4 ms·
"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 p
by 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.