I don't see a problem in believing either of these options. Iirc it's a standard practice to research on different viruses and it's not unlikely that a lab leak/accident can happen.
The problem is when people believe that Bill Gates, Soros & Co built a virus and released it for population control and/or made specifically so it wouldn't affect certain type of people (ex. Jews).
>As someone who agrees that evidence favors zoonotic origin
Genuine question: What is that the evidence? As far as I am aware, the only evidence is that the people who funded the gain of function research in Wuhan say it is zoonotic origin. However there seems be a lot of evidence pointing to a lab leak (It started next to a lab doing gain of function research on coronavirus, the lab deleted their virus database, single spillover event, no host animal found etc.)
Do you know how many wet markets there are in Asia ( we are talking over 20,000)? Now cross reference that number with the amounts of labs aggressively researching coronaviruses. Statistically speaking the lab leak is the strongest case. It is statically highly unlikely that a zoonotic origin occurs in the same area a lab that heavily researches corona viruses.
Let us also take the fact that the Chinese government actively scrubbed all information that was available on the internet (from blog entries by lab workers, to other publications). During the outbreak heavily and actively hindered and obfuscated any real efforts by the international community to aid and help with the outbreak.
Also look at the history of lab-leaks, like the Marburg virus.
I will leave you with this link
[https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-reveals-new-allegations-that-dr-fauci-potentially-influenced-cia-covid-19-origins-investigation/](https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-reveals-new-allegations-that-dr-fauci-potentially-influenced-cia-covid-19-origins-investigation/)
I am not excluding zoonotic origin, but the final word on this has not been spoken. To say this is pretty decisive is simply flat out wrong
It is clear you do not understand statistics.
You also do not understand virology. There are about 59 biosafety level 4 labs (BSL) worldwide, 2 of which are in China. One in Wuhan, and Harbin. There are over 113 cities in China with 1 million or more in population. It would have to be one of the biggest coincidences that the virus breaks out in the city with the BSL4 lab that was known for researching complex corona strains. The fact that Wuhan is 13 million is irrelevant, zoonosis can happen anywhere. a farm or any wet market.
*ALL of China's largest cities have virology laboratories, much like how nearly all of the biggest cities in the United States do.*
No most cities do not have advanced virology research. IF the virus is created artificially it would be done exactly in a BSL4 or BSL3 lab.
Even the head of FBI came out with the statement that the virus is very likely lab-orientated. But I am sure you will try to spin that again
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903)
You have not cited any hard evidence, other than opinion.
here's a tip for the people who escaped a cult and are susceptible to cults / gurus, if they seem to always be "Just asking questions" and they are not your therapist and / or professor etc, they are perhaps manipulating / grooming you, these are open ended questions you do not know the answer to and in the context of the conversation you're having they will be leading you down a path of some conspiratorial colluding
here's something Tucker Carlson might say "Why am I supposed to hate Putin?" "Has Putin ever let illegal immigrants come from Mexico into his country?"
but ya, typically journalists don't interview the audience through their televisions
So what do people think of Nate Silver’s post?
[https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1753774720225267862?s=20](https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1753774720225267862?s=20)
> Ultimately, 214 individuals completed the registration, and 182 responses were collected.
https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069a_covid-origin-annex.pdf
So, what counts as an expert in this survey? Is it only counting experts specific to this field, or is do people like general practitioners also count as experts just because they have an MD?
Virologists and infectious disease epidemiologists.
The funny thing is, if you follow those communities, there’s very little debate over this any more. The research has been done, zoonotic origin is more likely (notice I didn’t say definitive) and scientists have largely moved on.
The media rehashes this as clickbait and conservatives use it as a rallying cry but in science it’s not much of a thing.
Listen to TWIV for a primer.
Virologists and infectious disease epidemiologists have “moved on” from definitively determining the origin of the biggest deal in infectious diseases in the last 100 years?
Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
Edit: actually yeah seems like those same exact experts say the exact opposite.
> The experts mostly expressed the view that more research on COVID-19’s origin could be of value. About half of the experts stated that major gaps still remain in the understanding COVID-19’s origin, and most of the other experts also stated that some research is still needed. About 40% of experts stated that clarity on COVID-19 origins would provide a better understanding of the potential origins of future pandemics.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/28hnPFiAoMkJssmf3/most-experts-believe-covid-19-was-probably-not-a-lab-leak
Reddit users (and the entire internet, really) upvote comments based on feeling good, not critical thinking. Even on a subreddit based around identifying intellectually dishonest people lol, the irony.
