FBI Says Covid-19 Most Likely A Leak From Lab

[esmith]

This post is placed in this forum vice the Current Events forum due to Covid is mentioned in the title; However it is my opinion that it belongs in Current Events or maybe North American Politics because this is not about the dieseas itself but the actions of many.

As per the title of this thread states the FBI thinks that it is most likely that the Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab in China.

When we have the majority of national media, entertainment personnel, and many in Congress that try to silence those that have opposing views by any means neccessry we have a problem

When the President of the U.S. thinks it is more important to play nice with the CCP than to put forth the possibility that those that were saying that Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab were right I think we have a problem.

This is not the first time that the same group of people have done this and unless they are held accountable it will continue. I will now get off my soapbox and open this up for discussion.

FBI director says COVID pandemic 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...id-19-most-likely-originated-from-chinese-lab
FBI chief says agency feels COVID pandemic likely started with Chinese lab leak
FBI believes Covid originated from Chinese lab leak, says agency director
FBI Director Wray acknowledges bureau assessment that Covid-19 likely resulted from lab incident | CNN Politics

Brett Bairer interview with FBI Director Christopher Wray (20 min)
COVID pandemic 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab: FBI Director Wray | Fox News Video

 

[wellwisher]

My opinion or hunch, from the beginning, based on how the COVID virus targeted the elderly, and the most sick; respiratory, heart disease, obesity, compromise immune system, but not the children, was this virus was being designed for population control and a way to lower medical costs. If you look at the data, it eliminated the very demographics that cost the most to maintain. It did not target young soldiers. My inference was it was not military in terms of its goal; Some type of supper Flu would have been better for that. I assumed it was an accidental release, not from bats, but human error from a longer term project; population control.

I was surprised the Democrats and Swamp would team up with China, on this; Fauci sent money to China for cooperative research. But then again, the Democrat party's long term goal was Socialism, which is not very efficient, so medical cost could skyrocket under such a future system; Long term cheap global solution.

I read the other day, there is a female scientist, from Hong Kong, who had been outspoken and who just came out of hiding. She had claimed and still claims, this was not a leak done by human error, but had to be intensional. She said the protocols for safety, in such bio-germ labs were so tight, with so many layers of fail safe; detectors and purgers, it had would have needed a conscious effort and not a just a brain fart to get it out of the lab. You would need to get the virus past all types of detectors and bio-deterrents. It is not one door and out on your shoe. I am not sure if this is correct, but it does make sense, if you ever worked in any top secure area.

Who knows who was responsible for the sneak pass security. However, what we do know is this disaster helped Biden win the election, by killing the Trump economy. It came out at the start of the election year, that began with a strong Trump economy. It also gave China a stronger medical market position, since they had all the masks and other supplies. Obama never stockpiled. It could be fate or coincidence.

I could never see the original need to suppress anything, not even forum speculation. When there is a disaster everyone wants to help. That top secret approach smelled like Big Brother with his hand in the cookie jar. Without Twitter to censor and Republicans in power, Big Brother no longer have all the keys, so maybe we can finally find the truth.

The DOE of Department of Energy, which runs many of the US National Labs, has also said this is more than likely a leak from the Lab. They also fund bio research as well as energy research and is composed of international scientists who are experts in all fields.

 

[Kenny]

I see this as the beginning of the unraveling of all the false narratives and the censoring of free thought and discussion.

All of a sudden, everybody was the determinant of what was correct and what wasn't (as long as it didn't contradict the government narrative)

A recent report that masks didn't help
We now believe it most likely that it came from China
We now question whether d vaccine didn't really loeder the curve
We now know that natural vaccine is better

What is next on the list?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see this as the beginning of the unraveling of all the false narratives and the censoring of free thought and discussion.

All of a sudden, everybody was the determinant of what was correct and what wasn't (as long as it didn't contradict the government narrative)

Which government? Governments in different countries were following the advice of medical institutions and organizations worldwide, which all agreed that vaccines significantly reduced the risk of severe disease and death. They also agreed that masks slowed down the transmission of COVID.

