Why is it conservatives are so much more frequently corrupt than liberals? There’s nothing about conservativism itself that would lend itself to this sort of bullshit, so how is that corruption spreads so much more in conservative circles?
Then you have a very warped understanding of conservatism. I’m not a conservative myself, but I understand it’s values system. What you likely mistake for selfishness is actually a preference for individual liberty to take precedence over the interests of the majority. That’s not to say the greater good doesn’t matter; it just means conservatives feel everyone being free to do what they please serves the greater good better than majorities dictating what individuals should do. Like liberalism, conservatism has its flaws, but it is not inherently selfish or evil.
However, I should also note that I don’t think modern conservatives follow conservatism very closely these days. Trump and others have succeeded in perverting that value system into something something much more authoritarian than conservatism is at its core.
Turns out there is another trial in France right now, for pretty much the same thing, concerning the centrist party. Left-wing parties have had similar practices too. As much as I hate Marine, this was and is still a very general behaviour of all political parties to misuse available funds for their benefits.
They’re coming in with their alts now. If you check some of the profiles on here, look how often China is mentioned and tell me it’s not just obviously Hexbear users with alts
Did you read past the post title before firing up your meme folder to participate?
In earlier correspondence with The Telegraph, Dr Peter Daszak, the British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance, said that its work >with WIV did not fall under restricted gain-of-function research.
“None of the work changed animal viruses so they can infect humans – they only infected human cell cultures and that’s a big difference,” >said Dr Daszak.
He also said the experiments were exempt because the original viruses were not infectious to humans.
However, White House officials told The Telegraph the work did fall under gain-of-function rules and would have required review.
Gerald Epstein, former assistant director for biosecurity and emerging technologies at the White House Office of Science and Technology >Police between 2016 and 2018, said: “I oversaw development of the US government’s enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) >policy usually referred to as gain-of-function.
“EcoHealth claimed that their work engineering bat coronaviruses could not have been ePPP research because the original viruses were >not pathogenic to humans. That is apparently their position, but it is clearly incorrect.”
So Epstein (lol) a man who works with the US government is claiming that a lab he has never visited has violated the ePPP policy, while a >researcher WHO did work there and is NOT Chinese is stating that it didn’t.
There is just as much evidence that the leak came from Fort Detrick however the “lab leak theory” for COVID is cope and not relevant to the average person especially since the world has decided the pandemic is over, to stop masking, testing, or providing immunizations.
The US funds research on a variety of subjects around the world, many of them only being possible to be researched locally because they are on local diseases and pathogens.
Less regulations, it’s easier to do “funny stuff” like gain of function research (frankly a euphemism for biological warfare research) in China than in the US. And it’s not like the US is just funding the biolab, they have people on site and oversight as well.
Looks like West is so empty culturally and in terms of development that they have to regurgitate an ancient conspiracy theory debunked hundreds of times. Even that US Nobel awarded doctor who proposed the smoking gun conspiracy theory, himself denied that it was possible from China.
Yeah, the US and China were working together on gain of function research of coronavirus in a lab in Wuhan run by Dr Fauci in 2019, but if you mention it you’re crazy.
No self-respecting scientist concluded that either a natural origin or a lab leak were the definitive cause of the pandemic. This is clear if you actually read scientific literature. It’s why phrases akin to “the most supported hypothesis is X” or “the Y theory is unlikely without more supporting evidence” are used. Both hypotheses were and are still possible explanations.
It’s people who get their scientific info from sources like the Telegraph that keep jumping to conclusions. Or people who don’t understand what a section leader at the NIH does, how research grants work, or what gain of function research is. You know, like yourself.
sigh I know you’ve probably either already made up your mind or you’re not arguing in good faith, so I’m not gonna engage any further except to say that it’s entirely possible for a virologist to do research on zoonotic viruses. Just because it’s a bat virus doesn’t mean it stays a bat virus.
Also, there are probably billions if not trillions or quadrillions of individual COVID viruses out there. Each time a new one’s made, there’s a chance for it to mutate into something else. It’s totally possible for a virus to evolve similar features in separate environments. I believe the term, “convergent evolution” applies here, and you can find examples larger than viruses in plants and animals, where even separate species can sometimes evolve the same features independently from one another. Carcinisation is an extreme example of this.
