Pompeo says 'significant' evidence new coronavirus emerged from Chinese lab

[rkidlad]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

They did not say there is no human to human infection. They said there is no clear evidence of human to human infection.

Yes, they did. So let me ask you, what did you take that to mean exactly? 

[FritsSikkink]

11 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Funny how just a couple of days ago, saying such a thing would have you branded a "conspiracy theorist". It would require the mother of all consequence for the virus to have originated a stones throw away from the research institute, rather than having leaked from inside it. Rather like if the Russians claimed Chernobyl didn't melt down but a nuclear powered UFO crashed next to it. 

 Thanks to the GOP for riding China hard here. They must be punished for their lies and cover-up, it is pure evil behavior. And the media that defied all logic to insist that only the lost bat 1,000km from its cave in another provice which bit a pangolin which bit a human just outside the bat coronavirus research facility bla-di-bla narrative - well - it's shameful.

 

Never mind the total <deleted> from Trump, GOP, FOX news saying it was a Democratic HOAX and do nothing at all in the crucial beginning of the pandemic in the USA.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts about Iraq have been removed. 

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Yes, they did. So let me ask you, what did you take that to mean exactly? 

I think that text is very clear. To help you, it doesn't mean there is no human to human infection.

 

Most likely it comes down to ' we have indications for human to human transmission, but no proof'. But it could also mean more basic 'no idea about human to human transmission'.

Edited May 4, 2020 by stevenl

[rkidlad]

Just now, stevenl said:

I think that text is very clear. To help you, it doesn't mean there is no human to human infection.

So the message was something like, "There might be human-to-human infection - there might not".

 

Is that the gist of what they meant? 

[Number 6]

There's no evidence it came from the market. None.

 

No patient zero oh except for the scientist that was disappeared and her identity removed from Wuhan lab. She's not been heard from since.

 

Bats from 1000 miles away end up giving a city this unique influenza. Meanwhile the same bats if true sold in other parts of the country but no flu.

 

I personally think it could be man-made but we will never know. The latest from French scientist and originally Indian scientists claim there was evidence of such.

 

Looks like the virus got loose. Sloppy procedure and no protocols.

 

Gotta be pretty numb to think this came from bat soup.

 

No doubt politics playing out everywhere now. 

 

Bat soup lol.

 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

So the message was something like, "There might be human-to-human infection - there might not".

 

Is that the gist of what they meant? 

See my edited post.

[marquis22]

Whether you believe the rhetoric or statistics is up to the individual.

But looking at figures from 4.3.20 to 4.5.20 it sure looks like China did well in controlling the spread of infection.

China has an increase in total cases from 80270 to 82880 in the last 2 months.

 

[rkidlad]

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I think that text is very clear. To help you, it doesn't mean there is no human to human infection.

 

Most likely it comes down to ' we have indications for human to human transmission, but no proof'. But it could also mean more basic 'no idea about human to human transmission'.

So why not say that? The message was grossly misleading. When facing an epidemic you have to be 100% clear and concise. The emphasis should always have been on "be careful" as opposed to, "stop spreading rumours this might be able to be passed on human-to-human because there's no clear evidence for that".

 

The fact that people are even debating the tweet is further proof of how unclear it was. But that's all moot anyway, as they would have known by then that it was spreading human-to-human. They were warned way before by their own doctors. 

 

 

[Logosone]

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

They did not say there is no human to human infection. They said there is no clear evidence of human to human infection.

That is true in substance. However they did say "The risk of continuous human-to-human transmission is low".

 

Which of course we now know to be completely false.

 

However, since the initial cases were around an animal market I think the Chinese believed for a long time that this was an animal to human transmission disease. Only as evidence surfaced later was it clear to them that human to human transmission was happening.

 

It's not a case that the Chinese were stupid, with a new virus obviously there are evidential issues and a steep learning curve. 

 

 

[rkidlad]

3 minutes ago, marquis22 said:

Whether you believe the rhetoric or statistics is up to the individual.

But looking at figures from 4.3.20 to 4.5.20 it sure looks like China did well in controlling the spread of infection.

China has an increase in total cases from 80270 to 82880 in the last 2 months.

 

Yes, Wuhan suddenly increased its death rate of covid by 50.019%. What are the chances? Truly amazing. 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

<snip>

 

However they did say "The risk of continuous human-to-human transmission is low".

 

<snip>

 

 

You have a link for that quote, I can't seem to find it.

[ChouDoufu]

42 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

So why not say that? The message was grossly misleading. When facing an epidemic you have to be 100% clear and concise. The emphasis should always have been on "be careful" as opposed to, "stop spreading rumours this might be able to be passed on human-to-human because there's no clear evidence for that".