A recent report that masks didn't help

And numerous authoritative sources saying otherwise. For example:

The Evidence Shows Masks Work

This article was originally posted in the Montreal Gazette. As we see cases of multiple respiratory viruses rising in Canada and around the world, we now have to deal with not just COVID-19, but also respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV) and influenza. As a result, overcrowded ERs are functioning...

www.mcgill.ca

Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

Face masks can help slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Learn about mask types, which masks to use and how to use them.

www.mayoclinic.org

Furthermore, there has been a lot of expert criticism of the report stating that masks were ineffective. For instance:

Masks Prevent COVID-19 Transmission.

The recent Cochrane study regarding the effectiveness of masking has come under extensive criticism. One of the main problems is that the study relies heavily on research evaluating the seasonal flu, a virus that is NOT felt to spread primarily by the airborne route. Early in the pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci advised that the public did not need to wear masks. Like the current Cochrane review, these recommendations relied heavily on existing research, much of which studied seasonal flu. This was the wrong conclusion for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) based on extrapolated seasonal flu data.

In addition, as stated by the Cochrane study’s authors: “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions.” Ethically, it is challenging to have non-masking controls. For example, an extensive and excellently controlled study performed in Bangladesh studied mask access and education. Both arms had masking, and there was a 29 percentage point difference in usage. Despite this, there was an 11% reduction in COVID-19 in the arm with community education, a benefit which rose to 35% in those over age 60. In addition, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine observed a marked benefit in the prevention of COVID-19 spread with the use of masks in Massachusetts’ schools. One would expect that if these studies used N95 masks, the improvement would be even more significant.

Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation: What the Experts Got Right—and Wrong

Information presented at this week's Congressional Committee needs a much deeper evaluation and consideration. The Cochrane Masking study may even vindicate the federal government's initial COVID-19 response.

www.infectioncontroltoday.com

We now believe it most likely that it came from China

What does that change? I think most people have known, or at least believed, that it most likely came from China since the beginning of the pandemic. As far as preventive measures and precautions go, the origin of the virus has little to no relevance.

We now question whether d vaccine didn't really loeder the curve

No reputable medical institution questions this. The only questioning comes either from fringe experts whose methodology has been extensively refuted by other experts or from laypeople with no relevant medical qualifications.

People who have recovered from COVID-19 still benefit from vaccination, according to a new study led by a Stanford Medicine researcher and colleagues in Brazil.

“We found clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective among people who have recovered from a previous infection, giving them benefits above and beyond the immunity they already have,” said Jason Andrews, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Stanford and a lead author of the study.

Whether people who have recovered from COVID-19 need to be vaccinated continues to be debated.

The new study, however, indicates that immunization after infection provides additional protection. In more than 22,000 people in Brazil who were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the CoronaVac, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines prevented 40% to 65% of symptomatic illnesses, the study found. The two-dose vaccines — CoronaVac, AstraZeneca and Pfizer — prevented 80% to 90% of hospitalizations and deaths from reinfection.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization, death in people with prior infection, study finds

Two-dose COVID-19 vaccines significantly increase protection against hospitalization and death in people who had the illness before they were immunized.

med.stanford.edu

Also:

Vaccinated individuals were at considerably lower risks of both hospital admission and death compared to unvaccinated individuals, whether infected with Omicron or Delta. For those who had received three vaccine doses before their positive test, the risk of hospital admission was approximately 80% lower, and the risk of death approximately 85% lower compared to unvaccinated cases. Among unvaccinated cases, for whom the risks were higher than for vaccinated cases, the risk of hospital admission was 70% lower and the risk of death 80% lower if infected with Omicron, compared to unvaccinated cases infected with Delta. This finding indicates that the Omicron variant has a lower intrinsic severity than the Delta variant.

