5 ms·

> unlikely we normies will ever know the truth Thanks for the dose of epistemic humility. I'm willing to go one step further: It's plausible that no one knows

> unlikely we normies will ever know the truth Thanks for the dose of epistemic humility. I'm willing to go one step further: It's plausible that no one knows the truth. Keeping secrets is hard. If someone knew they might've died in the early stages of the outbreak.

eightysixfour 2y ago
There’s an asymmetry of potential evidence for each of the theories as well. • If it was a lab leak, then even if the people responsible are dead, there was likely data that could trace it back. It is unlikely that data still exists or is findable, for obvious reasons. • If it was not a lab leak, it may be impossible to find evidence to prove that is the case.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  People always talk about early covid like it was some hyper-lethal virus. Remember, if you were a mostly healthy, non-elderly adult the death rate was like 1 in a thousand. I've read a few of people's amateur investigations about the early days of the virus and there are many cases where people point to potential witnesses whose testimony and evidence is lost because they apparently died from the virus. Did the virus greatly moderate in it's lethality in the first weeks? Was the Chinese government initially freaking out and euthanizing the infected?
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    My hypothesis is that it did not become less deadly, it is that a combo of demographics and response (both positive and negative) played more of a role than we are ready to admit, mostly because we still seem to feel like everyone did a bad job when the response was probably closer to “fine.” The response in China, once things got out of control, included locking sick people in their homes. This form of quarantine is probably good to reduce spread, but it is also probably bad for the health of the patient. If there are multiple people in the home, it is probably worse for all of them. China also has a lot of multigenerational households (grandparents, adults, children) which means the vulnerable are together with people who are lower mortality risk, but higher risk for traveling and getting infected. I don’t know what percent of households in Wuhan were like this, but it probably played some sort of role. We also forget that it wasn’t only China that got wrecked - Italy also had substantial challenges. On the other hand, if your healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed, people are wearing masks so initial exposure is low, and you are caring for/separating the sick from the healthy, the outcomes are probably exponentially better. It certainly seems that later strains were less dangerous though.
cypress66 2y ago
It would be trivial for the Chinese to determine if covid 19 matches with what they were investigating in the lab, and if the people in the lab were among the first infected.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  But it is non-trivial to impossible for them to prove it wasn’t. Which is perfect for political tools and wedges.
  - cypress66 2y ago
    Ok. But I'm saying it's almost impossible that no one knows, as the parent comment suggests. Edit: my original comment was not intended to be a reply to you, but to the parent.
    - eightysixfour 2y ago
      Ah, fair. If it was a lab leak, it is likely someone, or many people, know. I doubt any of them have any incentives to share that information.
- bhickey 2y ago
  I don't think it's so simple. * A worker could've been infected while hunting for viruses in a cave. * Someone could've been infected prior to the sample being ascenioned.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
[flagged]
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  I like how the CIA has "low confidence," but that you are positive. You should share your evidence with them so that they can upgrade to "high confidence" and we can settle it.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    I like how you have high confidence in the CIA.
    - eightysixfour 2y ago
      I have substantially more confidence in their assessment than I do in you and your "circle." A circle which, based on your other posts in this thread so far, provides you a convenient safe-space to avoid the need to provide evidence, defend your assertions with sound argument, and enables you to feel superior by way of intellectual dishonesty. I can only aspire to be so woke, to see reality so clearly and with such confidence!
    - ioulaum 2y ago
      If you don't have extra evidence, and the you don't trust the CIA, then what base do you have for your assumption? Wanting human like causes for problems is how humanity invented gods. So that they could feel more under control by trying to appease the now humanized force. Of course, if the problem went away after you prayed, that would really just have been luck. Even though it strengthened your belief.
      - rufus_foreman 2y ago
        [flagged]

eightysixfour 2y ago

There’s an asymmetry of potential evidence for each of the theories as well. • If it was a lab leak, then even if the people responsible are dead, there was likely data that could trace it back. It is unlikely that data still exists or is findable, for obvious reasons. • If it was not a lab leak, it may be impossible to find evidence to prove that is the case.

indoordin0saur 2y ago
People always talk about early covid like it was some hyper-lethal virus. Remember, if you were a mostly healthy, non-elderly adult the death rate was like 1 in a thousand. I've read a few of people's amateur investigations about the early days of the virus and there are many cases where people point to potential witnesses whose testimony and evidence is lost because they apparently died from the virus. Did the virus greatly moderate in it's lethality in the first weeks? Was the Chinese government initially freaking out and euthanizing the infected?
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  My hypothesis is that it did not become less deadly, it is that a combo of demographics and response (both positive and negative) played more of a role than we are ready to admit, mostly because we still seem to feel like everyone did a bad job when the response was probably closer to “fine.” The response in China, once things got out of control, included locking sick people in their homes. This form of quarantine is probably good to reduce spread, but it is also probably bad for the health of the patient. If there are multiple people in the home, it is probably worse for all of them. China also has a lot of multigenerational households (grandparents, adults, children) which means the vulnerable are together with people who are lower mortality risk, but higher risk for traveling and getting infected. I don’t know what percent of households in Wuhan were like this, but it probably played some sort of role. We also forget that it wasn’t only China that got wrecked - Italy also had substantial challenges. On the other hand, if your healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed, people are wearing masks so initial exposure is low, and you are caring for/separating the sick from the healthy, the outcomes are probably exponentially better. It certainly seems that later strains were less dangerous though.

cypress66 2y ago

It would be trivial for the Chinese to determine if covid 19 matches with what they were investigating in the lab, and if the people in the lab were among the first infected.

eightysixfour 2y ago
But it is non-trivial to impossible for them to prove it wasn’t. Which is perfect for political tools and wedges.
- cypress66 2y ago
  Ok. But I'm saying it's almost impossible that no one knows, as the parent comment suggests. Edit: my original comment was not intended to be a reply to you, but to the parent.
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    Ah, fair. If it was a lab leak, it is likely someone, or many people, know. I doubt any of them have any incentives to share that information.
bhickey 2y ago
I don't think it's so simple. * A worker could've been infected while hunting for viruses in a cave. * Someone could've been infected prior to the sample being ascenioned.

rufus_foreman 2y ago

[flagged]

eightysixfour 2y ago
I like how the CIA has "low confidence," but that you are positive. You should share your evidence with them so that they can upgrade to "high confidence" and we can settle it.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  I like how you have high confidence in the CIA.
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    I have substantially more confidence in their assessment than I do in you and your "circle." A circle which, based on your other posts in this thread so far, provides you a convenient safe-space to avoid the need to provide evidence, defend your assertions with sound argument, and enables you to feel superior by way of intellectual dishonesty. I can only aspire to be so woke, to see reality so clearly and with such confidence!
  - ioulaum 2y ago
    If you don't have extra evidence, and the you don't trust the CIA, then what base do you have for your assumption? Wanting human like causes for problems is how humanity invented gods. So that they could feel more under control by trying to appease the now humanized force. Of course, if the problem went away after you prayed, that would really just have been luck. Even though it strengthened your belief.
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      [flagged]