Just so you know, not only them are reading your response. I appreciate your response.
And as someone that isn’t working in the field, I have to admit that it is very illogical that they would conduct gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in a country previously hit by a coronavirus outbreak while violating safety standards. Obviously that’s hindsight but shouldn’t this be very obviously a bad idea? It’s not like the existence of a virus like COVID-19/sarscov-2 was completely unexpected.
So you admit that China has lax protocols, and that the US and China were studying the same virus that became a problem later, but you offer me nothing but insults for wondering if that same virus leaked from that same poor quality lab.
Of course virologists study viruses, and sloppy government labs in backwater parts of authoritarian countries have lax safety protocols. You haven’t contradicted me one time. You’ve just thrown up strawmen and irrelevant arguments.
The original grant was to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then subcontracted the Wuhan institute to collect wild samples from bats. In other words, the whole point of the research was to try and catalogue viruses that existed in the wild with pandemic potential.
It’s not coincidence that lab samples there or in other facilities exist that are close in sequence to viruses later identified in humans. That was, in fact, the goddamn point of surveying bat coronaviruses: to identify those with spillover potential. And it’s absolutely possible one of these collected samples was mishandled and leaked from the lab. After all, lab leaked viral outbreaks happen almost every other year, and there were already safety concerns at this particular site published long before the pandemic.
But what you and every other mouthbreathing idiot is trying to say is that Fauci, a director of the NIAID at the time, personally directed gain of function research to engineer new viruses to infect humans and then that virus escaped. Which, speaking as a molecular biologist myself, is laughably backwards.
It seems like you’ve read enough to get halfway there.
You should go back and read the source documents and go over what ecohealth alliance were actually doing, and where they were doing it. The funding proposals were extremely detailed, right down to carrying out gain of function research to aerosolise the corona viruses harvested from bats.
It is almost impossible to immunise bats using droplet transmission and this is the source of the global fuckup.
At some stage during this process, the modified pathogen from very early stages of developing a corona vaccine FOR BATS (the stated goal of the funding request) it somehow got out of one of the labs involved. (Malice or stupidity, we’ll never know)
At that stage it would still be fair to call the original escaped variant a VIRUS because it had not yet reached the development stage of being attenuated sufficiently to be called a vaccine, but it was a long way from a wild type variant.
This lines up with early sequencing of the virus that is widely documented. Those with any scientific integrity have acknowledged from day 1 that there were portions of the sequence that can not occur without human intervention.
In short, this was all being done with US funding in labs with woefully inadequate safety protocols.
So long as we are prepared to accept the risk/reward profile of gain of function research being carried out anywhere in the world, the risk of a similar global pandemic will never go away.
“Aim 1. Characterize the diversity and distribution of high spillover-risk SARSr-CoVs in bats in southern China. We will use phylogeographic and viral discovery curve analyses to target additional bat sample collection and molecular CoV screening to fill in gaps in our previous sampling and fully characterize natural SARSr-CoV diversity in southern China. We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations (Aim 3). Aim 2. Community, and clinic-based syndromic, surveillance to capture SARSr-CoV spillover, routes of exposure and potential public health consequences. We will conduct biological-behavioral surveillance in high-risk populations, with known bat contact, in community and clinical settings to 1) identify risk factors for serological and PCR evidence of bat SARSr-CoVs; & 2) assess possible health effects of SARSr-CoVs infection in people. We will analyze bat-CoV serology against human-wildlife contact and exposure data to quantify risk factors and health impacts of SARSr-CoV spillover. Aim 3. In vitro and in vivo characterization of SARSr-CoV spillover risk, coupled with spatial and phylogenetic analyses to identify the regions and viruses of public health concern. We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”
Color me shocked, but that’s the funding proposal and there’s nothing in there even approaching whatever you’re talking about. But hey, maybe you’re referring to the rejected DARPA grant proposal leaked by DRASTIC:
“THE PROPOSAL PLANNED TO INTRODUCE “KEY RBD RESIDUES” INTO LOW RISK STRAINS TO TEST PATHOGENICITY IN HUMAN AIRWAY-CELLS”
Wowie, looks like we have a hit! Rather than reading their spin though, I went and found the REJECTED grant proposal:
“We will sequence spike proteins, reverse engineer them to conduct binding assays, and insert them into bat SARSr-CoV backbones (these use bat-SARSr-CoV backbones, not SARS-CoV, and are exempt from dual-use and gain or function concerns)”
If you’re not aware, these backbones are common lab vectors which aren’t pathogenic themselves, made from different viruses. Their sequences are significantly different than either SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2. So, chimeric receptor/backbone pairs are used to assess viral entry into humanized cells more so than virulence. You may disagree with whether or not that’s still too dangerous of a method, but it’s a moot point here because 1. The backbones proposed here are completely different than COVID, so it can’t be the same viral agent and 2. This is a REJECTED PROPOSAL. None of this was actually done and it’s fantasy to pretend it is.