People with Omicron variant less likely hospitalised compared to Delta variant | Imperial News | Imperial College London

People with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be admitted to hospital or to die, compared to those with the Delta variant.

www.imperial.ac.uk

We now know that natural vaccine is better

We don't "know" that. Evidence shows that prior infection doesn't provide more immunity than vaccination, and it also shows that vaccination reduces risk of severe disease and death even among people who have been previously infected. See the Stanford study above.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, the virus itself is not political in nature and it doesn't give a fig who anyone voted for or against. I've had three vaccinations and COVID, and probably won't have any more vaccinations because the last one gave me a headache that lasted for FOUR DAYS. So no thanks. Anyway, the "vaccinations" also didn't stop me from eventually getting COVID, so I wouldn't call them a vaccination when they didn't even last a freaking year. The case of COVID that I got was definitely mild though - milder than any flu I've ever had, for one thing. I only tested positive for three days and was back at work in five or six days. Anyway, that's my story. It was like a sinus infection - a mild one. The only reason I even tested is because I knew I had been around so many people who had it (also mild cases, including one case in a 91 year old). My feelings? Much ado about nothing.

 

[Koldo]

Well, the virus itself is not political in nature and it doesn't give a fig who anyone voted for or against. I've had three vaccinations and COVID, and probably won't have any more vaccinations because the last one gave me a headache that lasted for FOUR DAYS. So no thanks. Anyway, the "vaccinations" also didn't stop me from eventually getting COVID, so I wouldn't call them a vaccination when they didn't even last a freaking year. The case of COVID that I got was definitely mild though - milder than any flu I've ever had, for one thing. I only tested positive for three days and was back at work in five or six days. Anyway, that's my story. It was like a sinus infection - a mild one. The only reason I even tested is because I knew I had been around so many people who had it (also mild cases, including one case in a 91 year old). My feelings? Much ado about nothing.

Except a whole lot of people died because of it...

 

[Koldo]

I see this as the beginning of the unraveling of all the false narratives and the censoring of free thought and discussion.

All of a sudden, everybody was the determinant of what was correct and what wasn't (as long as it didn't contradict the government narrative)

A recent report that masks didn't help
We now believe it most likely that it came from China
We now question whether d vaccine didn't really loeder the curve
We now know that natural vaccine is better

What is next on the list?

Natural vaccine is better?... what the...
You understand that a lot of people die before we achieve herd immunity, right?

 

[F1fan]

Well, the virus itself is not political in nature and it doesn't give a fig who anyone voted for or against. I've had three vaccinations and COVID, and probably won't have any more vaccinations because the last one gave me a headache that lasted for FOUR DAYS. So no thanks. Anyway, the "vaccinations" also didn't stop me from eventually getting COVID, so I wouldn't call them a vaccination when they didn't even last a freaking year. The case of COVID that I got was definitely mild though - milder than any flu I've ever had, for one thing. I only tested positive for three days and was back at work in five or six days. Anyway, that's my story. It was like a sinus infection - a mild one. The only reason I even tested is because I knew I had been around so many people who had it (also mild cases, including one case in a 91 year old). My feelings? Much ado about nothing.

One 91 year old has a mild case so the million of elderly worldwide is "much ado about nothing"? Nine of 10 deaths were people over 65. Those who get low levels and their body creates enough antibodies to fight the replication then the illness won't be severe. There are many factors that explain why different people have different experiences. One thing for sure, it was a deadly virus that should be respected.

The vaccines don't prevent illness when there is high levels of exposure. Vaccines are like a bullet proof vest, they will stop most bullets but not all. Being vaccinated means your body has capacity to eliminate higher level of exposure than your normal immune system. It takes a certain number of Covid virus to get us sick. The worse your immune system the fewer virus it takes to get you sick. But even the healthy and vaccinated will get sick if they are bombarded with virus, like being in an elevator. I was at a friend's wedding in a small room with about 200 people, and about 2/3 got sick from the same guy. It was one of the bride's uncles who was not vaccinated, and he ended up being hospitalized a few days after the wedding. I got Covid badly, and I was vaccinated twice. Of course I'm an athlete and we often get very sick due to our bodies being stressed in training and competition.

So if your Covid experience was mild it is likely it wasn't worse due to you getting vaccinated. The vaccines give your body a head start in fighting the virus when they get into your body. My case was terrible, I was knocked out for about three days. I did recover faster than average. It is a nasty virus and it will evolve, so getting new vaccinations is not a bad idea. The vaccines will change and should improve over time if it doesn't change too much.

 

[F1fan]

This post is placed in this forum vice the Current Events forum due to Covid is mentioned in the title; However it is my opinion that it belongs in Current Events or maybe North American Politics because this is not about the dieseas itself but the actions of many.

