The problem isn’t government funding gain of function research labs, it is climate change.
Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk | Nature
Apparently the 0.1C change in average global temperature over the past thirty years is causing the animals to migrate to far-away places.
The pandemic is global government/BigCorp partnerships. Ron Paul warned us about fascist corporatism years ago.
So the narrative has evolved from climate caused human migration(which was already predicted by Pentagon ‘experts’ in the 70ies as result of the ice age )
to climate caused animal migration.
And an article that combines migration with climate and viruses is phantastic – that’s unified field theory of global marxist propaganda. Take this Einstein and Planck .
And I love the last sentence :
the urgent need for blablabla is such a sophisticated way to beg for money.
BTW I was told that most of the 5400 of the mammal species would be gone by the end of the century.
How can simulations use 3139 of them for the year 2070 ?
The only animal species you need to track are rats, cockroaches, and other Democrats.
Please stop insulting rats and cockroaches.
Gee, no data based science, aka voodoo. Can they explain why the greatest pandemics, which affected, killed, the greatest percent of the population ALL occurred before man used fossil fuels extensively? I’m talking about plagues that wiped out huge portions of the population. In recent times, the Spanish Flu killed way more (percent wise) and happened when “carbon” was at relatively low levels.
But don’t let facts stand in the way of The Ministry of Truth.
This is my favorite exchange on Facebook ever Essex County Public Health posted about the dangers of warm weather and climate change on our health. You will not wonder why they got covid so wrong. Jim McCulley
It doesn’t get more batshit crazy than this. Humans always do better in a warming climate such as in the Egyptian, Roman and Medieval warm periods when humanity came out of the Dark ages. But our ruling fools will return us to the Dark Ages if we don’t stop them soon.
Essex County, NY Public Health
Jim McCulley interesting addition to the discourse on this topic – thank you! We hope you don’t mean the later middle ages though, when the bubonic plague killed upwards of 200 million people worldwide. That’s about a quarter of the entire population at the time! Strangely enough, there is a well established link between (a warmer) climate and the ease of transmission of the bubonic plague. Not exactly a shining example of humans “always” doing better when the climate warms, but point taken 🙂
Essex County, NY Public Health is that why cold and flu/covid are more prevalent during the winter? And your knowledge of history is pathetic. The Medieval warm period started in 950 – 1250 rather abruptly I might add human populations exploded across the planet but especially in Europe. The bubonic plague did not start until 1340-1352 100 years later as the planet COOLED.
Essex County, NY Public Health
Jim McCulley thank you, Jim. As noted, we were referring to the later Middle Ages. Regardless, the global mean annual temperatures are higher now than any time in the last 2,000 years. The point of our original post was to highlight the very real changes brought about by a (globally) warming climate. We aren’t suggesting that all of those changes are going to be negative for all humans. However, it is our responsibility to help the populations we serve navigate some of the more negative consequences to health and safety that are happening now and will continue to happen.
Essex County, NY Public Health The later middle ages were a cooling period in earths climate history in fact 1303 – 1860 were called THE LITTLE ICE AGE. And you are wrong the Roman period was 2-3 degrees warmer than today globally. The Medieval Warm period was 2 degrees warmer and your middle ages that you point to are in the period of the mini ice age. You could not be more wrong. Quite clearly this is why we can’t get any honesty on COVID you are unwilling to have a little humility and admit you are wrong. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2… And maybe you had ought to read up on the history of Greenland.
Note that the authors provided not one ounce of evidence. Bet they will get a large grant for this baloney.
The risk (or chance) of something happening can always increase. The question is then by how much will it increase and more importantly how high is this new risk/chance. The ‘scientific’ papers always seem to forget to mention this.
If I buy two lottery tickets instead of the usual one ticket, my chances of winning increase (by 100%), but the chance of hitting the jackpot is still almost zero.
That sound like Relative risk reduction. In your case, Relative chance for winning increase of 100%. Thank you for the analogy and for bringing up this important point.
I like how the abstract hedges their bet by adding the disclaimer that it’s not the “final” version, so they can always say they didn’t actually claim what they claimed.