2 ms·

The lab-leak theory has never had any significant support in the scientific community, and over time, every new piece of evidence has even more heavily favored

The lab-leak theory has never had any significant support in the scientific community, and over time, every new piece of evidence has even more heavily favored the scientific consensus that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally. For example, French researchers have discovered a virus circulating in bats in Laos that is closer to SARS-CoV-2 than anything the Wuhan Institute of Virology had. That alone is basically a 100% refutation of the conspiracy theories about the lab. > What that has to do with reopening or Trump’s positions is not clear Australia is a US ally, and has increasingly aligned itself with the US' more aggressive position towards China over the last few years. It's not a coincidence that Trump and Morrison began attacking China over coronavirus at the same time. > Apparently inspectors did eventually go with a lighter treatment and rights and they did not end up with any results. The WHO team put together one of the most informative reports yet on the origins on SARS-CoV-2. The actual contents of their report were almost completely ignored in US media, though, which was intensely focused on pushing the lab-leak theory and disappointed that the WHO report found it extremely unlikely. If you watch the press conference announcing the results, it's almost comical how the US journalists were completely uninterested in anything the researchers were saying and kept asking about the lab.

cgio 5y ago
I feel like you miss the key argument and context here, I.e. impact of government decisions on population. I am assuming you are of the opinion that this is a non issue, and I am fine with any opinion, as long as it is applied consistently. In this context, you cannot issue pleas for people on the one side and blame countries on the other.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  I don't this this is a symmetric relationship. Since Trump can't into office, the US has taken an extremely aggressive stance towards China and has sought to intensify the conflict over a whole range of areas (initiating the trade war, making wild accusations of genocide, moving towards recognition of Taiwan, pushing conspiracy theories about CoVID-19), while China has tried to avoid escalation and has almost never gone beyond reciprocal actions. Australia has aligned itself fully with the US in most of these actions, leading the charge against Huawei, funding a prominent think tank that churns out anti-Chinese propaganda, pushing the lab-leak conspiracy theory, inserting itself into disputes in the South China Sea, etc. I think there's a clear aggressor in this situation. The US believes that China is a threat to the unipolar order that has prevailed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has embarked on a confrontational policy towards China. Australia, caught between its military ally and its top economic partner, has decided to throw itself entirely behind its military ally.
  - cgio 5y ago
    Thank you, we agree not on opinions, but on concepts. That was my argument even if not perfectly articulated, I,e. That this is what you call above a symmetric relationship, and unfortunately humanitarian pleas will take the back seat from both sides and also there will be reluctance to find common ground, I.e. I cannot deny I view your individual positions as extremely disagreeable, that’s a sign of directionality.

cgio 5y ago

I feel like you miss the key argument and context here, I.e. impact of government decisions on population. I am assuming you are of the opinion that this is a non issue, and I am fine with any opinion, as long as it is applied consistently. In this context, you cannot issue pleas for people on the one side and blame countries on the other.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I don't this this is a symmetric relationship. Since Trump can't into office, the US has taken an extremely aggressive stance towards China and has sought to intensify the conflict over a whole range of areas (initiating the trade war, making wild accusations of genocide, moving towards recognition of Taiwan, pushing conspiracy theories about CoVID-19), while China has tried to avoid escalation and has almost never gone beyond reciprocal actions. Australia has aligned itself fully with the US in most of these actions, leading the charge against Huawei, funding a prominent think tank that churns out anti-Chinese propaganda, pushing the lab-leak conspiracy theory, inserting itself into disputes in the South China Sea, etc. I think there's a clear aggressor in this situation. The US believes that China is a threat to the unipolar order that has prevailed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has embarked on a confrontational policy towards China. Australia, caught between its military ally and its top economic partner, has decided to throw itself entirely behind its military ally.
- cgio 5y ago
  Thank you, we agree not on opinions, but on concepts. That was my argument even if not perfectly articulated, I,e. That this is what you call above a symmetric relationship, and unfortunately humanitarian pleas will take the back seat from both sides and also there will be reluctance to find common ground, I.e. I cannot deny I view your individual positions as extremely disagreeable, that’s a sign of directionality.