As per the title of this thread states the FBI thinks that it is most likely that the Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab in China.

When we have the majority of national media, entertainment personnel, and many in Congress that try to silence those that have opposing views by any means neccessry we have a problem

When the President of the U.S. thinks it is more important to play nice with the CCP than to put forth the possibility that those that were saying that Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab were right I think we have a problem.

This is not the first time that the same group of people have done this and unless they are held accountable it will continue. I will now get off my soapbox and open this up for discussion.

FBI director says COVID pandemic 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab
FBI: COVID-19 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab
FBI chief says agency feels COVID pandemic likely started with Chinese lab leak
FBI believes Covid originated from Chinese lab leak, says agency director
FBI Director Wray acknowledges bureau assessment that Covid-19 likely resulted from lab incident | CNN Politics

Brett Bairer interview with FBI Director Christopher Wray (20 min)
COVID pandemic 'most likely' originated from Chinese lab: FBI Director Wray | Fox News Video

OK, there are Covid-19 samples in US labs, too. At best the conclusion could be that the Chinese had identified his strain and tried to contain it, but their protocols were sloppy and the sample got out. These virus do evolve naturally, so the likley source was a natural cause one way or another. Unless the Chinese come totally clean about what happened we aren't going to know very much. I know one rumor popular among right wingers is that Covid is a bioweapon. I don't see how this would be an effective weapon as it is most fatal to the eldery who wouldn't be in a military unit.

 

[Kenny]

Which government? Governments in different countries were following the advice of medical institutions and organizations worldwide, which all agreed that vaccines significantly reduced the risk of severe disease and death. They also agreed that masks slowed down the transmission of COVID.



And numerous authoritative sources saying otherwise. For example:

The Evidence Shows Masks Work

This article was originally posted in the Montreal Gazette. As we see cases of multiple respiratory viruses rising in Canada and around the world, we now have to deal with not just COVID-19, but also respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV) and influenza. As a result, overcrowded ERs are functioning...

www.mcgill.ca

Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

Face masks can help slow the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Learn about mask types, which masks to use and how to use them.

www.mayoclinic.org

Furthermore, there has been a lot of expert criticism of the report stating that masks were ineffective. For instance:

Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation: What the Experts Got Right—and Wrong

Information presented at this week's Congressional Committee needs a much deeper evaluation and consideration. The Cochrane Masking study may even vindicate the federal government's initial COVID-19 response.

www.infectioncontroltoday.com

What does that change? I think most people have known, or at least believed, that it most likely came from China since the beginning of the pandemic. As far as preventive measures and precautions go, the origin of the virus has little to no relevance.



No reputable medical institution questions this. The only questioning comes either from fringe experts whose methodology has been extensively refuted by other experts or from laypeople with no relevant medical qualifications.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalization, death in people with prior infection, study finds

Two-dose COVID-19 vaccines significantly increase protection against hospitalization and death in people who had the illness before they were immunized.

med.stanford.edu

Also:

People with Omicron variant less likely hospitalised compared to Delta variant | Imperial News | Imperial College London

People with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be admitted to hospital or to die, compared to those with the Delta variant.

www.imperial.ac.uk

We don't "know" that. Evidence shows that prior infection doesn't provide more immunity than vaccination, and it also shows that vaccination reduces risk of severe disease and death even among people who have been previously infected. See the Stanford study above.

I think you are looking at old data. And, of course, other governments were looking at the US for decisions.

The latest report:

Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID: study

A new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID-19.

nypost.com

Bombshell Report Shows Face Masks Made ‘Little to No Difference’ in Preventing Spread of COVID - Space Coast Daily

The stance by the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) on face masks has taken many twists and turns throughout the COVID pandemic.

spacecoastdaily.com

Your Mayo Clinic report states " Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19."

So, which one really helped. Was it vaccination? Frequent hand-washing? Physical distancing? Masks? Did they do a specialized review with mask only?

Notice the ups and downs remain consistent win 2021 - I can't upload the picture:

Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2021

This report describes overall death rates in 2021 as well as COVID-19 death rates. COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in 2021 after heart disease and cancer.

www.cdc.gov

It didn't matter that we closed businesses, added vaccinations or used masks... it still went up and down and up and down. IF they worked, there would be a steady downward slope when efforts were in effect.

