From what I know you’re mischaracterizing the research.
To the extent that they were looking at gain of function, they were also looking at loss of function. My understanding is that the research was looking at how random point mutation affect infectivity, both positively and negatively.
They were using also using virus evolutionary pretty distant from covid 19.
There are corona viruses present in species in the wet market that were much closer to covid 19. (eg pangolin caron’s viruses)
Blaming the wuhan lab is like finding that your child has been eaten by a tiger and the blaming a house cat breeder on the other side of town.
The WIV had the largest program in the world to sample novel sarbecoviruses from nature. At the beginning of the pandemic, the published virus closest to SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13) was from the WIV. Closer viruses (BANAL) have since been published, by a different group but from areas where the WIV was also recently sampling.
There's no serious question that the WIV has unpublished viruses--even with no attempt at secrecy, every active research group has unpublished work. Researchers found an unpublished merbecovirus in contamination from shared equipment. This isn't related to SARS-CoV-2, but shows the claim that the WIV had zero unpublished viruses to be specifically false. Public access to the WIV's database of viral genomes was removed early in the pandemic, and never restored.
Pangolins were initially proposed as the proximal host, but that's been abandoned for years. After a long delay, the paper in Nature was extensively corrected, following Alina Chan's discovery that the alleged multiple samples were all from a single batch of smuggled pangolins. These were probably infected during trafficking, in the same way that housecats are sometimes infected by SARS-CoV-2 but aren't the source.
The goal of research like DEFUSE was gain of function, a deadlier or faster-spreading virus. That goal wasn't always successfully achieved, but that's true for all goals. The point is that skilled researchers specifically trying to achieve a goal (like by directed evolution during serial passage, or by genetic engineering) are much more likely to do so than would random point mutations alone.
None of this means it's certain that SARS-CoV-2 arose from an accident at the WIV. The picture that you've received isn't accurate, though.
By that argument, we'd expect the first major clusters outside Asia to appear at airports or seaports, since the virus couldn't have been introduced anywhere else. They didn't, instead appearing in nursing homes, choir practices, and other locations where it spread particularly fast to patients who were particularly likely to seek medical attention.
There is no reason to believe it's possible to determine the point of introduction with such granularity from initial epidemiological data. The form of modeling behind these geographic claims shows no history of correct predictions, making them essentially unfalsifiable.
The misleading claims that you're repeating here are exactly those promoted by the scientific press, including both the highest-impact peer-reviewed journals and popular outlets like Scientific American. If you are willing to entertain the possibility that they'd misinform you and seek sources outside that bubble, then I believe you'll see that yourself.
Because people don't commute around the city? Or come into contact with other people who do? Also, you're assuming that the 'initial' cases were actually the first cases. You don't know that for sure.
> The initial cases of covid 19 cluster around the wet market.
I remember a few years ago seeing a map of the raw data that led to the wet market conclusion: While it was in the area, but they only got it to be the main cluster by ignoring like half of the data points. I don't think the earliest confirmed cases even came from there. It was far more likely the first "superspreader" event than the origin.
The particular viruses they were working with were only distantly related to covid. Related in the same way that house cats are related to tigers.
In addition they were not doing “gain of function research”, unless you want to say that they were also doing “loss of function research”. What they were doing was seeing how point mutation affected infectivity both positively and negatively.
We know what they were working with, and it wasn’t the virus that gave rise to covid. There are much closer matches than in other species.
Correct. And that game only ends when you step foot at the plane.
I've been on a Ryanair flight where I was first fined for not printing the ticket beforehand (of course printing it at the airport was already too late). Later, during onboarding, all passengers had to measure their trolley at the entrance to the plane in a very slim trolley frame that would not fit any regular trolley, only briefcases. My regularly sized trolley was too big to fit so I was fined again.
all in all, fines cost around twice the price of the ticket.
This was my first (and last) time flying Ryanair. Other passengers on that flight told me that they always get you once, but second time you know how to play the game...
I heard/read somewhere from some Stewardesses on those budget airlines that even though people get angry about being charged those additional costs, that they claim they will never fly again, that they actually continue flying repeatedly with the same budget airline. I think the term used was "hate flying", that you hate the extra charges you get but continue to fly because it is the cheapest.
You can avoid all those charges by simply playing their game.
Minimal luggage, no extra crap like speedy boarding or so, be prepared to forfait the money if you change plans (change of flight is usually horrendously expensive) and alway print / mobile app your boarding pass.
