You have managed to stuff an impressive range of misunderstanding into four sentences.
I’m not defending scientists I don’t know; I’m defending science that I do know, and know very well. The genetics of viral outbreaks is a very large part of what I do for a living, and I’m quite good at what I do.
As it happens, I do know many of the scientists in question (see (1)). Some I like, some, well, not so much.
The only assumption I have made about the Chinese government is that they will freely lie and hide evidence. Unlike you, I’ve actually worked with the Chinese CDC, and when I did, I thought it quite likely that their scientists were lying to us, on government orders – and that was about an issue much less politically dangerous than the origin of SARS-CoV-2. I assume they would lie about a lab leak and that they would lie about a spillover at a wet market, since either would make them look bad.
I very much started by imagining that there could have been a lab leak. My stated position at the time was that it was pretty much a toss-up which was the source and that we would probably never know. Subsequent information and analyses have strongly favored a zoonotic spillover at the market. “Strongly favored” isn’t conclusive, however: I’d put the probability that the market was the major source of early spread at 95% or higher and the probability that it was the actual source of all subsequent human infections at 90%. Which means it could still be wrong.
What I do object to are claims that evidence has mounted that the lab was the source of the pandemic. It hasn’t.
Scientists can make some bad mistakes. But actually constructing a virus in some fashion, rather than accidentally releasing a virus, should result in a virus that looks noticeably different from normal natural variation in viruses. The poor-quality paper in question, for example (which is an example of scientist making a mistake) claimed that the COVID-19 virus had significant similarity to various very different viruses. If true, that would indeed suggest that it was created in the lab, because mixing between very different types of viruses is not so likely to create a functional result. But in reality, the levels of similarity to the other viruses were not particularly significant. COVID looks like a naturally-occurring coronavirus. There is no point in building a virus just like an existing virus.
The other major problem with the idea that the virus was made in the lab is that COVID is not useful. It is perfectly credible that the Chinese government might try to design a virus as a weapon. But a weapon that affects your own troops just as much as the enemy is not particularly useful. Also, you generally want something that is fairly fast-acting. COVID-19 is not that fast, many people don’t get anything worse than a cold, and it spreads easily enough to be just as dangerous to you as to them. In short, not something anyone would bother making.
It is possible that serious mistakes were made in lab biosafety - that the virus was something under study or collected for study and escaped. It is certainly true that serious mistakes were made by the Chinese government in trying to cover it up rather than promptly addressing the problem.
You will have to remind me of this one? My recollection of the origins of COVID was always that it enterred a wet market and the “how” it got into that wet market was the debate (ie intentional or unintentional)
Seems that rednecks had far too much indluence on this topic…always looking to blame someone else for their lifelong troubles instead of just taking responsibility. The “my constitutional right” is more important to them than the wellbeing of others i think.
EDIT
Ive never followed any consipracy there and i align with David and Steves posts (which ive read after writing this response.)
Regardless of the origin of SARS-CoV-2, I feel strongly that lab biosafety standards should be improved. Or rather, that they should be enforced better.
For what it’s worth, I actually agree that the lab leak theory, although ultimately discredited, was a viable initial theory which was prematurely attacked in the name of health policy messaging. The saying is that when you mix science and politics, you get politics.
Zoonotic jumps happen regularly. They are inevitable. Covid was one.
I’m well aware of these agency pronouncements. “Low confidence” indeed, especially now with the CIA answering to the current Director of National Intelligence, and administration. If it is not a scientific paper, I have zero interest.
Sure – all I can do is evaluate the evidence I have available to me. And I’m likely to have at least as much expertise in the science involved as anybody the intelligence agencies are relying on.
Stephen Schaffner is a senior computational biologist in the Infectious Disease and Microbiome Program at the Broad Institute, where he studies the genetics of human infectious disease, including host, viral and malaria genetics.
Note the news article in the image below and you will understand my point that these individuals are self absorbed idiots who do not care about tue fact that others dont need to get sick because these wankers want their constitutional right of freedom despite the proof lockdowns were necessary and effective in slowing the spread.
I remind you again…my 90 year old nanna died because of an asshole who.did not isolate, was not careful, and as a result took covid into nans nursing home! It killed a large number of elderly in that place…one of whom my nan was a friend and whom she watched die a few months before her own eventual demise
Congratulations on all your accomplishments. Exceeding the capabilities of hundreds of people with access to secret data is an accomplishment worthy of praise.
Adam wrote:
‘I remind you again…my 90 year old nanna died because of an asshole who.did not isolate, was not careful, and as a result took covid into nans nursing home!”
In the US, it was not rednecks who forced Covid infected people into the locations of old people, It was the Democratic governor of New York. He killed many.
I lost an aunt who ignored Covid protocols, but she was 88 and had the right to do what she wanted to do.
Your sarcasm is noted. More important than my expertise is the expertise of all of the other specialists in the relevant fields and the data they have published in peer-reviewed articles in top journals and the reception of their conclusions by the broader community. You think they should be completely ignored compared to the tentative conclusions of unknown intelligence people based on unknown data driven by unknown motivations. Why?
Look, I didn’t care at all whether the virus started in a lab or in a market. And if new evidence emerges, I will happily change my conclusions again. You, on the other hand, seem to want very much for the lab leak theory to be true. Again, why?
As a former military intelligence officer, I understand that intelligence agencies often don’t reveal sources and data underlying their conclusions. I don’t expect you to understand that.
You are incorrect that I want the lab leak theory to be true, but I don’t expect you to be able to acknowledge that.
It’s really not hard to understand. Intelligence agencies look at China’s behavior and conclude they’re hiding something, so they lean toward a lab leak with “low confidence.” Scientists look at the data and conclude it originated in the wet market with 90-95% confidence. NYT opinion writers write things to draw eyeballs. Personally, I’m going with the scientists.
