You can still easily blame the Chinese government regardless of the virus' origins. Just ask yourself, how long until Chairman Xi was even aware that there was a problem? I'm willing to bet that the highest echelons of the CPC were only made aware of the situation in Wuhan when it got so bad that it was no longer possible for the provincinal leadership to keep it hidden, and I bet the provincinal leadership didn't know what was going on until it was too big for the city lead
The totality of all factors involved can only blame the Chinese government if you first assume that they actually had a clue about the severity of the illness long before they announced it to the world.
If they had issued an announcement to the world a month or so sooner than they had, they could have been accused of unnecessarily starting an international panic if the virus ended up being contained. Such a precaution can be seen as necessarily cautious only in hindsight, and the extent of what was abou
The totality of all factors involved can only blame the Chinese government if you first assume that they actually had a clue about the severity of the illness long before they announced it to the world.
I'm going to leave this [wikipedia.org] right here.
The coverup started on day 0. We can debate how much, but SOME blame accrues to the Chinese government as a result
Before mid December China had very good reason to believe that the virus was *not* as serious as this doctor was saying.
Yes, it turned out they were wrong to keep it hidden, but this is knowledge only in HINDSIGHT. If they had let him go public a month or two before they actually did, then the superspreader events in Wuhan would likelly not have occurred, and China would have been blamed for starting an international panic over nothing, possibly making the wor
That doctor was wrong as were his actions. He was nothing short of irresponsible and quite likely contributed to the spread by giving people the opportunity to leave Wuhan sooner than they otherwise would have.
Besides may be the more even minded people who wanted to answer the question of where the virus originated? No, you are not going to convince conspiracy nuts who will try to link something as trivial as a misspelling in the report as a code from the "real investigators" that it was all China's doing.
Authoritarian, secretive regime disinclined to accept any blame for mistakes. Maybe add in a touch of cultural predisposition to "saving face" and avoiding public embarrassment and an oppositional attitude to foreign invesitgation. Add in an invisible enemy, a virus, which is challenging to trace to a source of origin on a good day. Now make it a *novel* virus that nobody knew much about.
And this is before we get into international posturing and competition and various levels of domestic politicization of the pandemic, including a major world leader openly engaging in racist demagoguery with regard to the virus' geographic origin.
Even if this thing had popped up in France instead of China, you'd still have a baseline of conspiracy theories which are only made worse by the politicization and nature of the government of its apparent country of origin.
Anyone bought into a theory before this can't possibly find enough new evidence that will sway them from other narratives.
Even the general narrative of bat -> human can have the lab inserted.
If the report has good evidence, it will definitely change my mind (or give me more confidence in my current mind). Right now I have the source of coronavirus in my mind listed as "I don't know."
If it's just a bunch of people's opinions without convincing evidence, it won't change my mind.
Jamie Metzl: I wouldn't really call what's happened now an investigation. It's essentially a highly-chaperoned, highly-curated study tour.
Lesley Stahl: Study tour?
Jamie Metzl: Study tour. Everybody around the world is imagining this is some kind of full investigation. It's not. This group of experts only saw what the Chinese government wanted them to see....
Occam's Razor says it's probably not a lab leak. Why one would start with that assumption makes no sense, other than fitting their preconceived boogeyman notions. "But the gov't is secretive and evasive" doesn't say much because most despots are secretive and evasive out of habit.
Let's say you hear reports of a Florida Panther wandering around the streets of the Bronx. Is your first thought that the panther came on it's own all the way from Florida? Probably not. You might then ask, what is the largest concentration of Florida Panthers in the Bronx? Maybe there is a facility in the Bronx that is known to have a population of panthers, maybe even a panther breeding program? The zoo! Maybe it came from the Bronx zoo?
