4 ms·
Same with anyone who was saying “it’s airborne” or “the case fatality rate is inflated” or “it could have leaked from that lab”. And now, behold as the intelle
by guscost 5y ago
Same with anyone who was saying “it’s airborne” or “the case fatality rate is inflated” or “it could have leaked from that lab”.
And now, behold as the intellectual class attempts to delete these mistakes from our collective memory.
- avs733 5y agono one is deleteing anything...they are simply learning, as science does, and noting that prior knowledge was incorrect. That is fundamentally different from people screaming without evidence. A broken clock is right twice a day, but it is not an accurate clock at any point.
- guscost 5y agoIt was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and note the word “attempts”. This one is much too big/high profile to delete, thankfully. The “this is just how to do science” defense is cute, but a lot people died and will die over it, and in general the conduct we have seen from formerly-trusted authorities is inexcusable. Most people are not going to let that gang of narrow-minded bullies “do science” to them ever again.
- vadansky 5y agoI'm sorry no, this is not "they are simply learning, as science does" People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day
- guscost 5y agoIn my opinion you are completely right, but calling this out makes a lot of people very mad.
- avs733 5y agoI'm not mad, I just have been taught that retcon'ing evidence to fit a narrative is not the same thing as science. It doesn't matter how well it fits or evidence, it should be rejected because the base structure of the argument fails. These people aren't 'right' in the sense that they figured something out, they screamed about something without evidence. Whatever happens next cannot change that fact. Its notable that what is happening is the evidence is getting constantly substituted to fit an explanation not the explanation emerging from the available evidence. It's the boy who cried wolf...
- whydoibother 5y agoStop trying to tie it to your politics. Some people want real evidence before they scream about things like you do. It had little to do with Trump.
- vadansky 5y agoWrong because the alternative had no real evidence either.
- throwawaysea 5y agoIt absolutely had everything to do with Trump. He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) presented political opportunities. In an election year, everything becomes about the election. People wanted to attack Trump at every turn, even when he suggested reasonable measures like controlling travel, and equally they wanted to ensure all blame was directed at Trump rather than the Chinese government or state governments or elsewhere. To address your claim more directly, there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory, or claim it was debunked (as many news outlets did), or censor conversations about it online. This isn't about believing it is the only possibility, but that it is a likely possibility that deserves serious attention. The reason it was instead cloaked in dogmatic terms like "conspiracy theory" and shutdown outright, is purely because of politics. There was no "real evidence" to dismiss it as it was. And guess what - that dismissal also allowed the Chinese government to avoid a site visit for months, and even when the WHO visit happened, it was under the terms of the Chinese government with an untrustworthy outcome. Those who shutdown the lab leak theory and other such claims aren't interested in evidence. They're interested in political opportunism.
- whydoibother 5y agoCase fatality rate wasn't inflated, it was deflated if anything. And there is still no real evidence of a lab leak, despite western intelligence continually lying about it.