zlacker

>>delbar+(OP)
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground).

My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help dealing with this crisis at all.

It is certainly interesting to know where it did originate, and that knowledge could inform a debate on the future of (respectively) wet markets and animal husbandry practices, or BSL facilities, but these don't strike me as particularly emotionally charged topics, and in any case the posts I'm referring to don't mention these debates...

Anybody care to explain why you would respond so strongly to claims of lab origin?

>>bearbi+d7
In the US, it's because this claim, or rejection of it, is strongly tied to political identity. Because the US is highly polarized right now, once political identity comes into play, you've left the realm of rationality and entered the realm of tribalism.

>>cle+qp
In China too. With the foreign ministry spokespersons repeatedly making US bioweapon suggestions, believing otherwise is more political than just following the rest of weibo.

The media is more than happy to report on early detections out of China, and let suggestions that the vape lung (now linked to vit. E cutting agent) is COVID run free.

We left the realm of rationality long ago, when the government did a tribalism on behalf of all of us.

(Nationalism is a hell of a drug. The govt still funds crackpots to argue against Chinese people originating in africa, to call greco-roman and egyptian history faked, and don't even get me started on their insistence on 5k years.)

>>arthur+jB
> The govt still funds crackpots to argue against Chinese people originating in africa, to call greco-roman and egyptian history faked, and don't even get me started on their insistence on 5k years

Wait what? The Chinese government does this? Who do they claim faked Greco-Roman and Egyptian history, and to what end? And what is 5k years supposed to be? The age of the earth or something?

>>defen+RF
Chinese propaganda claims 5000 years of unbroken history. One Han people. One language etc. They conveniently ignore when China was ruled by ethnic Khitan-Jurchen-Manchus. The Chinese literary classic On the Water Margin aka All Men Are Brothers is about local heroes of the Song rising up against a corrupt government which was completely ineffective against the Liao.

>>rawgab+NU
For all foreigners China has a long and impressive history, for whom is this 5K claim relevant?

>>depend+ou1
Read up on the now closed Confucian Institutes that were operating in the USA and Europe. [1]

  "The online and print cultural materials of the Confucius Institute present a vision of

China with a national history of thousands of years but while these materials note that other ethnicities might rule China the history presented is undoubtedly Han. This can be seen in the association of historical figures like the Yellow Emperor and Liu Bang with the Han identity, while the ethnic identity of non-Han historical figures is presented ambiguously, the ethnic identity of Han historical figures is always clear. Nearly every single historical figure mentioned in the cultural materials was Han Chinese and that fact was prominent in the biography. It is often either included at the beginning of the article next to place of birth, or at the end of the article under a specific section of nationality" [2]

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-the-us-targeting-chinas-confuci... [2] http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/27901/1/The_Confucius_Institut...