6 ms·

Also article mentions FBI has “moderate” confidence it was lab leak. I find that very interesting given it wouldn’t be so much based on scientific analysis but

Also article mentions FBI has “moderate” confidence it was lab leak. I find that very interesting given it wouldn’t be so much based on scientific analysis but some intelligence collection the FBI has.

teawrecks 4y ago
Science is the collecting and processing of empirical data using peer reviewed methods to reach a conclusion. Which part do you think the FBI is not doing which separates their process from science?
kranke155 4y ago
Doesn’t the FBI also have a large biological analysis team? For bio terror ?
- orlp 4y ago
  I think if anything COVID has shown us that biological warfare makes as much sense as nuclear: none. In our globally connected world it's mutually assured destruction, and that's without even the need for your enemy to maintain stockpiles of weapons. The virus will find itself within your own borders soon enough.
  - scotteric 4y ago
    It still makes sense for things like anthrax that aren't easily communicable. Or botulinum toxin.
    - orlp 4y ago
      Fair enough, I meant viral biowarfare.
      - cjbgkagh 4y ago
        I should point out that some viruses are not easily transmissible either.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Terrorists motivated by religion or ideology sometimes use tactics and weapons that make no sense to rational people. The Aum Shinrikyo cult was developing biological weapons.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      > The Aum Shinrikyo cult was developing biological weapons. Sarin would be classed as chemical, not biological. It's also worth illustrating that their primary terrorist act killed 15 people, after releasing sarin on 5 different trains during Tokyo's busy rush hour. You would have been more effective just lobbing a single grenade.
      - nradov 4y ago
        The cult used a chemical weapon. They were also developing biological weapons based on botulism and anthrax at the same time but fortunately didn't get a chance to use those.
        tptacek 4y ago
        The same thing they just said about sarin vs. a grenade, you can say about anthrax vs. a grenade.
  - tomp 4y ago
    Only bad viruses. Good viruses will be genetically coded to only harm a particular subgroup.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      I was thinking that actually gives the United States a distinct advantage in such (hypothetical) biological warfare, it has the most diverse gene pool on the planet.
      - Thiez 4y ago
        That seems unlikely, I would expect most African countries to beat the US easily.
    - bsder 4y ago
      Until they mutate. It is beneficial to the survival of a virus to infect the largest group that it can. A virus targeted to a small group of people has a large "survival benefit" the moment it can mutate to infect everybody. In addition, it's really hard to target a biological entity at a specific subgroup of humans. From a biological standpoint, all humans are damn near identical.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        You share 50% of your DNA with a banana.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > The virus will find itself within your own borders soon enough. Depends on the virus - something with the long incubating periods and frequent lack of symptoms like Covid yes, but something much more quick and deadly (say, Ebola, even though 2-21 days is still potentially slow) could result in quick mass deaths without the opportunity to spread it around.
ffssffss 4y ago
And the WSJ piece says the CIA is undecided! I wonder what explains the different assessments.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  Probably they still aren’t sharing all the information they have with each other. I had thought that was supposed to be much improved post 9-11.
  - kashunstva 4y ago
    Or there aren't objective standards for what "low, medium, and high confidence" actually mean, thereby allowing one agency to look at the evidence and say it's of low confidence and another to look at the same data and say it's moderate confidence.
    - Bjartr 4y ago
      Interestingly, the CIA has published a paper on exactly this subject: Words of Estimative Probability (PDF) https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-8-no-4/words-of-estimative-probability/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/ar...
      - cameldrv 4y ago
        Moderate and Low are Words of Analytic Confidence [1]. This has more to do with the quality of the sourcing than a numeric probability number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Or they are coming to different conclusions given the same ambiguous/incomplete information. It could simply be disagreement, or just lack of a standard metric here to compare notes easily.
ashwagary 4y ago
If you repeat a lie often enough, even the at first reluctant will start to believe it. That's how the propaganda machine typically works. The more these claims based on minimal new evidence are repeated, the more it seems the virus may have potentially been released by nefarious actors as an attack on the population. It's not implausable for an entity with knowledge and access to a virus being studied, to release a copy of it in the environment surrounding the lab while maintaining a high degree of deniability. If it is so, then the question that remains is, much like in the case of Nordstream, which nation state has the most incentive to carry it out?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- baja_blast 4y ago
  While I won't discount the possibility that the outbreak could be a nefarious plot to plant a virus.I feel the US's response to the pandemic and the massive mistakes made make it less likely. The most likely would be just an accident where a researcher unknowingly got infected while conducting research in a BSL2 lab where they were testing wild SARS like viruses and inserting FCS to gauge the viruses potential threat level
  - taw567890 4y ago
    >I feel the US's response to the pandemic and the massive mistakes make it less likely. It may be unlikely but there have been many instances where the US population becomes a victim of its own government's covert actions. The quality of response doesn't neccessarily prove anything.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  I'm wary of engaging, but this just makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain and actually make explicit some of the implied connections. Previously the 'big lie' was that it was not from a lab. Now that it's assessed to be likely from a lab the new lie is the contention that it was done deliberately? Whose propaganda machine is at work here anyway? The Chinese govt or the US one? Or are they in cahoots now?
iaseiadit 4y ago
“The FBI employs a cadre of microbiologists, immunologists and other scientists and is supported by the National Bioforensic Analysis Center, which was established at Fort Detrick, Md., in 2004 to analyze anthrax and other possible biological threats.” -the article
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  Ironic, since the anthrax from the "anthrax attacks" in 2001 were traced to Fort Detrick.