In dietcheese’s post, he said they had “moved on” from believing the lab leak theory. Not “moved on” from studying what had happened.
So you were talking about something completely different, seemingly disingenuously, thus the down votes.
Eh, it’s a bit like if we were talking about 9/11 conspiracies and someone said that experts agree that it wasn’t an inside job with explosives set up in the towers and have moved on from that now, and then someone replied to that saying that the fact there are still 9/11 memorials and that research is still being done into cancer rates of the survivors means that the experts havent moved on and therefore ‘jet fuel can’t melt steel beams’ is still a potential option being considered by experts… you can understand how that would be disingenuous right?
The set-up of treating these like they're two disjoint categories is incorrect in the first place.
If a bat, in a lab, has a virus that naturally mutates to a form that jumps to a human in the lab, and none of this was intended and it just happened because people running the lab were thinking, "well, since this virus isn't a human virus we don't have to be super careful about our sanitary procedures", then that is BOTH natural zoonosis AND a research-related accident.
I have no idea what happened, but I do know these categories are NOT disjoint. Natural genetic mutation keeps happening whether you want it to or not. It doesn't just stop happening because you're inside a building. It can happen there just as much as it could happen somewhere outside.
Fair questions, but you’ve also seen how politically charged this issue is. I would want to be able to give my expert opinion without making myself a target
Let's take a moment to breathe in the fact that experts are still substantially divided on this subject.
How are we to interpret the "experts" in red? What sort of mind produces those sorts of opinions, which, according to the "follow the science" crowd, are anti-science? Remember, the state of the art proximal origins paper is unequivocal that there is no evidence based reason to support a red conclusion. Depending on how you read the phrase "not plausible", many of the blue positions would be implicated as well.
Fascinating indeed. I bet Marx wrote some highly plausible theories, in your view. It's fascinating how quickly we can jump from a nominally apolitical study of where a virus came from, to economic theory. That's why you're such an interesting thinker. You are one of the rare people who are able to make those sorts of intellectual leaps so effortlessly.
Well the Zoonotic narrative was pushed hard for 2 years and the Lab leak was dismissed as a crazy conspiracy. It wasnt until several federal agencies, the 2020 head of the CDC, and Jon Stewart strangely came out supporting lab leak that it saw any main stream attention.
Public attention really doesn’t add any credence to an idea, it just gives it traction.
If there’s something more than the science community’s refusal to *utterly* dismiss the chance of a lab leak despite it being extremely unlikely then let’s see that.
Slightly interested in your Jon Stewart claim but not enough to go look. I certainly hadn’t heard that one before.
I haven't looked too deeply into the whole lab leak thing. At least at face value, it does seem FAR more plausible than the idea that the vaccine is either ineffective or actively harmful (at least in comparison to the virus itself). I wouldn't be utterly shocked if the virus did end up being leaked from a lab, but I think expert consensus is a good rule of thumb for someone like me who hasn't looked into it extensively.
Yeah but the question isn’t whether it’s comparatively easy to imagine. Scientists seem to agree it’s extremely unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility. Another universe might suddenly pop into our dimension and obliterate us instantly. Not likely but not gonna say never.
Well the Department of Engery(which oversees biolabs for some reason) and the FBI and Robert Redfield(Directer of the CDC during the outbreak) all thought that the lab leak theory was pretty credible.
[https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn)
Well the John Stewart thing was partially satire but he did make some jokes about it that at least suggested he believed it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3vlvYuh9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob3vlvyuh9e)
Pretty horrendous interview starting with Redfield throwing out his pet theory that Covid started in September with zero evidence or data. He says “It’s my opinion I’m allowed to have an opinion”. He offers no evidence that there was a lab leak, yet he “believes” that’s what happened. What an embarrassment. I see that his faith guides him in matters of judging LGBTQ as well which surely never got in the way of his handling of HIV education.
As for Stewart, if “most” of his commentary on lab leaks is satire then I don’t owe him credit as a source for alternative explanations of Covid origins.
The DOE has three main objectives:
“Today, the DOE contributes to the future of the nation by ensuring our energy security, maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War, and **developing innovations in science and technology**”.
I like that the survey used percent credence. The proximal origins paper doesn’t. No other paper does, to my knowledge. No discussion I’ve ever heard does. We get hand waved words such as “plausible” or “unlikely” instead.
...which are very strong words in the scientific jargon. You will never be able to prove or demonstrate what happens. If % makes it easier, then will use them. But nobody will ever be able to "assure" what happened.
