The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

mtierney said:

CNN covered the story today, as did the WSJ and here is the NYP…

“The Wall Street Journal reports that the Energy Department has concluded that the COVID pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak.

“The conclusion is reportedly based on a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress. Many will be exploring why the scientific evidence of a lab leak was so slow to emerge from intelligence agencies.

“However, for my part, the most alarming aspect was the censorship, not the science.

“There will continue to be a debate over the origins of COVID-19, but now there will be an actual debate.

“For years, the media and government allied to treat anyone raising a lab theory as one of three possibilities: conspiracy theorist or racists or racist conspiracy theorists”

yeah. "most likely" but with "low confidence". that makes a lot of sense.

you folks will eat up anything.

drummerboy said:

you folks will eat up anything.

That said, do you see us arguing for one side or the other?

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

you folks will eat up anything.

That said, do you see us arguing for one side or the other?

Are you of the opinion that she hasn't eaten up that article?

drummerboy said:

Are you of the opinion that she hasn't eaten up that article?

No.

Also, ”folks” has become “folk”.

Smedley said:

The reporting I'm seeing at first blush looks reasonable /  responsible to me. Sure, it's low confidence but it's still a material change in an official assessment of pretty much the biggest thing that happened in the world over the past 3 years. So it's a big story.  

The news doesn't help the case of those who dismissed the lab leak theory as just another wackadoo right wing conspiracy theory. So anyone in that camp would be inclined to pooh-pooh this. 

a lot of people read only headlines. And a lot of the headlines include "most likely" but leave out "low confidence."

In my book that's irresponsible reporting.

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

The reporting I'm seeing at first blush looks reasonable /  responsible to me. Sure, it's low confidence but it's still a material change in an official assessment of pretty much the biggest thing that happened in the world over the past 3 years. So it's a big story.  

The news doesn't help the case of those who dismissed the lab leak theory as just another wackadoo right wing conspiracy theory. So anyone in that camp would be inclined to pooh-pooh this. 

a lot of people read only headlines. And a lot of the headlines include "most likely" but leave out "low confidence."

In my book that's irresponsible reporting.

of course it is.

I have nothing to say regarding the lab leak theory that I haven't said before.

Tl;dr -- yes, it would be good to understand the origins of SARS_COV_2. No, I don't believe people like mtierney are remotely interested in that question.

Curious hypothetical: 

What would be the U.S. response if the lab theory were proven in an ironclad way?

Dem response?

GOP response?

Response from European countries?

American public?

Chinese public?

PVW said:

I have nothing to say regarding the lab leak theory that I haven't said before.

Tl;dr -- yes, it would be good to understand the origins of SARS_COV_2. No, I don't believe people like mtierney are remotely interested in that question.

You “believe” incorrectly. If scientists had focused on the source of the virus from the onset, how many people worldwide, do you think, might have been spared? How much sooner to a vaccine discovery?

I do believe that history will prove the extent that political expediency played a major role in the virus response. I also believe that closing schools during the pandemic will prove to have caused lasting damage to a whole generation of children. Already AP courses and grading on exams are being changed to avoid showing the damage.

It is very difficult to change or even recognize the past. But we need to know where we failed,  and, just as important,  why.

Jaytee said:

mtierney said:

I do not condone mob violence, burning and destroying civic and law enforcement buildings as an expression of righteous “compensation” for “centuries” of past wrongdoing. Justifying one evil with more evil doesn’t work! 

I have not seen any postings from you about 1/6/21…you’re such a hypocrite… the holy water in the church bubbles up when you touch it.

Denunciation, hostility and exaggerated claims are your stock in trade.  What is your goal? 

Are you able to accept that others have opinions that differ from your opinions?

Easiest thing in the world is to identify and catalogue the faults/deficiencies/inconsistencies of others.  Have you taken a fearless self inventory of your faults/ deficiencies/ inconsistencies?

mtierney said:

PVW said:

I have nothing to say regarding the lab leak theory that I haven't said before.

Tl;dr -- yes, it would be good to understand the origins of SARS_COV_2. No, I don't believe people like mtierney are remotely interested in that question.

You “believe” incorrectly. If scientists had focused on the source of the virus from the onset, how many people worldwide, do you think, might have been spared? How much sooner to a vaccine discovery?

It wouldn't have made a bit of difference. How do you think it possibly could have?

GL2 said:

Curious hypothetical: 

What would be the U.S. response if the lab theory were proven in an ironclad way?

Dem response?

GOP response?

Response from European countries?

American public?

Chinese public?

I think we can safely assume the Fox News crowd would go ape **** and accuse the Chinese government of developing a bio weapon that they purposely released into the world (who cares that it makes no sense for them to release it in their own population). 