Next claim: aerosolized droplet for vaccines:
“We will complement [broad scale immune boosting with bat interferon] by coupling agonist treatments with SARSr-CoV recombinant spike proteins to boost pre-existing adaptive immune response in adult bats… we will incorporate [recombinant spike proteins] into nano particles or raccoon pox virus vectors for delivery to bats”
They’re not proposing aerosolizing whole droplets with competent SARS-CoV in them you moron, they’re basically saying “hey, you know those nasal sprays we use for the flu every year? Let’s give that to bats”.
Ooh, my favorite. No scientist with integrity says that the genome wasn’t manipulated.
You’re gonna have to tell that to the couple hundred scientists who have been studying this for a while:
“There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an un- usual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering. The only previous studies of artificial insertion of a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 boundary in the SARS-CoV spike protein uti- lized an optimal ‘‘RRSRR’’ sequence in pseudotype systems (Belouzard et al., 2009; Follis et al., 2006). Further, there is no ev- idence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”
There really isn’t any evidence of manipulation at all. The backbone isn’t a standard lab construct. The cleavage site could have arisen from recombination. In the spirit of good science, I would never rule anything out, but the evidence very much supports a natural origin. Lab leak from a sample? Maybe, but that’s different than genetic engineering. For that you need stronger evidence. The strongest bit of evidence we have is the stonewalling from WIV and China, which is certainly suspicious. But, it’s unfortunately incidental and that isn’t good enough to jump to conclusions.
Try actually reading the text of these proposals before reading someone else’s spin on it.
I am somehow still surprised at how many of my intelligent, educated healthcare coworkers believe in the purposeful bio weapon theory despite there being no evidence of human-made genetic manipulation. We can analyze whole genomes now, there’s no need to make shit up.
Funny, you haven’t “questioned” anything. You’ve just regurgitated your same tired disproven talking points. Then you act like your viewpoint deserves respect. It doesn’t. No sources, no evidence, no respect.
If you’d like my sources, here you go. Let me know when you find the spot that says “I, Fauci, personally oversaw the development of a virus that looks absurdly natural in origin.”
I haven’t posted any evidence because I’ve only posted reservations about the narrative. You have chosen to attack me personally and you FINALLY posted several studies that do not say anything about containment, lab procedure, the contents of the lab, or anything else that might assuage my doubts. What they do prove is that gain of function research was being performed on SARS in the area where the pandemic first started. You accuse me of being irrational when you’re losing your god damned mind at the very idea that the lab could be the source of the pandemic.
But the research on the bat viruses in Wuhan showed that infecting live animals with altered viruses can have unpredictable consequences. A report to NIH on the project’s progress in the year ending in May 2018 described scientists creating new coronaviruses by changing parts of WIV1 and exposing genetically engineered mice to the new chimeric viruses. Research published in 2017 in the journal PLOS Pathogen showed that, in cells in a laboratory, similar chimeric viruses reproduced less effectively than the original. NIH cited that research as one of the reasons the moratorium on gain-of-function research of concern didn’t apply to this experiment. “It was a loss of function, not a gain of function,” the email from NIH explained. (NIH also pointed out that the changes to the chimeric viruses “would not be anticipated to increase virulence or transmissibility in humans.”)
