There are a lot of points here, many of which I agree with, several of which I don’t, but none seem to address the questions I asked or points I made.
To very briefly respond,
First, yes, warning is critical, and being discussed, but doesn’t relate to the 100 day plan, which was formulated in case there is spread, i.e. warning systems failed.
Second, the plan expressly addresses the issues with slow clinical trials, and building new institutions to handle that.
And third, laboratory origins and the database deletion is so far off from the point I was thinking about deleting the comment.
And third, laboratory origins and the database deletion is so far off from the point I was thinking about deleting the comment.
That wouldn’t be the first time you did something in defense of the institutions that looks suspect retrospect.
I haven’t speaking about the laboratory origins directly.
If you don’t want to start in September start in October. We are currently asking the EcoHealth alliance to account for the reduced cellphone traffic in the WIV within October. How would we know now that they had reduced cellphone traffic if not through surveillance of the WIV by some agency within the Five Eyes? It seems like the passed that organization along sometime in July 2020, so that we can ask the EcoHealth alliance and the Chinese for an explanation.
Whether or not the WIV is the cause of the outbreak doesn’t change the fact that information like that should be passed on. If we could have asked the EcoHealth alliance in December 2020 to explain itself, that would have been much better.
Whether or not the WIV is actually the cause doesn’t change the fact that it’s very bad that they took a database that was created with international fund to be useful in a pandemic offline. If we can’t count of critical infrasturcture like that to be available during a pandemic, we can’t count on anything we build for our 100 day plan to be available as well.
Even if the WIV didn’t cause the outbreak both of those issues are relevant. Asking the EcoHealth alliance in 2021 about the anomalies is too late. The database not being available to defend ourselves against the pandemic is bad.
I’m not defending any institutions, or disagreeing with the point. But I mostly agree with your substantive claim, and I’m happy to talk about the question more - elsewhere.
I’m simply telling you it’s off topic. As the commenting guidelines should have made clear by now.
There are a lot of points here, many of which I agree with, several of which I don’t, but none seem to address the questions I asked or points I made.
To very briefly respond,
First, yes, warning is critical, and being discussed, but doesn’t relate to the 100 day plan, which was formulated in case there is spread, i.e. warning systems failed.
Second, the plan expressly addresses the issues with slow clinical trials, and building new institutions to handle that.
And third, laboratory origins and the database deletion is so far off from the point I was thinking about deleting the comment.
That wouldn’t be the first time you did something in defense of the institutions that looks suspect retrospect.
I haven’t speaking about the laboratory origins directly.
If you don’t want to start in September start in October. We are currently asking the EcoHealth alliance to account for the reduced cellphone traffic in the WIV within October. How would we know now that they had reduced cellphone traffic if not through surveillance of the WIV by some agency within the Five Eyes? It seems like the passed that organization along sometime in July 2020, so that we can ask the EcoHealth alliance and the Chinese for an explanation.
Whether or not the WIV is the cause of the outbreak doesn’t change the fact that information like that should be passed on. If we could have asked the EcoHealth alliance in December 2020 to explain itself, that would have been much better.
Whether or not the WIV is actually the cause doesn’t change the fact that it’s very bad that they took a database that was created with international fund to be useful in a pandemic offline. If we can’t count of critical infrasturcture like that to be available during a pandemic, we can’t count on anything we build for our 100 day plan to be available as well.
Even if the WIV didn’t cause the outbreak both of those issues are relevant. Asking the EcoHealth alliance in 2021 about the anomalies is too late. The database not being available to defend ourselves against the pandemic is bad.
I’m not defending any institutions, or disagreeing with the point. But I mostly agree with your substantive claim, and I’m happy to talk about the question more - elsewhere.
I’m simply telling you it’s off topic. As the commenting guidelines should have made clear by now.