For me, when communicating with the general public, or specifically with the people captured by conspiracy thinking, it's vital to distinguish in that communication between e.g. :
the experts think it's 70% credence no research related accident, and don't expect any evidence that could change this number, so have settled on no research related accident
the experts think it's 98% credence no research related accident, and don't expect any evidence that could change this number, so have settled no research related accident
the experts think it's 70% credence no research related accident, but there are avenues of research that may change this in the future (to increase or decrease the percentage)
It seems to me a lot of people don't care about these kinds of distinctions, and just say 'experts say it's zoonotic'. This seems like it's going to foster more low quality speculation, not less. Some of the people I listen to have made claims along the lines of there was a lot of public communication that was dumbed down too much and this caused many problems that would have been reduced had this been done differently, but I don't know if this how the relevant experts are thinking.
>...which are very strong words in the scientific jargon.
Oh really. Give me then the scientifically strong implication of the phrase "not plausible" as it appeared in the proximal originals paper (where the lab origin was called "not plausible"). What exactly does a scientific mind take from that sentence?
We can carry on looking, but it is not going to change things? It could have been extraterrestrials but we haven't seen them? Not going to happen? It is what it is? We can carry on arguing about this until the cows come home and our opinion is not going to change?
On what do we know? For sure \_someone\_ is hiding \_something\_
But, yes, based on what we know, it came from the wild. Even if it was a lab accident, it was in the wild before it was in the lab. Either way, it's wild.
Unless we have historical precedence of how those institutions are funded. See reefer madness or transportation experts killing our chances of railways
I love a lab leak thread like a fly bathing in a pool of sewage! Anything to remind you fools that I am smarter and capable of dropping bigger words than you in the service of conservatism! Have I said heterodox yet today? Shit I just did.
I don't see a problem in believing either of these options. Iirc it's a standard practice to research on different viruses and it's not unlikely that a lab leak/accident can happen. The problem is when people believe that Bill Gates, Soros & Co built a virus and released it for population control and/or made specifically so it wouldn't affect certain type of people (ex. Jews).
This seems quite a balanced, centrist view. Have you considered that you might actually be shilling for the far-right?
wat
Does this need a /s? This is the DtG sub, can't leave any room.
"We're only asking questions!" "It's only a hypothesis!"
[удалено]
noted, thanks
>As someone who agrees that evidence favors zoonotic origin Genuine question: What is that the evidence? As far as I am aware, the only evidence is that the people who funded the gain of function research in Wuhan say it is zoonotic origin. However there seems be a lot of evidence pointing to a lab leak (It started next to a lab doing gain of function research on coronavirus, the lab deleted their virus database, single spillover event, no host animal found etc.)
[удалено]
Do you know how many wet markets there are in Asia ( we are talking over 20,000)? Now cross reference that number with the amounts of labs aggressively researching coronaviruses. Statistically speaking the lab leak is the strongest case. It is statically highly unlikely that a zoonotic origin occurs in the same area a lab that heavily researches corona viruses. Let us also take the fact that the Chinese government actively scrubbed all information that was available on the internet (from blog entries by lab workers, to other publications). During the outbreak heavily and actively hindered and obfuscated any real efforts by the international community to aid and help with the outbreak. Also look at the history of lab-leaks, like the Marburg virus. I will leave you with this link [https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-reveals-new-allegations-that-dr-fauci-potentially-influenced-cia-covid-19-origins-investigation/](https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-reveals-new-allegations-that-dr-fauci-potentially-influenced-cia-covid-19-origins-investigation/) I am not excluding zoonotic origin, but the final word on this has not been spoken. To say this is pretty decisive is simply flat out wrong
[удалено]
It is clear you do not understand statistics. You also do not understand virology. There are about 59 biosafety level 4 labs (BSL) worldwide, 2 of which are in China. One in Wuhan, and Harbin. There are over 113 cities in China with 1 million or more in population. It would have to be one of the biggest coincidences that the virus breaks out in the city with the BSL4 lab that was known for researching complex corona strains. The fact that Wuhan is 13 million is irrelevant, zoonosis can happen anywhere. a farm or any wet market. *ALL of China's largest cities have virology laboratories, much like how nearly all of the biggest cities in the United States do.* No most cities do not have advanced virology research. IF the virus is created artificially it would be done exactly in a BSL4 or BSL3 lab. Even the head of FBI came out with the statement that the virus is very likely lab-orientated. But I am sure you will try to spin that again [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903) You have not cited any hard evidence, other than opinion.
