4 ms·

Covid Virus Wasn’t at Wuhan Lab Before Pandemic, U.S. Report Says

9 points by Leary 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago
Which is and was the most obvious conclusion. But it doesn't seem to detract the conspiracy theory nutjobs from continuing to push it without any evidence whatsoever.
- synetic 3y ago
  I can’t read the article but the sub headline is: Spy agencies remain divided on whether the virus passed to humans via an infected animal or laboratory accident If it was a laboratory accident then wouldn’t that mean the virus was at the Wuhan lab prior to the pandemic? The reporting is that intelligence agencies are divided on whether or not it was a lab leak. I don’t think it qualifies as quackery to think it may have been an accidental leak.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It could be, but it shouldn't be the default assumption that that was the case. Absent hard evidence this is just speculation.
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      Is there hard evidence for the wet market theory? To be honest I find it much more plausible that the wet market theory is a coverup for an accidental lab leak from WIV. No hard evidence for it exists because of obstruction by the CCP. To be honest, we'll probably never know exactly what happened for certain.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        There are numerous examples of similar events in the past which are roughly the source for 2/3rds of all of our pathogens. We don't have any evidence for the remaining 1/3rd, mostly because biology is messy and too much time has passed. No hard evidence for a lableak exists can be because of obstruction by the CCP (it is a possibility) or simply because there wasn't a lab leak. You can't jump to conclusions like that. We may never know for certain, but it is also still possible that the reservoir will one day be discovered, for some diseases it took many years to do so. Highly recommended book: 'David Quammen, Spillover'. Note the date it was written, read it and then you may see a bit more clearly why I don't think a lab leak should be the foremost candidate for this particular virus. The writing was on the wall for years that something like this will happen, and, sorry to bring bad news, it will likely happen again. Possibly much worse.
        lockhouse 3y ago
        Frankly, gain of function research is very new. Of course 2/3 of all our pathogens have come from other sources. You still have given me no reason to disfavor the lab leak theory.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I've given you in the tens of thousands of reasons but you persist in pursuing your favorite conspiracy theory. That really isn't my problem. And it's not 2/3, it's 2/3rds for which we know the source. The remainder can be safely added but we just don't have the biological traces required to do a proper accounting. As for GoF being new: maybe it's new to you but this kind of research has been done for decades. It's mostly the mechanisms with which GoF is achieved that are new.
        synetic 3y ago
        The way the CCP has hindered investigations and attacked those who said it could have been a lab leak makes me think they are covering things up. The CCP did not hinder investigations in prior SARS outbreaks in China.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        It could be. But your suspicion does not equate to proof. And as for them not hindering previous investigations: I think you are wrong about that. On SARS-1: "Early in the epidemic, the Chinese government discouraged its press from reporting on SARS, delayed reporting to WHO, and initially did not provide information to Chinese outside Guangdong province, where the disease is believed to have originated.[20] Also, a WHO team that travelled to Beijing was not allowed to visit Guangdong province for several weeks.[21] This resulted in international criticism, which seems to have led to a change in government policy in early April.[22][23] " From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbrea... This is pretty much the expected path for anything related to a perceived failure of the CCP, they are scared shitless of being seen either as incompetent or weak.
- tredre3 3y ago
  > But it doesn't seem to detract the conspiracy theory nutjobs from continuing to push it without any evidence whatsoever. Whether or not the virus escaped from a lab, I think it's pretty bad to call these people nutjobs. Their theory is as plausible as the popular "wet market" one. Their theory doesn't require any craziness or suspension of reality to work. Why call them nutjobs? You can disagree without insulting people.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I know a couple of them and nutjobs is the moniker that fits best. They know next to nothing but have very strong opinions, they also tend to follow each and every conspiracy theory that's put out there. Ideal fodder for amplification of bs theories.
- peteradio 3y ago
  Respond to the title much? There was no conclusion.
jprd 3y ago
https://archive.is/ykNZX https://archive.is/ykNZX

