You miss the point. I dont say this is not a lab-leak (and i dont care if it is, because it wont solve anything). I say, the occam razor is : it is not a lab-leak. Basic origin of virus is nature. Occam razor: this one too. If you want to prove otherwise , you have to bring enough evidence. And your statement bring nothing. Because you use association (there is a lab near) to imply causation (the lab did it). Which is a logical fallacy. And your list is false: you dont know which lab was close to zika. And I can bet the china lab is not the only one working on sars, there is one of the US. And you overstate the behavior of covid compared to other sars. It is not 'tens of thousand" more special. But we both know, that you come here with your mind make up, and not to know the truth. Because nothing you can learn will make you think it is not a lab leak
This ain't my fight, but let's do tit for tat: In order: unsubstantiated opinion, ignoring data (that's most of what b_b posts), opinion based on a lack of relevant expertise, ad hoc assumption, ignoring strength of association to incorrectly use false equivalency (also, fallacy fallacy if you like those). Checkmate, Mr Internet Rationalist™. EDIT: Also, b_b has heaps of relevant knowledge while, clearly, giving a flippant answer. Again, not my fight.I say, the occam razor is : it is not a lab-leak.
If you want to prove otherwise , you have to bring enough evidence.
And your statement bring nothing.
And your list is false: you dont know which lab was close to zika. And I can bet the china lab is not the only one working on sars, there is one of the US.
Because you use association (there is a lab near) to imply causation (the lab did it). Which is a logical fallacy.
It's not my fight either, as I make it my business to not get in internet fights with anyone, almost ever. Personally I can't wrap my head around the idea of coincidences this big and unlikely. That's the source of my consternation and the thing that, to me, needs disproving. ooli is incorrect about there never being evidence enough to satisfy me. If they found a single example of a furin cleavage site that matches this one, I'd be more skeptical of the lab leak. And if they could find it in an animal that has any reasonable connection to the Wuhan area, I'd be even less skeptical. Right now that evidence is absent, and the government of China isn't doing much to unabsent it. It absolutely matters how this happened, because it should guide our future policy responses. If the thing is natural, then there are mitigating steps we can take, but maybe you just have to live with the idea that we get a global pandemic every 50-100 years. If it's not natural it should be a warning to everyone about the dangers of manipulating pathogens in a lab, and our policy repose should follow. This virus had been in the Wuhan lab for no more than 6 years before it escaped, if it did in fact escape. That's a really short period of time, and it puts very low confidence bounds around our ability to stop similar projects from going sideways.
Key word being "less skeptical".. meaning you will still need other evidences. You made up your mind already! And you blame it on Occam's razzor, and the dude dont deserve that. On the my end, just bring me a secretary working in that lab saying I have a memo proving we fuck up , and I sign on the lab leak theory. Ok even if she just has an email saying they try to cover up something, I sign on the lab-leak. No doubt the US secret service want and can bring that girl here already Ok , even just a few neutral biologist saying "ok I looked on what they were working on, and it is basically covid, they fucked up", and I'm team leak I dont even know what "furin cleavage site" are and the 1st answer from search engine is a study that it is a natural occurence Or someone bribed them!If they found a single example of a furin cleavage site that matches this one, I'd be more skeptical of the lab leak. And if they could find it in an animal that has any reasonable connection to the Wuhan area, I'd be even less skeptical.
Speaking as an armchair expert on biological warfare, there has been a unified and persistent policy of downplaying laboratory leaks from any facility with even the faintest military connections since the cessation of hostilities in WWI. Gruinard Island, Sverdlovsk, Vozrozdeniya Island, Reston, fuckin' Rajneesh - it's always "no, no, total coincidence, they were killed by a wet market, nature is scary" until 20 years later when somebody cops to it and then the NYT does a think piece entitled Why We Were Wrong 20 Years Ago But Still Superior To You. Biological incidents that are not accidental leaks invariably have their conspiracies trounced within months. Incidents that are remain conspiracy bait until someone writes a memoir entitled "how I almost killed a million people by Shady Researcher Ph.D."
Those are military leak during cold war! They were trying to make Weapons, not searching for cure. I suppose the Geneva convention is against that. No wonder they tried to cover up. There are ton of virus lab around the world, I never heard of any leak, or even abnormal death rate around them. I mean, There is one lab in the center of Paris, the Pasteur Institute, I drink my coffee in a bar right in front of it, should I be worried!Gruinard Island, Sverdlovsk, Vozrozdeniya Island, Reston, fuckin' Rajneesh
No part of me thinks that covid is a bioweapon, but it should be noted that the Wuhan institute of virology is known to have a military operation. It's been my assumption that one of the reasons China wouldn't allow an investigation of the lab is that they won't allow anyone to discover whatever else it is they're up to.
To round it up with you earlier response: so do I, and I'm also not fond of internet fights etc., but I recognize your expertise and skepticism outweigh mine. Am I doing my reading? Yes. Do I have doubts or questions? Of course, though rarely worth voicing. However, if my sole contribution to this discussion was one fewer person saying 'appeal to authority fallacy' and us having this rigmarole again, I'm glad.
"Cold war" just means "we aren't actively shooting at each other." If you think America's current relations with China don't rhyme with America's past relations with Russia you aren't paying attention. Also ...you lack the knowledge to make this comparison. But by all means, keep being mad and sarcastic.Speaking as an armchair expert on biological warfare,