Inside the lungs of the humanized mice, however, the novel viruses appear to have reproduced far more quickly than the original virus that was used to create them, according to a bar graph shown in the documents. The viral load in the lung tissue of the mice was, at certain points, up to 10,000 times higher in the mice infected with the altered viruses than in those infected with WIV1. According to Deatrick, the NIH spokesperson, the difference in the rates of viral reproduction — which were particularly pronounced two and four days after the mice were infected with the virus — didn’t amount to gain of function because, by the end of the experiment, the amount of virus produced by the parent and chimeric strains evened out. “Viral titers were equivalent by the end of the experimental time-course,” Deatrick wrote. The email also said, “NIH supports this type of research to better understand the characteristics of animal viruses that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.”
Scientists The Intercept consulted expressed differing views on whether the increase in viral load could be translated to an increase in transmissibility, which relies on the virus’s ability to replicate. To some, the jump in viral load indicated that the modified RNA virus could replicate far more rapidly than the original in the lungs of the mice, likely leading to increased pathogenicity and spread. Rasmussen, of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, pointed out that viral load is not identical to reproduction rate, noting: “This shows the chimeric viruses replicated a little faster, but that tells us exactly nothing about transmissibility. Furthermore, WIV1 caught up by the end of the experiment. We see differences in the rate of viral replication all the time, but it is often not directly correlated with pathogenicity.”
Another figure in the documents suggests that at least one of the altered viruses not only enhanced viral reproduction, but also caused the humanized mice to lose more weight than those exposed to the original virus — a measure of the severity of illness.
The real question is still, "Why did you immediately jump to personal attacks, infodumping irrelevant studies, and why are you vehemently defending this lab as if you’re the one who caused the leak?
Oh boy, so this is where you stumbled. I should have known it would be The Intercept article.
The documents are ancillary, huh? You cited the exact same grant proposal I sent you. So is it ancillary or not?
Here are some really critical points I’m willing to bet you misunderstood:
“We will construct chimeric SARSr-CoVs using WIV1 backbone and the S genes of selected SARSr-CoV strains and assess capacity to infect hACE2, bACE2, and cACE2 Vero cells…”
The WIV1 backbone is NOT the backbone found in SARS-CoV-2. It’s from a completely different human-infectious coronavirus strain. Furthermore, the spike proteins they’re studying would be gathered from bat coronaviruses found in the wild. So, this method is NOT considered GoF research by the NIH nor is it even potentially possible it resulted in the pandemic. They proposed assessing transmissibility by using an already known infectious backbone and an uncharacterized spike protein, not engineering a more deadly virus. WIV1 is already infectious in humans. The spike proteins gathered are the exact same sequences as those already present in the wild. You may still have reservations about this approach, but I’d argue it’s actually safer for studying viruses in this way because you use what’s known as a Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC) to infect the cells rather than live virus. Meaning, no storage, handling, or serial passaging of viral samples is required past the initial isolation and the plaque assessments.
You may argue that any viral research which can result in genetic change should be classified unilaterally as GoF, and is too dangerous to be performed, much less at labs we don’t directly regulate. I would disagree on those points, but you’d join a rich debate on the subject which The Intercept article actually points out as well. But the fact remains that none of the above studies were designed to engineer more deadly pathogens for humans, and is ultimately a red herring for the SARS-CoV-2 debate. We know the backbone sequences and they do not match, so you and The Intercept article are barking up the wrong tree.
The same is true for the PLOS study you cited. Same viral backbone, same process. It’s there to assess transmissibility of a naturally occurring virus and try to predict future pandemic potential (of the original SARS-CoV, in their case), not to engineer more effective viruses. Same misunderstanding on its classification as GoF research, too. Even in the Intercept article you cite it talks about the results of other studies as technically “loss of function” in relation to some strains, which is true. But again, all of this is a red herring. SARS-CoV-2 did NOT use the backbone referenced here, and thus this study did not result in a genetically engineered virus that caused the pandemic.
As for citations, I’d point you to this snippet from a review article in Cell:
A near identical nucleotide sequence is found in the spike gene of the bat coro- navirus HKU9-1 (Gallaher, 2020), and both SARS-CoV-2 and HKU9-1 contain short palindromic sequences immediately up- stream of this sequence that are indicative of natural recombina- tion break-points via template switching (Gallaher, 2020). Hence, simple evolutionary mechanisms can readily explain the evolu- tion of an out-of-frame insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2).
