The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Could Frozen Food Have Helped Spread Covid-19?

Episode Date: February 11, 2021

Thursday is what we call a potpourri day and today is no exception.  Everything from the Impeachment trial, guns, Covid-19, the Olympics (with an anecdote that may shock you), to whether there is an anti-Conservative bias in social media. 

Hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the next episode of The Bridge, where new suggestions are that COVID-19 may have been spread through Chinese frozen food. And hello again, Peter Mansbridge here. How'd you spend your day yesterday and a good chunk of today? I guess if you're anything like me, you were watching and listening to the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate. And if you want to know more about that and how kind of we're feeling, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth yesterday, Bruce Anderson and I took, you know, spent a good

chunk of time talking about a number of the angles, and they're still very relevant today because this trial is going to go on for a few days. I still think one of the most interesting questions is where's Mike Pence? And when's Mike Pence going to talk? Because if anybody could tell us what was really going on behind the scenes in the White House, or not going on behind the scenes in the White House, it would be Mike Pence. That he's zipped up. He ain't talking.

It's a great, great story. Great angle. Anyway, that was yesterday's podcast and broadcast here on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks, if that's where you're listening to us today. I want to talk because it's Thursday. It's kind of a potpourri day. And so there's a bunch of things on the platter here today. And one of them gets to this old question that we haven't talked about for a while, but it's been out there for the last year, and that is, how and where did COVID-19 really start. You know, I think back to what I've read about 1918-19, the Spanish flu, or what we call the Spanish flu. But of course, as I've said many times before, it had nothing to do with Spain. But we called it the Spanish flu because in the last couple of months

of the First World War, when things were started, most of Europe was blanketed by censorship laws. The media couldn't report anything. People were getting sick, and that wasn't something that they were allowed to report on. But in Spain, where there were no censorship laws, people were getting sick. And so the first reports, both domestically in Spain and internationally,

were about this mysterious flu that was attacking people in Spain. And so it caught the name Spanish flu. Eventually 50 million people worldwide died from the Spanish flu from the pandemic of 1918-19. But here we are 100 years later. We still don't know where it started and how it started. There are lots of theories that it started. One thing that's agreed upon, it didn't start in Spain.

But it seemed to be something that started on the battlefields and spread as a result of the closeness of men on the battlefield and women in the hospitals, the nurses. You know, most of the research suggests that it either started in the UK on some of the military camps, or in the US in some of the military camps, or in China. And recent research has been pointing to the China angle. But still, 100 years later, we don't know where it started or how it started.

All we know is we still call it the Spanish flu. So I guess it's not that surprising that a year later, from when COVID-19 started, there is still disagreement about its origins. One thing that seems generally agreed upon is that it started in China, and specifically in the city of Wuhan. And just recently, the WHO, the World Health Organization, has been back to Wuhan to try and determine how did it start. You know, did it start in what was the, and what is still, the famous wet market in Wuhan where there's the sale of live animals?

Or did it start in a nearby lab, about nine miles away from the wet market, where they were experimenting on different viruses, and somehow something leaked out of that lab? That's been a popular theory by some people, that it was either an accident or almost deliberate. Anyway, the WHO has concluded, after a study of a couple of weeks at the lab

and in the Wuhan area, that it's extremely unlikely that COVID-19 came from an incident at a lab. Now, as we say, that lab has been under deep suspicion. But what I found interesting is the WHO and its lead scientist on this, a chap by the name of Peter Ben-Embarak, are still not sure where to point the finger. But this is what he said in a news conference that he had after this two-week mission.

It's unclear which animal transmitted the virus, because it seems to be pretty evident that a virus like this, it starts in the animal world and then transfers over to the human world. It's unclear which animal transmitted the virus or when that occurred exactly. It's generally thought that it was in a bat, but that's just thought. It's not fact. But here's the interesting part that Peter Ben-Ambarek said. The virus may have also been transmitted through frozen food. And there's a lot of frozen food that comes out of China.

Exported around the world. Including right here in Canada. So that's one that's kind of being toyed around with over the last year. But I've never heard it said from the mouth of one of the WHO scientists. So that, to me, was something worth marking down. Here's the other big conclusion, because there's a lot of talk about this as being that, yeah, this has been around for a while.

The Chinese kept it secret. They didn't tell anybody, and they were dealing with it for months before they made it clear to the rest of the world. Well, the WHO investigation says there is no indication that the virus was spreading in Wuhan before December of 2019.

