3 ms·

The theory is just as "reasonable" as the Soviet misinformation about HIV was. That is, not at all. It's a wildly implausible assertion that there's no evidence

The theory is just as "reasonable" as the Soviet misinformation about HIV was. That is, not at all. It's a wildly implausible assertion that there's no evidence for. People outside of labs are exposed to bat coronaviruses all the time. The chances that one of a very small number of highly trained researchers working according to strict protocols was patient zero - as opposed to the millions of regular people who come into contact with bat coronaviruses with absolutely no protection or training - is minuscule. Just like the Soviet misinformation in the 1980s, the theory can't be disproven right now, in exactly the same way that any other malicious accusation made with zero evidence can't be disproven. The Trump administration is acting extremely recklessly by spreading this unsupported conspiracy theory.

dependenttypes 6y ago
> implausible Explain the previous sars releases then.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  SARS spilled over naturally, not from a lab. After it spilled over naturally, it became the subject of intense study, sometimes in labs with poor procedures. Huge amounts of SARS-CoV were being cultured by people with little training. That's an entirely different circumstance from now. The lab where they study coronaviruses in Wuhan operates at a much higher standard than poorly run Chinese labs in 2004. The lab in Wuhan wasn't even conceived back then. It's essentially proven that SARS-CoV-2 was not under study before the outbreak, because the it's not in any of the standard databases where all known coronaviruses are published. But even disregarding that, the idea that huge quantities of a virus that nobody has ever heard of would be cultured is implausible.
kjs3 6y ago
It's a wildly implausible assertion that there's no evidence for. No...it's an entirely plausible assertion that there's no evidence for. That's why it's gained traction so easily. Biohazard accidents have happened before. There's a lab doing work with dangerous microbes in Wuhan. That means plausible. Conspiracy theories thrive on the tiny bit of truth buried in all the crap. If you dismiss the tiny bit of truth out of hand, it just becomes proof to the conspiracy that you're lying/deluded/part of the cabal. highly trained researchers working according to strict protocols To turn this back on your demand for evidence...how do you know? Is it plausible that someone was careless? Poorly trained? The protocols weren't as strictly adhered to as they should have been? Plausibility. The Trump administration is acting extremely recklessly by spreading this unsupported conspiracy theory. Well, duh. But you don't fight back with equally poorly considered knee-jerk retorts.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > No...it's an entirely plausible assertion that there's no evidence for. Not technically impossible is not the same as plausible. It's technically possible that Hitler survived WWII and lived it his days in Argentina. It's not plausible. > To turn this back on your demand for evidence...how do you know? Because it's a BSL-4 lab built in collaboration with a top French lab. The researchers are trained at top national labs in the US, France and Australia. Top international virologists insist that the lab in Wuhan has an excellent safety record. There are a whole number of things that make the theory utterly implausible: 1. The lab did not have SARS-CoV-2. They sequence and publish a segment of the genome of every coronavirus they identify. SARS-CoV-2 is not among the several hundred viruses they've identified and published in this manner. In order to get around this, as a conspiracy theorist, you'd have to assert that the lab, for some reason, decided in advance not to publish SARS-CoV-2. That's implausible element #1. 2. Even if the lab had discovered SARS-CoV-2, and then not published it for whatever unknown reason, they wouldn't have found it interesting. It's 20% divergent from SARS-CoV. Before this pandemic, researchers weren't particularly interested in viruses that are so different from SARS-CoV. There are viruses that are only a few percent different from SARS-CoV. Those are the types of viruses that are intensively studied, where you can start spinning theories about lab accidents. This is implausible element #2. 3. People outside labs are exposed to SARS-related viruses all the time. There are estimates that literally millions of people are exposed every year. If you compare that against a few highly trained researchers working under strict protocols, you begin to see the absurdity of blaming the researchers. We're talking about odds that are literally a million to one here. That's implausible element #3. > But you don't fight back with equally poorly considered knee-jerk retorts. You should learn something about the subject before you comment that the theory is plausible.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    So...if you get to create narrow definitions of words the way you want, define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting") as fact and use ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject..."), you get to be right. You are undoubtedly a joy at parties.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> implausible Explain the previous sars releases then.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
SARS spilled over naturally, not from a lab. After it spilled over naturally, it became the subject of intense study, sometimes in labs with poor procedures. Huge amounts of SARS-CoV were being cultured by people with little training. That's an entirely different circumstance from now. The lab where they study coronaviruses in Wuhan operates at a much higher standard than poorly run Chinese labs in 2004. The lab in Wuhan wasn't even conceived back then. It's essentially proven that SARS-CoV-2 was not under study before the outbreak, because the it's not in any of the standard databases where all known coronaviruses are published. But even disregarding that, the idea that huge quantities of a virus that nobody has ever heard of would be cultured is implausible.

kjs3 6y ago

It's a wildly implausible assertion that there's no evidence for. No...it's an entirely plausible assertion that there's no evidence for. That's why it's gained traction so easily. Biohazard accidents have happened before. There's a lab doing work with dangerous microbes in Wuhan. That means plausible. Conspiracy theories thrive on the tiny bit of truth buried in all the crap. If you dismiss the tiny bit of truth out of hand, it just becomes proof to the conspiracy that you're lying/deluded/part of the cabal. highly trained researchers working according to strict protocols To turn this back on your demand for evidence...how do you know? Is it plausible that someone was careless? Poorly trained? The protocols weren't as strictly adhered to as they should have been? Plausibility. The Trump administration is acting extremely recklessly by spreading this unsupported conspiracy theory. Well, duh. But you don't fight back with equally poorly considered knee-jerk retorts.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> No...it's an entirely plausible assertion that there's no evidence for. Not technically impossible is not the same as plausible. It's technically possible that Hitler survived WWII and lived it his days in Argentina. It's not plausible. > To turn this back on your demand for evidence...how do you know? Because it's a BSL-4 lab built in collaboration with a top French lab. The researchers are trained at top national labs in the US, France and Australia. Top international virologists insist that the lab in Wuhan has an excellent safety record. There are a whole number of things that make the theory utterly implausible: 1. The lab did not have SARS-CoV-2. They sequence and publish a segment of the genome of every coronavirus they identify. SARS-CoV-2 is not among the several hundred viruses they've identified and published in this manner. In order to get around this, as a conspiracy theorist, you'd have to assert that the lab, for some reason, decided in advance not to publish SARS-CoV-2. That's implausible element #1. 2. Even if the lab had discovered SARS-CoV-2, and then not published it for whatever unknown reason, they wouldn't have found it interesting. It's 20% divergent from SARS-CoV. Before this pandemic, researchers weren't particularly interested in viruses that are so different from SARS-CoV. There are viruses that are only a few percent different from SARS-CoV. Those are the types of viruses that are intensively studied, where you can start spinning theories about lab accidents. This is implausible element #2. 3. People outside labs are exposed to SARS-related viruses all the time. There are estimates that literally millions of people are exposed every year. If you compare that against a few highly trained researchers working under strict protocols, you begin to see the absurdity of blaming the researchers. We're talking about odds that are literally a million to one here. That's implausible element #3. > But you don't fight back with equally poorly considered knee-jerk retorts. You should learn something about the subject before you comment that the theory is plausible.
- kjs3 6y ago
  So...if you get to create narrow definitions of words the way you want, define your opinion ("they would not have found it interesting") as fact and use ad homen attacks ("You should learn something about the subject..."), you get to be right. You are undoubtedly a joy at parties.