4 ms·
It seems that lo these many years later all the theories are still full of holes. Lab leak is plausible but there's no public evidence to back it. Somehow the D
by tootie 4y ago
It seems that lo these many years later all the theories are still full of holes. Lab leak is plausible but there's no public evidence to back it. Somehow the DOE thinks they have something but we haven't seen it. Just based on history, zoonotic remains most likely but no host has been found.
- Retric 4y agoThere’s evidence that it’s more likely than various other theories, but there isn’t a smoking gun. That’s the kind of nuance that’s easy to ignore in favor of your preconceived notions because weak evidence is rarely worth changing your mind over. At a practical level I don’t think there’s much difference between the lab link being a 7% chance vs a 70% chance. What’s more concerning is the potential of future leaks and what responses they might result in. The possibility that local officials get in CYA mode over a possible lab leak of a more dangerous virus is seriously concerning.
- tootie 4y ago"There’s evidence that it’s more likely than various other theories," None that I've seen. And the possibility of a future leak is probably unrelated to the possibility of this one having been a leak.
- Retric 4y ago“None that I’ve seen.” Which has little to do with the existence of said evidence. I’ve never seen direct evidence for the year Columbus sailed. Anyway, many things that would make future leaks less likely also make past leaks less likely. The types of experiments being conducted and the types of labs those experiments are conducted in. Oversight, funding, and systems for reporting safety issues etc etc.
- tootie 4y agoI'm responding to you saying there's evidence. To what were you referring?
- Retric 4y agoThe evidence used by the Energy Department in their assessment.
- tootie 4y agoThe DOE has not, to my knowledge, published their "low confidence" intelligence. Only their conclusion. Which still disagrees with every other agency. So it doesn't seem we actually have more evidence for lab leak.
- ehvatum 4y ago> Which still disagrees with every other agency. But that is a lie. From the article: “The Energy Department now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory.”
- mrcsno 4y agoCalling it a lie is a bit uncharitable. It’s gone from “disagrees with every other agency” to “disagrees with the majority of agencies.” I wouldn’t say that dramatically changes the point.
- yellowapple 4y agoIt's also weird to me that the Department of Energy (and not, say, the CDC/DHHS or USAMRIID or what have you) is advancing such hypotheses in the first place. What does the origin of SARS-CoV-2 have to do with American energy policy?
- pagekicker 4y agoDOE supervises the national labs, which have 1) bio experience 2) high classification 3) supercomputers 4) lots more scientists than CIA or God help us FBI. DOE has organic science resources. The other agencies tend to rely on academic consultants, who are compromised because no one wants to bring virology labs under intense and blaming scrutiny.
- tootie 4y agoThat would also imply they were specifically looking at lab protocols to determine if there was a possibility of leak and perhaps not fully evaluating the likelihood of other origins which would be outside their expertise. The CDC/NIH/WHO operate loads more labs and also employ loads of epidemiologists.
- pagekicker 4y agoAs the Post article indicates, DOE has tens of thousands of scientists and has worked on NBC weapons for many decades.
- yellowapple 4y agoRight, but that still doesn't answer why the DoE is supervising the national labs or otherwise has any significant degree of bio experience in the first place.
- pagekicker 4y agoRead this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/...