9 points by Leary 3y ago

Which is and was the most obvious conclusion. But it doesn't seem to detract the conspiracy theory nutjobs from continuing to push it without any evidence whatsoever.

synetic 3y ago
I can’t read the article but the sub headline is: Spy agencies remain divided on whether the virus passed to humans via an infected animal or laboratory accident If it was a laboratory accident then wouldn’t that mean the virus was at the Wuhan lab prior to the pandemic? The reporting is that intelligence agencies are divided on whether or not it was a lab leak. I don’t think it qualifies as quackery to think it may have been an accidental leak.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It could be, but it shouldn't be the default assumption that that was the case. Absent hard evidence this is just speculation.
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    Is there hard evidence for the wet market theory? To be honest I find it much more plausible that the wet market theory is a coverup for an accidental lab leak from WIV. No hard evidence for it exists because of obstruction by the CCP. To be honest, we'll probably never know exactly what happened for certain.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      There are numerous examples of similar events in the past which are roughly the source for 2/3rds of all of our pathogens. We don't have any evidence for the remaining 1/3rd, mostly because biology is messy and too much time has passed. No hard evidence for a lableak exists can be because of obstruction by the CCP (it is a possibility) or simply because there wasn't a lab leak. You can't jump to conclusions like that. We may never know for certain, but it is also still possible that the reservoir will one day be discovered, for some diseases it took many years to do so. Highly recommended book: 'David Quammen, Spillover'. Note the date it was written, read it and then you may see a bit more clearly why I don't think a lab leak should be the foremost candidate for this particular virus. The writing was on the wall for years that something like this will happen, and, sorry to bring bad news, it will likely happen again. Possibly much worse.
      - lockhouse 3y ago
        Frankly, gain of function research is very new. Of course 2/3 of all our pathogens have come from other sources. You still have given me no reason to disfavor the lab leak theory.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I've given you in the tens of thousands of reasons but you persist in pursuing your favorite conspiracy theory. That really isn't my problem. And it's not 2/3, it's 2/3rds for which we know the source. The remainder can be safely added but we just don't have the biological traces required to do a proper accounting. As for GoF being new: maybe it's new to you but this kind of research has been done for decades. It's mostly the mechanisms with which GoF is achieved that are new.
      - synetic 3y ago
        The way the CCP has hindered investigations and attacked those who said it could have been a lab leak makes me think they are covering things up. The CCP did not hinder investigations in prior SARS outbreaks in China.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        It could be. But your suspicion does not equate to proof. And as for them not hindering previous investigations: I think you are wrong about that. On SARS-1: "Early in the epidemic, the Chinese government discouraged its press from reporting on SARS, delayed reporting to WHO, and initially did not provide information to Chinese outside Guangdong province, where the disease is believed to have originated.[20] Also, a WHO team that travelled to Beijing was not allowed to visit Guangdong province for several weeks.[21] This resulted in international criticism, which seems to have led to a change in government policy in early April.[22][23] " From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbrea... This is pretty much the expected path for anything related to a perceived failure of the CCP, they are scared shitless of being seen either as incompetent or weak.
tredre3 3y ago
> But it doesn't seem to detract the conspiracy theory nutjobs from continuing to push it without any evidence whatsoever. Whether or not the virus escaped from a lab, I think it's pretty bad to call these people nutjobs. Their theory is as plausible as the popular "wet market" one. Their theory doesn't require any craziness or suspension of reality to work. Why call them nutjobs? You can disagree without insulting people.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I know a couple of them and nutjobs is the moniker that fits best. They know next to nothing but have very strong opinions, they also tend to follow each and every conspiracy theory that's put out there. Ideal fodder for amplification of bs theories.
peteradio 3y ago
Respond to the title much? There was no conclusion.

jprd 3y ago

https://archive.is/ykNZX https://archive.is/ykNZX