4 ms·

Well, my understanding is that the virus jumped from some species, which was sold under absolutely miserable conditions in a wet market in Wuhan, to humans. I f

Well, my understanding is that the virus jumped from some species, which was sold under absolutely miserable conditions in a wet market in Wuhan, to humans. I find it almost comical that someone would be completely fine with more animal exploitation given that this was the reason humans were infected in the first place.

yostrovs 6y ago
Just like other theories, the wet market one has no evidence.
superkuh 6y ago
It's more of a matter of human population expanding to cover the entire surface of the earth than anything else. There's no evidence the last SARS outbreaks in China was from wet markets. Much like there's no evidence it was from wet markets this time. Fish are very stupid animals without much brain. It is definitely worth it to kill 500k of them to help save a bunch of human lives.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Strange, all of that seems to be wrong. It was wet markets; people are not growing populations any more; it's worth it to kill ~2 million of them for cosmetics so certainly half a million to save lives is reasonable.
- jagger27 6y ago
  Excuse the ad hominem, but did you miss the food chain class in elementary school? “Very stupid” has exactly “fuck all” to do with how important they are to the ecology of the oceans. If the ocean food chain collapses, there’s no coming back from that for millennia. Like, what? This compound is found in wheat! Wheat!
  - superkuh 6y ago
    This is not an amount that will collapse any food chains. 500K fish used for human purposes is not going to deplete the ocean. Alternatives are good but right now there is reasonable justification for expediting things. We should use fish and all the other sources as well.
brokenkebab 6y ago
This is clearly rhetorical, not substantial argument. Using the same label for vaccine production, and wet markets ('exploitation' in your case) doesn't make it the same thing. From epidemiological perspective it's not even similar.

yostrovs 6y ago

Just like other theories, the wet market one has no evidence.

superkuh 6y ago

It's more of a matter of human population expanding to cover the entire surface of the earth than anything else. There's no evidence the last SARS outbreaks in China was from wet markets. Much like there's no evidence it was from wet markets this time. Fish are very stupid animals without much brain. It is definitely worth it to kill 500k of them to help save a bunch of human lives.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Strange, all of that seems to be wrong. It was wet markets; people are not growing populations any more; it's worth it to kill ~2 million of them for cosmetics so certainly half a million to save lives is reasonable.
jagger27 6y ago
Excuse the ad hominem, but did you miss the food chain class in elementary school? “Very stupid” has exactly “fuck all” to do with how important they are to the ecology of the oceans. If the ocean food chain collapses, there’s no coming back from that for millennia. Like, what? This compound is found in wheat! Wheat!
- superkuh 6y ago
  This is not an amount that will collapse any food chains. 500K fish used for human purposes is not going to deplete the ocean. Alternatives are good but right now there is reasonable justification for expediting things. We should use fish and all the other sources as well.

brokenkebab 6y ago

This is clearly rhetorical, not substantial argument. Using the same label for vaccine production, and wet markets ('exploitation' in your case) doesn't make it the same thing. From epidemiological perspective it's not even similar.