So the last month of that year, not last year, but the year before, 2019. So the last month of that year, not last year, but the year before, 2019. Right? It was evident in other parts of the world, including in this part, Canada, in January. So only a month later. So it moved very quickly. It's the world we live in today

where things can move extremely fast. Now, because we're talking about the WHO, we should mention its other conclusion just released yesterday. And I don't know, I kind of don't get this. You know, we talked about the, well, first of all, their conclusion is double masking is good. It helps. I'll explain it in a minute.

But when I talked about the 1918-19 flu, what was the primary line of defense 100 years ago against that pandemic? The mask, right? Plus distancing, but the mask. And that's why when you see pictures from that period, everybody's wearing a mask. So in 100 years, the primary weapon against a spreading pandemic

is the mask. Still is. Even though a year ago, about now, about this time about a year ago, we were still debating whether masks really make a difference. Well, then it was determined by the scientists and the researchers that yes masks make a difference please wear them and most people do and there's generally an acceptance of mass although there are still many who don't too many for those like me who believe that masks are important but so how long was it going to take before somebody said,

hey, well, you know, if you wear two masks, you'll have double the protection. Remember that old double mint gum ad? Anyway, they made that case and they are making it now. The WHO is saying yes. First, the surgical mask covered by your cloth mask. And while you don't wear it tight, so tight that it's uncomfortable, you wear it firmly in such a fashion

that you're not going to let stuff leak in the sides, right? There's no point wearing a mask if it's just sort of kind of hanging there. I'm certainly that case with double masking. So I don't know about you. I've started double masking. I've actually found it comfortable if it's put on what appears to be the correct way. But, you know, it's not like I really go anywhere that I even necessarily need a mask because I, you know, take a walk every day like many of you do.

And 99.9% of the time, I'm nowhere near anybody else. But I wear my double mask because I'm used to it now. But what's next? As I said a couple of weeks ago to Dr. Boguch, what's next? Triple masking? The longer this goes, do we just keep upping the masking level? I don't know.

The tests they've done, the WHO with double masking, shows a tremendously successful rate in preventing the spread of the virus. So keep that in mind and practice double masking if you can. Here's a story out of the Washington Post that kind of refers in some ways, well, it does refer. It's as a result of that January 6th riot on Capitol Hill, the one that's being investigated now for links towards Donald Trump

by the U.S. Senate. Here's a story, and I guess we shouldn't be that surprised, but these numbers are amazing. Washington Post reporting that firearm sales soared in January after the assault on the Capitol and the arrival of a new administration that favors tighter gun restrictions. More than 2 million firearms were bought last month, January, according to the Washington Post's analysis of federal gun background check data.

That's an 80% year-over-year spike and the third highest one-month total on record. Two million firearms sold in January in the United States. Background checks and sales of firearms and ammunition have been increasing their pace for months. This is from the Post still. The surge is in line with the record pace set in 2020. Nearly 23 million firearms were bought, representing a 64% jump year over year. Sales estimates are based on methodology surveying handgun, long gun, and multiple gun background checks leading to purchases. So, of all the various impacts

that that January 6th riot had, one of them was a lot of people seemed to rush out and buy guns in the U.S. The next story is about the Olympics, and it's a result of something I read in The Telegraph, the British newspaper.

There was a lot of discussion, as you're probably aware, about the Olympics right now. They were scheduled for Tokyo last year for Japan, but they were delayed because of the pandemic, delayed until this summer. And while the Japanese seem to be determined that they are going to happen this summer, there's still some discussion about that.

There's also discussion about the 2022 Olympics that's slated for China and whether countries want to actually go to China or whether they feel they should boycott China for various reasons that you know all too well. Okay, so before I get into this Olympic story from the Telegraph, I'll tell you my Olympic story because you keep telling me you like hearing these old stories. This is 1988, which was the first time I got to host

an opening ceremony television broadcast on the CBC of an Olympic Games. So it was 1988. It was in Seoul, Korea. And the main host, of course, was Brian Williams at that time of CBC Sports. And so Brian and I were hosting the big broadcast from Seoul of an Olympic Games that would live in infamy,

not for the opening ceremony, but for, of course, the Ben Johnson scandal. Great Canadian sprinter who held the world records, won the gold medal in Seoul, and then was disqualified a couple of days later after testing positive for steroids. And that had, as we all know, a huge impact on the athletic world, which still reverberates today. However, at the opening ceremony, which was, as you can imagine,

as they always are, pretty spectacular, lots of things happening on a four- or five-hour broadcast, highlighted almost always by the Parade of Nations, where all the different athletes from around the world file into the stadium. And, you know, it's a great thing to witness, and it's that opportunity where the world kind of comes together in that moment, in some form of unity, at least around athletics. Anyway, we go through the whole Parade of nations and all the variety of different things that happen, speeches and anthems and wonderful exhibits of ceremonial art on the floor of the

Olympic Stadium. So it comes to the end, and the traditional great end of the opening ceremony is the release of the doves, a symbol of peace. And they're released and they fly out of the stadium. It's all very special. It usually comes right after the lighting of the Olympic flame. So there we are, Brian and I, we're doing our commentary. We're watching all this unfold. And there are moments on broadcasts like that where you don't talk because it's just the moment is so obvious that you don't need to say anything. It kind of ruins the moment with people blabbering away after it.

