4 ms·

Except substitute “down the street” with “30 km away on the other side of a river”, and notice that everybody who got sick initially was next to the market, non

Except substitute “down the street” with “30 km away on the other side of a river”, and notice that everybody who got sick initially was next to the market, none of them anywhere near the lab. So the lab-leak hypothesis is: this virus created at the lab accidentally escaped to someone who subsequently only infected people on the other side of town. It’s certainly a possibility (viral transmission is irregular with high variance, and people can easily travel that distance), and the lack of transparency by the government is alarming (though not particularly surprising to folks studying China), but most of the experts who have studied it still think it’s relatively unlikely.

cloutchaser 4y ago
- luckylion 4y ago
  Your understanding is that a large conspiracy of various Western and Chinese (and others?) federal institutes have conspired to uphold a fake story because the Western officials funding the Chinese research don't want the world to know that their money was somehow involved?
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    It doesn't take too many data points to at least make you suspicious. It's not a conspiracy theory. We know Peter Daszak lied about his involvement in this research. We know Fauci made decisions about coronavirus research. We know the NIH funded coronavirus research in wuhan. The chinese took their virus database offline. They refused any serious investigation. The batwoman has disappeared. All these organisations have a lot to lose if it was partly their fault for this pandemic. Yet at they same time they hold the keys to any serious investigation. This does NOT mean that this is proof that it was a lab leak. But it is extremely suspicious behaviour and circumstances. At a minimum it should warrant serious pressure to investigate what happened.
null_object 4y ago
> Except substitute “down the street” with “30 km away on the other side of a river”, and notice that everybody who got sick initially was next to the market, none of them anywhere near the lab. > So the lab-leak hypothesis is: this virus created at the lab accidentally escaped to someone who subsequently only infected people on the other side of town. But this isn't necessarily how it works, at all. The Wuhan market is one of Wuhan's most population-dense areas, in close proximity to three hospitals where the first cases were identified, and was therefore the concentration for infection-tracing. In other words, the dataset for early cases was based on a belief that the market was where the infection was spreading, rather than the location of a spreading event that came from elsewhere in the city. Even pneumonia cases that were reported were only post-hoc assigned as probably covid if they were in close proximity to the market.
- jacobolus 4y ago
  Again, it’s not impossible or even implausible that the spread could have happened like that, or that there were cases elsewhere that went unrecognized. But that’s not nearly the same as flippantly describing this as the lab just “down the street” from the market. The possibility hasn’t been incontrovertibly ruled out (and maybe never can be at this point), and it’s important to do independent investigations and examine the lab’s research, etc. It’s just not considered by most experts to be the most likely possibility. As a geographical comparison, it would be like having a new disease outbreak where all of the known cases for the first several weeks were in Brooklyn, NY and concluding that the source could have been a lab in Newark, NJ. It’s possible, but not the first place to look.
  - junofan 4y ago
    The “lab leak hypothesis” refers to the lab literally down the street, as per the WHO report. The lab was moved to that location about a week before the outbreak at the wet market. The WHO report speculates perhaps an accident occurred during the move. It does not refer to the WIV as you think, again as per the WHO report.
    - 4y ago
throwaway742 4y ago
Maybe one of the people who works at the lab lives/works close to the market.

cloutchaser 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago
Your understanding is that a large conspiracy of various Western and Chinese (and others?) federal institutes have conspired to uphold a fake story because the Western officials funding the Chinese research don't want the world to know that their money was somehow involved?
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  It doesn't take too many data points to at least make you suspicious. It's not a conspiracy theory. We know Peter Daszak lied about his involvement in this research. We know Fauci made decisions about coronavirus research. We know the NIH funded coronavirus research in wuhan. The chinese took their virus database offline. They refused any serious investigation. The batwoman has disappeared. All these organisations have a lot to lose if it was partly their fault for this pandemic. Yet at they same time they hold the keys to any serious investigation. This does NOT mean that this is proof that it was a lab leak. But it is extremely suspicious behaviour and circumstances. At a minimum it should warrant serious pressure to investigate what happened.

null_object 4y ago

> Except substitute “down the street” with “30 km away on the other side of a river”, and notice that everybody who got sick initially was next to the market, none of them anywhere near the lab. > So the lab-leak hypothesis is: this virus created at the lab accidentally escaped to someone who subsequently only infected people on the other side of town. But this isn't necessarily how it works, at all. The Wuhan market is one of Wuhan's most population-dense areas, in close proximity to three hospitals where the first cases were identified, and was therefore the concentration for infection-tracing. In other words, the dataset for early cases was based on a belief that the market was where the infection was spreading, rather than the location of a spreading event that came from elsewhere in the city. Even pneumonia cases that were reported were only post-hoc assigned as probably covid if they were in close proximity to the market.

jacobolus 4y ago
Again, it’s not impossible or even implausible that the spread could have happened like that, or that there were cases elsewhere that went unrecognized. But that’s not nearly the same as flippantly describing this as the lab just “down the street” from the market. The possibility hasn’t been incontrovertibly ruled out (and maybe never can be at this point), and it’s important to do independent investigations and examine the lab’s research, etc. It’s just not considered by most experts to be the most likely possibility. As a geographical comparison, it would be like having a new disease outbreak where all of the known cases for the first several weeks were in Brooklyn, NY and concluding that the source could have been a lab in Newark, NJ. It’s possible, but not the first place to look.
- junofan 4y ago
  The “lab leak hypothesis” refers to the lab literally down the street, as per the WHO report. The lab was moved to that location about a week before the outbreak at the wet market. The WHO report speculates perhaps an accident occurred during the move. It does not refer to the WIV as you think, again as per the WHO report.
  - 4y ago

throwaway742 4y ago

Maybe one of the people who works at the lab lives/works close to the market.