It actually might have been significant in the early days, to know where to look for other cases - but at this point the main use for such knowledge would be preventing future pandemics.
However, public health officials and the media effectively lying about the issue for months has surely hindered stopping the pandemic, by reducing public trust in those institutions.
Just to be clear, you have no evidence that it escaped from a lab; you’re just assuming that it did, which could ultimately be true, but we’ve got no proof of that yet.
I’m saying that after looking into it I think virus escaping from lab is more likely than virus infecting people at wet market. That’s not the same as assuming the former is true. There’s no proof either way.
But you accused public health officials (didn’t say which ones) of lying about the issue for months, without proof. You’re just tossing around baseless claims.
As for the media and public health officials, they lied by saying the idea was impossible/debunked, when they should have been investigating it to see how plausible it was.
I’ve seen nobody say that it was impossible; I’ve seen a number say that it’s unlikely but hedged short of saying it’s absolutely not possible.
It’s the legacy of Donald Trump, who was far more interested in assigning blame than he was in solving problems. Can you blame people for not wanting to follow in his footsteps?
Yes I can. Descending to his level doesn’t solve anything, it just makes the problem even worse.
Political belief system != inherent characteristics like race, gender, sexuality. It really isn’t that fucking hard. But then, you already know that.
Cite?
Apparently, the Taliban has plenty of time to bitch about not being allowed to have a Twitter account because FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
No, I don’t ‘know that’. All are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010.
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
- age;
- disability;
- gender reassignment;
- marriage and civil partnership;
- pregnancy and maternity;
- race;
- religion or belief;
- sex;
- sexual orientation.
This is a US board, but the US can scarcely be considered a liberal paradise. It’s a massive blind spot that bigotry based on beliefs is not just tolerated but welcomed and encouraged here.
Hmm, now I don’t know what the law actually says but ya think this religion might be giving us a clue as to what this or belief means?
I am genuinely concerned about your mental health.
I don’t think anybody else on the board has been agreeing with that poster. Different people have been picking apart, and coherently objecting to, different pieces of what they’re saying – the ones that you list included.
Do you have a cite for any major media source or public health official, let alone all of them, saying that it was impossible it was a lab escape?
What I saw, in multiple places, was such sources saying that it was impossible/debunked that it was deliberately engineered. Which is not the same thing at all.
It doesn’t say political belief. In that context, I’d take it as an attempt to include atheism and ‘spiritual but not religious’ beliefs. At least, unless somebody can bring court cases deciding otherwise.
Your argument that political beliefs are part of a protected class in the UK has been thoroughly debunked already, so I’ll move on:
I ask again: if you don’t base your judgement of people based on their beliefs and actions, what DO you base your judgement on?
Do you think it’s possible that one can know and love people in one’s life while having fundamental differences of morals or beliefs?
You’re the only person who actually replied to that post. I just imagine what the reaction would be if someone said the same thing about almost any other group. Yet when it concerns a certain subset of Americans, who seem to me to be defined as much by their culture as their political beliefs, no one cares about courtesy, or being PC, or not stereotyping. All the rules are thrown out of the window. Just look at @Babale’s response.
It includes philosophical beliefs, not specifically political ones. I believe there was a case a few years ago that concluded veganism was covered.
Read this:
Yeah, of course. I disagree with my parents about a bunch of different things that are pretty fundamental to our beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t “know and love” them. I don’t see what that has to do with anything, though.
Do you think that the only two options are to completely avoid passing any sort of judgment on someone else’s belief, or to vehemently oppose and hate them? Because there’s a while lot of ground between those two extremes.
Did YOU read it? Specifically, did you read the linked statement published by Lancet, or just the 2 phrases they extracted from it?