3 ms·

That article's an awfully long winded way of declaring yourself an arrogant snob who's intolerant of those having an opinion he doesn't like. Actually, to the

That article's an awfully long winded way of declaring yourself an arrogant snob who's intolerant of those having an opinion he doesn't like. Actually, to the layman on the street, both origins are reasonable, according to common sense. Everyone's made a slip up at work before. We have prior examples of labs accidentally leaking biological materials before. That lab happened to be experimenting with the same type of viruses as corona. It also happened to be right next to where the first cases emerged. And after, the authorities wouldn't allow an investigation. You'd have to be out of your mind to not view that as a plausible origin. If you think there's reasons that isn't the origin, and you've proof it definitely came straight from the jungle, the professional approach is just to keep presenting your case. Not having a tantrum like a little child because other people are maintaining opinions different to yours.

gus_massa 2y ago
There are three+ theories 1) Natural origin, natural transmission to humans. 2) Natural origin, sampled for the lab an escaped. 3) Artificial origin in the lab (like a genetic modification) and then escaped. 4) Evil artificial origin and on purpose release. Ignoring 4), one of the problem is that people mix 2) and 3). I read many post with "proofs" of 3) that were debunked one week later, and then people claimed that it also debunked 2). Disclaimer: I think there are many similar cases of 1), like a covirus local epidemic every 10 years, or a flu variant every 5 years, so for me 1) is the natural explanation. From the article: > In the USA in particular, they have produced amateurish reports that have even misrepresented work published in The Lancet Microbe. They are angry because people (they don't like) is misquoting them in the Internet. It's very common to be misquoted (if you are famous enough) and it's very common to get angry about that.

gus_massa 2y ago

There are three+ theories 1) Natural origin, natural transmission to humans. 2) Natural origin, sampled for the lab an escaped. 3) Artificial origin in the lab (like a genetic modification) and then escaped. 4) Evil artificial origin and on purpose release. Ignoring 4), one of the problem is that people mix 2) and 3). I read many post with "proofs" of 3) that were debunked one week later, and then people claimed that it also debunked 2). Disclaimer: I think there are many similar cases of 1), like a covirus local epidemic every 10 years, or a flu variant every 5 years, so for me 1) is the natural explanation. From the article: > In the USA in particular, they have produced amateurish reports that have even misrepresented work published in The Lancet Microbe. They are angry because people (they don't like) is misquoting them in the Internet. It's very common to be misquoted (if you are famous enough) and it's very common to get angry about that.