4 ms·

lots of people still rather believe in something that "YourDave69" told them on a messenger instead of taking good advise from scientists around the world and w

by a_imho 6y ago

lots of people still rather believe in something that "YourDave69" told them on a messenger instead of taking good advise from scientists around the world and working together to get rid of this epidemic. You are right, but why do you think that is the case? Unfortunately it takes a very few (or even a single one) proven conspiracies to lose all trust and god knows we have plenty. Fool me once and all that. Can you really blame them?

martin_a 6y ago
> You are right, but why do you think that is the case? People seek for easy answers in a world that is getting more and more complex. "It's from a Chinese lab!" is obviously a lot easier than understanding how "everything" (more people need more food, want more meat, meat needs land, this leads to invasions/contacts with more wildlife, this leads to higher risk of zoonosis and so on and so on) comes together. We can see the same thing with lots of other fields.
- a_imho 6y ago
  In general I do not think that is true. However I do think official narratives are usually the easiest to digest, people would need to be crazy to believe otherwise. In this particular case I don't think "It's from a bat" is any more complex than "It's from a lab" either btw.
  - esja 6y ago
    It's less complex. The lab theory is a superset of the bat theory because it includes the bat as the original source.
- esja 6y ago
  In my experience the "easy answer" here is the one that excludes the lab. Most of the people advocating the lab leak hypothesis are also saying it originally came from wildlife, i.e. understanding their position requires understanding zoonosis as well. The reverse is not true.
Izkata 6y ago
> You are right, but why do you think that is the case? With the flip-flops in messaging over the past year+, it's easier to trust someone starting from zero than a known entity currently in the negatives.

by a_imho 6y ago

martin_a 6y ago

> You are right, but why do you think that is the case? People seek for easy answers in a world that is getting more and more complex. "It's from a Chinese lab!" is obviously a lot easier than understanding how "everything" (more people need more food, want more meat, meat needs land, this leads to invasions/contacts with more wildlife, this leads to higher risk of zoonosis and so on and so on) comes together. We can see the same thing with lots of other fields.

a_imho 6y ago
In general I do not think that is true. However I do think official narratives are usually the easiest to digest, people would need to be crazy to believe otherwise. In this particular case I don't think "It's from a bat" is any more complex than "It's from a lab" either btw.
- esja 6y ago
  It's less complex. The lab theory is a superset of the bat theory because it includes the bat as the original source.
esja 6y ago
In my experience the "easy answer" here is the one that excludes the lab. Most of the people advocating the lab leak hypothesis are also saying it originally came from wildlife, i.e. understanding their position requires understanding zoonosis as well. The reverse is not true.

Izkata 6y ago

> You are right, but why do you think that is the case? With the flip-flops in messaging over the past year+, it's easier to trust someone starting from zero than a known entity currently in the negatives.