Let's say you hear reports of a Florida Panther wandering around the streets of the Bronx. Is your first thought that the panther came on it's own all the way from Florida? Probably not. You might then ask, what is the largest concentration of Florida Panthers in the Bronx? Maybe there is a facility in the Bronx that is known to have a population of panthers, maybe even a panther breeding program? The zoo! Maybe it came from the Bronx zoo?
The Wuhan lab was basically a coronavirus zoo, with the first outbreak a mere 10 miles away. So you know there are exotic coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab, as opposed to the possibility that there was an exotic coronavirus at a wet market. Which one of those gets cut away by Occam's razor?
The Zoo! It had to have walked all the way north because all the panthers are present in the zoo. No you can not count the number we have. They don't like being counted.
That is a really stupid analogy because the background level of "panthers" is not zero. Replace "panther" with "housecat" and claim that any random cat you see on a residential street must have escaped from the cat rescue place a mile away if you want to get an idea how bad your analogy is.
Panther is to house cat as Covid-19 is to average coronavirus. Before Covid-19 the background level of highly contagious lethal coronaviruses was near 0. Did it come from a bat, then transmitted to a pangolin in the market, then to a human? Certainly possible. That needs to be investigated. Did it come from various animals, brought together in a lab, and then escape from the lab? Also possible. Also worthy of investigation. I don't know where it came from, but I don't discount a theory because it might have
Let me give you a hint, as you really appear to be as dense as I was afraid of. There are approximately ZERO panthers in the houses in a neighborhood, so assuming a panther you see is from the zoo makes sense. There are approximately one house cat per house however, so if you see a house cat, assuming it is from the zoo makes a lot less sense. Not impossible but a rather foolish assumption.Get it? Your analogy is stupid. You can probably come up with a better one.
This is an analogy, Mr. Big Brain, it does break down at some point. Like when people use a car analogy for software design, it's not like your code is going to drive you to the grocery store (unless you are actually writing code for a car, in that case it can.)
The Wuhan wet market was basically a coronavirus zoo, with the first outbreak a mere 10 miles away.
Fixed that for you.
We know that viruses jump species. We know that animals have coronaviruses. We know that the wet market has both wild animals and people who capture wild animals, all in unsanitary conditions.
I don't know where the virus came from, though it seems to me that "from animals" seems far more likely than "from a lab". I believe this because that's what every expert who as looked into this has said, But some people really really want it to be from a Chinese lab and refuse any other possibil
What exactly is stopping you seeing the most obvious gaping hole in your logic? Youâ(TM)re pushing a clear false dichotomy. Itâ(TM)s perfectly feasible that itâ(TM)s a zoonotic virus that was being studied in a lab.
Of course it's possible. I never said it wasn't. And I never said covid didn't come from a lab. Maybe it did. I said "I don't know where the virus came from"; which word are you having trouble with?
But the preponderance of evidence says "from nature". The preponderance of experts say "from nature". You seem to deny the possibility that it came from nature. Why?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since we've never seen a serious disease spread from a laboratory, that claim is extraor
Some people want it to be from a Chinese lab. I don't. I don't want any humans to be responsible for all this death. I also don't want the lab theory to be ignored because of politics, not science. It does seem that the WHO is ignoring the possibility it came from a lab for political reasons, even considering the ridiculous frozen food theory more likely than the lab. It is crucial, and to all our best interests, to find the real origin of Covid-19,
I disagree that discovering the source is crucial. In fact, if it comes from animals, it is probably impossible to discover the source. The carrier animals are likely dead (since they were likely food animals), and the initial infected people never got tested at the time (since, for younger folks, it is usually either asymptomatic or looks like an annoying cold). Either way, though, the source is independent of the treatment. And we need to be careful of both animals and labs in the future, so I don't s
Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with
time travel, you never can tell."
-- Doctor Who, "Androids of Tara"
Like this report is going to change anyone's mind? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not even sure why it matters.
