In so many words and links you say what boils down to "It's unreasonable to consider as possibly true a theory when there is no evidence whatever either for or against it." An unreasonable statement with which I strongly disagree.

[Mandryka]

Scientists say a now-dominant strain of the coronavirus appears to be more contagious than original

Fuck.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/05/what-to-know-about-that-new-paper-claiming-the-coronavirus-is-becoming-more-contagious/

What To Know About That New Paper Claiming The Coronavirus Is Becoming More Contagious

"They didn't do a single experiment, and this is all conjecture," she told Gizmodo. "There's no indication that this mutation makes the virus more transmissible, and they've done nothing to show that this mutation is functionally significant."

Research into covid-19 has progressed faster than science typically does. Researchers (and journalists) have had to balance the need for accuracy with the public health risks. In releasing their paper, the authors said they felt an urgent need for an "early warning" pipeline to track changes in the evolution of the virus's spike protein. That's because the spike protein is what scientists are aiming to target with potential vaccines and treatments. Any truly relevant mutations there could seriously impact those efforts and may even make survivors vulnerable to a second infection.

But viruses mutate all the time, and most mutations end up not affecting how the virus spreads or sickens people. For now, the jury is still out on whether these preliminary findings by the Los Alamos team mean anything. That said, the current pandemic is plenty scary enough, mutated virus or not.

"It bears watching, but it also bears scepticism," Hanage said.

[Mandryka]

Re the above, this makes a sort of natural common sense to me, I should say I know nothing about the science and I must admit, I didn't grasp it until it was spelt out

But viruses mutate all the time, and most mutations end up not affecting how the virus spreads or sickens people.

[Todd]

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/05/what-to-know-about-that-new-paper-claiming-the-coronavirus-is-becoming-more-contagious/

What To Know About That New Paper Claiming The Coronavirus Is Becoming More Contagious

Hopefully the LA Times report ends up a nothingburger.  That would be great.

[Ratliff]

Re the above, this makes a sort of natural common sense to me, I should say I know nothing about the science and I must admit, I didn't grasp it until it was spelt out

Two comments.

A protein is a linear chain, a polymer, of monomers with the same backbone but varying properties of the side groups. To be active proteins needs to fold into a specific shape. Often a protein has a critical active site, and the rest is scaffolding that holds it in the right shape. A mutation to the active site will usually be critical, a mutation to a less critical part of the protein can have a minor effect or no effect.

The idea that this situation is so urgent that we have to take shortcuts on the scientific method to speed up the process is profoundly stupid. Science is the shortcut. Circumventing the review process, going on anecdotal reports, unverified hunches, etc, is the slow method. Using scientific equipment doesn't make it science. The scientific review process is critical. We can speed it up by putting more scientists to work on it so more things are explored in parallel, but to try to speed up the timeline will only inhibit progress.

[ritter]

In so many words and links you say what boils down to "It's unreasonable to consider as possibly true a theory when there is no evidence whatever either for or against it." An unreasonable statement with which I strongly disagree.

Non, mon cher. I won't speak for milk, of course, but what I see here is that what is usually unacceptable, namely the reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly becomes fine and dandy when the alleged culprit is someone we had an animosity to before the alleged events took place.

Un fuerte abrazo,

[Florestan]

Non, mon cher. I won't speak for milk, of course, but what I see here is that what is usually unacceptable, namely the reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly becomes fine and dandy when the alleged culprit is someone we had an animosity to before the alleged events took place.

Oh ciel, che noia!

[ritter]

Oh ciel, che noia!

Otro abrazo fuerte,

[Florestan]

Non, mon cher. I won't speak for milk, of course, but what I see here is that what is usually unacceptable, namely the reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly becomes fine and dandy when the alleged culprit is someone we had an animosity to before the alleged events took place.

One final word on this.

In an interview with Gareth Jones in March 1933, Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov stated, "Well, there is no famine [in Ukraine]"

According to you, if I said back then "I don't trust Litvinov. It's possible that there actually is famine in Ukraine" then  I would have done what is usually unacceptable, namely the reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly becomes fine and dandy when the alleged culprit is someone we had an animosity to before the alleged events took place. Please don't deny it, it's the exact equivalent of my saying today "I don't trust the Chinese. It's possible that they actually had the virus in the lab."

