This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y

If this was a lab escape, it was definitely not a bioweapon. 0.5% mortality is too laughably weak to be used as such. A REAL bioweapon works the opposite, it leaves only 0.5% standing after it's deployed.

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y

Apparently not.

"The authors of the paper have now published a second study that states their earliest positive sewage sample is from January 15th 2020 and does not make any reference to this preprint:"

A non-refereed pre-print wouldn't be strict science.

https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
> Apparently not.
>
> "The authors of the paper have now published a second study that states their earliest positive sewage sample is from January 15th 2020 and does not make any reference to this preprint:"
>
> A non-refereed pre-print wouldn't be strict science.
>
> https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582

The article says no such thing:
"The paper is currently being subject to critical review by outside experts in preparation for publication in a scientific journal. "

And it's entirely possible, if not probable based on its history, the virus that lead to the massive 12/2019 outbreak was a more lethal and infectious variant of the strain circulating 9 months earlier and being spread all over the world by the Chinese.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
>
> If this was a lab escape, it was definitely not a bioweapon. 0.5% mortality is too laughably weak to be used as such. A REAL bioweapon works the opposite, it leaves only 0.5% standing after it's deployed.

I disagree. A weapon that shuts down your economy has, indeed, military potential. In WWII they found that bombing factories had little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories did.

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 12:45:33 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
> > Apparently not.
> >
> > "The authors of the paper have now published a second study that states their earliest positive sewage sample is from January 15th 2020 and does not make any reference to this preprint:"
> >
> > A non-refereed pre-print wouldn't be strict science.
> >
> > https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582
>
> The article says no such thing:
>
> "The paper is currently being subject to critical review by outside experts in preparation for publication in a scientific journal. "

Which is to say that what you linked to hadn't been peer-reviewed, which is what I said.

Apparently the version that emerged from peer-review had dropped the claim about detecting anything in March 2019.

> And it's entirely possible, if not probable based on its history, the virus that lead to the massive 12/2019 outbreak was a more lethal and infectious variant of the strain circulating 9 months earlier and being spread all over the world by the Chinese.

Nothing about the Covid-19 epidemic suggests that the Chinese had spread the virus deliberately. The Chinese authorities were in denial about the virus having the capacity to spread from person to person until January 2020.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30382-2/fulltext

Sadly, that provided plenty of time for people visiting China to get infected and take the virus home with them.

There are all kinds of idiot conspiracy theories that envisage different scenarios, but even you should have enough sense not to take them seriously.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:10:21 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
> >
> > If this was a lab escape, it was definitely not a bioweapon. 0.5% mortality is too laughably weak to be used as such. A REAL bioweapon works the opposite, it leaves only 0.5% standing after it's deployed.
>
> I disagree. A weapon that shuts down your economy has, indeed, military potential. In WWII they found that bombing factories had little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories did.

That had more to do with the fact that WW2 bombing wasn't all that precise. If they could have hit the factories with most of the bombs they dropped, bombing them probably would have been effective, but civilian housing was an easier target.

There was a little precision bombing in WW2, but it was done by elite units on relatively soft targets.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:26:01 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:10:21 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in the scientific literature..
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
> > >
> > > If this was a lab escape, it was definitely not a bioweapon. 0.5% mortality is too laughably weak to be used as such. A REAL bioweapon works the opposite, it leaves only 0.5% standing after it's deployed.
> >
> > I disagree. A weapon that shuts down your economy has, indeed, military potential. In WWII they found that bombing factories had little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories did.
> That had more to do with the fact that WW2 bombing wasn't all that precise. If they could have hit the factories with most of the bombs they dropped, bombing them probably would have been effective, but civilian housing was an easier target.
>
> There was a little precision bombing in WW2, but it was done by elite units on relatively soft targets.
>
> https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/

It could have been VERY precise, but the allied militaries squandered the pre-war peacetime years on garbage technologies and grifters, like the U.S. did with that Norden moron!