You keep insisting that I think a lab leak is impossible, when I’ve made it very clear that a lab leak is still a possibility. There were safety concerns at Wuhan long before this whole thing. But a “lab leak” of a stored sample is completely different than “Fauci paid incompetent Chinese labs to engineer deadly pathogens”, and I’ve never seen evidence for the latter. Yet you’ve stated that sentiment here in the comment section, so somehow that unsubstantiated belief lives on. Until our pool of evidence changes, the most likely scenario is a zoonosis from a natural reservoir, or a lab leak from a gathered or cultured sample.
I’m curious why you seem so insistent that the evidence is being hidden and that everyone is silencing you. You come in here with unsubstantiated accusations, and then get angry when people call you out for it. Had you started with sources for your claims, I would have been happy to engage with you on that level. Acting like an ass in any forum isn’t going to get you far. Stop playing the victim.
I’ve yet to get angry or say that I’ve been silenced. I don’t need a wall of text to tell you that you’re full of shit and you’ve exceeded your allotment of wasting my time.
The gain of function research on the same wild virus being done in conjunction with Germany?
Do you know any of the actual details of the project, where they were collecting wild bats infected with the proto version of Covid and were splitting up different components of the research to different labs?
The Wuhan group were researching the viral backbone and Germany the viral antigens.
The same sort of collaboration done on many other potentially concerning natural vector diseases.
You mean I've actually read the scientific data and evidence going back years before the pandemic? The research they were doing there and in Germany was well known and openly available. Published papers and all.
You haven’t read anything that proves COVID-19 wasn’t a lab leak, and everything you’ve read filtered through the people responsible. But you are invested in convincing me it wasn’t.
The very scientist who first suggested that Covid was man-made changed his mind after doing further research and discovering that the components he thought were man-made were actually found in other wild Sars viruses.
You're the one who refuses to listen to actual evidence beyond the initial claims you first heard.
What possible evidence would there be to “prove” this negative? Maybe if we happened to find the exact source animal to test? Since that is unlikely, all we have to go is the genome of the virus compared to similar viruses in the wild and similar viruses in published research. And that wouldn’t be proof enough for you.
You don’t need to prove or disprove a negative. You simply must allow for it to be a possibility unless evidence comes forth which proves that the doubts are unfounded. For instance, if patient zero was found and they had no contact with the lab, if a wild source of COVID-19 with the same genetic structure was found, or if it was proven than none of the samples in the lab could be the source of the infection.
The problem here is that I opened up the possibility by asking the question, and hateful, partial, non-scientific minds decided to dogpile me for threatening their beliefs and faith in authority.
My own what? I am posting my own doubts about the story. Do I need evidence to distrust two governments with a history of experimenting on their populations?
I’ve yet to be given one solid reason to question my questioning of the official narrative. The other guy only posted character attacks and appeals to questionable authorities.
Do you just... like... look in a mirror, then post random comments attacking people for your own failings or something? Cause that's what seems to be happening.
Where did you see me attack anybody? You should be able to quote me. What seems to be happening from my perspective is a bunch of people with poor reading comprehension or no integrity attacking me for doubting the official narrative.
I question narratives and I’m met by insults. If the people responding had any evidence or were secure in their narrative they wouldn’t need to resort to insults first.
Have they found an animal with a strain related to the human variant? Isn’t that the main evidence they expect to be able to find to help prove it actually had a path from animal to human?
If so, I haven’t seen it. As far as I can tell, investigating the narrative is off limits. You can see how every person who has responded to my questioning has attacked me on a personal level.
I don’t know if those attacking you are right or wrong in the narrative they believe, but they’re definitely jumping to conclusions about people who choose to believe in the possibility of a lab leak and subsequent coverup. It seems they think all of us to be conspiracy theory nutjobs with alt-right ideologies.
Personally, I started believing the lab leak stuff may be legit when I watch johnny harris’s video. I figured Johnny Harris was giving a decent take on the whole situation. He had numerous reasons for coming to the conclusions he did, and it all seems decently reasonable.
