zlacker

>>nnx+(OP)
So, to summarize-the-summary: there are four possible theories:

1. Direct-jump from bat population

2. Started in bats, came to humans through intermediate animal

3. Came from frozen food outside of China

4. Lab accident.

I used to think the lab accident theory was crazy, because it sounds like a science fiction movie. Not an impossible theory, just a crazy one.

But according to this article, despite a year of investigation, (1) is unlikely because we haven't found anyone that interacted with the nearest bat population hundred of miles away that didn't work in the virus lab in Wuhan and that caught the virus, (2) is unlikely because we would have found the intermediate animal by now, (3) is unlikely because the first case found was in China (and not somewhere else... if frozen food had the virus, the food would have had it before it was frozen, and someone else would have had it), and (4) is unlikely because a government famous for blocking information and is paranoid about how it is perceived domestically and internationally says "No, trust us on this one."

At some point, crazy theories become the most likely. Hopefully I'm wrong though, and they find an explanation that isn't "lab accident." It seems like we should be studying viruses and sharing that information with each other, and accidents like this will make it more likely that such research doesn't happen.

>>jkings+vc1
> I used to think the lab accident theory was crazy

Accidents happen. Even if it was a lab accident, it's not a reason to be outraged with the Chinese government.

I think in parallel to searching for the origin, they should also look into the reports that Chinese government tried to hid it under the carpet and only admitting that it couldn't control it after it was already spread all over the world.

That's the real crime of the Chinese government in regards to Covid and that's what people should be outraged about.

But yeah, good luck getting an unbiased report on that.

>>towerg+3k1
The problem is that this is proof that the slippery slope of social media censorship already has a causality. Twitter banned ZeroHedge, an irreverent but very well known financial website, for months just for pushing this theory. Yesterday’s crazy conspiracy theories become today’s plausibilities.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bans-zero-hedge-coronav...

>>camjoh+3p1
ZH singled out an individual and made statements that could subject him to harassment. That's not merely a case of having the wrong suspicions about globally significant events.

>>scythe+Kp1
>made statements that could subject him to harassment

Not sure what said statements were, but as described, that is not at all a reason to ban someone. On the internet, legitimate criticism very frequently leads to harassment. That is not at all the fault of the critic, and as long as they didn't intend to cause harassment, it's no reason to ban them.

>>syrrim+Qq1
Perhaps some details will clarify things. ZeroHedge published and publicized an article "Is This Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?" with the face, address, and phone number of an individual -- along with an invitition for readers to pay him a "visit".