The China issue is simple... if they lied about China, where else did they lie?

 

[Kenny]

Natural vaccine is better?... what the...
You understand that a lot of people die before we achieve herd immunity, right?

Do you remember that they said "natural vaccines are not as good"? And how many people were "naturally vaccinated" before they instituted forced vaccination?

And yet...

Why Israel's latest COVID outbreak holds important lessons for Australia

With the majority of its adult population fully vaccinated, Israel lifted virtually all COVID-19 restrictions and life returned to normal. But now it has one of the highest infection rates in the world. What happened?

www.abc.net.au

Natural immunity offers greater COVID protection than vaccines, study finds

It’s something that has been up for discussion since the start of the pandemic: What provides greater protection from COVID?

www.nbc12.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are looking at old data. And, of course, other governments were looking at the US for decisions.

The latest report:

Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID: study

A new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID-19.

nypost.com

Bombshell Report Shows Face Masks Made ‘Little to No Difference’ in Preventing Spread of COVID - Space Coast Daily

The stance by the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) on face masks has taken many twists and turns throughout the COVID pandemic.

spacecoastdaily.com

Your Mayo Clinic report states " Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19."

So, which one really helped. Was it vaccination? Frequent hand-washing? Physical distancing? Masks? Did they do a specialized review with mask only?

Notice the ups and downs remain consistent win 2021 - I can't upload the picture:

Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2021

This report describes overall death rates in 2021 as well as COVID-19 death rates. COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in 2021 after heart disease and cancer.

www.cdc.gov

It didn't matter that we closed businesses, added vaccinations or used masks... it still went up and down and up and down. IF they worked, there would be a steady downward slope when efforts were in effect.

The China issue is simple... if they lied about China, where else did they lie?

Are those based upon the study that was already shown not to apply? If i remember correctly you, or someone else, posted articles that were about a meta-study. The meta-study was more about spreading the flu than spreading Covid. Only a small part of it was about that you would need a study that was mainly about covid.

Also what are they measuring? Are they measuring a mask's ability to protect an individual from covid? That was not what masks were worn for. Masks were to be worn because covid has a long incubation period and wearing them helps to prevent the virus from being aerosolized. People wear masks for the same reason that surgeons were masks. Not to protect themselves but to protect others from oneself.

Meanwhile let's see what a more reliable sources says about this:

FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely

Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.

www.bbc.com

"The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident," he told Fox News."

Hey wow! The FBI director did make that claim. Did he explain why they thought that? I can't see any reason even in a more reliable source. Did he mention any evidence at all? Nope, I do not see anything for that either.

Meanwhile:

"
Many scientists point out there is no evidence that it leaked from a lab.
And other US government agencies have drawn differing conclusions to the FBI's.
Some of them have said - but with a low level of certainty - that the virus did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans."

"
A few days ago, the US Department of Energy said it had found the virus was most likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan but could only reach that conclusion with "low confidence".
In response to that, many scientists who have studied the virus said this week that there is no new scientific evidence pointing to a lab leak.

A natural origin is still the more likely theory, said Professor David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at University of Glasgow.
"There's been an accumulation of evidence (what we know about the viruses biology, the close variants circulating in bats and locations of early human cases) that firmly points to a natural origin centred on the Huanan market in Wuhan city," he said."

In other words, those that can best judge whether the virus came from a lab or not still say that it was most likely passed on from bats to humans.

FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely

Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.

www.bbc.com

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think you are looking at old data. And, of course, other governments were looking at the US for decisions.

The latest report:

Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID: study

A new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID-19.

nypost.com

Bombshell Report Shows Face Masks Made ‘Little to No Difference’ in Preventing Spread of COVID - Space Coast Daily

The stance by the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) on face masks has taken many twists and turns throughout the COVID pandemic.

spacecoastdaily.com

Your Mayo Clinic report states " Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19."

So, which one really helped. Was it vaccination? Frequent hand-washing? Physical distancing? Masks? Did they do a specialized review with mask only?

The identical articles show obvious bias and have clear red flags, for instance, not linking to the study they are citing (in any obvious fashion).

