Best hope we don’t have a tsunami in say the South China Sea anytime soon
1 Like
Thank you, I designed it that way. But here is the $64,000 question and the part where I’m about to blow your mind: when you look at it on your dark background, does it feel like you could, perhaps, own it?
2 Likes
If you were to say “speculating about the origins of the virus is dangerous because racists may use some of the same questions to foment hate against Asians, therefore it is better to refrain and be mum on the subject”, that would hold some water with me. Much more than the idea that speculating about these origins is racist in and of itself.
5 Likes
Well this thread is awful
4 Likes
I had concocted an entire scenario involving an imaginary NorCal serial killer possibly escaping from Alcatraz (for some reason it romanticizes better stylistically), but I changed it because (1) Alcatraz closed in 1963, (2) I’m not sure if there were any NorCal serial killers in the short window between the famous escape and its closing, and (3) I’m not even sure any serial killers would have been housed there at all.
Anyway, the point is that the people assigning a significant probability to the lab leak hypothesis seem to be fundamentally making a proximity argument–specifically geographical distance–and I don’t think it makes much more sense than assuming an at-large killer is likely to have escaped from a nearby prison. It’s certainly possible and it’s certainly more likely than if there were no nearby prisons (holding all else constant), but I think both of those numbers are too small to be interesting with the current evidence.
I just don’t find geographical proximity to be that compelling given that we already have strong priors for how this happens. For example, the people attaching significant probability to a leak don’t think it’s probable SARS, MERS, ebola, or other viruses originated from a lab as far as I know, and I assume that’s because there are no BSL-2+ labs in close proximity but I don’t actually know that.
If an outbreak occurred at a W.A.M in Atlanta metro, about 10 miles away from the CDC, I wouldn’t even flinch. Atlanta metro is a huge population with millions of possible contact points. If an outbreak occurred in Hamilton, Montana, home to the BSL-4 Rocky Mountain Laboratories, with population 4,500 then I might blink. Wuhan’s population is considerably larger than New York City.
2 Likes
Keep us all posted
2 Likes
It’s not just geographical proximity to the lab. It’s the geographical distance to the reservoir of the nearest relative. It’s that the right kind of bats aren’t anywhere around Wuhan. It’s that there has been extensive testing among animals in and around Wuhan with no results. All those things raise the likelihood of the lab escape imo.
If you truly believe that the Chinese would lie and cover up the “lab leak” scenario, why do you trust that they aren’t also lying about the tests of all them animals in order to cover up their (potentially cultural) role in the origin of a global pandemic?
2 Likes
First - coronaviruses aren’t specific to one specific type of bat. While SARS-CoV-1 was isolated from horseshoe bats, similar viruses have been isolated in all sorts of bats. MERS-CoV came from bats nowhere near Guangdong as well. Your most basic assertion that there aren’t the right kind of bats assumes that there is a ‘right kind’ of bat. That is not true.
Second - the ‘right kind’ of bat absolutely exists around Wuhan, if we assume ‘right kind’ means ‘bat that tested positive for SARS-CoV-1’. What in the world gave you the idea that it didn’t? Did you misunderstand how they traced SARS-CoV-1 to a specific bat colony as the origin? Lots of bats that specific tested positive for SARS-CoV-1 in follow up work, including those that live in and around Wuhan.
We shouldn’t have to do work to disprove whatever wild nonsense you’re making up. Please put some effort in understanding what you’re talking about before spreading misinformation.
1 Like
No, I mean the bat that has the closest known virus to covid-19. The horseshoe bat.
Seriously, research before you post something. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch you made up pure bullshit to try to support an original point. Shit dude, you made me look up all sorts of shit to prove you wrong. I now know a few things. I know that horseshoe bat is not a species of bat but in fact a family of bats. I know that there are most definitely horseshoe bats that live around Wuhan. In fact, I know of at least one horseshoe bat that tested positive for SARS-CoV-1 that lives at least near Wuhan has on the map I found of where they live.
As an experiment, why don’t you prove that you’re not here to shitpost and instead can actually propel informed discussion. What bat am I referencing above?
(also, let’s note again that this doesn’t matter anyways, coronaviruses live in all sorts of bats. I’m more interested in seeing if you capable of better discussion.)
1 Like
Good question. First, it was the Chinese government itself that advanced the wet market/wildlife hypothesis. So I think it follows that they’d really like to prove that narrative. No matter what the cause is, it is a little bit of egg on China’s face, but it’s obviously far worse if it’s thought to be a lab leak than if it’s just another SARS type event.
I don’t gaf about proving anything to you. The point I was making was that the bat that carries the closest known virus to covid-19 doesn’t live anywhere near Wuhan. It’s true.
I mean, you can repeat that misinformation all you want, but it’s still untrue. Horseshoe bats most definitely live around Wuhan. Specific species of horseshoe bats that tested positive for SARS-CoV-1 live around Wuhan even.
Why are you here? You clearly have no interest in the truth. So what gives?
Why indeed.
Yah I think there could be varying degrees here, but it is a bit sketchy to say meh they said no lab leak but they be lyin’, and evidence of that is this data also from the lyin’ liars. Which is why I personally look at the scientific consensus rather than trying to guess which lying lies are less lie-y.
The natural reservoir of the closest known virus to covid-19 is like 1000 miles away and the bat that carries that virus doesn’t live near Wuhan. That is the simple, and true, point I was making. That bats that can carry SARS, a far more unrelated virus to the covid-19 virus than the virus I’m talking about, do live around Wuhan seems completely irrelevant to me.
You’re also completely ignoring the fact that the current research supports the theory that there was an intermediate animal. It is not that someone ate a bat.
I’m not ignoring that at all.
Oh and while Keed continues to take dumps in this thread with his main point being that potential source was nowhere near Wuhan, let’s have some fun. Guess how far away the source of SARS-CoV-1 was from the first major outbreak in Guangdong?
How far away was the source of SARS-CoV-1 from the epicenter of the outbreak in Guangdong?
- <50 km
- 50-100 km
- 100-500 km
- 500-1000 km
- 1k or more
0 voters