You can still easily blame the Chinese government regardless of the virus' origins. Just ask yourself, how long until Chairman Xi was even aware that there was a problem? I'm willing to bet that the highest echelons of the CPC were only made aware of the situation in Wuhan when it got so bad that it was no longer possible for the provincinal leadership to keep it hidden, and I bet the provincinal leadership didn't know what was going on until it was too big for the city lead
Re: (Score:1)
The totality of all factors involved can only blame the Chinese government if you first assume that they actually had a clue about the severity of the illness long before they announced it to the world.
If they had issued an announcement to the world a month or so sooner than they had, they could have been accused of unnecessarily starting an international panic if the virus ended up being contained. Such a precaution can be seen as necessarily cautious only in hindsight, and the extent of what was abou
Re: (Score:3)
The totality of all factors involved can only blame the Chinese government if you first assume that they actually had a clue about the severity of the illness long before they announced it to the world.
I'm going to leave this [wikipedia.org] right here.
The coverup started on day 0. We can debate how much, but SOME blame accrues to the Chinese government as a result
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, because doctors are infallible.
Before mid December China had very good reason to believe that the virus was *not* as serious as this doctor was saying.
Yes, it turned out they were wrong to keep it hidden, but this is knowledge only in HINDSIGHT. If they had let him go public a month or two before they actually did, then the superspreader events in Wuhan would likelly not have occurred, and China would have been blamed for starting an international panic over nothing, possibly making the wor
Re: Like this report is going to change anyone's m (Score:2, Interesting)
That doctor was wrong as were his actions. He was nothing short of irresponsible and quite likely contributed to the spread by giving people the opportunity to leave Wuhan sooner than they otherwise would have.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even sure why it matters.
Besides may be the more even minded people who wanted to answer the question of where the virus originated? No, you are not going to convince conspiracy nuts who will try to link something as trivial as a misspelling in the report as a code from the "real investigators" that it was all China's doing.
Re: Like this report is going to change anyone's m (Score:1)
Nope. I don't consider them a reliable source. Quite the opposite.
Re:Like this report is going to change anyone's mi (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the perfect storm of bullshit.
Authoritarian, secretive regime disinclined to accept any blame for mistakes. Maybe add in a touch of cultural predisposition to "saving face" and avoiding public embarrassment and an oppositional attitude to foreign invesitgation. Add in an invisible enemy, a virus, which is challenging to trace to a source of origin on a good day. Now make it a *novel* virus that nobody knew much about.
And this is before we get into international posturing and competition and various levels of domestic politicization of the pandemic, including a major world leader openly engaging in racist demagoguery with regard to the virus' geographic origin.
Even if this thing had popped up in France instead of China, you'd still have a baseline of conspiracy theories which are only made worse by the politicization and nature of the government of its apparent country of origin.
Anyone bought into a theory before this can't possibly find enough new evidence that will sway them from other narratives.
Even the general narrative of bat -> human can have the lab inserted.
Re: (Score:1)
Authoritarian, secretive regime disinclined to accept any blame for mistakes.
Us or them?
Re: (Score:2)
Authoritarian, secretive regime disinclined to accept any blame for mistakes.
Us or them?
Both.
Re: Like this report is going to change anyone's m (Score:2)
I was wondering the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If the report has good evidence, it will definitely change my mind (or give me more confidence in my current mind). Right now I have the source of coronavirus in my mind listed as "I don't know."
If it's just a bunch of people's opinions without convincing evidence, it won't change my mind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From '60 Minutes':
Jamie Metzl: I wouldn't really call what's happened now an investigation. It's essentially a highly-chaperoned, highly-curated study tour.
Lesley Stahl: Study tour?
Jamie Metzl: Study tour. Everybody around the world is imagining this is some kind of full investigation. It's not. This group of experts only saw what the Chinese government wanted them to see. ...
Lesley Stahl: I had seen that the World Health
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor says it's probably not a lab leak. Why one would start with that assumption makes no sense, other than fitting their preconceived boogeyman notions. "But the gov't is secretive and evasive" doesn't say much because most despots are secretive and evasive out of habit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like the Bronx panther analogy.
