5 ms·

Based on the evidence available, there is no reason to believe COVID spread from wildlife is anything other than rare. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco

Based on the evidence available, there is no reason to believe COVID spread from wildlife is anything other than rare. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...

tinus_hn 4y ago
It’s known to happen and there is absolutely no way to test how often it happens, so this kind of handwaving is opinion masked as science. And it doesn’t really matter, because the lockdown tactic only works with COVID-zero, not with COVID-one. So even if only one infection spreads from wildlife, you’re back at square one and you can start your lockdowns all over again. And don’t think you can just detect the infection before it spreads because a large proportion is asymptomatic and even if it is not, the spread starts before the symptoms.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  Again, there is no evidence to suggest that COVID transmission from wildlife happens other than in rare cases. Suggesting that it does happen because we just don't know is considered an argument from ignorance. It's important to make these evidence-based distinctions because there are a variety of people looking to grab on to whatever they can to support their biases wrgt science and COVID.
  - rl3 4y ago
    I support your assessment. That said, it would nonetheless be wise to ensure Boo is masked as well for everyone's mutual protection.
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      Thankfully, miniature space hamsters can't catch the evil that is COVID.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way? There is no evidence for nor against widespread transmission from wildlife, so handwaving statements about biases and evidence-based distinctions are no more than demonstrations of a prejudice about sources. Your prejudice is that it must be incontrovertible science because the CDC mentions it. In reality nobody knows either way, and the CDC merely states they think something is unlikely, and there is no evidence for it. But there is no evidence against it either. And no matter how widespread it is, it only takes one infection for COVID zero to fail. So it doesn’t matter if it is widespread or not. That is the major flaw of COVID zero policies. Sure, you can test everyone every two days and hope no infections fall through the cracks. Are they going to keep that up for the next decade? Because COVID isn’t going anywhere, it’s endemic.
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      >How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way? There are plenty of evidence-based conclusions made about the new virus, but it is still new so not enough observation has been done to make claims (either way) about certain things yet.
      - tinus_hn 4y ago
        There is no evidence about the amount of spread through wildlife apart from evidence that it does happen. So you were just talking about evidence-based distinctions about some unrelated claims?
- Animats 4y ago
  Shenzhen currently tests almost everybody every 48 hours. "Whenever someone asks to see my health code, I feel embarrassed. On the lower left-hand side of my code, in the “nucleic acid testing” section, a green code with the words “within a week” flashes up – not the blue “24-hour negative” or the purple “48-hour negative” codes needed to enter most public venues in Shenzhen." My residential compound even installed a new electronic door, linked to a scanner. When someone enters, they must scan their health code, and that will open the door if it detects a test result taken within 48 hours. Otherwise, it lets out a loud screech: “Unqualified, unqualified!”[1] Yes, it takes a surveillance society. There's phone tracking. There's face recognition. There are checkpoints. But there are not mass deaths.[2] [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3176014/staying-home-shenzhen-why-i-will-not-take-covid-test-every https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3176014/sta... [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3172642/chinese-tech-hub-shenzhen-offers-prime-example-new-normal-under-chinas https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3172642/chinese-tec...
  - 0xCAP 4y ago
    Mass deaths of 80+ years olds you mean?
    - Animats 4y ago
      50+ year olds is more like it.[1] Below 50, not many deaths. After that, many. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
      - rnk 4y ago
        That data needs to have a time dimension. I think vast reduction in elderly deaths, even though they are still susceptible they are less susceptible.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Saving lives is not a sufficient reason to introduce a surveillance state.
nradov 4y ago
It doesn't matter whether animal to human transmission is rare or common, all it takes is once to start things going again. Remember how the pandemic started in 2019?
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  The difference between now and 2019 is the proximity to herd immunity.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The virus is sufficiently contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect those who lack immunity. We should expect that almost everyone will eventually be infected. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

tinus_hn 4y ago

It’s known to happen and there is absolutely no way to test how often it happens, so this kind of handwaving is opinion masked as science. And it doesn’t really matter, because the lockdown tactic only works with COVID-zero, not with COVID-one. So even if only one infection spreads from wildlife, you’re back at square one and you can start your lockdowns all over again. And don’t think you can just detect the infection before it spreads because a large proportion is asymptomatic and even if it is not, the spread starts before the symptoms.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Again, there is no evidence to suggest that COVID transmission from wildlife happens other than in rare cases. Suggesting that it does happen because we just don't know is considered an argument from ignorance. It's important to make these evidence-based distinctions because there are a variety of people looking to grab on to whatever they can to support their biases wrgt science and COVID.
- rl3 4y ago
  I support your assessment. That said, it would nonetheless be wise to ensure Boo is masked as well for everyone's mutual protection.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    Thankfully, miniature space hamsters can't catch the evil that is COVID.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way? There is no evidence for nor against widespread transmission from wildlife, so handwaving statements about biases and evidence-based distinctions are no more than demonstrations of a prejudice about sources. Your prejudice is that it must be incontrovertible science because the CDC mentions it. In reality nobody knows either way, and the CDC merely states they think something is unlikely, and there is no evidence for it. But there is no evidence against it either. And no matter how widespread it is, it only takes one infection for COVID zero to fail. So it doesn’t matter if it is widespread or not. That is the major flaw of COVID zero policies. Sure, you can test everyone every two days and hope no infections fall through the cracks. Are they going to keep that up for the next decade? Because COVID isn’t going anywhere, it’s endemic.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    >How can there be evidence-based distinctions if there is no evidence either way? There are plenty of evidence-based conclusions made about the new virus, but it is still new so not enough observation has been done to make claims (either way) about certain things yet.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      There is no evidence about the amount of spread through wildlife apart from evidence that it does happen. So you were just talking about evidence-based distinctions about some unrelated claims?
Animats 4y ago
Shenzhen currently tests almost everybody every 48 hours. "Whenever someone asks to see my health code, I feel embarrassed. On the lower left-hand side of my code, in the “nucleic acid testing” section, a green code with the words “within a week” flashes up – not the blue “24-hour negative” or the purple “48-hour negative” codes needed to enter most public venues in Shenzhen." My residential compound even installed a new electronic door, linked to a scanner. When someone enters, they must scan their health code, and that will open the door if it detects a test result taken within 48 hours. Otherwise, it lets out a loud screech: “Unqualified, unqualified!”[1] Yes, it takes a surveillance society. There's phone tracking. There's face recognition. There are checkpoints. But there are not mass deaths.[2] [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3176014/staying-home-shenzhen-why-i-will-not-take-covid-test-every https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3176014/sta... [2] https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3172642/chinese-tech-hub-shenzhen-offers-prime-example-new-normal-under-chinas https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3172642/chinese-tec...
- 0xCAP 4y ago
  Mass deaths of 80+ years olds you mean?
  - Animats 4y ago
    50+ year olds is more like it.[1] Below 50, not many deaths. After that, many. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
    - rnk 4y ago
      That data needs to have a time dimension. I think vast reduction in elderly deaths, even though they are still susceptible they are less susceptible.
- nradov 4y ago
  Saving lives is not a sufficient reason to introduce a surveillance state.

nradov 4y ago

It doesn't matter whether animal to human transmission is rare or common, all it takes is once to start things going again. Remember how the pandemic started in 2019?

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
The difference between now and 2019 is the proximity to herd immunity.
- nradov 4y ago
  The virus is sufficiently contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect those who lack immunity. We should expect that almost everyone will eventually be infected. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...