441–450 of 631 posts
Hi, content aside, tweet chains posts are terrible to read on any device. And twitter bugs me to log in to track me through the browser. To all the people who think this is the best way to deliver information to their audience please stop. 1/1
Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up? And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance? And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team? And why to this day no one apo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.
What’s the best way to raise these facts - are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?
Yes.
Yes!
Several years ago I dived into books and seminars on effective communication. If I had to reduce it down to a few sentences, they would be:
"Don't ask questions to express concerns. Learn how to express concerns directly in a non-threatening manner without asking questions. Ask questions only when genuinely trying to get information. Never ask leading questions. Don't ask questions to inform or educate."
The Socratic approach is rarely an effective one. Proponents of the Socratic approach almost always blame the other party when it doesn't work (and it typically doesn't work).
It applies to most forms of conversation, including code reviews.
The main point that no scientists seems to want to mention is the clear cut and well defined conflict of interest in determining the origins. How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd. In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural…
This doesn’t convince me because we have a recent covid-related example of scientists making a significant mistake and admitting it: namely, the primary means of transmission. At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientific community argued that transmission was surface-based. As more data came in, it became evident that transmission was aerosol-related. This was a huge mistake with significant implications, but nob…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the way the questions are posed comes across as "what are they hiding?!?" You have to admit that it's not a good way to kick off a discussion of the subject in earnest.
Here's what I'll admit, its shady as hell for a group of scientists (some with especially confounding conflicts) to come out and dismiss something as so unlikely as to be impossible when it was obviously still a plausible explanation. That was not a scientific position to take, but a political one. Lab leaks are not new or especially rare. There is a now public paper trail indicating they were trying to build the dam…
"it's not a good way to kick off a discussion of the subject in earnest. "
And as someone who has no opinion on the issue at all, and hasn't researched it, and can easily believe it is/isn't of lab origin, I can say that the top level OP comment was a very quick "I don't want to spend a minute of my time engaging with this guy."
Do I have a flaw when I behave that way? Perhaps. Does he/she have a flaw in writing comments in ways that turn most people off? Definitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are going to find out soon: https://news.yahoo.com/china-locks-down-65-million-095328796...
> 33 cities including seven provincial capitals are under full or partial lockdown covering more than 65 million people > It said that outbreaks have been reported in 103 cities, the highest since the early days of the pandemic in early 2020. Crazy, it's like the rest of the world moved on but China is still in 2020.
Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up? And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance? And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team? And why to this day no one apo…
No idea.
> And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance?
No idea.
> And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team?
No idea.
> And why to this day no one apologized, let alone got fired for this?
No idea.
I am not better informed as a result of your comment.
Asking questions is not a proper way to educate or inform people. That I don't have answers to your questions doesn't lead to any conclusion, nor does it make me doubt anything.
As a general rule: If you want to know if X is true, look for "positive" evidence. Not absence of evidence. Asking questions almost always is merely saying "Hey, I don't have all the answers" - not "Hey, there's no good answer so the answer must be Y".
Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up? And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance? And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team? And why to this day no one apo…
Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…
I disagree, I hope that lableak confirmation will push for a reassessment on the risk reward ratios for research. It may slow down scientific process, but we can now see that the dangers, if catastrophic enough, even if minimal, may not warrant it.
They have to determine what happened so they can do root cause analysis and institute procedures to make this less likely to occur again.