friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
Apparently it doesn't affect people who own monkey puzzle trees so I'm resilient to this disease
Mpox - news and discussion
- Thread starter WhyLikeThis
- Start date
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Metro loonspuds
metro.co.uk
Russia 'planned to use monkeypox as a bioweapon', report warned
Russia's military scientists researched using monkeypox as a bio-weapon until at least the early 1990, according to a resurfaced report.
metro.co.uk
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
About NTI
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a nonprofit, nonpartisan global security organization focused on reducing nuclear and biological threats imperiling humanity.
This band of no mark fruitloops conducted a tabletop exercise last year…
Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats
A new NTI | bio report released today on the sidelines of the Biological Weapons Convention Meeting of States Parties, “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats,” outlines actionable recommendations for the international community to bolster...
If only they listened to anonymous posters on a niche bulletin board who know this isn’t possible they could have saved themselves the bother. The fools.
I mean look at these charlatans:
Mr. Arnaud Bernaert
Head, Health Security Solutions SICPA
Dr. Beth Cameron
Senior Director, Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense
U.S. National Security Council
Mr. Luc Debruyne
Strategic Advisor to the CEO Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness
Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli
Global Head
Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D Janssen Research & Development
Dr. Chris Elias
President, Global Development Division Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Sir Jeremy Farrar
Director Wellcome Trust
Dr. George Gao
Director-General, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC)
Vice President, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
Director and Professor, CAS Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Dean, Medical School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg
Interim Vice President
Global Biological Policy and Programs, Nuclear Threat Initiative
Former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger
Chairman
Munich Security Conference
Ms. Angela Kane
Visiting Professor
Paris School of International Affairs (SciencesPo), and Tsinghua University
Dr. Emily Leproust
CEO and Co-Founder Twist Biosciences
Dr. Elisabeth Leiss
Deputy Director of the Governance and Conflict Division
German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ)
Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu
Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
Dr. John Nkengasong
Director
Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
Sam Nunn
Founder and Co-Chair Nuclear Threat Initiative Former U.S. Senator
Dr. Michael Ryan
Executive Director
WHO Health Emergencies Programme
Dr. Joy St. John
Executive Director CARPHA
Dr. Petra Wicklandt
Head of Corporate Affairs Merck KGaA
Conspiraloon Chancers
Last edited:
Numbers
an ting!
I’ve been missing Orang Utan
Supine
Newt Member
About NTI
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a nonprofit, nonpartisan global security organization focused on reducing nuclear and biological threats imperiling humanity.www.nti.org
This band of no mark fruitloops conducted a tabletop exercise last year…
Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats
A new NTI | bio report released today on the sidelines of the Biological Weapons Convention Meeting of States Parties, “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats,” outlines actionable recommendations for the international community to bolster...
If only they listened to anonymous posters on a niche bulletin board who know this isn’t possible they could have saved themselves the bother. The fools.
I mean look at these charlatans:
Mr. Arnaud Bernaert
Head, Health Security Solutions SICPA
Dr. Beth Cameron
Senior Director, Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense
U.S. National Security Council
Mr. Luc Debruyne
Strategic Advisor to the CEO Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness
Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli
Global Head
Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D Janssen Research & Development
Dr. Chris Elias
President, Global Development Division Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Sir Jeremy Farrar
Director Wellcome Trust
Dr. George Gao
Director-General, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC)
Vice President, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
Director and Professor, CAS Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Dean, Medical School, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg
Interim Vice President
Global Biological Policy and Programs, Nuclear Threat Initiative
Former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger
Chairman
Munich Security Conference
Ms. Angela Kane
Visiting Professor
Paris School of International Affairs (SciencesPo), and Tsinghua University
Dr. Emily Leproust
CEO and Co-Founder Twist Biosciences
Dr. Elisabeth Leiss
Deputy Director of the Governance and Conflict Division
German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ)
Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu
Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
Dr. John Nkengasong
Director
Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
Sam Nunn
Founder and Co-Chair Nuclear Threat Initiative Former U.S. Senator
Dr. Michael Ryan
Executive Director
WHO Health Emergencies Programme
Dr. Joy St. John
Executive Director CARPHA
Dr. Petra Wicklandt
Head of Corporate Affairs Merck KGaA
Conspiraloon Chancers
Do any of them have evidence Putin has released monkeypox as a weapon? Thought not.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Send them a PM and tell them they’re wasting their time. They might join your Flat Earth club, you’ve got a seductive charisma.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
You could have just said "no".
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
It’s about basic risk management, threat modelling and ultimately establishing security policy.
Do we have proof Putin will definitely use nuclear weapons against the UK? No (apart from, arguably, Putin’s dirty bomb used on Litvinenko) but significant mitigations are put in place. The UK spends enormous money on the continuous sea based nuclear deterrent. The UK is part of NATO, in part to mitigate the nuclear threat. The UK hosts nuclear missile detection systems in Yorkshire and is part of developing new nuclear missile interception defence. Significant resources are spent on monitoring and assessing information to create intelligence to enable better decision making on the topic.
Again, do we have proof Putin or Xi will use nuclear weapons? No. So, why does the UK assign significant resources? It’s a risk that has been decided its worth mitigating, just like biological weapons.
You can in some instances accept a risk i.e. formally ignore it and not assign resources to mitigate it. However, “accepting” an extremely high impact but vey low probability risk is often a serious misunderstanding of risk. elbows and Supine have mischaracterised the concept by assuming if a threat has a low probability of occurring then it’s fine to dismiss it as its not of concern AKA “accepting”. However risk is not only about probability of occurrence but also impact. The impact of a nuclear or biological threat being realised would be very high. So, even though the probability is low the overall risk is medium.
