Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

Post by johndfsgdgdfg » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:07 AM UTC

barnacled wrote: post #54

scotchmi_st wrote: post #45

If you click on the link in the thread, there's an editor's note clarifying that this paper is being used to prop up dodgy claims, for which there's no evidence. The main issue I have with the 'lab leak' theory is that I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I personally don't see any issue with the idea…

There is now evidence firmly against lab leak and firmly in favour of natural origins, covered in depth by a domain expert here - https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/15519378265808240... I feel like this isn't publicised enough. The lab leakers are louder and people definitely seem to want it to be true more than natural origins and they are not being honest in their attempts to dismiss these papers.

Post by sneak » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:08 AM UTC

arisAlexis wrote: post #55

sneak wrote: post #28

The origin does not matter. Nothing changes now, regardless of how it started. The pathological human obsession with narratives such as this often does more harm than good. No useful investigation can now occur. No punishment can be meted out. Any lessons learned from one origin or another can be learned now regardless.

It's extremely important if safety measures were breached and later facts were manipulated. It's crazy to say that in a nuclear war for example who fired the first missile is not important.

Post by phartenfeller » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:09 AM UTC

barnacled wrote: post #30

The problem with this is it is full of utterly debunked nonsense that Ebright knows full well has been addressed. It's Brandolini's law [0] in action, and no matter how many times virologists rebut these positions the same old tripe gets wheeled out again, and again, and again. If you ignore rebuttals and just repeat yourself + get 20k likes on twitter how many people are going to see a rebuttal like the excellent on…

Post by secondcoming » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:10 AM UTC

scotchmi_st wrote: post #45

If you click on the link in the thread, there's an editor's note clarifying that this paper is being used to prop up dodgy claims, for which there's no evidence. The main issue I have with the 'lab leak' theory is that I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I personally don't see any issue with the idea…

Post by Garlef » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:11 AM UTC

dxuh wrote: post #33

Garlef wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a fallacy as it can be applied to anything. Here's an example illustrating how bad of an argument that is: It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents…

I fully agree with your point, but I think the example is a bit aggressive towards OP. I'm sure you got a good chuckle of out of this, but I think it would have been better to give an example that did not seem like an attack. For example the earth being flat, the moon landing being fake or something like that.