Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2021-06-03 14:10 Robert F. Garry
   https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1400529361133056001 Kinda feel like this is crap
2. 2021-06-03 14:10 Edward C. Holmes open
   Kristian Andersen - the fastest gear change since Bob Katter (you need to watch this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm4kRqedsgo
3. 2021-06-03 14:10 Kristian G. Andersen open
   I'm trying to figure out exactly how we should tackle this first paragraph (if at all different to what Andrew issuggesting, because that's ace!). A couple of things:• The focus from the lab leak focus has been on the likelihood of a lab leak, however, a lab leak in itself is insufficientto explain the origin of SC2• Any theory needs to be able to explain the emergence of SC2 - "natural emergence" does that easily"• A "lab leak" is an incomplete hypothesis that also needs to account for all events prior (capture or engineering) and those following (market outbreaks)• _ANY_ version of the lab leak hypothesis would require a conspiracy because they would have had to work on the virus prior to the outbreak - but categorically stated they didn't and provided evidence to support that (e.g., serology)
4. 2021-06-03 14:11 Edward C. Holmes open
   I'll get back to the paper when I can. This is good: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-06-03/lab-leak-covid-origin
5. 2021-06-03 14:11 Kristian G. Andersen open
   I'm wondering if we should double down on the conspiracy - because people like the Bloomshitters really don't wantto consider it, yet it is a KEY component of what they're saying, otherwise their hypothesis can't explain the emergence of SC2.

Full conversation →