@tsweeney what the hell are you on about?
I was talking about the "scientists/experts" on these boards calling others conspiracy theorists or nutjobs for even bringing up a lab leak possibility months/half a year ago.
And now those who did the most shouting and labeling are backtracking at an incredible rate or simply hiding in the shadows. You sound like one of them to be honest.
In my opinion the process by which the public was "informed" of the "facts" around the initial outbreak and subsequent developments, was filled with corruption and self-dealing. It wouldn't be going too far to describe what happened around - for example - Dr. Daszak's letter, as a cover-up. Now, we can't really say whether there was in fact anything to cover up. It might have been a pre-emptive thing to save face and preserve the reputation of this particular academic sector by setting the narrative. But with hindsight it is clear that this sort of action was deeply dishonest and did a massive a disservice to the public.
The way most in the media rolled with it over all possible counter-scenarios, and now explicitly acknowledge doing so for political and ideological as opposed to scientific or journalistic reasons, is another very troubling thing. It makes me wonder, what other things which were at one point undeniable "facts" - and for which anybody putting forward a competing hypotheses was branded with the now-useless term of "conspiracy theorist" - will one day be shown up as in fact not being the case at all?
There is a lot more digging to do here. There is a lot more information still to be uncovered and brought into the light. For a year and a half the people investigating these questions have been either a handful of freelancers who said 'to hell with the professional consequences, this is an important issue' or they have been working for the kind of organizations that don't show their work or provide results to the public. Now it's my hope that as these have somehow become legitimate topics to speak on and argue about and discuss there will be some real progress made in finding out some anwers. One lesson I think we can all learn from this process even at this early point is to not settle in on a preferred right answer. Keeping an open mind is key. Arguing from one's preferred conclusion when we all know we are not working with a full data-set is something that ought to be avoided.
Wuhan is probably not ground zero though, only the first detected outbreak.
This is years in the making.
Research has shown that people got infected by bat coronavirus in rural area and were only detected way later by serological test (meaning we can't exactly identify the culprit). Those infections happen more frequently than you think and we could have several more coronavirus of bat (or other) origin slowly adapting. The wildlife farms provided an easy breeding ground for viruses, so hopefully they stay gone.
There's a reason why we get virus scares at least once a year from China and it's not their BSL-4.
Yes. This is 100% what I was talking about. 100%. For far too many people, this type of nuance is beyond them. The media has played an awful role in understanding what the truth of anything is. Now, people have their conclusion in mind and disregard those items which do not fit their conclusion as opposed to take the evidence in front of them and follow it to the real conclusion.
What evidence is there that Wuhan is not ground zero?
I agree that the wildlife farms were a huge risk. But having one source of risk does not automatically eliminate another. A BSL-4 lab with questionable safety protocols and a lead scientist who believes that working with highly contagious pathogens in BSL-2 settings (Dr. Shi's own words) is just fine sounds pretty risky to me.
Right. Now in light of that I want to also talk about the possibility that we are dealing with a bio-weapon here. I would not be quick to dismiss this possibility. There are several (circumstantial and speculative, it's true) items that point in this direction.
1. The timing of the outbreak and the news of the outbreak and the progress of both the virus itself and the coverage of it were very convenient for certain parties. Cui bono? as we asked before. I've always been of the mindset that, as the Don says in the Godfather, "if he should be struck be lightning, I'm gonna blame some of the people in this room." I consider that a useful attitude, and what I mean by that is, even if it seems on the face of it very unlikely that there was nefarious action, you can't rule it out when somebody's interests are clearly served by what appears on the surface to be coincidence or accident. Is it a coincidence that the U.S. and now India have been hit so hard? Maybe it is. But, maybe it isn't. There are geopolitical considerations to take into account here.
2. The characteristics of the virus appear, to me at least, to be finely calibrated to attack the demographic structure of post-industrial western society specifically. Talking where in the world is there the health-care and support services to allow so many people to keep living even when they have dementia, alzheimers, cancer, other serious health problems like that? Where is there a lot of obesity and similar issues, which is now known to be a major factor in the severity of outcomes? And, it's not just the demographics. It's the whole open structure of western society - or what was an open strcture, 36 months ago. There is a dialectical thing going on here, and that lends itself to certain conclusions - first and most importantly that this is a conflict scenario.
3. Obviously the effective use of this virus as a bioweapon would be dependant on people not figuring out that's what it was. There would have to be both a development process which hid the real origin, and a concerted propaganda campaign paired with it to achieve this end. Indeed there was just such a campaign, and the real origin remains obfuscated. Something that is obviously a bioweapon is not going to be effective or worthwhile; you need plausible deniability. Has the possibility of engaging in this activity ever been discussed openly? Yes it has.
This is of course far from conclusive. But there is plenty on which to build a hypothesis. It's not an alternative that can be definitively ruled out and I certainly do not rule it out myself.
2. I guess most viruses must be bioweapons in your eyes then, because most of them will be more severe in the elderly, immunocompromised and/or obese people. This is not surprising for a natural virus at all.
That is just silly, as most viruses well pre-date the development of the technology needed to work with them.
But we don't know that it was a natural outbreak. You can't use your conclusion that it was a natural outbreak to argue that the outbreak didn't likely originate in Wuhan. That's like saying the butler didn't do it because the maid did it when in fact we have not established the maid's guilt.If it's a natural outbreak, it did not happen in Wuhan.
I agree it is a risk. I believe she has updated her lab protocols according to guidance afterwards.
