3 ms·
> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. And many trotted out terrible
by ajsnigrutin 5y ago
> First, the vast majority of people who insisted on the lab leak theory did it to deflect blame and target China as a scapegoat. And many trotted out terrible and conspiratorial reasonings for why the accidental lab leak theory was the "truth," many going to the point of it being an intentional leak and that it was designed in the lab by humans. Not to mention using these claims to suck up attention away from other things like actually handling the pandemic. And to pile on politically a China=bad narrative. So by association there's been a severe reluctance to add more ammo to this group's claims.
How does not investigating help with those theories? There is a lab in Wuhan, they were working with coronaviruses, the infections seems to have started there, so logically someone points a finger... and the answer is "we won't investigate, because people are pointing fingers!"?
- liuliu 5y agoPeople expect a positive investigation result. Asking yourself, what kind of evidence would be "enough" to say it is not a lab leak? This is not obvious. Any negative result would beg deeper questions on trustworthiness of the given data, thoroughness of the research in this manner etc. No negative investigation result is acceptable to the public IMHO.
- ctrlp 5y agoEven if it were true that "the public" would not accept an acquittal at trial (although they sure were quick to accept acquittal without a trial), what does that have to do with scientific investigation? If there were reasonable candidate ancestors for SARS-COV2 found in nature, it would support natural origin, and be "enough" for many current skeptics. The weight of evidence is currently in support of lab leak, regardless of opinion one way or the other.