 

The fact that people are even debating the tweet is further proof of how unclear it was. But that's all moot anyway, as they would have known by then that it was spreading human-to-human. They were warned way before by their own doctors. 

 

 

 

that was a twoot from the who (publicity office?) on jan 14 repeating the latest update with "no clear evidence" from the chinese authorities.

 

the who also held a press conference on jan 14, the very same day, with doctors(!), where they announced that there MAY be "limited" human-human transmission.

 

WHO says new China coronavirus could spread, warns hospitals worldwide

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - There may have been limited human-to-human transmission of a new coronavirus in China within families, and it is possible there could be a wider outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia-who-idUSKBN1ZD16J

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by ChouDoufu
incorrect quote, thanks rkidlad!

[rkidlad]

4 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

that was a twoot from the who (publicity office?) on jan 14 repeating the latest update with "no clear evidence" from the chinese authorities.

 

the who also held a press conference on jan 14, the very same day, with doctors(!), where they announced that they had confirmed "limited" human-human transmission.

No, he said there "may have been limited human-to-human transmission".

 

A link to the WHO's very own timeline.

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

 

14 January 2020

 

WHO's technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. 

 

Again, there's no way in hell the CCP didn't know this for sure.

[Logosone]

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You have a link for that quote, I can't seem to find it.

"Frozen case number", fourth line towards the end.

 

"...until 15 January when Wuhan's Municipal Health Commission (MHC) said on its website that "the result of present investigation shows no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission, but this does not rule out the possibility of such a transmission. The risk of continuous human-to-human transmission is low."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_mainland_China

Edited May 4, 2020 by Logosone

[ChouDoufu]

@rkidlad you're right, i was looking for an article to check my phrasing when you replied.

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, ChouDoufu said:

@rkidlad you're right, i was looking for an article to check my phrasing when you replied.

Yes, there's a very clear distinction between the words 'may' and 'confirmed'. The word may was used based on common sense and a knowledge of how viruses of this nature work. Confirmed is the term that should have been used way before based off doctors and scientists in China studying this novel corona virus and being able to tell the world what they surely already knew.  

 

Look through the timelines of what people have said from all sides. The CCP's arguments don't stand up to even the most casual of scrutiny. 

 

 

[ChouDoufu]

4 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Yes, there's a very clear distinction between the words 'may' and 'confirmed'. The word may was used based on common sense and a knowledge of how viruses of this nature work. Confirmed is the term that should have been used way before based off doctors and scientists in China studying this novel corona virus and being able to tell the world what they surely already knew.  

 

Look through the timelines of what people have said from all sides. The CCP's arguments don't stand up to even the most casual of scrutiny. 

 

 

ok, i think i got it.  they use "no clear evidence" when they suspect it, but don't have evidence to prove it, and so they're not sure.  when they get an anecdotal case that appears to be direct transmission, like in a family that could be but then they could have been infected from the same source, they use "may", because they're still not sure?

 

damn, that looks like they're saying the same thing there.  any experts on medical terminology here who could enlighten us, and explain when it would be appropriate to use "confirmed"?

 

 

 

 

[rkidlad]

Just now, ChouDoufu said:

ok, i think i got it.  they use "no clear evidence" when they suspect it, but don't have evidence to prove it, and so they're not sure.  when they get an anecdotal case that appears to be direct transmission, like in a family that could be but then they could have been infected from the same source, they use "may", because they're still not sure?

 

damn, that looks like they're saying the same thing there.  any experts on medical terminology here who could enlighten us, and explain when it would be appropriate to use "confirmed"?

 

 

 

 

The point is to be clear and concise. The emphasis should always have been on "be careful" and not "don't worry". We didn't want their opinion of how China was doing such a wonderful job, etc. People didn't want opinions they wanted facts. And when dealing with an epidemic you always err on the side of caution. 

 

Doctors who tried to warn us were silenced. That's a fact. 

 

 

[DavisH]

2 hours ago, candide said:

As a general policy, China doesn't accept invasive foreign investigation.

China can rightly tell the to eff off. Would the US government allow a foreign investigation of them in the same situation?

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, DavisH said:

China can rightly tell the to eff off. Would the US government allow a foreign investigation of them in the same situation?

If they were guilty of a cover-up, surely not. But hey, that's the point, right? 

[Dumbastheycome]

Pompeo  can say what he  is instructed  to but  until he or anyone else  can say and  prove/provide  "irrefutable" evidence his words  are just another  example of political flatulence designed to distract and provoke.

[ChouDoufu]

15 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

The point is to be clear and concise. The emphasis should always have been on "be careful" and not "don't worry". We didn't want their opinion of how China was doing such a wonderful job, etc. People didn't want opinions they wanted facts. And when dealing with an epidemic you always err on the side of caution. 

