A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Here's the article FWIW. Really fair and balanced in a Fox news kinda way... [shared file(s): The World Needs a Real Investigation Into the Origins of Covid-19 - WSJ.pdf]
-
Oh Jesse... [shared file(s): image.png]
-
It's a hopelessly naive statement.
-
https://mbio.asm.org/content/6/4/e01013-15 The types of lab release scenarios that Chan is describing aren't closeto what happened in 1977 H1N1.
-
2021-01-16 11:10
Kristian G. Andersen
Correct. But what's most important here - and I have mentioned this to Jesse - you can't just look at flu pandemics -you need to look at emergence events. How many natural emergence events are there vs those linked to the lab?
-
It's misleading and inappropriate for people like Jesse to make these statements - it makes it sound as if our prior probability of lab escape would be 0.2. It's many orders of magnitude lower than that. Sure, the fact that WIV was/isdoing work on SARS-like CoVs elevates that prior probability (but a lot), but it still gets it nowhere near the "50/50"scenario Jesse is talking about. He of all people should know that.
-
All these folks are stuck in their inappropriate priors and not updating them based on data. It's rather sad, really.
-
If Shi would have had a virus closer to RaTG13 she damn well would have reported it in her Nature paper. That simple fact precludes any nefarious engineering BS. All that's left for "lab escape," which we have all acknowledgedis a remote possibility is that some Dingleberry (?) working on samples in lab brought in from the wild theinadvertently infected herself with the 99+% progenitor to SC2 that they then didn't bother to characterize.
-
Yup, that's it. Not impossible, just not very likely given the other possible scenarios.