3 ms·
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29669833/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29669833/ This is a paper from 2018 where they went into caves in southern China and
by handmodel 5y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29669833/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29669833/
This is a paper from 2018 where they went into caves in southern China and took 1000+ samples of droppings from bats back to Wuhan and found new strains of coronaviruses.
If they did this in late 2019 of course they wouldn't have published that after a (theoretical) leak...an absence of a sample means nothing. In fact, if anything the fact they didn't publish a similar report is more telling.
If you look at pre Covid-19 reports on bat coronoaviruses in China you'll see the large majority of such bats are in Southern China - very far away from Wuhan.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6466186/
- newacct583 5y ago> of course they wouldn't have published that after a (theoretical) leak Twisting "absence of evidence" into "evidence" by alleging a coverup is a classic conspiracy theory tactic. You're literally arguing for a conspiracy by asserting the conspiracy as a prior.
- handmodel 5y agoI don't think that applies here. If you are doing a Bayesian analysis on if a suspect committed a crime at 2:00 AM and they told you they were sleeping then - does this tell you any new information? I would say without outside evidence it shouldn't update your probability on the subject. If they truly were sleeping they are going to say they were sleeping. If they were committing the act they are going to say they were sleeping. Saying "the fact the suspect said they were sleeping at 2:00 AM is what they would say if they were committing the act" is not the same as saying "the fact that the suspect said they were sleeping at 2:00 AM is proof they committed the act"