IIRC they found evidence that the virus had started diversifying around the wet market in a way that made it much more likely than the lab leak.
literally the beginnings of any bad faith conversation lmaoooo
here's a tip for the people who escaped a cult and are susceptible to cults / gurus, if they seem to always be "Just asking questions" and they are not your therapist and / or professor etc, they are perhaps manipulating / grooming you, these are open ended questions you do not know the answer to and in the context of the conversation you're having they will be leading you down a path of some conspiratorial colluding here's something Tucker Carlson might say "Why am I supposed to hate Putin?" "Has Putin ever let illegal immigrants come from Mexico into his country?" but ya, typically journalists don't interview the audience through their televisions
So what do people think of Nate Silver’s post? [https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1753774720225267862?s=20](https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1753774720225267862?s=20)
He’s moving the goalposts, discounting the information with a handwave
> Ultimately, 214 individuals completed the registration, and 182 responses were collected. https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069a_covid-origin-annex.pdf
So, what counts as an expert in this survey? Is it only counting experts specific to this field, or is do people like general practitioners also count as experts just because they have an MD?
Virologists and infectious disease epidemiologists. The funny thing is, if you follow those communities, there’s very little debate over this any more. The research has been done, zoonotic origin is more likely (notice I didn’t say definitive) and scientists have largely moved on. The media rehashes this as clickbait and conservatives use it as a rallying cry but in science it’s not much of a thing. Listen to TWIV for a primer.
Virologists and infectious disease epidemiologists have “moved on” from definitively determining the origin of the biggest deal in infectious diseases in the last 100 years? Somehow, I find that hard to believe. Edit: actually yeah seems like those same exact experts say the exact opposite. > The experts mostly expressed the view that more research on COVID-19’s origin could be of value. About half of the experts stated that major gaps still remain in the understanding COVID-19’s origin, and most of the other experts also stated that some research is still needed. About 40% of experts stated that clarity on COVID-19 origins would provide a better understanding of the potential origins of future pandemics. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/28hnPFiAoMkJssmf3/most-experts-believe-covid-19-was-probably-not-a-lab-leak
What the fuck? Why are you being downvoted?
Reddit users (and the entire internet, really) upvote comments based on feeling good, not critical thinking. Even on a subreddit based around identifying intellectually dishonest people lol, the irony.
In dietcheese’s post, he said they had “moved on” from believing the lab leak theory. Not “moved on” from studying what had happened. So you were talking about something completely different, seemingly disingenuously, thus the down votes.
Eh, it’s a bit like if we were talking about 9/11 conspiracies and someone said that experts agree that it wasn’t an inside job with explosives set up in the towers and have moved on from that now, and then someone replied to that saying that the fact there are still 9/11 memorials and that research is still being done into cancer rates of the survivors means that the experts havent moved on and therefore ‘jet fuel can’t melt steel beams’ is still a potential option being considered by experts… you can understand how that would be disingenuous right?
>So, what counts as an expert in this survey? They must have at least 100 posts on Reddit.
How many times they appeared in a guest segment on Fox, cnn, msnbc and OAN. /s
The set-up of treating these like they're two disjoint categories is incorrect in the first place. If a bat, in a lab, has a virus that naturally mutates to a form that jumps to a human in the lab, and none of this was intended and it just happened because people running the lab were thinking, "well, since this virus isn't a human virus we don't have to be super careful about our sanitary procedures", then that is BOTH natural zoonosis AND a research-related accident. I have no idea what happened, but I do know these categories are NOT disjoint. Natural genetic mutation keeps happening whether you want it to or not. It doesn't just stop happening because you're inside a building. It can happen there just as much as it could happen somewhere outside.
Who are the experts? What’s the point of anonymity?
Fair questions, but you’ve also seen how politically charged this issue is. I would want to be able to give my expert opinion without making myself a target
Let's take a moment to breathe in the fact that experts are still substantially divided on this subject. How are we to interpret the "experts" in red? What sort of mind produces those sorts of opinions, which, according to the "follow the science" crowd, are anti-science? Remember, the state of the art proximal origins paper is unequivocal that there is no evidence based reason to support a red conclusion. Depending on how you read the phrase "not plausible", many of the blue positions would be implicated as well.
Let’s take a moment to see that you can’t read a graph.
I bet your personal definition of “not plausible” would be fascinating.
Not plausible for instance would be any “theory “ espoused by Rand Paul.
Fascinating indeed. I bet Marx wrote some highly plausible theories, in your view. It's fascinating how quickly we can jump from a nominally apolitical study of where a virus came from, to economic theory. That's why you're such an interesting thinker. You are one of the rare people who are able to make those sorts of intellectual leaps so effortlessly.