The trick here is soft bags, or weekend bags. Hard bags with wheels always get checked, but soft weekend bags usually can get pushed in no problem. My partner had to pay because her bag fit "correctly" but the wheels did not. So - fair game to them - it didn't fit. Funnily enough, the charge was less than the online advertised price, so we still came out better off.
I actually don't think they are that bad - you just have to appreciate that when they have a maximum bag size (or some other arbitrary limit) they are entirely serious about it. And if you do break their rules they will try and charge you - but it's pretty easy to work within their rules so not a huge problem if you do some basic preparation.
But it's not that bad. You need to do research about your travel destination anyways, like how are you going to get around, what places you want to visit, and some basic phrases in the destination language if relevant. Spending an extra 2-3 minutes checking how much stuff you can bring and whether you need any "dark pattern" options shouldn't be too hard in comparison but maybe I expect too much of the average traveller.
I don't expect to have to research the bag sizes every time I fly to the same destination just because Ryanair might have made them ever so slightly smaller.
But they haven't. They only changed them once in the past decade, it's not like it's a thing that budget airlines pull every year. Changing them sucks but it's not really a problem now.
In which ways? Apart from the low cost part and making flying utterly miserable now. It's not like he invented a new type of airplane
IMO they just forced other airlines to cut product and service to the bone. A tight, business-savvy guy spent all his waking hours figuring out how to further screw passengers (and continues to do so)
I do wonder if EU261 would have been required without low cost airlines.
> expecting flag carrier service from a discount airline.
Flag Carriers are all low-cost for short/mid haul now (and to an extent long-haul), as they've been dragged in to the gutter by Easyjet and Ryanair
> In which ways? Apart from the low cost part and making flying utterly miserable now. It's not like he invented a new type of airplane
I can only assume that you weren't around for the transition. Intra-EU flights cost multiples of the average industrial week's wages before Ryanair. Air travel was inaccessible or rarely accessible to the vast majority of people in the continent.
Ryanair single-handled brought the cost of European air fares down by two orders of magnitude and became the largest airline in the world by PAX to show for it. It absolutely revolutionised travel within Europe because it made point-to-point flights available to everyone, even the low-waged and students heading away for a city break with €20 return flights.
> A tight, business-savvy guy spent all his waking hours figuring out how to further screw passengers (and continues to do so)
And yet PAX love Ryanair, as evidenced by the ticket sales even though they love to complain. After all, for most people, the choice isn't between low-cost and full-service carriers. It's between low-cost carriers and not flying at all.
> Flag Carriers are all low-cost for short/mid haul now (and to an extent long-haul), as they've been dragged in to the gutter by Easyjet and Ryanair
Another perspective that's a lot closer to the truth is that Ryanair forced them to compete on price and actually serve the public which their flag purports to represent, but which the flag carriers completely ignored for most of their history.
I already conceded the cost point so I'll skip over all of that. I won't deny flying used to be expensive
> Two orders of magnitude
Haha, that's a good one. I've read quite a few threads on the topic of old ticket prices on the BA FlyerTalk forum, and people with actual old tickets from and good memories of the 80s and 90s quote prices not so extreme (while still perhaps expensive by today's standards). Ryanair didn't invent competition
> single-handedly
Erm, EasyJet?
> love Ryanair
they love traveling but hate Ryanair
> I can only assume that you weren't around for the transition
I was
> It absolutely revolutionised travel within Europe
I wish the revolution was in rail. I don't think Ryanair et al has been a net benefit for society
Every time I flew with Ryanair it's been because the price difference has been on orders of magnitude, or at least a difference of hundreds of euros. If it wasn't for the price, why would anybody choose to fly with a worse experience?
In 1990, Aer Lingus began "special reduced" fares for Dublin-London at IR £199 or €252 in 1990 money or €531 accounting for inflation. Today that's available from €15 with Ryanair, a reduction of 97%. Not quite two orders of magnitude, but not far off either.
The same story plays out on every legacy city pair, but when you start to include smaller cities which prior to Ryanair never had direct flights to anywhere other than their regional hub (if that), then the price difference can be closer to three orders of magnitude.
Overall, I think you and the other commenter are seriously underestimating the effect that Ryanair had on the European aviation.
Okay. That's an order of magnitude. I'll buy that.
Although, RyanAir really just moved the total price behind an opaque scheme of fees. People rarely pay 15€ total.