After the war was in full motion, the British and Americans both got to work on terrain mapping radars for use as electronic bombsights. The U.S. effort with technology lead Luis Alvarez, a future Noble Prize winner, ended up being a superior solution, but the war was all but over by the time it entered service. They could have had this system operational by 1940, and it would have been an entirely different war if they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-7

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs
>> wrote:
>>> This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in
>>> the scientific literature..
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
>> Apparently not.
>>
>> "The authors of the paper have now published a second study that
>> states their earliest positive sewage sample is from January 15th
>> 2020 and does not make any reference to this preprint:"
>>
>> A non-refereed pre-print wouldn't be strict science.
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582
>
>>
> The article says no such thing: "The paper is currently being subject
> to critical review by outside experts in preparation for publication
> in a scientific journal."
>
> And it's entirely possible, if not probable based on its history,
> the virus that lead to the massive 12/2019 outbreak was a more lethal
> and infectious variant of the strain circulating 9 months earlier and
> being spread all over the world by the Chinese.
>

The ChiComs are in massive damage-control mode, trying to phony up bat
viruses that look like intermediate stages in the 'evolution' of
SARS-CoV2. Planting a paper of this sort would be a very natural part
of such a disinfo campaign.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 6:24:35 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in
>> the scientific literature..
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
>>
>> If this was a lab escape, it was definitely not a bioweapon. 0.5%
>> mortality is too laughably weak to be used as such. A REAL
>> bioweapon works the opposite, it leaves only 0.5% standing after
>> it's deployed.
>
> I disagree. A weapon that shuts down your economy has, indeed,
> military potential. In WWII they found that bombing factories had
> little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories
> did.

Nope. The housing was just a bigger target for low-accuracy bombing.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 10:57:26 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Flyguy wrote:

> > ... In WWII they found that bombing factories had
> > little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories
> > did.

> Nope. The housing was just a bigger target for low-accuracy bombing.

The US tried daylight bombing, but the countermeasures were
too effective. The British used radar to support night bombing,
which was... low accuracy.

So, targeting factories (ball bearings, as I recall) was a US precision aiming experiment
that failed, while the RAF continued with low-accuracy night missions
that allowed their planes to, largely, return unscathed.

The Norden bombsight worked OK, but wasn't a night-mission asset.

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 3:55:44 AM UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 9:53:18 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 11:24:35 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs
> >> wrote:
> >>> This has strict scientific confirmation, and is being reported in
> >>> the scientific literature..
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyhMoWDSZ7Y
> >>>
> >> Apparently not.
> >>
> >> "The authors of the paper have now published a second study that
> >> states their earliest positive sewage sample is from January 15th
> >> 2020 and does not make any reference to this preprint:"
> >>
> >> A non-refereed pre-print wouldn't be strict science.
> >>
> >> https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582
> >
> > The article says no such thing: "The paper is currently being subject
> > to critical review by outside experts in preparation for publication
> > in a scientific journal."
> >
> > And it's entirely possible, if not probable based on its history,
> > the virus that lead to the massive 12/2019 outbreak was a more lethal
> > and infectious variant of the strain circulating 9 months earlier and
> > being spread all over the world by the Chinese.
> >
> The ChiComs are in massive damage-control mode, trying to phony up bat viruses that look like intermediate stages in the 'evolution' of
SARS-CoV2. Planting a paper of this sort would be a very natural part of such a disinfo campaign.

The paper that Fred is talking about comes from Barcelona.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/

doesn't seem to think that there's any necessity to for human intervention to get the bat virus to move into human populations - natural mutations do seem to be enough to do the job. The original bat virus doesn't do well in humans, but the mutations that let it move into intermediate species may make it easier for it to infect enough humans for another mutation or two to make it more infectious and establish enough of a population top throw up something infectious enough to start an epidemic.

That paper's authors come from France, Spain, China and France respectively.. If it has been planted by the Chinese, they've been subtle about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 7:36:45 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 10:57:26 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> > Flyguy wrote:
>
> > > ... In WWII they found that bombing factories had
> > > little effect, but bombing the civilians that worked in the factories
> > > did.
>
> > Nope. The housing was just a bigger target for low-accuracy bombing.
> The US tried daylight bombing, but the countermeasures were
> too effective. The British used radar to support night bombing,
> which was... low accuracy.
>
> So, targeting factories (ball bearings, as I recall) was a US precision aiming experiment
> that failed, while the RAF continued with low-accuracy night missions
> that allowed their planes to, largely, return unscathed.
>
> The Norden bombsight worked OK, but wasn't a night-mission asset.

It wasn't an asset when skies were overcast either, like all the time in Europe. The Navy, which developed the bombsight, removed it from all of its aircraft, and moved to divebombing to avoid requiring a bombsight. The Air Corps relied heavily of the lead bomber technique to avoid relying on the bombsight.
The Germans became aware of the exact engineering details of the Norden bombsight well before the war and rejected it as being a low performance gadget they didn't need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfernrohr_7
U.S. Navy spent a decade and over a billion $$ developing the Norden kluge, and, because of incompetent engineering review and woefully inadequate testing, didn't discover it was unusable until the war was well upon them. It was a failure.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/