Over top of the moment. So anyway, we're watching this all happen. The flames lit. People are applauding, getting ready to release the doves. They release the doves, and they fly up, and I suddenly see the doves turning towards the flame, attracted by the flame. And they fly right into the flame. I don't see them fly out the other side. I kind of look at Brian and I go you know sort of like what was that

without speaking it into the microphone and he looks at me equally puzzled to the point where neither one of us are absolutely convinced that what we saw is something that really happened so we carry on and we you know wrap up the on and we, you know, wrap up the broadcast and we sign it off. And it wasn't until a few weeks later,

at least a few weeks later, before it was finally determined that in fact, yes, most of the doves had been incinerated in the flame, the Olympic flame. I don't know, maybe that was a signal of what was to come. I do know that one of the things that was to come was they stopped using doves at the end of the Olympic ceremony and instead used pigeons.

And that's what they use today. They use pigeons. I don't think there's been another example of them flying into the Olympic flame. I think they're determined to keep those two things distant from each other. But on that day, at that hour in Seoul, Korea, South Korea, that's what happened. Okay, so what's my Olympic story today? Well, the Telegraph is writing that, hey, you know what?

It's really time we started rethinking the Olympics, and it's not just about whether or not they should happen this year in Tokyo or in 2022 in Beijing. It's whether or not they should happen in the way they happen at all anymore or whether we should be rethinking what the Olympics is all about. Now the chap who wrote this, Jonathan Marks, who's the managing director of this company in the UK that handles athletes and he's an agent to some of Britain's greatest Olympians.

But Jonathan Harris was at the Rio Olympics in 2016. So was I. And he's absolutely right when he writes in the Telegraph, at Rio 2016, there were large swaths of the city that did not even know the world's greatest sporting spectacle was on. Its doorstep right there. So great were the economic and political divisions in Rio that they weren't focused on some sporting event that was going on.

And he says with Tokyo's problems now, how many cities will even have the support, let alone economic justification, to bid to host a Games in the future? Plus, and here's his key point, too many Olympic sports are not relevant to a global audience. The likes of rowing, modern pentathlon, and hockey are public school sports that could be justified

for the most part of the 20th century. But is that still the case? Hockey? Sports like golf, tennis, and football do not place anywhere near as much importance on the Olympics as they do on their own marquee championships. That's true. No sport should be automatically culled, but they must

deliver for the requirements of a modern audience. Harder to challenge on a very personal level is nine days of track and field as the centerpiece of the games, when the sport itself is steadily losing the clout it once had in the wider world. There's no question that running, jumping, and throwing will always be at the heart of all sport, but the way it's packaged and presented has been in need of a reboot for too long. Do you agree with that? Do you think that's true?

The immediate reality, he writes, is stark. A disastrous games in Tokyo that divides opinion could be a body blow to a movement that is already struggling for its identity. So, does he make suggestions about, you know, what they could use, what they could do? Yeah, kind of. An event that inspires generations and gives them a platform to dream about.

That's what's needed. Of course not. Regeneration follows demolition. The International Olympic Committee is never going to fall on its own sword, so it needs power brokers from across sports, sponsors and broadcasters to look at what the ideal format should be and divert funding into the hands of the right creative minds. The same evolution has taken place across a number of sports, don't forget he's talking from the British background,

including football and cricket, where the incumbent governing body would never have forced through the change needed to survive and thrive. They needed change at the top to make change. So, I don't know. He's talking about it's time to consider how things like mixed martial arts and e-sports can sit alongside what was considered traditional sport.

While not solely focused on Generation Z, let's accept that currently too many elements of the traditional Olympics represent a microscopic fraction of society. Many sports are largely forgotten about in the years between Olympics because they lack relevance. That's true. We create heroes out of sports stars who become stars at the Olympics, and then suddenly we never hear about them again for four years. So that's something to think about. And it's especially something to think about as we enter the months before another Olympics,

slated for Japan this summer. We'll see if that happens. But there's a lot of debate around the Olympics, and it's mostly political debate for this year and for 2022. But perhaps the real discussion needs to be a deeper one, and that is how relevant are the Olympics in our world today? And could they be more relevant if we did serious thought about changing what happens at the Olympics?

