4 ms·
The difference is that the lab leak hypothesis is being vigorously debated out in the open for all to see, by journalists and scientists from multiple countries
by cal5k 5y ago
The difference is that the lab leak hypothesis is being vigorously debated out in the open for all to see, by journalists and scientists from multiple countries, with references cited and available for perusal. China (allegedly) has gone out of its way to restrict access to records that might cast serious doubt on the lab leak theory and is peddling fairly preposterous alternative theories from state-controlled media outlets.
- scotty79 5y agoAnd in a year there's basically zero progress in hard facts supporting this hypothesis.
- Gibbon1 5y agoThe debate so far looks like 10 LET A = 0 20 PRINT "Scientists: Look there is no evidence of a lab leak" 30 PRINT "Journalists: What about" HYPOTHETICAL$(A) 40 PRINT "Scientists: that very unlikely" 50 PRINT "Journalists: So there is a chance!" 60 A = A + 1 70 GOTO 10
- thyrsus 5y ago65 REM ? 70 GOTO 20
- walleeee 5y agoThe "vigorous open debate" only began when the initially vehement denial of the possibility of a lab leak (from many Chinese and American scientists, officials, and press alike, e.g. Daszak's early 2020 publications) failed to convince In any case, if the hypothesis turns out correct, the important question is not "who is to blame", it's "how exactly did this happen" and "following a detailed and public risk/benefit analysis, should we allow this kind of research to continue"