3 ms·

This, from the US Department of State, may be interesting. It seems to be an archive, though. I don't know if it's been updated. https://2017-2021.state.gov/fa

by afpx 4y ago

This, from the US Department of State, may be interesting. It seems to be an archive, though. I don't know if it's been updated. https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan... But, I'm just a casual observer. Someone will figure it out. Or, not.

Maursault 4y ago
It would be suspicious if China never behaved this way, but China always behaves this way. Always. It also would go miles if we could identify any other significant outbreak caused by a lab leak, because regardless of the hedging on that page, it is not at all clear it is possible a lab leak could cause a pandemic. We take it for granted as obvious, but it simply is not, because it has never occurred before. Also, if that wet market didn't exist, entertaining the lab leak hypothesis might be rational, but even without the wet market, if it never existed, it is more likely the first human infection was caused by a wild animal rather than a lab leak. Except the wet market did exist with astoundingly unsanitary conditions along with many species of wild animals for sale and in close contact with people, and the location includes a bat infestation to boot, and someone got bit by a bat there. I think it is just crazy and crazier to even remotely consider the Wuhan Institute of Virology over the wet market. The wet market is a tight and reasonable explanation. For it to have been WIV, we need a whole string of unlikely events.
- ehvatum 4y ago
  > For it to have been WIV, we need a whole string of unlikely events. WIV was working on corona virus gain of function, and researchers there had previously fallen ill with their own laboratory viruses. SARS escapes laboratories in Beijing on at least two well documented occasions. Stridency is not accuracy.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    That may be so, but if the pandemic was caused by a lab leak, we should have seen a concentration of infections surrounding the WIV, and at least on that side of the river. But instead, we see a concentration of the initial infections surrounding the wet market on the other side of the river. So the lab leak hypothesis simply does not fit the evidence.

by afpx 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

It would be suspicious if China never behaved this way, but China always behaves this way. Always. It also would go miles if we could identify any other significant outbreak caused by a lab leak, because regardless of the hedging on that page, it is not at all clear it is possible a lab leak could cause a pandemic. We take it for granted as obvious, but it simply is not, because it has never occurred before. Also, if that wet market didn't exist, entertaining the lab leak hypothesis might be rational, but even without the wet market, if it never existed, it is more likely the first human infection was caused by a wild animal rather than a lab leak. Except the wet market did exist with astoundingly unsanitary conditions along with many species of wild animals for sale and in close contact with people, and the location includes a bat infestation to boot, and someone got bit by a bat there. I think it is just crazy and crazier to even remotely consider the Wuhan Institute of Virology over the wet market. The wet market is a tight and reasonable explanation. For it to have been WIV, we need a whole string of unlikely events.

ehvatum 4y ago
> For it to have been WIV, we need a whole string of unlikely events. WIV was working on corona virus gain of function, and researchers there had previously fallen ill with their own laboratory viruses. SARS escapes laboratories in Beijing on at least two well documented occasions. Stridency is not accuracy.
- Maursault 4y ago
  That may be so, but if the pandemic was caused by a lab leak, we should have seen a concentration of infections surrounding the WIV, and at least on that side of the river. But instead, we see a concentration of the initial infections surrounding the wet market on the other side of the river. So the lab leak hypothesis simply does not fit the evidence.