A simpler explanation is that Trump just surrounded himself with sycophants and incompetents who just said the things he wanted to hear. Even if those things were not supported by any credible evidence.
Where is the credible evidence that it came from wildlife? Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border. And also in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which performed gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straigh
Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border.
How would anyone ever travel hundreds of kilometers? Horses just don't go that far do they?
Is your theory is that someone went to a fairly remote cave in Yunnan, caught the virus from bats there, traveled to Wuhan, and only started infecting other people after arriving in Wuhan?
If only there were some way to substantiate this kind of theory. For example, if the Chinese government would let independent scientists see the actual records of early cases. But they did not [nytimes.com], instead pressuring the WHO investigators to simply echo what the CCP said. That suggests some kind of remaining cover-up by the Chinese government.
No, I don't think the very first infected person caught it at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, but that may have been the first "mass spreader" event.
I ask again: Is your theory that someone caught it near the closest known wild relative, quite far from Wuhan, and then did not transmit it until they traveled to the city of Wuhan? Why did you invoke people traveling, if not to suggest than an infected person brought it to Wuhan?
Is your theory that we should have found all the cases along the way? Because that's equally as absurd as your other theories.
Even now we cant find all the cases and we've spent a lot of money and effort developing tests specifically to find it.
It commonly spreads without symptoms, there were no tests in the beginning, And worse than that, nobody at all anywhere was even looking for cases.
Pretty disingenuous of you to claim we should have found all the cases along the way.
It's extremely disingenuous of you to argue against a straw man. My theory is that, if the disease was carried by a person or animal from Yunnan province to Wuhan city -- as you suggested -- that we would have seen some other infections along the way. There's no reason to think we should "have found all the cases along the way", but finding at least one or two cases somewhere along the way would go a long way to supporting that hypothesis. Otherwise, you are just claiming it jumped almost 2000 km and, fr
Now who's building a strawman?
We know it can spread without symptoms.
We didn't even have a test for it at that time.
We didn't even know the virus existed at that time.
We know nobody was looking for cases before the superspreading incident in the Wuhan market.
You're claiming we didn't find any of the thing that's very hard to find when we weren't even looking for it anyway. So that means there weren't any?
Do you idiots ever go back and listen to yourselves?
It seems to me that surveying the coronavirus reservoirs, and characterizing their transmissibility between host species, should be a much higher priority.
Is your theory is that someone went to a fairly remote cave in Yunnan, caught the virus from bats there, traveled to Wuhan, and only started infecting other people after arriving in Wuhan?
No his theory is people can travel hundreds of kilometers these days. I believe he referring to things called "cars" and "trains" and even "airplanes". Your singular supposition since no bats live near Wuhan, therefore bats and humans could not have never come into contact outside Wuhan. Have you thought about that?
Yes that much was implicit in the "traveled to Wuhan" (from Yunnan province) part of my comment. Would you care to address more than three words of my comment?
Yes that much was implicit in the "traveled to Wuhan" (from Yunnan province) part of my comment. Would you care to address more than three words of my comment?
Yes are you also aware that bats "fly". I have seen it my own eyes that on a nightly basis they leave their roosts and magically take to the sky. Sometimes they also travel hundreds of kilometers.
Again your limited and narrow supposition: No bats live near Wuhan; therefore no one could have been affected by a bat. That's like saying bears live in the woods; I live in the city---therefore I have never seen a bear. That's some ironclad logic there.
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Where is the credible evidence that it came from wildlife? Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border. And also in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which performed gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
The core argument in favor of crossover from wildlife is that scientists don't think many of the mutations in the virus's genome make sense as engineered changes. That is a straigh
Re: (Score:2)
Bats are not known to live around the city of Wuhan, and the closest wild relative to SARS-CoV-2 was found hundreds of kilometers away, near China's southern border.
How would anyone ever travel hundreds of kilometers? Horses just don't go that far do they?
Though it seems strange that 50k people have died from it in California [worldometers.info] if it can't travel very far.
And California is 10,000 kilometers away from China. [google.com]
Re:Unsurprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Is your theory is that someone went to a fairly remote cave in Yunnan, caught the virus from bats there, traveled to Wuhan, and only started infecting other people after arriving in Wuhan?
If only there were some way to substantiate this kind of theory. For example, if the Chinese government would let independent scientists see the actual records of early cases. But they did not [nytimes.com], instead pressuring the WHO investigators to simply echo what the CCP said. That suggests some kind of remaining cover-up by the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we already know that is false.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think the very first infected person caught it at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan, but that may have been the first "mass spreader" event.
I ask again: Is your theory that someone caught it near the closest known wild relative, quite far from Wuhan, and then did not transmit it until they traveled to the city of Wuhan? Why did you invoke people traveling, if not to suggest than an infected person brought it to Wuhan?
Re: (Score:2)
Is your theory that we should have found all the cases along the way? Because that's equally as absurd as your other theories.
Even now we cant find all the cases and we've spent a lot of money and effort developing tests specifically to find it.
It commonly spreads without symptoms, there were no tests in the beginning, And worse than that, nobody at all anywhere was even looking for cases.
Pretty disingenuous of you to claim we should have found all the cases along the way.
There were other confirmed cases
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It's extremely disingenuous of you to argue against a straw man. My theory is that, if the disease was carried by a person or animal from Yunnan province to Wuhan city -- as you suggested -- that we would have seen some other infections along the way. There's no reason to think we should "have found all the cases along the way", but finding at least one or two cases somewhere along the way would go a long way to supporting that hypothesis. Otherwise, you are just claiming it jumped almost 2000 km and, fr
Re: (Score:2)
only became transmissible in Wuhan.
Now who's building a strawman?
We know it can spread without symptoms.
We didn't even have a test for it at that time.
We didn't even know the virus existed at that time.
We know nobody was looking for cases before the superspreading incident in the Wuhan market.
You're claiming we didn't find any of the thing that's very hard to find when we weren't even looking for it anyway. So that means there weren't any?
Do you idiots ever go back and listen to yourselves?
It seems to me that surveying the coronavirus reservoirs, and characterizing their transmissibility between host species, should be a much higher priority.
You think it's more important to see how it sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is your theory is that someone went to a fairly remote cave in Yunnan, caught the virus from bats there, traveled to Wuhan, and only started infecting other people after arriving in Wuhan?
No his theory is people can travel hundreds of kilometers these days. I believe he referring to things called "cars" and "trains" and even "airplanes". Your singular supposition since no bats live near Wuhan, therefore bats and humans could not have never come into contact outside Wuhan. Have you thought about that?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes that much was implicit in the "traveled to Wuhan" (from Yunnan province) part of my comment. Would you care to address more than three words of my comment?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that much was implicit in the "traveled to Wuhan" (from Yunnan province) part of my comment. Would you care to address more than three words of my comment?
Yes are you also aware that bats "fly". I have seen it my own eyes that on a nightly basis they leave their roosts and magically take to the sky. Sometimes they also travel hundreds of kilometers.
Again your limited and narrow supposition: No bats live near Wuhan; therefore no one could have been affected by a bat. That's like saying bears live in the woods; I live in the city---therefore I have never seen a bear. That's some ironclad logic there.