Here is the study: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

From the conclusion:

"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs."

This is hardly evidence that masks don't work.

 

[Kenny]

Are those based upon the study that was already shown not to apply? If i remember correctly you, or someone else, posted articles that were about a meta-study. The meta-study was more about spreading the flu than spreading Covid. Only a small part of it was about that you would need a study that was mainly about covid.

Also what are they measuring? Are they measuring a mask's ability to protect an individual from covid? That was not what masks were worn for. Masks were to be worn because covid has a long incubation period and wearing them helps to prevent the virus from being aerosolized. People wear masks for the same reason that surgeons were masks. Not to protect themselves but to protect others from oneself.

Meanwhile let's see what a more reliable sources says about this:

FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely

Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.

www.bbc.com

"The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident," he told Fox News."

Hey wow! The FBI director did make that claim. Did he explain why they thought that? I can't see any reason even in a more reliable source. Did he mention any evidence at all? Nope, I do not see anything for that either.

Meanwhile:

"
Many scientists point out there is no evidence that it leaked from a lab.
And other US government agencies have drawn differing conclusions to the FBI's.
Some of them have said - but with a low level of certainty - that the virus did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans."

"
A few days ago, the US Department of Energy said it had found the virus was most likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan but could only reach that conclusion with "low confidence".
In response to that, many scientists who have studied the virus said this week that there is no new scientific evidence pointing to a lab leak.

A natural origin is still the more likely theory, said Professor David Robertson, head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at University of Glasgow.
"There's been an accumulation of evidence (what we know about the viruses biology, the close variants circulating in bats and locations of early human cases) that firmly points to a natural origin centred on the Huanan market in Wuhan city," he said."

In other words, those that can best judge whether the virus came from a lab or not still say that it was most likely passed on from bats to humans.

FBI chief Christopher Wray says China lab leak most likely

Other US agencies have come to different conclusions from the FBI on how the pandemic began.

www.bbc.com

And, of course, China is reeeeally cooperating... right? Because they have nothin to hide and, obviously, they closed down the city of Wuhan because it started in Antartica!

 

[Kenny]

The identical articles show obvious bias and have clear red flags, for instance, not linking to the study they are citing (in any obvious fashion).

Here is the study: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

From the conclusion:

"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs."

This is hardly evidence that masks don't work.

But, are we missing the obvious? With all the implementation of masks, did the infection rate go down or remained as previously outlined, up and down, up and down and up and down regardless of masks.


Simple logic

I know that our deep desire is for it to work - even I wished it would work. But reality set in real quick for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, of course, China is reeeeally cooperating... right? Because they have nothin to hide and, obviously, they closed down the city of Wuhan because it started in Antartica!

Nice, when you have nothing use a strawman argument. You did not learn from when such a foolish concept was used against you.

 

[Kenny]

Nice, when you have nothing use a strawman argument. You did not learn from when such a foolish concept was used against you.

So, ignore the obvious? LOL Do you have a China connection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, are we missing the obvious? With all the implementation of masks, did the infection rate go down or remained as previously outlined, up and down, up and down and up and down regardless of masks.


Simple logic

I know that our deep desire is for it to work - even I wished it would work. But reality set in real quick for me.

You do not know what logic is. The question is how fast would it spread without the measures that we took. It is very clear that they did help to some degree. All you need to do is to compare to the early rates of spreading before we knew how serious this was..

Of course high density population areas were hit the hardest the fastest. New York City had an extremely strong outbreak. They had all sorts of things working against them. Look at their rate of transmission after the various actions were taken. That is a strong indicator that the rate of passing on the disease was lowered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, ignore the obvious? LOL Do you have a China connection?

Just drop your obvious strawman. You can do better, I have seen it in the past.

 

[Kenny]

You do not know what logic is. The question is how fast would it spread without the measures that we took. It is very clear that they did help to some degree. All you need to do is to compare to the early rates of spreading before we knew how serious this was..

Of course high density population areas were hit the hardest the fastest. New York City had an extremely strong outbreak. They had all sorts of things working against them. Look at their rate of transmission after the various actions were taken. That is a strong indicator that the rate of passing on the disease was lowered.

You simply bypassed my statement. I think I know why!