zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
I think most people are confused because of CCP’s successful disinformation campaign, and also out of fear of being seen as prejudiced. The fact is that an epidemic with a corona virus (never before or since seen in the wild) with a peculiarly efficient ability to infect humans started in the _only city in the world with a lab where gain-of-function experiments on corona viruses_ is located. Just apply occam’s razor, and then you are done.

Every other theory requires involving many more unsupported hypotheses.

This would be obvious to the majority of the HN population in most cases, but the disinformation in this case is apparently quite effective.

>>uveste+0X
It could be that you're confusing cause and effect, though.

How do we know that the virus (or a precursor) wasn't already circulating in China, and was simply detected in Wuhan because of the fact that there are experts in coronaviruses who reside there?

(Also I'm not entirely sure your statement about the gain of function research is correct. A Google search doesn't seem to provide any evidence one way or another.)

>>Jeema1+H01
>How do we know that the virus [wasn't]...simply detected in Wuhan because of the fact that there are experts in coronaviruses who reside there?

Even if true, that would not explain the elaborate story, regarding the wet market there and species-jumping.

Also, seems unlikely, as there'd have to be reason to suspect a new virus was circulating at scale that required investigation by these scientists, which could have happened anywhere in the country. I mean, it's hard to understand what mechanism you're proposing for scientists residing in the city leading to the discovery of the virus circulating among the population there. It's not like the scientists simply roam the streets with some superhuman ability to detect new viruses in people.

>>uncleb+a91
What you misleadingly call an "elaborate story" is exactly the common story of how new disease emerges. It was even in the Sodergbergh movie Contagion from 2011.

>>epista+Ih1
If you don't like the word "elaborate" then feel free to choose another word. The point is that it's a detailed story about a specific time and place that they're claiming to be ground zero, and there's no evidence to support it. In fact, they've yet to find the natural reservoir for the virus to be able to definitively claim that it originated in another species, let alone that it did so through a specific species that existed in that specific place, then jumped. So, there's an obvious disconnect in the official story. What would you prefer to call it?

And, that it's a "common story" of how new diseases emerge has exactly zero bearing on whether this specific disease so evolved. You must know that form of argument is just syllogistically unsound.