4 ms·
No it’s not.
by seventytwo 6y ago
No it’s not.
- jaywalk 6y agoIt doesn't appear to be evidence in either direction, honestly. They stick with the bat > human jump theory in the article, but it's more of an offhand remark than anything else.
- Tostino 6y agoI've seen no evidence either way. How are you so sure one way or the other?
- mgamache 6y agoyes, it is... There's no evidence of cases months earlier. Virus don't typically jump species and are effective immediately. They need time to adapt. Therefore: a) The virus learned about humans over weeks or months in public with no one noticing b) The virus learned about humans in a lab then leaked resulting in a fast moving pandemic
- ab7675226 6y agoThere are thousands of wet markets throughout China. Even if you restrict your view to major cities only, there's over 100 cities in China with a million inhabitants. There were 2 known locations in China where coronaviruses were being studied - Beijing and Wuhan. Now apply Bayesian analysis. This is before you look at the coverup and the history of diseases escaping from research labs all over the world and the documented inadequate safety measures in the Chinese labs.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe longer time-line makes a lab leak incredibly unlikely. WIV publishes data and shares it with international collaborators frequently, given the fact that every paper on bat coronaviruses from the WIV has international collaborators, how does it make sense that the sample wasn't known to anyone else in the months between the leak and detection?