The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #83

kaesar14 wrote: post #54

It’s crazy to me how many people on even this forum, a place purportedly of science, continue to dismiss a lab leak origin out of hand citing it as some sort of crackpot theory. The serious questions raised in this article have been around since last April but it’s only now it’s even allowed to talk about them on digital forums. Excellent write up by Vanity Fair.

Kevin Drum had a good summary of this a couple of weeks ago, much shorter. His take? There's no more evidence for the lab leak theory now than there was a year ago, BUT what has changed is that the cross-over theory implied that we would find certain evidence for the vectors, and that evidence has not shown up. KD's take was that it's not so much that the lab leak theory has become more likely, it's the that biologic…

Post by beachy » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

DudeInBasement wrote: post #91

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how I remember the narrative. It was split in two. 1. Calling it "the china virus", as the former president was wont to do, was labelled racist/bigoted/nationalistic by those who did not simply agree with anything he said. 2. The claim that it originated in the Wuhan lab was viewed as unlikely, and there was (is) an alternative biological origin story which at the time seemed credible and more likely.

Lol. A lab near the wet market, who studies bats and viruses. And people ignore the obvious because orange bad man said it.

Post by generalizations » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #93

generalizations wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly made the same comment myself. It feels vindicating to watch all this unfold. How many times now has 4chan been right about the virus, and the media wrong? - 4chan saw the pandemic coming in January 2020, and predicted it would be big - 4chan knew it wasn't 'just another flu' in March 2020, when the media was downplaying it - 4chan figured out the virus is transmitted via areosol, not just particulate - 4chan w…

The media showed enormous deference to the Trump administration that insisted it was not going to be big, that is was just another flu, that it wasn't transmitted via aerosol, and that it would be gone soon. 4chan isn't know for enormous deference to anyone, so the fact that "they" (collectivizing 4chan always irriates me, but whatever) got things right given the head-in-sand public attitude (*) of the administration…

Post by tacitusarc » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #9

bartart wrote: post #2

This is the most shocking article I have ever read in my life. I'd ask everyone to please read it because it is incredible. One thing I did not realize is that US researchers who conducted gain of function research tried to downplay and discredit the possibility of the virus originating from the wuhan lab. There was an anti-lab theory Lancet statement signed by scientists, and "Daszak had not only signed but organize…

> "Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity." The interesting part of this - and I'm curious about the personal experience of others here - is that the scientists I know have been the strongest questioners of the wet market theory from the get-go. I don't think anything resembling scientific…

Post by tpfour » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

542458 wrote: post #74

tpfour wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the joint probability of everything we know. p(Epidemic started in Wuhan) * p(origin in market right next to lab) * p(lab is one of 3 in the world to conduct gain-of-function research on conronaviruses) * p(lab scientists were notably sick prior to outbreak) * p(no accident ever happening in a lab) * p(et cetera) = very small number. That's not evidence per se, but it does show you how probable a human error is.

I can’t help but feel you’re taking all the “for” factors and none of the “against”, then bending the “for” factors even further. Calling the market “right next to the lab” is a bit of a stretch - it’s a three and a half hour walk. The scientists getting sick early doesn’t actually seem to be confirmed - there’s still debate in the US intelligence community whether it’s true. And going to the hospital because you’re…