4 ms·

>As we’ll see later, there may actually have been two jumps from animals to people at the market. Mixing fact with speculation is never a great sign for an arg

by scythe 3y ago

>As we’ll see later, there may actually have been two jumps from animals to people at the market. Mixing fact with speculation is never a great sign for an argument. Many people pushing the lab leak theory are doing this, but the people pushing against it don't need to start. If there were two spillovers, that needs a very good explanation, particularly because events like this tend to fall into the categories "one" and "many" — if there were two spillovers, why not three or four? Why not a whole gaggle of infected raccoon dogs? > Based on number of visitors, Worobey estimated the odds at only 1 in 10,000 that the market would be the first superspreading event in Wuhan. This is based on a location analysis of early cases around Wuhan. That doesn't imply that the first event was at the market, only near the market. In particular, the market is across the street from a railway station and one block away from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology Tongji Medical College Union Hospital. Huazhong University of Science and Technology is one of China's top ten universities and might have a pretty good hospital.

kuhewa 3y ago
Have you read the brace of Science papers that analysed the market data
hwillis 3y ago
> Mixing fact with speculation is never a great sign for an argument. You're the only one who's speculating, because in the page that sentence links to a scientific paper: https://zenodo.org/record/6342616#.Y_WrmnbMJD- https://zenodo.org/record/6342616#.Y_WrmnbMJD- > In particular, the market is across the street from a railway station Which can be trivially ruled out, because then the spread would have been all up and down the rail line. The first infection point would have been on the train, among all those people getting off at all different stops. It would not have suddenly become infectious just as that person stepped off the train. > and one block away from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology Tongji Medical College Union Hospital. The evidence for zoonotic origin is how people regularly found or contracted SARS-like coronaviruses from animals. The evidence there was any relevant research at that university is zero. It's not a government lab, those projects would have been public.

by scythe 3y ago

kuhewa 3y ago

Have you read the brace of Science papers that analysed the market data

hwillis 3y ago

> Mixing fact with speculation is never a great sign for an argument. You're the only one who's speculating, because in the page that sentence links to a scientific paper: https://zenodo.org/record/6342616#.Y_WrmnbMJD- https://zenodo.org/record/6342616#.Y_WrmnbMJD- > In particular, the market is across the street from a railway station Which can be trivially ruled out, because then the spread would have been all up and down the rail line. The first infection point would have been on the train, among all those people getting off at all different stops. It would not have suddenly become infectious just as that person stepped off the train. > and one block away from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology Tongji Medical College Union Hospital. The evidence for zoonotic origin is how people regularly found or contracted SARS-like coronaviruses from animals. The evidence there was any relevant research at that university is zero. It's not a government lab, those projects would have been public.