zlacker

>>codech+(OP)
It’s crazy to me how many people on even this forum, a place purportedly of science, continue to dismiss a lab leak origin out of hand citing it as some sort of crackpot theory. The serious questions raised in this article have been around since last April but it’s only now it’s even allowed to talk about them on digital forums.

Excellent write up by Vanity Fair.

>>kaesar+ca
The way I remember it was that people conflated the lab leak theory with it being engineered in a lab. Those are very different things but easy to mix up in a headline.

It being engineered as a bioweapon is in the realm of a crackpot theory, but it being just a poorly contained natural research project was fairly reasonable. Some prominent people mixed the two up on purpose and eventually the whole thing - both ideas - got labeled a crackpot theory by people who just saw some headlines.

>>lifefo+uq
I can definitely say that's what I understood outlets to mean, that it could have come from the lab in both contexts.

I guess I don't quite follow with how people would think that it being a weapon that spread intentionally or unintentionally is the base case.

>>gimmeT+lZ
Certain right wing China hawks were pushing the bioweapon theory to stoke fears, and since the loudest and most outrageous talking points are what spreads on the internet, that became the default idea for a lot of people when they heard "lab origins".