Un fortissimo abrazo.

[drogulus]

     

One final word on this.

According to you, if I said back then "I don't trust Litvinov. It's possible that there actually is famine in Ukraine" then  I would have done what is usually unacceptable, namely the reversal of the burden of proof, suddenly becomes fine and dandy when the alleged culprit is someone we had an animosity to before the alleged events took place. Please don't deny it, it's the exact equivalent of my saying today "I don't trust the Chinese. It's possible that they actually had the virus in the lab."

Un fortissimo abrazo.

     Evidence is a legit way to assign burden of proof. Not trusting Litvinov can't be a reason to believe a famine took place.

     There is evidence that jumping off a cliff will kill you. If Litvinov told you not to jump off a cliff would you jump? Would you ignore evidence in order to disbelieve Litvinov?

     Don't leave out the evidence factor. It protects you from lying officials and theologians. Beliefy disbelief gives you no way to discriminate between true and false statements.

[Florestan]

Not trusting Litvinov can't be a reason to believe a famine took place.

And yet had I believed in 1933, that a famine took place in Ukraine I would have been absolutely right, and had you not believed in 1933 that a famine took place in Ukraine you would have been absolutely wrong. Take that!

There is evidence that jumping off a cliff will kill you. If Litvinov told you not to jump off a cliff would you jump? Would you ignore evidence in order to disbelieve Litvinov?

The key word here is evidence. There is amply documented, independent third-party evidence that jumping off a cliff is mortal.

The moment there will be amply documented, independent third-party evidence that the Wuhan lab did indeed not have the virus, I will believe the lab's director claim that they did not have it. Until then, I'll have my doubts.

Once again: when I say virus I mean a naturally mutated one, not a man-made one, precisely because there is amply documented, independent third-party evidence that the virus is improbable to be man-made.

Don't leave out the evidence factor.

On the contrary, I bring it in: show me evidence that the lab did not have the virus, other than what the lab's director claims, and I'll cast aside my skepticism.

(Drat, did I just reply to a poster I ignore?  )

[Ratliff]

     
     Evidence is a legit way to assign burden of proof. Not trusting Litvinov can't be a reason to believe a famine took place.

     There is evidence that jumping off a cliff will kill you. If Litvinov told you not to jump off a cliff would you jump? Would you ignore evidence in order to disbelieve Litvinov?

     Don't leave out the evidence factor. It protects you from lying officials and theologians. Beliefy disbelief gives you no way to discriminate between true and false statements.

I would put it this way. If you don't trust Litvinov his denial (or confirmation) means nothing. Why were they asking him if there was famine in Ukraine? Whether you believe it or not depends on whether there is other evidence to support the existence of the famine.

In the case of the novel coronavirus, you may say the credibility of the Chinese authorities is low or nonexistent. What evidence is there to support the lab theory? None, except that there happened to be a lab in the city where the outbreak was first detected. (Presumably they put it there because they wanted to prevent future outbreaks.) Aside from that coincidence there is no evidence to suggest it came from the lab.

When Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in the UK, the Russians made a big deal of the fact that there was a government biology lab nearby. Do we therefore believe that it was the British government rather than Russian thugs that poisoned him? (Some do, I suppose). Experience shows that when something goes wrong there is invariably a government facility nearby that conspiracy theorists can fixate on.

[drogulus]

And yet had I believed in 1933, that a famine took place in Ukraine I would have been absolutely right, and had you not believed in 1933 that a famine took place in Ukraine you would have been absolutely wrong. Take that!

The key word here is evidence. There is amply documented, independent third-party evidence that jumping off a cliff is mortal.

The moment there will be amply documented, independent third-party evidence that the Wuhan lab did indeed not have the virus, I will believe the lab's director claim that they did not have it. Until then, I'll have my doubts.

Once again: when I say virus I mean a naturally mutated one, not a man-made one, precisely because there is amply documented, independent third-party evidence that the virus is improbable to be man-made.

On the contrary, I bring it in: show me evidence that the lab did not have the virus, other than what the lab's director claims, and I'll cast aside my skepticism.

