So how are they keeping all the scientists involved in such a leak quiet? How many of these scientists are there?
Lab Leak 2.0?
11–20 of 319 posts
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#12None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
Millions of people are dead. I think it's worth having an objective public debate about what steps would be appropriate to reduce the risk of this happening again. I don't see that "be mad at science" has anything to do with an insistence on an honest exploration and testing of hypotheses. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up the scientific approach as follows: "Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas t…
I suspect you have a bit of a straw man in mind. The opposition would likely say something like: "GoF is the best means at our disposal to fight diseases much worse than COVID".
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#13As someone who wasn't totally sure about the lab leak hypothesis before, this is rather convincing. Especially for the path that omicron took.
I'm also surprised gain of function research has not been banned, the risk is far too high
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#14So how are they keeping all the scientists involved in such a leak quiet? How many of these scientists are there?
A cover up isn't very hard to execute if the involved parties all have aligned incentives - in this case, not ruining their careers, possibly destroying their entire professional field, and publicly accepting culpability for millions of deaths and other damages.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#15None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
Millions of people are dead. I think it's worth having an objective public debate about what steps would be appropriate to reduce the risk of this happening again. I don't see that "be mad at science" has anything to do with an insistence on an honest exploration and testing of hypotheses. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up the scientific approach as follows: "Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas t…
[deleted]
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of implications if this is a lab leak, including: - Are labs involved in this research sufficiently secure? Do we need to raise the standard of security? - Is the cost-benefit of gain of research worth it? - Should China be forced to pay reparations/ sanctioned for hiding the source? All of these conversations depend on whether its a lab leak.
I would add to that: "is it an intentional means of destabilizing the West?" To be clear: I see no evidence that Omicron is even a second lab-leak, much less that it's part of a sinister plot. My point is that there are immediate geopolitical implications, in addition to the scientific and public-health implications you have highlighted.
Which makes it even more ridiculous that random people on the internet are coming up with the lab leak theories and that American intelligence agencies, spanning 2 wildly divergent administrations, have not said anything to support this.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#17None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
I think much of the interest in theories of lab leaks, or various other theories - credible or not, are mostly propelled with the same thrust as groundbreaking science itself: they want to find some truth about the world that's been unnoticed or less discussed.
This is what motivates conspiracy theories and scientific discoveries alike. It's even true about flat Earth kids, however misguided they may be.
The "so what?" is always an after thought, and often is irrelevant to the goal of simply finding something new.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions of people are dead. I think it's worth having an objective public debate about what steps would be appropriate to reduce the risk of this happening again. I don't see that "be mad at science" has anything to do with an insistence on an honest exploration and testing of hypotheses. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up the scientific approach as follows: "Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas t…
I suspect you have a bit of a straw man in mind. The opposition would likely say something like: "GoF is the best means at our disposal to fight diseases much worse than COVID".
I suspect that the opposition then is not considering the gravity of this research being responsible for the deaths of millions.
Which is obviously absurd, so there is definitely something else going on.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would add to that: "is it an intentional means of destabilizing the West?" To be clear: I see no evidence that Omicron is even a second lab-leak, much less that it's part of a sinister plot. My point is that there are immediate geopolitical implications, in addition to the scientific and public-health implications you have highlighted.
Which makes it even more ridiculous that random people on the internet are coming up with the lab leak theories and that American intelligence agencies, spanning 2 wildly divergent administrations, have not said anything to support this.
Yes, we agree. This thread is about the implications of the lab-leak v2 theory, assuming it were true.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions of people are dead. I think it's worth having an objective public debate about what steps would be appropriate to reduce the risk of this happening again. I don't see that "be mad at science" has anything to do with an insistence on an honest exploration and testing of hypotheses. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up the scientific approach as follows: "Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas t…
I suspect you have a bit of a straw man in mind. The opposition would likely say something like: "GoF is the best means at our disposal to fight diseases much worse than COVID".
Friend, I think you maybe clicked the wrong reply link? I didn't say anything about GoF research at all.
Assuming that we ever get the honest and open public debate about COVID-19's origins, and if it was a lab leak from WIV and was related to GoF research, then certainly the potential benefits of GoF research would be weighed against the potential dangers. I don't take a position one way or another in that conversation at this point, because I think it's premature.
The fight we are facing right now is whether we're even allowed to have that debate or whether any discussion of the WIV as a possible origin is stamped out as anathema.
I find myself on the side of "follow the evidence" and "question everything" rather than "you're a conspiracy theorist if you even entertain this idea."