A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
You don't really need to get into the individual arguments I think - just address the non equivalence of saying there isno evidence for either hypothesis - one has a prior probability that is vanishingly small so requires at least some evidence the natural hypothesis is everything else.
-
Yeah, but the prior doesn't work with them because, Wuhan.
-
I would add: 1. Long evolutionary gap to Yunnan bats. 2. Yunnan bats look close because they mainly sampled Yunnan bats. 3. Two lineages in Wuhan at different markets. 4. No reason not a publish a closer virus before the pandemic.
-
I love this one: > --Closest known (not that close) viral relatives in nature are ~1000 miles from Wuhan So the known relatives are not the close relatives and thus the fact they are far away is expected.
-
2021-05-12 23:24
Kristian G. Andersen
Andrew you nailed that one way back - Ebola virus in West Africa...
-
> To call this scenario a "conspiracy theory" is inappropriate and unfair to everyone involved.
-
Send them this to explain the point: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
-
> I would never hang my hat on any of it. But I would send a letter to Science
-
False equivalence is that the gamey tasting menu is full of bloody viruses (although we can't use this). Some ofthese animals were sick and sold.