(Drat, did I just reply to a poster I ignore?  )

    You are confused. You cite evidence as the reason to disbelieve Litvinov, which means your disbelief is not the criteria, the weight of evidence is. But then you say that a priori disbelief would lead to the correct conclusion, that what's true is what Litvinov says is false, no stinking evidence needed either way. So you ignore what the lack of evidence for the Wuhan lab release means and decide a priori disbelief can make something true all by its lonesome. I've run into this kind of thing before.
     
     I say be guided by evidence and the lack of it without regard to what officials say. Believing or disbelieving officials is not a reliable guide. What they say is a data point only.

[Florestan]

   So you ignore what the lack of evidence for the Wuhan lab release means

The lack of evidence for the Wuhan lab means one thing and only one thing: absent any solid evidence either way, it might or might not be true that they did not have the virus.

You choose to believe they tell the truth. There's nothing to support your belief, save their statement and your a priori belief that all scientists are rigorously honest and never give in to ideological and political pressure from authorities and they'll tell the truth no matter what. Neither the statement, nor your belief qualify as solid evidence against "accidental lab release" theory.

I choose to believe they might not tell the truth. There's nothing to support my belief, save my a priori distrust of statements coming from Communist officials and the verified fact that Communist officials lied on numerous occasions, evidence for their lying surfacing in some case many years if not decades after they lied. Neither the distrust nor the verified fact qualify as solid evidence for the "accidental lab release" theory.

So neither of us has any solid evidence for the position we hold. Therefore, until and unless there is evidence "for" or evidence "against" the "accidental lab release" theory, back on my ignore list you go.

[drogulus]

     

You choose to believe they tell the truth.

     Only on the evidence known around the world that the "they" in question tell the truth as part of their job do I accept the default position as what it is. Scientists around the world communicate with Chinese labs well beyond what ChiCom officials would like. Some were even punished for doing so. A lab release would have set off exactly the kind of alarm signals intelligence officials looked for and didn't find. Of course they didn't find them. Of course world class experts in China can't be muzzled for months on end about what made them reliable experts in the first place. Of course scientists around the world don't buy tit for tat propaganda from Trumpeo or their ChiCom counterparts.

[JBS]

     
     Only on the evidence known around the world that the "they" in question tell the truth as part of their job do I accept the default position as what it is. Scientists around the world communicate with Chinese labs well beyond what ChiCom officials would like. Some were even punished for doing so. A lab release would have set off exactly the kind of alarm signals intelligence officials looked for and didn't find. Of course they didn't find them. Of course world class experts in China can't be muzzled for months on end about what made them reliable experts in the first place. Of course scientists around the world don't buy tit for tat propaganda from Trumpeo or their ChiCom counterparts.

Most of what you say there is actually unproveable assumption. But if intelligence did not pick up any chatter (something none of us here are in a position to know) , the lack of chatter did not keep them from saying they can't rule out lab release.

[drogulus]

I choose to believe they might not tell the truth.

     So do I. That is not evidence that they had something to lie about.

     You want to establish a thesis that something happened if there is no proof that it didn't. Most falsehoods are never disproved. People just give up on them and move on. I don't think disproof of this political fantasy will ever pop up. Absent the political context and hyperemotional state of of some people it will collapse. People will simply forget to "pray" this one into existence any more.

Most of what you say there is actually unproveable assumption. But if intelligence did not pick up any chatter (something none of us here are in a position to know) , the lack of chatter did not keep them from saying they can't rule out lab release.

     Yup, most bogusity is never disproved. That's not a reason for believing anything. I have no intention of claiming disproof of the infinite nonsense that people come up with. It's a waste of energy and often impossible.

[Karl Henning]

(Drat, did I just reply to a poster I ignore?  )

Not at all, for you cannot reply to anyone whom you ignore. 

[drogulus]

     Ignorance is no excuse.

[drogulus]

     Virus Survey Finds Most Patients Retired or Unemployed: Live Updates

    57 percent of hospitalized people were from New York City.

    In the city, 45 percent of hospitalized patients were African-American or Latino.

    Only 3 percent in New York City had been using public transportation.

    96 percent had other underlying health conditions.

    37 percent were retired, and 46 percent were unemployed.

     So essential workers using public transportation do not contribute much to the new case total in NY.