6 ms·

China creates a superbug via GOF research. Accidently releases it from the lab. Shuts down its own economy. Puts the majority of it's citizens on house arrest

China creates a superbug via GOF research. Accidently releases it from the lab. Shuts down its own economy. Puts the majority of it's citizens on house arrest, and that is "largely successful"? Please send me the AliExpress link to whatever it is you are smoking, it must be some good shit. I think the real lesson here is that if you enough government power, there is no need to be competent. The feedback loop is destroyed so you can just do whatever random stupid thing you want until your country collapses like the USSR.

vkou 2y ago
> China creates a superbug via GOF research In 2024, this isn't fact, it's just baseless conspiracy. All evidence has ended up pointing to bush meat contamination.
- int_19h 2y ago
  In 2024, zoonotic origin is considered more probable, but it is by no means a "baseless conspiracy" to believe otherwise.
  - antifa 2y ago
    More derailing than baseless, whether or not Xi did it on purpose or if the CIA did it or if aliens did it has no relevance to how they handed the event after it happened.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The WHO report was inconclusive because the lab withheld data. This creates a bit of a catch-22, no? There's no basis to claim it was a lab leak because the lab in question won't cooperate with establishing whether there's a basis for the idea. It'd be one thing if the proper amount of research was done and made public and we could see that there was no conspiracy. As is, there's a lab located in Wuhan studying coronaviruses that pinky promises that they didn't start COVID-19, while the WHO director is on record saying that the lab blocked the WHO investigation that might have exonerated them. I think it's prudent to forgive people for whom "this is a baseless conspiracy theory" isn't a sufficient explanation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-report-idUSKBN2BM26S/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-ch... https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.n1890 https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.n1890 https://apnews.com/article/health-china-coronavirus-pandemic-united-nations-a20391afec60601f3d666efc3c18b61d https://apnews.com/article/health-china-coronavirus-pandemic...
  - vkou 2y ago
    The bar for 'they withheld data' can always be moved. Some data will always be considered withheld. There was no shortage of data that was consistent with the bush meat market outbreak. It would be one thing if the outbreak started in a theatre or a mall, or some other place which did not regularly traffic in exotic diseases. It's another thing when it started at the only non-lab active reservoir in the city. Given the preponderance of evidence and probability, the lab leak theory is a baseless conspiracy at this point. It stretches credulity to think that of all the places the lab leaked, it leaked to the one place in town which was itself a dangerous source of cross-species disease transmission. If there was no such wet market in town, and if the outbreak didn't center in it, the lab leak would have been a far more probable hypothesis. But that's not the world we live in.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      The director of the WHO— who is Ethiopian, not a US puppet—is on record saying that the lab withheld data and China has rebuffed multiple attempts to collect the data that the WHO feels was withheld. How is that not a basis for the conspiracy theory? I'm not even saying that it's right, it just confuses me to hear you so fervently insist that there's no basis for the idea when the WHO director himself says that there is and that the investigation was inconclusive. We on this forum of all people should know that you can present partial data that shows completely different conclusions what the full data would show. Why is a wet market a more convincing explanation than a lab whose explicit mission is studying coronaviruses, one which has been publicly called out for being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation?
      - vkou 2y ago
        The jump between 'data was withheld' and 'there was a coverup of an incredibly improbable thing happening' compared to 'very probable thing that was also supported by data happening' is colossal. Absence of data isn't a free pass that lets you fill in whatever blanks you want, to fit whatever improbable theory you want. Especially when a plausible, probable, data supported alternative exists. At the moment, given what we know and don't know, it is dramatically more likely that it was a bush meat outbreak, and confidently and without quantification, asserting the contrary (as the ancestor post did) is nonsense. Its correct to say that it might have been a lab leak. It's not in good faith to say that it was, or was probably a lab leak. Because that's not where the preponderance of evidence currently rests.
- rekttrader 2y ago
  Cleavage sites
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42513063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42513063 Also Baltimore changed his mind.

vkou 2y ago

> China creates a superbug via GOF research In 2024, this isn't fact, it's just baseless conspiracy. All evidence has ended up pointing to bush meat contamination.

int_19h 2y ago
In 2024, zoonotic origin is considered more probable, but it is by no means a "baseless conspiracy" to believe otherwise.
- antifa 2y ago
  More derailing than baseless, whether or not Xi did it on purpose or if the CIA did it or if aliens did it has no relevance to how they handed the event after it happened.
lolinder 2y ago
The WHO report was inconclusive because the lab withheld data. This creates a bit of a catch-22, no? There's no basis to claim it was a lab leak because the lab in question won't cooperate with establishing whether there's a basis for the idea. It'd be one thing if the proper amount of research was done and made public and we could see that there was no conspiracy. As is, there's a lab located in Wuhan studying coronaviruses that pinky promises that they didn't start COVID-19, while the WHO director is on record saying that the lab blocked the WHO investigation that might have exonerated them. I think it's prudent to forgive people for whom "this is a baseless conspiracy theory" isn't a sufficient explanation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-report-idUSKBN2BM26S/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-ch... https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.n1890 https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.n1890 https://apnews.com/article/health-china-coronavirus-pandemic-united-nations-a20391afec60601f3d666efc3c18b61d https://apnews.com/article/health-china-coronavirus-pandemic...
- vkou 2y ago
  The bar for 'they withheld data' can always be moved. Some data will always be considered withheld. There was no shortage of data that was consistent with the bush meat market outbreak. It would be one thing if the outbreak started in a theatre or a mall, or some other place which did not regularly traffic in exotic diseases. It's another thing when it started at the only non-lab active reservoir in the city. Given the preponderance of evidence and probability, the lab leak theory is a baseless conspiracy at this point. It stretches credulity to think that of all the places the lab leaked, it leaked to the one place in town which was itself a dangerous source of cross-species disease transmission. If there was no such wet market in town, and if the outbreak didn't center in it, the lab leak would have been a far more probable hypothesis. But that's not the world we live in.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    The director of the WHO— who is Ethiopian, not a US puppet—is on record saying that the lab withheld data and China has rebuffed multiple attempts to collect the data that the WHO feels was withheld. How is that not a basis for the conspiracy theory? I'm not even saying that it's right, it just confuses me to hear you so fervently insist that there's no basis for the idea when the WHO director himself says that there is and that the investigation was inconclusive. We on this forum of all people should know that you can present partial data that shows completely different conclusions what the full data would show. Why is a wet market a more convincing explanation than a lab whose explicit mission is studying coronaviruses, one which has been publicly called out for being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation?
    - vkou 2y ago
      The jump between 'data was withheld' and 'there was a coverup of an incredibly improbable thing happening' compared to 'very probable thing that was also supported by data happening' is colossal. Absence of data isn't a free pass that lets you fill in whatever blanks you want, to fit whatever improbable theory you want. Especially when a plausible, probable, data supported alternative exists. At the moment, given what we know and don't know, it is dramatically more likely that it was a bush meat outbreak, and confidently and without quantification, asserting the contrary (as the ancestor post did) is nonsense. Its correct to say that it might have been a lab leak. It's not in good faith to say that it was, or was probably a lab leak. Because that's not where the preponderance of evidence currently rests.
rekttrader 2y ago
Cleavage sites
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42513063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42513063 Also Baltimore changed his mind.