3 ms·
I had the same reaction. Those articles don’t back up that claim one bit. And I cant make sense of the timings of the events described in those articles either
by tailspin2019 5y ago
I had the same reaction. Those articles don’t back up that claim one bit. And I cant make sense of the timings of the events described in those articles either and how that would line up with a supposed lab leak of delta.
Some of the other points made in this article were mildly compelling to me (though I don’t know enough on this topic to be able to poke holes) but that delta claim and lack of convincing data to back it up doesn’t help with credibility.
- cassepipe 5y agoYou misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.
- tailspin2019 5y agoAh, thank you for clarifying.
- civilized 5y agoWhich is funny because Delta's NS:S ratio is also very high. So by her own logic, the NS:S ratio -- what you called her "main" argument in the other thread -- has no predictive value whatsoever for the natural vs lab leak question.
- dljones 5y agoThe ratio is one of four "weirdnesses" laid out by the author, which a lab leak might parsimoniously explain, and which, so far, other hypotheses do not neatly or parsimoniously explain. So for you to jump to "no predictive value" is a little odd. Since you feel well-equipped to judge the validity of the various hypotheses for the origin of omicron, which hypothesis do you think explains the information and why? Thanks.