Take the example of you house burning down. The probability is low but if it did occur the impact would likely be high. So, we often take steps are to mitigate this high impact X low probability risk such as fire detection and fire insurance.
The UK has a bioweapons detection resource in Porton Down as this a risk that has been extensively analysed and determined is necessary to mitigate.
Do we have proof Putin will definitely use nuclear weapons against the UK? No (apart from, arguably, Putin’s dirty bomb used on Litvinenko) but significant mitigations are put in place. The UK spends enormous money on the continuous sea based nuclear deterrent. The UK is part of NATO, in part to mitigate the nuclear threat. The UK hosts nuclear missile detection systems in Yorkshire and is part of developing new nuclear missile interception defence. Significant resources are spent on monitoring and assessing information to create intelligence to enable better decision making on the topic.
Again, do we have proof Putin or Xi will use nuclear weapons? No. So, why does the UK assign significant resources? It’s a risk that has been decided its worth mitigating, just like biological weapons.
You can in some instances accept a risk i.e. formally ignore it and not assign resources to mitigate it. However, “accepting” an extremely high impact but vey low probability risk is often a serious misunderstanding of risk. elbows and Supine have mischaracterised the concept by assuming if a threat has a low probability of occurring then it’s fine to dismiss it as its not of concern AKA “accepting”. However risk is not only about probability of occurrence but also impact. The impact of a nuclear or biological threat being realised would be very high. So, even though the probability is low the overall risk is medium.
Take the example of you house burning down. The probability is low but if it did occur the impact would likely be high. So, we often take steps are to mitigate this high impact X low probability risk such as fire detection and fire insurance.
The UK has a bioweapons detection resource in Porton Down as this a risk that has been extensively analysed and determined is necessary to mitigate.
Last edited:
More a poisoning than a dirty bomb given no explosion.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
From his mouth and arse there was…
“The inquiry heard harrowing details of the poisoning’s aftermath. That evening Litvinenko began vomiting. He suffered from bloody diarrhoea.”
Litvinenko postmortem ‘most dangerous ever in western world’
Inquiry hears from lead pathologist who examined Russian’s body after his death from polonium-210 poisoning in 2006
From his mouth and arse there was…
“The inquiry heard harrowing details of the poisoning’s aftermath. That evening Litvinenko began vomiting. He suffered from bloody diarrhoea.”
Litvinenko postmortem ‘most dangerous ever in western world’
Inquiry hears from lead pathologist who examined Russian’s body after his death from polonium-210 poisoning in 2006web.archive.org
The article agrees that he was poisoned with a radioactive isotope. I didn’t doubt it was an unpleasant death.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Yes, a nuclear weapon.
You said dirty bomb. Something that explodes.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
The point is biological weapons are a risk that requires mitigation. Ignoring, dismissing or tolerating (AKA “accepting”) is a mistake.
Advocating for the removal of fire detectors is analogous with not implementing mitigations to treat the risk of bioweapons.
Don’t listen to me, look at what authoritative institutions and experts are saying and doing.
Advocating for the removal of fire detectors is analogous with not implementing mitigations to treat the risk of bioweapons.
Don’t listen to me, look at what authoritative institutions and experts are saying and doing.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Is that all you took from my post?
That was the bit I took objection with. Time to move on?
Supine
Newt Member
The majority of people who conduct a risk assessment on the possibility of a weaponised monkey pox outbreak would rate it as RFL. That’s Really Fucking Low on the probability scale. So low it’s not worth the bandwidth even discussing it on a sensible thread. There is a conspiracy thread if you want to talk about it on urban or maybe just howl into the wind on twitter where the other fruit loops hang out.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
You’re conflating probability with risk. Again.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
That's not a very urban response. If that's how you feel you should be repeating this on all the day auld rice will I die etc threads. In fact I don't know what you're doing on urban with an attitude like that
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
That's the most sensible thing you've said
Supine
Newt Member
No, I’m not. I mentioned the probability as RFL. You spent a lot of words describing risk assessments but you don’t seem to understand their use or usefulness.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You're not going to get anything worth the reading out of this one
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
“Significant outbreaks of disease are among the highest impact risks faced by any society – threatening lives and causing disruption to public services and the economy. This is true whether such outbreaks occur naturally, such as pandemic influenza or emerging infectious diseases, or in the less likely event of a disease being caused by an accidental release from scientific
or industrial facilities, or as the result of a deliberate biological attack. Large scale disease outbreaks in animals
or plants can be equally significant in terms of economic, environmental and social impact.”
This is the very first paragraph of the UK’s Government’s Biological Security Strategy. Note the language used “impact” and reference of “less likely” this is the Government publishing it’s analysed and formal position on this risk.
or industrial facilities, or as the result of a deliberate biological attack. Large scale disease outbreaks in animals
or plants can be equally significant in terms of economic, environmental and social impact.”
This is the very first paragraph of the UK’s Government’s Biological Security Strategy. Note the language used “impact” and reference of “less likely” this is the Government publishing it’s analysed and formal position on this risk.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Risk = Likelihood X Impact. Can you accept this?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
But what do you think?
Supine
Newt Member
And? Seems ok to me. Does it mention putin releasing monkey pox?
Supine
Newt Member
We all know that. Anyway, your spoiling the thread so no more engagement from me.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
As I’ve repeatably stated in this thread the likelihood of the use of biological weapons is low.
However, the impact of this threat being realised is high. This results in a medium level of risk put very simply. Though not simply enough for some.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
At 3:30pm on a Sunday afternoon in Woking?
Similar threads
