4 ms·

Just watched. My proposals are probabilistically sound. https://youtu.be/6sOcdexHKnk?si=6qlqOHf9Dwe_j3vc https://youtu.be/6sOcdexHKnk?si=6qlqOHf9Dwe_j3vc 3min

by jmpman 2y ago

Just watched. My proposals are probabilistically sound. https://youtu.be/6sOcdexHKnk?si=6qlqOHf9Dwe_j3vc https://youtu.be/6sOcdexHKnk?si=6qlqOHf9Dwe_j3vc 3min 10 seconds “The only lab leak scenario that fits is just someone going straight from the lab to the market” So, let’s just assume there was an infected scientist from the Wuhan lab, but instead of him/her going to the Wuhan wet market, they went to another market 800 meters from the lab, and that was the source of the outbreak. These talking heads would then be telling me the same infinitesimal probability of it coming from the Covid lab. The people with access to a known Covid source are literally 800 meters from the Wuhan wet market. An asymptomatic scientist walked to the Wuhan market, spent some time at one stall, and then went home. I find no improbable scenarios there.

jmpman 2y ago
Oh, but they do state that the infection cluster would have started in the lab. I disagree with this premise, as the lab workers are likely all wearing PPE. Just one had a protocol lapse and got infected. The rest were protected by their masks. Infected lab worker gets sick, but nobody else in the lab.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
If "why there, and why at that time?" is a valid scissor, then it can't just apply to some scenarios and not others. It must be a universal scissor. > An asymptomatic scientist walked to the Wuhan market, spent some time at one stall, and then went home. I find no improbable scenarios there. Why there, and why at that time? To me at least the probability of a virologist traveling to the wet market and then spreading the virus as if it were originated by zoonosis is strictly less probable than the scenario where it's simply zoonosis.
- jmpman 2y ago
  Then why was this virus only found at this wet market. I’m assuming there are 10k other wet markets in China. How many others found different strains of Covid?
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    This question could be applied to every other case of zoonosis and reach the conclusion that zoonosis does not exist. The expectation that explanations be satisfying is not an unbiased razor. An infected animal had a chance encounter with a person that resulted in a transmissible infection. The desire to uncover who this is and when is admirable, but again. I suggest we apply the same standard to the lab leak hypothesis, there are plenty of labs why this one and why covid? Again, it's a satisfying explanation, but satisfiability and reality are orthogonal. Shall we need to track the lab leak down to a specific lab employee and ask them why it was leaked by them even if inadvertently?
    - jmpman 2y ago
      The specific lab employee may not have even known they were infected. Many cases of Covid are asymptomatic. They may not even remember that they went to that wet market on the way home from the lab. Just because we don’t have a smoking gun now 4 years later, doesn’t mean that this wasn’t the cause. Again, go with the “wild” scenario in which a lab worker in the only lab in the city (country? World?) which studies Covid, got infected, and went to the wet market, just 800M away, and infected other people/animals. Now, given that’s the reality in this “hypothetical” scenario, what would the data look like when analyzed by the talking heads in the YouTube videos? Again, they would come to the same conclusion - that it was impossible. And you would still say that satisfiability and reality are orthoganal, even though, in this hypothetical scenario, this was reality. Clearly their brilliant deductive approach would have been wrong in this scenario, and your dismissal would have been equally wrong. Now let’s talk about another scenario, in which the Covid epicenter started not in Wuhan, but in some wet market in Laos. No Covid research center within 800M of this wet market. No Chinese government trying to avoid international embarrassment of causing the pandemic, and attempting to cover up. Would I suggest that a researcher from the Wuhan Covid lab caused the infection in the Laos wet market? Of course not. In that scenario, naturally infected animals are the most likely cause. But, just for amusement, let’s think about the reality where it actually was caused by a worker in the Wuhan Covid lab. They got infected in the lab, travelled 2000 miles to Laos, went to this specific market, and infected some people and animals in the market. In this scenario, that’s the reality. The person had to travel for likely days, and not infect anyone else. The person likely only had dense public transport to get from A to B. They would have encountered thousands of people, for a collective tens of thousands of “interaction hours”, and nobody else got sick. The probability of this happening is extremely low.. but in this scenario is did happen. What’s the difference in these two scenarios? The distance and time to travel between the Wuhan lab and the respective wet markets, which then results in more interaction hours, and the number of times a worker from the Wuhan lab visits each of these wet markets. How many times has a Covid Lab worker visited a random wet market in Laos? Once? Twice? How many times has a Wuhan Covid lab worker visited the specific wet market 800 meters away from the lab? I’m going to go with more than once or twice. Probably thousands of times. I don’t live in Wuhan, or any city likely close to the same density, but I can walk out my front door, and walk to one of two coffee shops. One is 500 meters away, the other 800 meters away. There are some days in which I can walk to the coffee shop and not pass a single person. There are other days in which I pass 50 people. It takes roughly 5 minutes to walk to either coffee shop and the interaction with each of those 50 people take less than 2 seconds, for roughly 100 interaction-seconds. During the entire Covid lockdown, I make this walk daily, likely passing people with Covid, and never got infected. An infected Wuhan Covid lab worker could walk from the lab to the wet market, and not infect anyone along the way. While they were in the lab, wearing their faulty PPE which allowed them to get infected, their coworkers were properly using their PPE and were protected. The worker walked to the wet market, infecting nobody along the way, because it was a walk outdoors, and there was a breeze, and it was an unusually empty time of the day, and he/she only passed a few people and only briefly.
ahazred8ta 2y ago
> literally 800 meters FALSE -- That was an urban legend. > "The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not 400 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. It is roughly 26,912 meters (or about 17 miles) away." ... "there are at least eight "Wuhan Disease Prevention and Control Center" locations in the Jianghan district of Wuhan (where the market is located) alone." SNOPES: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruz-wuhan-tweet/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruz-wuhan-tweet/ The Chinese public health department has many medical clinics in cities. They do not do virus research and do not handle virus samples.