teawrecks 4y ago

Science is the collecting and processing of empirical data using peer reviewed methods to reach a conclusion. Which part do you think the FBI is not doing which separates their process from science?

kranke155 4y ago

Doesn’t the FBI also have a large biological analysis team? For bio terror ?

orlp 4y ago
I think if anything COVID has shown us that biological warfare makes as much sense as nuclear: none. In our globally connected world it's mutually assured destruction, and that's without even the need for your enemy to maintain stockpiles of weapons. The virus will find itself within your own borders soon enough.
- scotteric 4y ago
  It still makes sense for things like anthrax that aren't easily communicable. Or botulinum toxin.
  - orlp 4y ago
    Fair enough, I meant viral biowarfare.
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      I should point out that some viruses are not easily transmissible either.
- nradov 4y ago
  Terrorists motivated by religion or ideology sometimes use tactics and weapons that make no sense to rational people. The Aum Shinrikyo cult was developing biological weapons.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > The Aum Shinrikyo cult was developing biological weapons. Sarin would be classed as chemical, not biological. It's also worth illustrating that their primary terrorist act killed 15 people, after releasing sarin on 5 different trains during Tokyo's busy rush hour. You would have been more effective just lobbing a single grenade.
    - nradov 4y ago
      The cult used a chemical weapon. They were also developing biological weapons based on botulism and anthrax at the same time but fortunately didn't get a chance to use those.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        The same thing they just said about sarin vs. a grenade, you can say about anthrax vs. a grenade.
- tomp 4y ago
  Only bad viruses. Good viruses will be genetically coded to only harm a particular subgroup.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    I was thinking that actually gives the United States a distinct advantage in such (hypothetical) biological warfare, it has the most diverse gene pool on the planet.
    - Thiez 4y ago
      That seems unlikely, I would expect most African countries to beat the US easily.
  - bsder 4y ago
    Until they mutate. It is beneficial to the survival of a virus to infect the largest group that it can. A virus targeted to a small group of people has a large "survival benefit" the moment it can mutate to infect everybody. In addition, it's really hard to target a biological entity at a specific subgroup of humans. From a biological standpoint, all humans are damn near identical.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      You share 50% of your DNA with a banana.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > The virus will find itself within your own borders soon enough. Depends on the virus - something with the long incubating periods and frequent lack of symptoms like Covid yes, but something much more quick and deadly (say, Ebola, even though 2-21 days is still potentially slow) could result in quick mass deaths without the opportunity to spread it around.

ffssffss 4y ago

And the WSJ piece says the CIA is undecided! I wonder what explains the different assessments.

alchemist1e9 4y ago
Probably they still aren’t sharing all the information they have with each other. I had thought that was supposed to be much improved post 9-11.
- kashunstva 4y ago
  Or there aren't objective standards for what "low, medium, and high confidence" actually mean, thereby allowing one agency to look at the evidence and say it's of low confidence and another to look at the same data and say it's moderate confidence.
  - Bjartr 4y ago
    Interestingly, the CIA has published a paper on exactly this subject: Words of Estimative Probability (PDF) https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-8-no-4/words-of-estimative-probability/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/ar...
    - cameldrv 4y ago
      Moderate and Low are Words of Analytic Confidence [1]. This has more to do with the quality of the sourcing than a numeric probability number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Or they are coming to different conclusions given the same ambiguous/incomplete information. It could simply be disagreement, or just lack of a standard metric here to compare notes easily.

ashwagary 4y ago

If you repeat a lie often enough, even the at first reluctant will start to believe it. That's how the propaganda machine typically works. The more these claims based on minimal new evidence are repeated, the more it seems the virus may have potentially been released by nefarious actors as an attack on the population. It's not implausable for an entity with knowledge and access to a virus being studied, to release a copy of it in the environment surrounding the lab while maintaining a high degree of deniability. If it is so, then the question that remains is, much like in the case of Nordstream, which nation state has the most incentive to carry it out?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
baja_blast 4y ago
While I won't discount the possibility that the outbreak could be a nefarious plot to plant a virus.I feel the US's response to the pandemic and the massive mistakes made make it less likely. The most likely would be just an accident where a researcher unknowingly got infected while conducting research in a BSL2 lab where they were testing wild SARS like viruses and inserting FCS to gauge the viruses potential threat level
- taw567890 4y ago
  >I feel the US's response to the pandemic and the massive mistakes make it less likely. It may be unlikely but there have been many instances where the US population becomes a victim of its own government's covert actions. The quality of response doesn't neccessarily prove anything.
bigfudge 4y ago
I'm wary of engaging, but this just makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain and actually make explicit some of the implied connections. Previously the 'big lie' was that it was not from a lab. Now that it's assessed to be likely from a lab the new lie is the contention that it was done deliberately? Whose propaganda machine is at work here anyway? The Chinese govt or the US one? Or are they in cahoots now?

iaseiadit 4y ago

“The FBI employs a cadre of microbiologists, immunologists and other scientists and is supported by the National Bioforensic Analysis Center, which was established at Fort Detrick, Md., in 2004 to analyze anthrax and other possible biological threats.” -the article

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
Ironic, since the anthrax from the "anthrax attacks" in 2001 were traced to Fort Detrick.