All right, still ahead. Is there an anti-conservative bias in social media? You know, I guess one of the most constant complaints that I get and that I hear and that I've read for years, and it comes from those who, you know, are kind of right of center in the political spectrum, and they can be active politicians, or more likely, mostly they are, you know, just people who care about what they read and see and listen to, and they have a belief that those who are in the kind of key roles of journalism and broadcasting basically push aside any people with a conservative viewpoint.

And, you know, I've been hearing this for years, decades. And, you know, you say, okay, well, show me the facts to make that argument. And that's kind of where the argument stumbles. You know, they'll pull up some, you know, one particular person who they heard once on a program and say, that person's, you know, clearly is anti-conservative. Well, yeah. What about this person and this person and this person

who actually speak from a different viewpoint. Yeah, but I'm worried about that first person. Now, sometimes the argument is that simple, to win. Other times it's more debatable, and arguments are put before you. But rarely is everything based, from either side in this discussion, on actual fact. So that's why I found this piece in The Verge, an online magazine.

And it's based on, by somebody called Kim Lyons, and it's based on new research by New York University. And the research concludes the claims of social media censoring conservatives are in fact disinformation. So let's read a little bit of this and see where we come down on it ourselves.

This is once again reading from The Verge, from Kim Lyon's piece. A new report finds that claims of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms are not only untrue, but serve as a form of disinformation. The report from NYU's Stern Center for Business and Human Rights says not only is there no empirical finding that social media companies systematically suppress conservatives, but even reports of anecdotal instances tend to fall apart under close scrutiny. And in an effort to appear unbiased,

platforms actually bend over backward to try to appease conservative critics. I'll read one more excerpt from this report. The contention that social media as an industry censors conservatives is now, as we speak, becoming part of an even broader disinformation campaign from the right. The conservatives are being silenced all across American society. The report's lead researcher, Paul Barrett, said in an interview with The Verge,

This is the obvious post-Trump theme. We're seeing it on Fox News, hearing it from Trump lieutenants, and I think it will continue indefinitely. Rather than any of this going away with Trump leaving Washington, it's only getting more intense. And this one last part, which I found interesting. Looking at how claims of anti-conservative bias

developed over time, Barrett says it's not hard to see how the anti-conservative rhetoric became a political instrument. It's a tool used by everyone from Trump to Jim Jordan, he's a congressman, to Sean Hannity, he's a Fox News host. But there is no evidence to back it up, said the lead researcher. The report notes that the many lawsuits against social media platforms have failed to present substantial evidence of ideological favoritism, and they have all been dismissed. They have all been dismissed. Okay? So there you have it. I'm not sure that you would all agree with that. I know from my mail that some of you won't agree with that.

And I'm happy to hear from you. Add the facts. Point to how you feel on that subject, if you feel. And I welcome it from the other side, too. You know, do you think there's an anti-liberal tilt overall in social media? Or the media in general? Where are you on that? It's an age-old debate. Believe me, I've been hearing it for 50 years. And I read all of this with interest and concern. You're never going to make everybody happy.

But you try to be fair. And you try to tell the truth. Right? That's the object of the game, if you want to call it a game. Okay, that's the potpourri broadcast for this week. I want to just plug tomorrow. Tomorrow is the weekend special.

And I encourage you to write in to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com, the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Let me know what you're thinking, because it's not just about questions. It's about your thoughts and your comments and any story you might want to tell about how you're handling the situation through the pandemic, through the various crises of our life here in 2021. Isn't it funny? We went through all through 2020 saying, God, get this over with. I can't wait to get to 2021. Isn't it funny? We went through all through 2020 saying,

God, get this over with. I can't wait to get to 2021. Here we are in February. I don't know. I don't know about you, but it looks pretty much like 2020 still. We got to move on. And we will, eventually.

Right? Got to believe. So tomorrow's the weekend special. Looking forward to hearing from you. Don't be shy. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. I will definitely have a look at it. And we'll look for excerpts and maybe even whole letters

on tomorrow's broadcast and podcast. Catch us wherever you get your podcasts or catch us on Sirius XM, Channel 167 Canada Talks at noon Eastern or at 5 o'clock Eastern in the afternoon, the drive-home time. Sirius XM, of course, it's out there in all cars made in the last, I don't know, couple of years. So, we'll see you wherever we see you.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening to The Bridge. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. we'll talk to you again in 24 hours