But we don't know that it was a natural outbreak. You can't use your conclusion that it was a natural outbreak to argue that the outbreak didn't likely originate in Wuhan. That's like saying the butler didn't do it because the maid did it when in fact we have not established the maid's guilt.
Good to hear that the lab protocols have been improved but her update of the lab protocols obviously does not do anything about the past.
OK. let's assume the pandemic has a natural path and it originated elsewhere. Why did the outbreak occur in Wuhan of all places? Why not in other places in China?In a scenario where it's a natural outbreak, it would not be ground zero is what I meant.
How can you be so sure? Maybe the technology has been there for a while and it has just been revealed to the public.
The point is that aspect of the virus is not different from most other virus, so it's weird that you would use it as evidence toward it being a bioweapon.
OK. let's assume the pandemic has a natural path and it originated elsewhere. Why did the outbreak occur in Wuhan of all places? Why not in other places in China?
In this scenario, the virus circulated in China undetected for some time until it found itself in Wuhan where the technology exists necessary for its detection. I find this less likely than the virus originating in Wuhan. We have reports of new pneumonia-like illness beginning in China around November/December 2019 in the Wuhan area. This evidence is best explained by the virus originating in Wuhan rather than somewhere else and there being no mention of its effects.Could be that's just where they have the facilities and expertise to detect such a thing. They wouldn't be able to do it in some rural place with no labs or anything.
In this scenario, the virus circulated in China undetected for some time until it found itself in Wuhan where the technology exists necessary for its detection. I find this less likely than the virus originating in Wuhan. We have reports of new pneumonia-like illness beginning in China around November/December 2019 in the Wuhan area. This evidence is best explained by the virus originating in Wuhan rather than somewhere else and there being no mention of its effects.
Also, if there were any evidence of the virus originating somewhere other than Wuhan, I doubt the CCP would keep it secret; I'd think they prefer the natural path than the lab leak.
China doesn't want the origin to be found so that way no true action can be taken against them.
That's first cousin to "guilty as charged".
What nation on earth would bury evidence that cleared their name? Not even Russia circa 1960 would do that.
I have no problem absorbing yhe shortages by introducing 25% duty per year until 100% duty on ALL Chinese products. The CCP greatest fear is not any country, their greatest fear is internal dissent. Let's give it to them until they come clean or disappear,.
I don't see how a path throuh a wildlife farm changes things. We know the first instances of recorded cases occurred around Wuhan and they were reported by doctors describing unusual pneumonia-like symptoms in patients. If the outbreak originated elsewhere, why do we not have reports of such infections elsewhere? Maybe they occurred in a rural area where doctors don't keep such records or are not as observant? But even if we grant this supposition, if the jump from animal to human happened somewhere else, why did the outbreak occur around Wuhan and not somewhere else? We're still back to our original question.You have recorded instance of bat coronavirus infections in rural areas that have only been detected way after via serology studies. It's not that alien of a thought that rural China (and Africa/rural India too) could have some ongoing outbreaks that just go undetected due to lack of monitoring. If you add to this that most of the cases are asymptomatic, it makes it even less surprising.
Not if that path is through the wildlife farm.
They got bonked once (SARS) for it and made some token changes, but the industry kept growing. If Sars-2 end up coming from them too, there would be a significant amount of international backlash.
There has to be a reason for them to sacrifice a big part of a 70 billion industry and it's not suddenly growing a conscience.
China doesn't want the origin to be found so that way no true action can be taken against them.
I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.That's the thing. If it came because of wildlife farms, it doesn't clear their name, far from it.
I don't see how a path throuh a wildlife farm changes things. We know the first instances of recorded cases occurred around Wuhan and they were reported by doctors describing unusual pneumonia-like symptoms in patients. If the outbreak originated elsewhere, why do we not have reports of such infections elsewhere? Maybe they occurred in a rural area where doctors don't keep such records or are not as observant? But even if we grant this supposition, if the jump from animal to human happened somewhere else, why did the outbreak occur around Wuhan and not somewhere else? We're still back to our original question.
And the reason China sacrificed their wildlife industry does not need to have been caused by their knowing that is how the pandemic originated. China likely had plans for their wildlife industry before the pandemic and this may have been an opportunistic time for them to implement it quickly.
I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.
Is a leak from a poorly-run BSL-4 lab, which ultimately the CCP is seen as responsible for, better?So they just decided to destroy decades of work just a that time? Seems like BSL-4 in Wuhan level of coincidence to me.
Even if it was something the word have warned them about for the last two decades and caused at least one other epidemic?
Is a leak from a poorly-run BSL-4 lab, which ultimately the CCP is seen as responsible for, better?
And as far as coincidences go, I find China's destruction of its wet markets less problematic since they likely already had plans for it precipitated by previous outbreaks, like SARS in 2002/3. A lab leak does not make the risk of a future naturally-occurring outbreak any less likely. They knew the wet markets were a ticking time bomb.
That's the thing. If it came because of wildlife farms, it doesn't clear their name, far from it.
I think the world would look more kindly on China if the pandemic had a natural origin than if it leaked from a lab, especially if it was engineered and the CCP knows this.
Did they spend effort to grow or did they just let it be? I have no evidence the CCP had plans to eradicate the wet markets, this is just a guess on my part that fits the lab leak narrative, just like your guess that the virus cross from animal to human originating somewhere other than Wuhan fits the natural path narrative.Why did they spend effort to grow the industry between 2002 and December 2019 then? Why did they go so quickly, not giving time for wildlife farmers not to be blindsided? You say they had plans but I'd like to see your sources on that.