26 ms·

Why is this being discussed now? Matt Yglesias has publicly admitted that this piece is flawed. This is critically important context that is being missed by eve

Why is this being discussed now? Matt Yglesias has publicly admitted that this piece is flawed. This is critically important context that is being missed by everyone in this discussion: ‘…SIGNIFICANT factual error in my newsletter.’ ‘…we knew specifically that RaTG13 samples had been brought to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and studied there. That is not the case for this Laos virus. To me that discovery really does meaningfully detract from the plausibility of the lab leak story and I apologize — I simply missed this when it came out and failed to update my views.‘ https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499467534202028033 https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499467534202...

TameAntelope 5y ago
I love Matt Yglesias, but he is very savvy when it comes to riding the waves of Twitter interest. I chalk this up to that; he’s seeing how interested people are, he wants to talk about it, but his most interesting take is marginally conspiratorial. My reaction to this is, “Oh, Matt…” and moving on. I hope this doesn’t become his norm, and I really think he’s too grounded generally.
elefanten 5y ago
That doesnt change any of the most salient points of this saga: Virology research community is coming across shady and untrustworthy. And thats a bigger problem.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  It actually does change the most salient points of this saga.
breck 5y ago
I have not been following too closely, but it came out from the EcoHealth docs that bat samples were also being sent from Laos to Wuhan. Source (Nov 2021, not sure if my info is out of date): https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1462659372421718019 https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1462659372421718019 Which would mean that the article's argument stands, stronger.
- ajross 5y ago
  EcoHealth straight up denies that any samples were sent, and the tweet you link only shows that WIV folks were listed as authors of a very generic-sounding paper. I don't see that this shows anything at all. Getting an author listing on a paper doesn't require that you have gotten anywhere near a sample.
wokwokwok 5y ago
To anyone else without the context: - @mattyglesias posts this article on slowboring - @angie_rasmussen posts some pretty thoughtful responses [1]. - @MichaelWorobey posts some more responses specifically with regard to the fact that there are A/B lineages [2]. - @mattyglesias publicly apologies [3] and says, and I quote: To me that discovery really does meaningfully detract from the plausibility of the lab leak story and I apologize — I simply missed this when it came out and failed to update my views. ...but, doesn't bother to update his article to say that, because that would you know, affect page views and stuff. So you know, you can take what you want from this, but it's pretty clear to me that this is click-bait. A good actor would update the article with the new information... but he hasn't done that, so we can only presume he's acting in completely bad faith with his apology, and is bluntly, just peddling conspiracy theories for page views. [1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198495272962 https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198... [2] - https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1499969388325212162 https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/14999693883... [3] - https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547061767 https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547...
- johnny22 5y ago
  i really appreciate seeing the context here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- platz 5y ago
  The only thing that needed to be corrected was that there was another version of the virus in laos instead of hubei. The main points of the article still stand.
  - wokwokwok 5y ago
    I’m in no way arguing that point. That point has been carefully argued by other people. What I’m saying is that when you’re wrong (and he was) and you apologise (and he did) then don’t leave your (wrong) article up there encouraging other people to take up the same (wrong) views that you previously had. That’s acting in bad faith. I don’t care what you believe; believe whatever you think is appropriate. …but he said that he thinks that his own article is wrong. If you think that the article is right under those circumstances, perhaps consider: You’re being suckered by a lazy click bait article. (Not convinced? Actually go and read those Twitter threads I posted. It’s pretty damning. Wtf, “the NYT made this diagram that shows…” <— nope, that was from the paper, he was just being lazy and didn’t read it before writing an article about it. It’s just click bait to rile people up and get page views with random plausible but unsubstantiated crap)

TameAntelope 5y ago

I love Matt Yglesias, but he is very savvy when it comes to riding the waves of Twitter interest. I chalk this up to that; he’s seeing how interested people are, he wants to talk about it, but his most interesting take is marginally conspiratorial. My reaction to this is, “Oh, Matt…” and moving on. I hope this doesn’t become his norm, and I really think he’s too grounded generally.

elefanten 5y ago

That doesnt change any of the most salient points of this saga: Virology research community is coming across shady and untrustworthy. And thats a bigger problem.

SantalBlush 5y ago
It actually does change the most salient points of this saga.

breck 5y ago

I have not been following too closely, but it came out from the EcoHealth docs that bat samples were also being sent from Laos to Wuhan. Source (Nov 2021, not sure if my info is out of date): https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1462659372421718019 https://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/1462659372421718019 Which would mean that the article's argument stands, stronger.

ajross 5y ago
EcoHealth straight up denies that any samples were sent, and the tweet you link only shows that WIV folks were listed as authors of a very generic-sounding paper. I don't see that this shows anything at all. Getting an author listing on a paper doesn't require that you have gotten anywhere near a sample.

wokwokwok 5y ago

To anyone else without the context: - @mattyglesias posts this article on slowboring - @angie_rasmussen posts some pretty thoughtful responses [1]. - @MichaelWorobey posts some more responses specifically with regard to the fact that there are A/B lineages [2]. - @mattyglesias publicly apologies [3] and says, and I quote: To me that discovery really does meaningfully detract from the plausibility of the lab leak story and I apologize — I simply missed this when it came out and failed to update my views. ...but, doesn't bother to update his article to say that, because that would you know, affect page views and stuff. So you know, you can take what you want from this, but it's pretty clear to me that this is click-bait. A good actor would update the article with the new information... but he hasn't done that, so we can only presume he's acting in completely bad faith with his apology, and is bluntly, just peddling conspiracy theories for page views. [1] - https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198495272962 https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1499406198... [2] - https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/1499969388325212162 https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelWorobey/status/14999693883... [3] - https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547061767 https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1499465032547...

johnny22 5y ago
i really appreciate seeing the context here.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
platz 5y ago
The only thing that needed to be corrected was that there was another version of the virus in laos instead of hubei. The main points of the article still stand.
- wokwokwok 5y ago
  I’m in no way arguing that point. That point has been carefully argued by other people. What I’m saying is that when you’re wrong (and he was) and you apologise (and he did) then don’t leave your (wrong) article up there encouraging other people to take up the same (wrong) views that you previously had. That’s acting in bad faith. I don’t care what you believe; believe whatever you think is appropriate. …but he said that he thinks that his own article is wrong. If you think that the article is right under those circumstances, perhaps consider: You’re being suckered by a lazy click bait article. (Not convinced? Actually go and read those Twitter threads I posted. It’s pretty damning. Wtf, “the NYT made this diagram that shows…” <— nope, that was from the paper, he was just being lazy and didn’t read it before writing an article about it. It’s just click bait to rile people up and get page views with random plausible but unsubstantiated crap)