3 ms·
> The unique thing about Wuhan is the level 4 bio lab. This is dangerous (and wrong) thinking. Wrong in the sense that, even if the conclusion were true, the r
by maest 6y ago
> The unique thing about Wuhan is the level 4 bio lab.
This is dangerous (and wrong) thinking. Wrong in the sense that, even if the conclusion were true, the reasoning is faulty.
There are many characteristics which, in hindsight, would look suspicious. One of this characteristics is the presence of a bio research lab. Other interesting factors would have been the presence of particular chemicals in the air/water, presence of certain types of bats, the presence of certain climate quirks, the presence of nuclear powerplants etc.
Let's say Wuhan was the only region which had a particular species of bats. Would you immediately conclude that the virus _must_ have come from that bat species?
You have a conclusion and are looking for reasoning to support it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SomeoneFromCA 6y agoBeing "ultra skeptical" for some non-scientific reasons is also a very dangerous way of thinking. Keeping in mind several factors, such as China being a developing country (and likely having lower standards of biosecurity than say US or Germany), poor conditions in that particular lab (cited by US observers), proximity of the lab etc. at least suggests that there is some non-negligible probability it came from that lab.
- maest 6y agoFWIW, my stance is that there is way too little information to draw any conclusion with sufficient conviction. This is a highly politicised issue so the bar for proving something is, imo, higher. The post I was replying too had high conviction in the 'lab-grown' theory. I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-scientific' reasons.