It is…
3 Likes
How in the world is me thinking it’s 20% likely it came from the lab OK but 51.8% from the lab an AFFRONT TO SCIENCE? It’s really impossible to estimate the probabilities because there is so little evidence of anything.
Nobody has said what you are saying. The Chinese conspiracy lab leak theory is dumb, and IMO racist. The fact that you have like tripled down and said that is the most likely explanation exacerbates that, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still dumb.
1 Like
So is the head of the WHO, Tedros whatshisname, dumb and racist to want a through investigation into the lab leak hypothesis?
No, but he’s not saying what you’re saying, and that’s been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Thinking about this some more, it seems very hard (at this stage) to distinguish between the scenario where some dude randomly gets bitten by a COVID-infested bat and the scenario where the lab has a mishap handling some samples collected from a random COVID-infested bat. They would both look mostly the same: someone just shows up with COVID for no readily apparent reason. That’s especially true if patient zero had an asymptomatic or mild infection, so the first known cases appear in people with no obvious connection to bats or labs. To find evidence distinguishing between those scenarios, you probably need to wait until scientists find the reservoir bat population and/or the CCP falls and scholars get a chance to poke around the archives.
The theory that does seem currently testable is the “wet market” theory. If there’s an intermediate domesticated or semi-domesticated animals that passed COVID from bats to people, then presumably those animals are around still and should eventually be located. I think this theory is the only one that looks less good than it did last year, for the simple reason that there was a lot of work done to confirm it, and they didn’t find any evidence. In particular, the WHO report really suggests that the role of Huanan market was just a super-spreading location, and that the animals there weren’t the source of infection. That doesn’t rule out a vendor getting COVID from animals at a farm, then bringing the virus to the market, of course, although eventually those animals ought to get tracked down.
The racism discussion is comical, of course. If anything is racist, it’s immediately focusing on the cultural differences between China and the West (sale of live/freshly killed animals, different food species) as the source of infection, rather than things that are common (secretive governments, bats).
6 Likes
OK, so it isn’t dumb or racist to think that the lab leak is a reasonable enough possibility to warrant a comprehensive investigation. But it is dumb and racist to think that the lab leak is the most likely cause? What’s the threshold? Is 40% lab leak still racist? 30%?
In any case, as a practical matter it doesn’t make any difference at all – Tedros and I want the exact same thing: an exhaustive and transparent investigation into all the possibilities. I assume everyone else ITT wants the same thing? I’m honestly not sure what the fuss is all about.
I stand by my hot take on the Traveling Wilburys.
Yeah, comparing the results in the WHO report to the SARS outbreak is very instructive. In SARS, 40% of the animal traders tested had SARS antibodies, and they found SARS in a couple of different animals. At the Huanan market, no vendor that sold semi-domesticated animals tested positive for Covid (I think they only tested 15 because there weren’t very many of those vendors at that market). Then around 5% of the other vendors tested positive, with vegetable and poultry vendors having the highest incidence. Not really the pattern you’d expect to see if that’s where the jump took place.
I dunno. Apparently it’s nakedly racist to suggest it might in the range 1 to 5 % lol.
1 Like
20% is too high as well. There’s also a massive difference between 20 and fifty whatever percent to anyone who understands science
Do you think the lab leak hypothesis is a reasonable enough possibility that there needs to be a comprehensive and transparent investigation into it?
Projecting no answer to this question, by the way, because either answer puts this guy in a tough spot. If no, then he disagrees with Tedros and the WHO that it needs to be carefully looked at. If yes, then what the hell is all this fuss over? We would want the same thing, what the heck difference does it make if I think it’s a bit more likely? And all these probability assignments are totally trash anyway because there’s so little good information. And that’s the important thing, we need a lot more information and study of all these possibilities so we can actually figure out what happened.
I figured you were talking about the ownable digital whatevers that people are talking about. I can’t afford a fancy image like that though. Maybe someday.
There needs to be a comprehensive and transparent investigation to the origin of covid.
(And thanks for the laugh at the idea that it puts anyone in a tough spot)
I mean, you didn’t actually answer the question. Is the lab leak hypothesis a reasonable enough possibility that there needs to be a comprehensive and transparent investigation into it?
You do get that there is a difference between being in favor of investigating all possibilities, and arguing without evidence that one possibility, involving a conspiracy by the Chinese, is likely? Like, you do see the difference, right?
1 Like
What’s the difference? More to the point, why is that difference important?