The article seems a reasonable summary of the situation so far. I'm not sure the Chinese have been as helpful as they could be in terms of access to patients, blood samples and so forth which makes it tricky to find that much.
The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
21–30 of 227 posts
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#22Obviously not. It's some random wild animal population of an unknown species, living near a bat cave in rural China.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#23It's interesting to see that with Donald Trump out of office, the "lab escape" hypothesis is not roundly dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory anymore.
We'd like to go to war with China now that the right people are positioned to profit from it. US doing a land war still requires public support so now it's ok to drum up.
Not sure they actually want a war with a real power, see how much they tucked their tails when Russia put it’s foot down in Syria. They just want to find someone with enough money to play brinksmanship with them so they can continue to line their pockets.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#24Possibly that animal was Homo sapiens, whose curiosity led to gathering a particularly virulent sample from the lungs of a dying miner, culturing it further in a lab.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If a claim is made and no evidence is provided, then should anyone give it much credibility? The news prints these stories then they become the truth in the minds of many people.
In hindsight, I'm not happy with the word "claim" either, but I don't want to edit the comment again.
Let's go with "hypothesis" for the sake of argument:
In this case, we have a basket of competing hypotheses, none of which have any solid evidence going for them.
Yet, some of these hypotheses have not been dismissed as conspiracy theories. Those were the hypotheses that conveniently fit a "humans encroach on wildlife"-narrative.
I'm just pointing this out as "interesting", I'm not arguing that this circumstance gives validity to one hypothesis over another.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accidental lab escape, or premeditated lab escape? Edit: Because the former doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy, aside from a cover-up afterwards.
What’s odd is how infrequent it is for people to point out this distinction can never be known for sure. From there, the only safe bet is to act as if it were intentional. This is a controversial concept, but it is the rational choice. Never assume that someone who harms you is doing it accidentally. Even though it is more often than not the case, you still have to protect yourself with the possibility of malice in m…
How is that rational?
For one, if we assume it was released from a lab and that was intentional, the what was the intent?
If it was to do what happened — kill millions and devastate the global economy — then the right reaction is a very severe cold war or possibly outright war. We literally could not allow it to happen again.
But if it was released from a lab unintentionally, the right reaction is to spare no expense, regulation and treaty to secure such labs from this ever happening again. This would go for all labs like this, not just Chinese ones.
These are entirely different reactions with entirely different costs and long-term ramifications for peace and stability for our world.
Not to mention, the intentional release scenario doesn’t really make sense. E.g., China couldn’t damage our economy without damaging their own. And if you’re going to choose where to start the pandemic, why start it in your own country near a bio-research lab? If it was started intentionally, it makes more sense that China was framed. (Still doesn’t make a lot of sense though because what’s the rational motivation?)
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#27Aliens!
Since we're just making crap up.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a claim is made and no evidence is provided, then should anyone give it much credibility? The news prints these stories then they become the truth in the minds of many people.
In hindsight, I'm not happy with the word "claim" either, but I don't want to edit the comment again. Let's go with "hypothesis" for the sake of argument: In this case, we have a basket of competing hypotheses, none of which have any solid evidence going for them. Yet, some of these hypotheses have not been dismissed as conspiracy theories. Those were the hypotheses that conveniently fit a "humans encroach on wildlif…
In the past, we have seen...
So we have prior evidence...so we give more weight...
The investigators should examine all possibilities, of course.
Repeating the most “exciting” theory on Opinion News night after night...
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#29It's interesting to see that with Donald Trump out of office, the "lab escape" hypothesis is not roundly dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory anymore.
Nobody ever dismissed it. It has been a viable theory since the beginning. What was dangerous was pointing the finger at China and saying “this is all their fault!” without any evidence. There STILL is not evidence, but that doesn’t mean it should not be investigated as a source.
Dismissing the theory outright has never and will never be an option. I don’t like that this is what the team decided to do, and I suspect there is a lot of tension in this investigation.
Re: The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today. I have edited my comment to reflect that. > Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director. There's another fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I took logic in college too. I didn't say that motivation affects whether something is true or not, just how much skepticism we apply to it. It's perfectly normal and good that we believe things experts say (when we ourselves do not have expertise) over a guy shouting on a street corner.
> It's perfectly normal and good...