Thoughtful people would still have questions about how it was present in the lab in the first place. Was it found in nature? Was it manipulated in the lab? And yes, was it intended as a weapon?

Thoughtful people would also want to press for more safeguards, more transparency (good luck with that); and better preparedness in the future. 

mtierney said:

You “believe” incorrectly. If scientists had focused on the source of the virus from the onset, how many people worldwide, do you think, might have been spared? How much sooner to a vaccine discovery?

this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written about COVID.

drummerboy said:

mtierney said:

You “believe” incorrectly. If scientists had focused on the source of the virus from the onset, how many people worldwide, do you think, might have been spared? How much sooner to a vaccine discovery?

this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written about COVID.

Explain to all of us how pursuing the lab leak theory is the "one of the dumbest things.  .  . written about COVID."  I am seriously trying to understand your POV.

RealityForAll said:

Explain to all of us how pursuing the lab leak theory is the "one of the dumbest things.  .  . written about COVID."  I am seriously trying to understand your POV.

I am referring to what she specifically said in the quoted post. try re-reading it.

mtierney said:

How much sooner to a vaccine discovery?

Moderna had a vaccine 2 days after the SARS-Cov-2 genome went online - January 13, 2020. This is roughly 2 months before we went into "lock down". 5 months before Operation Warp Speed was launched. This was just over a month after the first patients to be hospitalized were checked in. How much faster did you want us to go?

Db’s favorite media pundit speaks some truth here.

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1630330690469330946?s=61&t=vuUqTjFEv1iHN8DJIBSpsw

Smedley said:

Db’s favorite media pundit speaks some truth here.

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1630330690469330946?s=61&t=vuUqTjFEv1iHN8DJIBSpsw

he really is pretty dumb. 

Smedley said:

Db’s favorite media pundit speaks some truth here.

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1630330690469330946?s=61&t=vuUqTjFEv1iHN8DJIBSpsw

The reason this drives me up the wall is that if you're ever going to pretend that "misinformation" is a useful category, at least acknowledge it was a massive error to label lab leak discussion as "misinformation" when multiple US government agencies now put the chances ≥50%.

Yeah… he really is dumb 

Jaytee said:

The reason this drives me up the wall is that if you're ever going to pretend that "misinformation" is a useful category, at least acknowledge it was a massive error to label lab leak discussion as "misinformation" when multiple US government agencies now put the chances ≥50%.

Yeah… he really is dumb 

Sorry, but where do you get this from?

"multiple US government agencies now put the chances ≥50%."

This appears to be the opposite of the truth.

Nate silver 

Jaytee said:

Nate silver 

oops. ok.

dumber than I thought.

drummerboy said:

Jaytee said:

The reason this drives me up the wall is that if you're ever going to pretend that "misinformation" is a useful category, at least acknowledge it was a massive error to label lab leak discussion as "misinformation" when multiple US government agencies now put the chances ≥50%.

Yeah… he really is dumb 

Sorry, but where do you get this from?

"multiple US government agencies now put the chances ≥50%."

This appears to be the opposite of the truth.

Having no idea whether COVID was from a lab leak or from bat tartare would be 50/50 right? So saying it was likely a lab leak puts the lab leak number above 50%. Even if it is low confidence.

Smedley said:

Having no idea whether COVID was from a lab leak or from bat tartare would be 50/50 right? So saying it was likely a lab leak puts the lab leak number above 50%. Even if it is low confidence.

low confidence means:

Here’s how the National Intelligence Council, the umbrella organization
for the nation’s intelligence community, explained the term in 2017:
“Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility
and/or plausibility is uncertain, that the information is too fragmented
or poorly corroborated to make solid analytical inferences, or that
reliability of the sources is questionable.”

Smedley said:

Having no idea whether COVID was from a lab leak or from bat tartare would be 50/50 right? So saying it was likely a lab leak puts the lab leak number above 50%. Even if it is low confidence.

the return of fuzzy math...

Seems pretty straightforward to me. 

GL2 said:

Curious hypothetical: 

What would be the U.S. response if the lab theory were proven in an ironclad way?

Dem response?

GOP response?

Response from European countries?

American public?

Chinese public?

In an ideal world, or the one we actually live in?

Smedley said:

Having no idea whether COVID was from a lab leak or from bat tartare would be 50/50 right? So saying it was likely a lab leak puts the lab leak number above 50%. Even if it is low confidence.

can you show your work?

ml1 said:

can you show your work?

fee fi foo fum fitty

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Having no idea whether COVID was from a lab leak or from bat tartare would be 50/50 right? So saying it was likely a lab leak puts the lab leak number above 50%. Even if it is low confidence.

can you show your work?

can you make a shoe smell?