by jmpman 2y ago

jmpman 2y ago

Oh, but they do state that the infection cluster would have started in the lab. I disagree with this premise, as the lab workers are likely all wearing PPE. Just one had a protocol lapse and got infected. The rest were protected by their masks. Infected lab worker gets sick, but nobody else in the lab.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

If "why there, and why at that time?" is a valid scissor, then it can't just apply to some scenarios and not others. It must be a universal scissor. > An asymptomatic scientist walked to the Wuhan market, spent some time at one stall, and then went home. I find no improbable scenarios there. Why there, and why at that time? To me at least the probability of a virologist traveling to the wet market and then spreading the virus as if it were originated by zoonosis is strictly less probable than the scenario where it's simply zoonosis.

jmpman 2y ago
Then why was this virus only found at this wet market. I’m assuming there are 10k other wet markets in China. How many others found different strains of Covid?
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  This question could be applied to every other case of zoonosis and reach the conclusion that zoonosis does not exist. The expectation that explanations be satisfying is not an unbiased razor. An infected animal had a chance encounter with a person that resulted in a transmissible infection. The desire to uncover who this is and when is admirable, but again. I suggest we apply the same standard to the lab leak hypothesis, there are plenty of labs why this one and why covid? Again, it's a satisfying explanation, but satisfiability and reality are orthogonal. Shall we need to track the lab leak down to a specific lab employee and ask them why it was leaked by them even if inadvertently?
  - jmpman 2y ago
    The specific lab employee may not have even known they were infected. Many cases of Covid are asymptomatic. They may not even remember that they went to that wet market on the way home from the lab. Just because we don’t have a smoking gun now 4 years later, doesn’t mean that this wasn’t the cause. Again, go with the “wild” scenario in which a lab worker in the only lab in the city (country? World?) which studies Covid, got infected, and went to the wet market, just 800M away, and infected other people/animals. Now, given that’s the reality in this “hypothetical” scenario, what would the data look like when analyzed by the talking heads in the YouTube videos? Again, they would come to the same conclusion - that it was impossible. And you would still say that satisfiability and reality are orthoganal, even though, in this hypothetical scenario, this was reality. Clearly their brilliant deductive approach would have been wrong in this scenario, and your dismissal would have been equally wrong. Now let’s talk about another scenario, in which the Covid epicenter started not in Wuhan, but in some wet market in Laos. No Covid research center within 800M of this wet market. No Chinese government trying to avoid international embarrassment of causing the pandemic, and attempting to cover up. Would I suggest that a researcher from the Wuhan Covid lab caused the infection in the Laos wet market? Of course not. In that scenario, naturally infected animals are the most likely cause. But, just for amusement, let’s think about the reality where it actually was caused by a worker in the Wuhan Covid lab. They got infected in the lab, travelled 2000 miles to Laos, went to this specific market, and infected some people and animals in the market. In this scenario, that’s the reality. The person had to travel for likely days, and not infect anyone else. The person likely only had dense public transport to get from A to B. They would have encountered thousands of people, for a collective tens of thousands of “interaction hours”, and nobody else got sick. The probability of this happening is extremely low.. but in this scenario is did happen. What’s the difference in these two scenarios? The distance and time to travel between the Wuhan lab and the respective wet markets, which then results in more interaction hours, and the number of times a worker from the Wuhan lab visits each of these wet markets. How many times has a Covid Lab worker visited a random wet market in Laos? Once? Twice? How many times has a Wuhan Covid lab worker visited the specific wet market 800 meters away from the lab? I’m going to go with more than once or twice. Probably thousands of times. I don’t live in Wuhan, or any city likely close to the same density, but I can walk out my front door, and walk to one of two coffee shops. One is 500 meters away, the other 800 meters away. There are some days in which I can walk to the coffee shop and not pass a single person. There are other days in which I pass 50 people. It takes roughly 5 minutes to walk to either coffee shop and the interaction with each of those 50 people take less than 2 seconds, for roughly 100 interaction-seconds. During the entire Covid lockdown, I make this walk daily, likely passing people with Covid, and never got infected. An infected Wuhan Covid lab worker could walk from the lab to the wet market, and not infect anyone along the way. While they were in the lab, wearing their faulty PPE which allowed them to get infected, their coworkers were properly using their PPE and were protected. The worker walked to the wet market, infecting nobody along the way, because it was a walk outdoors, and there was a breeze, and it was an unusually empty time of the day, and he/she only passed a few people and only briefly.

ahazred8ta 2y ago

> literally 800 meters FALSE -- That was an urban legend. > "The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not 400 meters away from the Huanan seafood market. It is roughly 26,912 meters (or about 17 miles) away." ... "there are at least eight "Wuhan Disease Prevention and Control Center" locations in the Jianghan district of Wuhan (where the market is located) alone." SNOPES: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruz-wuhan-tweet/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cruz-wuhan-tweet/ The Chinese public health department has many medical clinics in cities. They do not do virus research and do not handle virus samples.