A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1400529361133056001 Kinda feel like this is crap
-
Kristian Andersen - the fastest gear change since Bob Katter (you need to watch this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm4kRqedsgo
-
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)
-
2021-06-03 14:11
Edward C. Holmes
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
-
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.
-
@Eddie Holmes I may have talked to that guy
-
To the other point about "capture" - I want to make people understand that _we_ don't find novel pandemic viruses, novel pandemic viruses find us. Novel epidemic viruses too. This really is huge - because it would be the first time inthe history of mankind that somebody would have managed to find a pandemic/epidemic novel virus before the virus found us. It's a very simple concept to grasp, so I'm wondering if we should spell it out?
-
Astute people might point out that "finding pandemic viruses before they find us" is _exactly_ what the EcoHealth/WIV program tried to do, however, we then either have to admit that that program was successful beyond belief OR, as we point out in our previous Nature commentary, is hugely unlikely (we can then just reference our paper). Thoughts on whether to spell this out in a sentence or not? I like the very simple concept of "we don't find novel pandemic/epidemic viruses, they find us". And because of that, the "lab leak" hypothesis falls flat.