 

Doctors who tried to warn us were silenced. That's a fact.

 

being uninformed laymen, we can argue about the wording of the publicity announcements by the who; question is did they get the correct information to national health authorities in an understandable and timely manner?  what is their function in a country?  i believe they do not run their own investigations, but rather assist and advise, and are dependent on the host country for information.  what actual power/authority does the who have?

 

china will need to "come clean" on silencing the doctors.  who knew what and when, and how far up did it go?  the first instance i could find was dr li wenliang.  he ran afoul of the strict social media controls, posting what at that time would have amounted to rumors on a group chat.  not really a wise decision, but not an unexpected result.

 

sad really.  when wuhan was getting hit the hardest, the net minders were busy shutting down vpn access, and were successful for just over one week.

 

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, ChouDoufu said:

being uninformed laymen, we can argue about the wording of the publicity announcements by the who; question is did they get the correct information to national health authorities in an understandable and timely manner?  what is their function in a country?  i believe they do not run their own investigations, but rather assist and advise, and are dependent on the host country for information.  what actual power/authority does the who have?

 

china will need to "come clean" on silencing the doctors.  who knew what and when, and how far up did it go?  the first instance i could find was dr li wenliang.  he ran afoul of the strict social media controls, posting what at that time would have amounted to rumors on a group chat.  not really a wise decision, but not an unexpected result.

 

sad really.  when wuhan was getting hit the hardest, the net minders were busy shutting down vpn access, and were successful for just over one week.

 

Everything goes through Beijing. They control the narrative. They will do whatever it takes to not look bad. In a democracy, when a government messes up, they can be voted out. The CCP will never put their hands up and just walk away. You criticize them too much In China and you can expect to find yourself disappeared presumed dead. 
 

It’s a one-party system with a leader for life. That tells you all you need to know. 

[ChouDoufu]

2 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Everything goes through Beijing. They control the narrative. They will do whatever it takes to not look bad. In a democracy, when a government messes up, they can be voted out. The CCP will never put their hands up and just walk away. You criticize them too much In China and you can expect to find yourself disappeared presumed dead. 
 

It’s a one-party system with a leader for life. That tells you all you need to know. 

not really.  it looks like one massive collective, but in reality there are many little fiefdoms.  there are groupings in the national government jockeying for power, first secretaries of provincial capitals are little kings in their own domains, and it filters down to districts and on and on.  all of them jealous of the power they have, afraid to show any weakness.  xi as well.  he is leader for life...until he isn't.

 

mid-january, hubei was planning important provincial party meetings.  in the weeks leading up to that, internet and social media minders would have been very, very busy.  they wouldn't want anything to upset the festivities, which would have been a massive loss of face for the hubei leadership.  what was reported to the national government, if anything, and from there to the who?

 

but none of this has any bearing on whether pompeo is correct about a leak from a lab, or whether the virus actually started earlier in another province.  i'm certain that with our assets based at the wuhan consulate, we had a good idea of the situation in wuhan regarding the spread, the rumors, and the silenced doctors.

 

the unsubstantiated claims by both trump and pompeo lead me to believe either we know for certain there was no leak, or we have no evidence at all and it's just electioneering.  playing the "it's a secret" card will fire up the base, but will wind up letting beijing off the hook.

 

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, ChouDoufu said:

not really.  it looks like one massive collective, but in reality there are many little fiefdoms.  there are groupings in the national government jockeying for power, first secretaries of provincial capitals are little kings in their own domains, and it filters down to districts and on and on.  all of them jealous of the power they have, afraid to show any weakness.  xi as well.  he is leader for life...until he isn't.

 

mid-january, hubei was planning important provincial party meetings.  in the weeks leading up to that, internet and social media minders would have been very, very busy.  they wouldn't want anything to upset the festivities, which would have been a massive loss of face for the hubei leadership.  what was reported to the national government, if anything, and from there to the who?

 

but none of this has any bearing on whether pompeo is correct about a leak from a lab, or whether the virus actually started earlier in another province.  i'm certain that with our assets based at the wuhan consulate, we had a good idea of the situation in wuhan regarding the spread, the rumors, and the silenced doctors.

 

the unsubstantiated claims by both trump and pompeo lead me to believe either we know for certain there was no leak, or we have no evidence at all and it's just electioneering.  playing the "it's a secret" card will fire up the base, but will wind up letting beijing off the hook.

 

My concern isn’t what Trump or Pompeo think. I don’t follow politicians like I would my favourite sports team. This isn’t a ‘I hate Trump so I want him to be wrong’ kind of situation. My concern is that the CCP won’t allow an independent investigation. 
 