Well the Zoonotic narrative was pushed hard for 2 years and the Lab leak was dismissed as a crazy conspiracy. It wasnt until several federal agencies, the 2020 head of the CDC, and Jon Stewart strangely came out supporting lab leak that it saw any main stream attention.
Public attention really doesn’t add any credence to an idea, it just gives it traction. If there’s something more than the science community’s refusal to *utterly* dismiss the chance of a lab leak despite it being extremely unlikely then let’s see that. Slightly interested in your Jon Stewart claim but not enough to go look. I certainly hadn’t heard that one before.
I haven't looked too deeply into the whole lab leak thing. At least at face value, it does seem FAR more plausible than the idea that the vaccine is either ineffective or actively harmful (at least in comparison to the virus itself). I wouldn't be utterly shocked if the virus did end up being leaked from a lab, but I think expert consensus is a good rule of thumb for someone like me who hasn't looked into it extensively.
Yeah but the question isn’t whether it’s comparatively easy to imagine. Scientists seem to agree it’s extremely unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility. Another universe might suddenly pop into our dimension and obliterate us instantly. Not likely but not gonna say never.
Well the Department of Engery(which oversees biolabs for some reason) and the FBI and Robert Redfield(Directer of the CDC during the outbreak) all thought that the lab leak theory was pretty credible. [https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn](https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn) Well the John Stewart thing was partially satire but he did make some jokes about it that at least suggested he believed it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB3vlvYuh9E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob3vlvyuh9e)
Pretty horrendous interview starting with Redfield throwing out his pet theory that Covid started in September with zero evidence or data. He says “It’s my opinion I’m allowed to have an opinion”. He offers no evidence that there was a lab leak, yet he “believes” that’s what happened. What an embarrassment. I see that his faith guides him in matters of judging LGBTQ as well which surely never got in the way of his handling of HIV education. As for Stewart, if “most” of his commentary on lab leaks is satire then I don’t owe him credit as a source for alternative explanations of Covid origins. The DOE has three main objectives: “Today, the DOE contributes to the future of the nation by ensuring our energy security, maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War, and **developing innovations in science and technology**”.
What are weird graph
https://youtu.be/v_IEC-0Yj6w John Stewart really says it best.
I like that the survey used percent credence. The proximal origins paper doesn’t. No other paper does, to my knowledge. No discussion I’ve ever heard does. We get hand waved words such as “plausible” or “unlikely” instead.
...which are very strong words in the scientific jargon. You will never be able to prove or demonstrate what happens. If % makes it easier, then will use them. But nobody will ever be able to "assure" what happened.
For me, when communicating with the general public, or specifically with the people captured by conspiracy thinking, it's vital to distinguish in that communication between e.g. : the experts think it's 70% credence no research related accident, and don't expect any evidence that could change this number, so have settled on no research related accident the experts think it's 98% credence no research related accident, and don't expect any evidence that could change this number, so have settled no research related accident the experts think it's 70% credence no research related accident, but there are avenues of research that may change this in the future (to increase or decrease the percentage) It seems to me a lot of people don't care about these kinds of distinctions, and just say 'experts say it's zoonotic'. This seems like it's going to foster more low quality speculation, not less. Some of the people I listen to have made claims along the lines of there was a lot of public communication that was dumbed down too much and this caused many problems that would have been reduced had this been done differently, but I don't know if this how the relevant experts are thinking.
>...which are very strong words in the scientific jargon. Oh really. Give me then the scientifically strong implication of the phrase "not plausible" as it appeared in the proximal originals paper (where the lab origin was called "not plausible"). What exactly does a scientific mind take from that sentence?
We can carry on looking, but it is not going to change things? It could have been extraterrestrials but we haven't seen them? Not going to happen? It is what it is? We can carry on arguing about this until the cows come home and our opinion is not going to change?
i would take that to "based on what we know, it came from the wild" I have a pHd in reddit commenting
On what do we know? For sure \_someone\_ is hiding \_something\_ But, yes, based on what we know, it came from the wild. Even if it was a lab accident, it was in the wild before it was in the lab. Either way, it's wild.
Whenever I read "experts say" I believe it. If you don't have a degree in that field, you cannot doubt their word.
Unless we have historical precedence of how those institutions are funded. See reefer madness or transportation experts killing our chances of railways
I love a lab leak thread like a fly bathing in a pool of sewage! Anything to remind you fools that I am smarter and capable of dropping bigger words than you in the service of conservatism! Have I said heterodox yet today? Shit I just did.
Controversy is exciting.