4 ms·

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 d

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?

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?