It’s one thing saying no. It’s another thing threatening a sovereign nation with trade repercussions for asking for something that’s a common sense approach. Call me crazy but I don’t want this to happen again. 
 

If this was just an accident, China should be doing everything to prove their innocence. Instead they’re making threats through their wolf diplomacy. Not the behavior of an innocent party. Quite the opposite. 

[ChouDoufu]

4 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

My concern isn’t what Trump or Pompeo think. I don’t follow politicians like I would my favourite sports team. This isn’t a ‘I hate Trump so I want him to be wrong’ kind of situation. My concern is that the CCP won’t allow an independent investigation. 
 

It’s one thing saying no. It’s another thing threatening a sovereign nation with trade repercussions for asking for something that’s a common sense approach. Call me crazy but I don’t want this to happen again. 
 

If this was just an accident, China should be doing everything to prove their innocence. Instead they’re making threats through their wolf diplomacy. Not the behavior of an innocent party. Quite the opposite. 

there's no point in that approach, as there is no way to prove this negative.  trump smells blood and thinks this is going to be his big "win."  same-same as with iraq, no matter how much evidence was provided, it could never be enough.  and again, once one accusation is cleared, there will be more.  that will never end, as planned, to gain advantage in trade negotiations.

 

he needs to keep the pressure on until the election, keep the focus on china hiding stuff, or how the who was ineffective - anything but his failures.

 

not sure where i read it, but some analyst had put together the time line and calculated that if china had been completely forthcoming, and the who had done everything perfectly, we would have had an additional six days to prepare.  as it is, even sixteen days wouldn't have mattered.  we wasted more time doing little to prepare, even after wuhan was locked down.  that's what this is all about - changing the focus from trump doing essentially nothing when we already knew what was coming.

 

 

 

[rkidlad]

5 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

there's no point in that approach, as there is no way to prove this negative.  trump smells blood and thinks this is going to be his big "win."  same-same as with iraq, no matter how much evidence was provided, it could never be enough.  and again, once one accusation is cleared, there will be more.  that will never end, as planned, to gain advantage in trade negotiations.

 

he needs to keep the pressure on until the election, keep the focus on china hiding stuff, or how the who was ineffective - anything but his failures.

 

not sure where i read it, but some analyst had put together the time line and calculated that if china had been completely forthcoming, and the who had done everything perfectly, we would have had an additional six days to prepare.  as it is, even sixteen days wouldn't have mattered.  we wasted more time doing little to prepare, even after wuhan was locked down.  that's what this is all about - changing the focus from trump doing essentially nothing when we already knew what was coming.

 

 

 

University of Southampton said had they been more honest and proactive from beginning, 95% of cases could have been avoided. 
 

You keep believing and giving the benefit of the doubt to an authoritarian regime who heavily censors information and locks up critics. And I’ll continue to judge them accordingly based off their actions. 

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/01/asia/china-censorship-chen-jieren-intl-hnk/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

[ChouDoufu]

another problem we have is the amount of propaganda and disinformation directed against china.  you see the hit pieces with actual "fake news", photoshopped images, spliced and redubbed videos, wild claims.  they circulate on youtube and other social media platforms, get propagated by the conspiracy and political opposition websites, sometimes get picked up by the mainstream press.  occasionally even make it into presidential tweets, i believe.

 

and this of course results in even more restrictions on social media in china.  the censors were dealing with an intensive propaganda campaign because of the hong kong situation, party meetings were coming up, and so they would of course move to shut down more "fake news."

 

it doesn't help with all the repostings of easily debunked propaganda.  21 million cell phone users died, 87 crematoria were getting 3500 urns delivered daily, interns were selling used bats at the market, it was a bioweapon tested on wuhan, they deliberately infected the world.  the more of that <deleted> we get, the harder it gets to take real accusations seriously.

 

i'd really like to know the truth.  evidence-free accusations aren't the way to give me confidence my overlords have anything other than their own grip on power in mind.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

ok, i think i got it.  they use "no clear evidence" when they suspect it, but don't have evidence to prove it, and so they're not sure.  when they get an anecdotal case that appears to be direct transmission, like in a family that could be but then they could have been infected from the same source, they use "may", because they're still not sure?

 

damn, that looks like they're saying the same thing there.  any experts on medical terminology here who could enlighten us, and explain when it would be appropriate to use "confirmed"?

Confirmed, as in real clear evidence. That's when authorities, still outwardly murky on how or even if it's H2H infectious, completely lock down a  city of millions, welding people in their homes, permanently block  access ways, rip people from their of cars, with little regard to life.

 

That's when you know, they knew, and had known for a long time.

 

Then entire story is like Swiss cheese without the cheese.

 

How could they be so sure so early? Maybe someone from a lab told them exactly what it was.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by rabas