If we could see the average revenue per customer, I bet the reduction would be more like 50%. And they have decreased the quality of the experience of flying by far more than that.
Not all of them but I have flown between destinations for 10€ shortly after Covid that were easily between 300-400€ on old-school airlines 15 years ago. While those are exceptions there are cases where budget airlines even with all the bells and whistles are still substantially cheaper than legacy carriers.
> I can only assume that you weren't around for the transition. Intra-EU flights cost multiples of the average industrial week's wages before Ryanair. Air travel was inaccessible or rarely accessible to the vast majority of people in the continent.
That's not true. Otherwise you'd be gouged on every route not served by Ryan Air, which is definitely not the case.
Have they pushed prices down? Arguably, yes. But not by orders of magnitude.
> Otherwise you'd be gouged on every route not served by Ryan Air, which is definitely not the case.
Are there many routes not served by one of Ryanair/Easyjet/Wizzair? (The other two are on the Ryanair model).
> But not by orders of magnitude.
Looks like in 1980 a flight from Dublin to London was about 150-200 Irish pounds. 150 pounds is 189 euro without inflation, but factoring in inflation, 150 Irish pounds in 1980 is 899 euro today (easy to forget how much inflation there was in the 80s). While the Crowdstrike thing is currently stopping me from checking prices, Ryanair to Gatwick is usually like 30-50 euro these days. So that's an order of magnitude, anyway.
And Dublin to London is probably close to a best-case; it's short, and it was always a relatively busy route served by multiple flag carriers. Many routes would have been single-carrier. If you wanted to fly, say, Dublin to Athens back then, well, you probably weren't doing it direct, for a start, and it'd cost you a small fortune.
To me it seems disingenuous to only compare prices and not what you got as part of the ticket.
I imagine on that old ticket you could: pick up a phone and get help with anything, check luggage for free, take a carry-on for free, check in at the airport, free food/drinks on board, more staff on board, comfier seats, more leg room, could make changes/refund with fewer penalties. Oh and probably much better IRROPs support
If I price up a a Ryanair flight LGW-DUB with roughly some the above included, that's 347 EUR return - https://imgur.com/FPkbdec.png (I accounted £20 for drinks + food). (You can also get a LHR-DUB BA Business Class ticket for that!)
Again I concede flying is cheaper these days, but as demonstrated, the original claims of magnitude(s) aren't right, if we make a fairer comparison
You can argue people didn't need all those extra etc but that's a different topic and moving the goalposts
Anyway I suspect a hint of patriotism or profound appreciation for the service they offer is marring these discussions so it's all a bit fruitless
Ryanair are absurdly upfront about their budget nature. They take the piss out of themselves constantly about it. While I agree they use dark patterns, your comment is not an example of them.
"The instructions" are intentionally byzantine to make sure people make mistakes and then "rightfully" fleece them. It's not just a matter of "less service".
When you book the ticket they make it quite clear that normal sized trolley bags are not included in the cheapest fare. Most LCCs in Europe do something like this nowadays, even some legacies…
Closing online checkin 2 hours before departure and then charging lots for airport checkin is crazy though.
> And that game only ends when you step foot at the plane.
Actually, it ends only when you're off the plane at the destination. They continue to try to rinse you of your money on board with scratch cards (gambling), overpriced food and drink and duty free shopping, even making cabin announcements so you remove your headphones to listen thinking it's important.
Flying Ryanair definitely requires advanced preparations. That said, their traps are predictable and don't change much year-to-year. If you are aware of them and can prepare yourself, you can get really great bargains when flying around Europe.
Sorry but you just didn't inform yourself. The dimensions for the luggage are very clearly stated. Nowadays I would expect it to be common knowledge that when flying with a budget airline you have to pay attention to your luggage size and should have the boarding ticket QR code ready. For a small effort you get a small price.
Not really, with a little discipline it can work for the vast majority of scenarios. 90% of my flights are backpack only and that includes travel where I needed to be dressed formally and travel with my SO. The only scenarios where it's actually necessary I see is if you need health equipment (which most people don't), if you have toddlers (which I'd argue you shouldn't be flying with anyways), and if you are moving a lot of stuff (where paying for luggage is still cheaper than shipping in many cases).
It just requires a little planning which I think most people my generation and younger are getting used to.
This is such an exaggeration. I fly with them, wizzair, easyjet etc. at least once a year each and I never have issues - I just press skip on every page that upsells me, same as I do on any other site including Amazon.
reply