4 ms·
This line of reasoning is seemingly missing the idea that we were prepared and informed about the epidemic before relevant groups were disbanded and it spread s
by imoverclocked 6y ago
This line of reasoning is seemingly missing the idea that we were prepared and informed about the epidemic before relevant groups were disbanded and it spread so widely. Also, gross incompetence with handling public policy is almost indistinguishable from malice. ie: The origin of the virus might not matter if the bioerror is considered to be the incompetent handling of the event. Given how many people are dying everyday in the US, I think we have definitely reached Rees’s bioerror definition.
- imtringued 6y agoThat's just mangling the definition of bioerror until one side loses or wins. At that point the bet is about what the judge thinks instead of what the bet is actually about. Since the bet is now up to the judge the smartest decision would be to decide against the ambiguous argument to encourage future betters to avoid making more ambiguous bets.
- imoverclocked 6y ago> By "bioerror", I mean something which has the same effect as a terror attack, but rises from inadvertance rather than evil intent. I don’t think it’s a stretch. In an optimistic view, the current administration could be said to have inadvertently allowed things to get so bad. In a more pessimistic view, there is malice involved.
- jdauriemma 6y agoAgreed. I think the burden of proof would be on the person alleging an "inadvertent" mishandling of COVID when there's plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence to the contrary: blatant denialism, ridicule of basic preventive measures, assertions that the virus would "disappear," withholding of crucial information early in the outbreak, the list goes on. All of these intentional steps were taken by high US government officials, including the president.