4 ms·

I actually believe him that there were strict control and containment measures were in place in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which runs the BL4 laboratory.

I actually believe him that there were strict control and containment measures were in place in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which runs the BL4 laboratory. No one is going to fool around carelessly with BL4 pathogens. That said, an accident still could have happened (they've happened in US BL4 labs, despite very strict controls). More to the point, evidence points more towards a release from the Wuhan Center of Disease Control laboratory, which was also doing live bat research on infectious organisms, but under much less strict controls, not the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Significantly, the Wuhan CDC building is only blocks away from the seafood market.

listenallyall 6y ago
>> an accident still could have happened That's the whole point. "Strict control and containment measures" don't 100% guarantee avoidance of an accident. As well, it's possible when the Americans weren't around, adherence may have slacked off a bit. Existence of strong controls wouldn't be sufficient evidence to designate the claim as False even had it come from an independent evaluator. But it's much worse that Facebook is employing biased "fact-checkers" to decide what's true or false.
- closeparen 6y ago
  This was likely just communicated poorly. Publishing houses have editorial standards about what kind of evidence is sufficient to make a claim. This often includes reproducibility of the reporter's work, which is labor intensive. Editors are busy and important, so they delegate it to a dedicated role. Hence "fact checkers." They're research assistants, errand runners, not arbiters of truth. Facebook has been pressured to own up to its role as a news source and implement the customary editorial standards. Under those standards, audacious claims require airtight sourcing. Speculation is not in the same universe as good enough to attribute responsibility for a worldwide disaster to a specific group of people. And so "the only thing behind this is speculation" rolls up to "false." The intensity of BSL4 containment protocols is just icing.

listenallyall 6y ago

>> an accident still could have happened That's the whole point. "Strict control and containment measures" don't 100% guarantee avoidance of an accident. As well, it's possible when the Americans weren't around, adherence may have slacked off a bit. Existence of strong controls wouldn't be sufficient evidence to designate the claim as False even had it come from an independent evaluator. But it's much worse that Facebook is employing biased "fact-checkers" to decide what's true or false.

closeparen 6y ago
This was likely just communicated poorly. Publishing houses have editorial standards about what kind of evidence is sufficient to make a claim. This often includes reproducibility of the reporter's work, which is labor intensive. Editors are busy and important, so they delegate it to a dedicated role. Hence "fact checkers." They're research assistants, errand runners, not arbiters of truth. Facebook has been pressured to own up to its role as a news source and implement the customary editorial standards. Under those standards, audacious claims require airtight sourcing. Speculation is not in the same universe as good enough to attribute responsibility for a worldwide disaster to a specific group of people. And so "the only thing behind this is speculation" rolls up to "false." The intensity of BSL4 containment protocols is just icing.