zlacker

>>option+(OP)
This article discusses how common it is to have accidents/mistakes in these types of research labs, I found it pretty interesting but cannot vouch for it (perhaps it's already been debunked?)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-esca...

>>4ec075+f6
This article is bullshit and real virologists are angry it's getting so much attention: https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/13462321954305105...

You may or may not have noticed, but there are some real problems we should be thinking about, including the very real probability that the B.1.1.7 variant is going to be much harder to suppress, and how to get our vaccination program on track. Instead we end up talking about these distractions that have much more speculation than evidence behind them.

>>raphli+U6
I'm curious as to why the arrival of developments like a new variant would make it appropriate to halt investigations into the original issue (like where can we find a physical sample of RaTG13, and why wasn't its sequence published until the beginning of last year?).

>>brippa+Gc
I don't think we should halt investigations. But the Baker article is not a serious investigation, it's a piece of pop-sci that is quite careless about scientific details. It is not helpful to those trying to understand the truth, but it might be an entertaining read or useful for other purposes.