But recently it’s come to my attention that maybe Harris isn’t the most reliable source. While I can’t recall the details atm, I have read and watched stuff about Harris that does call into question his biases. At the same time, I don’t believe anyone has said anything against his factual accuracy. But the slant of a presentation and possibly excluded information can do quite a bit for undermining a narrative if you really want to do that. So, its hard to say if you should believe his story about the lab leak.
But, It’s not like I’m gonna do anything useful with my opinion on the topic…. So I’m not going to waste time seriously investing in researching the topic.
Edit: Reworded, and added context that I completely left out the first time around.
yes sir! when I wanna be killed than it’s because of a freaking parasite and the reason I’m attracted to the piss of my cat!
which very well could be a reason our ancestors where killed by bigger cats back in the old days, because that parasite altered their brain in some ways so they felt attracted to the smell of the cats just like mice nowadays do.
had to dig in the article for the means of transmission between dogs and humans, and could only find it from an article linked inside there that mentions "The disease can spread to humans through canine reproductive fluids, but they can be treated with a long, strong course of antibiotics."
The article here also mentions "two people caught it this year from dogs"
...oh. oh dear
"Of the two cases so far this year, one was in a person who tested positive after being admitted to hospital and the other was an asymptomatic staff member of a veterinary practice."
"Only one named individual has previously tested positive – Wendy Hayes, of Stoke, who caught it from a pregnant foster dog she took in from Belarus last year."
half of my loss of faith in humanity from this is restored
Quite a bizarre conspiracy theory to have considering they aren’t even recommending killing the dogs, they say antibiotics solve the issue.
They’re advocating having more thorough checks at the border, and improving testing as it currently results in 50% of cases being false positives.
This disease is already widespread in some other parts of the world, there haven’t been widespread dog massacres there.
And for that breed that is to be banned, tbh, that seems wise. The UK had an average of 3 lethal dog attacks per year in 2001-2021.
That breed is a new import. In 2022 we had 10 lethal dog attacks, 9 of which were Bully XLs. In 2023, 100% of deaths so far (6 IIRC) have been from Bully XLs. Almost as if large, strong dogs specifically bred for aggressive tendencies and have the ability to overpower an adult male, with jaws that can break bones, will be aggressive and dangerous. Crazy I know.
Any dog can be trained to aggression, and several breeds can overpower an adult human male (since that seems to be your standard). Or don’t you have police dogs?
Observation isn’t conspiracy, my friend. But it’s your country. Do with it what you will.
Ahhhh ok. I’ll just train a chihuahua to kill then. Easy peasy.
Bit of a ludicrous comparison to bring up police dogs. Police dogs are trained and not owned by random people.
It’s very much a conspiracy lmao, you’re saying that this existing disease is related to the banning of a dangerous dog breed and that it’s part of a slippery slope to the government banning dogs, in the country with probably the highest dog ownership rate in the world.
And btw, we aren’t talking about training a dog to be aggressive - we’re talking about selectively breeding dogs to be aggressive. There’s a difference.
It’s literally happened before. Recently australia killed all animals at shelters due to covid. China killed all pets in cities during covid. There are other examples before covid.
Nah, it’s because the comment went from 1 to 100 really fast.
This disease isn’t known to be airborne.
This disease isn’t known to be untreatable. (Antibiotics FTW.)
This disease isn’t known to cause death.
This disease hasn’t lead to countless animals suffering in facilities underequipped to handle them. (Many people bought puppies to “help with loneliness” during covid, only to abandon them later, after they were all grown up.)
This disease hasn’t shut down multiple cities or countries.
This disease doesn’t threaten the food chain.
This disease hasn’t lead governments to mandate the general public to wear PPE.
This disease hasn’t helped overwhelm hospitals.
Could you please explain why you think this will be the same as what happened in those places during covid? The scenarios are very different in multiple ways.
Because it’s stupid. The infection isn’t dangerous to humans, it’s anywhere from symptomless to cold-like symptoms. It’s not super contagious to humans, and even if it were it’s not dangerous.
And the disease exists elsewhere in the world without causing big issues. It’s not a new disease, just new to the UK.
telegraph.co.uk
Active