Let's say you hear reports of a Florida Panther wandering around the streets of the Bronx. Is your first thought that the panther came on it's own all the way from Florida? Probably not. You might then ask, what is the largest concentration of Florida Panthers in the Bronx? Maybe there is a facility in the Bronx that is known to have a population of panthers, maybe even a panther breeding program? The zoo! Maybe it came from the Bronx zoo?
The Wuhan lab was basically a corona
Re: (Score:1)
I like the Bronx panther analogy.
Let's say you hear reports of a Florida Panther wandering around the streets of the Bronx. Is your first thought that the panther came on it's own all the way from Florida? Probably not. You might then ask, what is the largest concentration of Florida Panthers in the Bronx? Maybe there is a facility in the Bronx that is known to have a population of panthers, maybe even a panther breeding program? The zoo! Maybe it came from the Bronx zoo?
The Wuhan lab was basically a coronavirus zoo, with the first outbreak a mere 10 miles away. So you know there are exotic coronaviruses in the Wuhan lab, as opposed to the possibility that there was an exotic coronavirus at a wet market. Which one of those gets cut away by Occam's razor?
The Zoo! It had to have walked all the way north because all the panthers are present in the zoo. No you can not count the number we have. They don't like being counted.
Re: (Score:2)
So let me ask you this. When the Florida Panthers were found in... let's say Maine, 16 years earlier, was that also the Bronx zoo?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a really stupid analogy because the background level of "panthers" is not zero. Replace "panther" with "housecat" and claim that any random cat you see on a residential street must have escaped from the cat rescue place a mile away if you want to get an idea how bad your analogy is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me give you a hint, as you really appear to be as dense as I was afraid of. There are approximately ZERO panthers in the houses in a neighborhood, so assuming a panther you see is from the zoo makes sense. There are approximately one house cat per house however, so if you see a house cat, assuming it is from the zoo makes a lot less sense. Not impossible but a rather foolish assumption.Get it? Your analogy is stupid. You can probably come up with a better one.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be dense because your brilliance escapes me. I will break down my analogy so that the flaws of my dense thinking are obvious.
The panther is an exotic, deadly coronavirus (not necessarily Covid-19).
In 2019 we know there are panthers (exotic, deadly coronaviruses) in the Bronx zoo.
There may be panthers in private ownership by rich eccentrics in the Bronx(wet markets), but this is not certain.
Suddenly, in 2020, multiple sighting of panthers in the streets of the Bronx are reported.
Where did the panthe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wuhan wet market was basically a coronavirus zoo, with the first outbreak a mere 10 miles away.
Fixed that for you.
We know that viruses jump species. We know that animals have coronaviruses. We know that the wet market has both wild animals and people who capture wild animals, all in unsanitary conditions.
I don't know where the virus came from, though it seems to me that "from animals" seems far more likely than "from a lab". I believe this because that's what every expert who as looked into this has said, But some people really really want it to be from a Chinese lab and refuse any other possibil
Re: Like this report is going to change anyone's m (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's possible. I never said it wasn't. And I never said covid didn't come from a lab. Maybe it did. I said "I don't know where the virus came from"; which word are you having trouble with?
But the preponderance of evidence says "from nature". The preponderance of experts say "from nature". You seem to deny the possibility that it came from nature. Why?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since we've never seen a serious disease spread from a laboratory, that claim is extraor
Re: Like this report is going to change anyone's (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that discovering the source is crucial. In fact, if it comes from animals, it is probably impossible to discover the source. The carrier animals are likely dead (since they were likely food animals), and the initial infected people never got tested at the time (since, for younger folks, it is usually either asymptomatic or looks like an annoying cold). Either way, though, the source is independent of the treatment. And we need to be careful of both animals and labs in the future, so I don't s