zlacker

[parent] [thread] 27 comments
1. f430+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-02-13 18:56:01
If the CCP is innocent why not prove it to the world by sharing their data? Why hide things?
replies(7): >>mgamac+L >>buran7+l3 >>sixoth+i5 >>refene+kF >>AshWol+VO >>croes+Fs1 >>robin2+3u1
2. mgamac+L[view] [source] 2021-02-13 19:01:34
>>f430+(OP)
Well, lets say they don't know, but there's a chance of a lab leak. Why take the chance when you can use FUD to confuse the world and remove the downside risk (which is very large).
replies(1): >>loveis+U6
3. buran7+l3[view] [source] 2021-02-13 19:19:44
>>f430+(OP)
While Chinese authorities may very well be to blame for this, your reasoning is flawed. Governments hide a lot of things for a lot of reasons, whether nefarious or not, especially when it comes to sharing with foreign powers.

The "argument" that "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is is just as worthless when promoting encryption backdoors as it is now.

replies(2): >>katbyt+F3 >>Americ+2q1
◧◩
4. katbyt+F3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-13 19:22:12
>>buran7+l3
I’m not sure you can compare the two, “why are you encrypting your data/communication” is very different then “why are you not sharing the early virus samples”
replies(1): >>buran7+0r
5. sixoth+i5[view] [source] 2021-02-13 19:35:16
>>f430+(OP)
Innocent of what exactly? You seem to suggest they are hiding a single specific crime here. Which doesn't make any sense.
◧◩
6. loveis+U6[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-13 19:48:51
>>mgamac+L
Perhaps they did not account for a potential Streissand Effect
◧◩◪
7. buran7+0r[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-13 22:03:00
>>katbyt+F3
I looked at the principle of claiming that "if you're innocent why hide things". And that's exactly like saying that if you're not breaking the law then you have no reason to hide your communication from authorities because "they'll only look when they suspect something and that would just prove your innocence". If anything, accusing someone and asking them to prove their innocence opens the door to false accusations meant only to force the other side to leak some information. A principle you wouldn't want applied to you isn't a very good one.
replies(1): >>fsflov+es
◧◩◪◨
8. fsflov+es[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-13 22:15:03
>>buran7+0r
This principle applies to individuals, not to the governments. The latter are created by people to serve people and must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.
replies(1): >>buran7+mH
9. refene+kF[view] [source] 2021-02-14 00:00:22
>>f430+(OP)
Because there's no upside and guaranteed downside.

People are accusing them of building the virus in a lab with literally zero evidence. Give the US a bunch of raw data to spin and it just makes that easier.

replies(2): >>hayst4+NK >>hayst4+jM
◧◩◪◨⬒
10. buran7+mH[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 00:19:31
>>fsflov+es
> must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.

I think you oversimplified to get to this binary view. Where does "national security" fit in this "transparent or corrupt" philosophy? State secrets? Classified information and intelligence?

Can the Chinese (or other) authorities simply raise deep concerns about whatever they want and expect US (or other) authorities to provide information as needed to prove the contrary?

replies(1): >>fsflov+SG1
◧◩
11. hayst4+NK[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 00:55:07
>>refene+kF
I don't think that's a very enlightened perspective.

Maybe with people like Trump in the world who would definitely capitalize on that type of thing to cast blame there is inherent risk, but at least amongst civilized educated people, its obvious a virus could show up anywhere and disseminating information shows a clear desire to fight the virus as a member of the world, rather than a desire to use it as a political tool or to gain an advantage because china can execute more draconian mitigation measures than a "free" country like America would be able to.

Where China is clearly to blame is the reduced amount of information clearly inhibited the fight against coronavirus, in the world's fight against this thing china defected rather than cooperated.

Before any whataboutism is mentioned, Trump also defected and made a mess out of a response, lying to the public, and hiding cases. That doesn't make either correct and neither one justifies the other's actions. Both countries are clearly very in the wrong for their COVID reactions.

replies(1): >>refene+ML
◧◩◪
12. refene+ML[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 01:05:00
>>hayst4+NK
Enlightened or not, it's accurate. Trump was actually president and now Biden's administration is raising 'deep concerns'.

We knew or should have known the virus was coming for months before it was a problem in the US. It would take an incredibly enlightened politician not to try and scapegoat China for our failures, and they know this. Why gamble on our goodwill amidst all this rhetoric?

replies(1): >>hayst4+NM
◧◩
13. hayst4+jM[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 01:09:59
>>refene+kF
> People are accusing them of building the virus in a lab with literally zero evidence

I don't think there is a lot of evidence for malice, but there is definitely evidence worthy of contemplation:

https://project-evidence.github.io/

Here is a study from 2007: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258702/

> In this study, we investigated the receptor usage of the SL-CoV S by combining a human immunodeficiency virus-based pseudovirus system with cell lines expressing the ACE2 molecules of human, civet, or horseshoe bat.

That is literally building of viruses in a lab.

replies(1): >>refene+m01
◧◩◪◨
14. hayst4+NM[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 01:16:02
>>refene+ML
If a country lied and kept information from the public and had internal propaganda which convinced a significant portion of the population that the US was in fact responsible, and it was transferred from the US to China, I would be quite concerned as well. The difference is that here our scientists can speak publicly, and in China that is not the case.

China's behavior is concerning.

replies(1): >>qubit0+7F2
15. AshWol+VO[view] [source] 2021-02-14 01:36:55
>>f430+(OP)
They dont want data sharing methods being revealed
◧◩◪
16. refene+m01[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 04:09:12
>>hayst4+jM
Yes, it's a virus lab and existed for years. The accusation that Covid-19 came from there has no evidence besides "china bad" and "I've seen a lot of movies".

I guess I should have specifically said covid-19 rather than "the virus", but I thought that would be clear from context.

replies(2): >>s1arti+l31 >>hayst4+161
◧◩◪◨
17. s1arti+l31[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 04:48:39
>>refene+m01
The fact that the lab was experimenting with gain of function research on corona viruses and has had viruses escape in the past is not definitive proof, but is evidence.
replies(1): >>refene+C31
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. refene+C31[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 04:54:12
>>s1arti+l31
I wouldn't call that evidence. "He's shot a gun before" isn't evidence, and coronaviruses are a pretty broad group as I understand it (not an expert).

This is a densely-populated, agriculture-heavy third-world part of the world that had bird flu and sars in the previous 15 years... random-ass diseases materialize there. Occam's razor says it's another one of those.

replies(1): >>hayst4+x51
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
19. hayst4+x51[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 05:22:18
>>refene+C31
I don't think you're being very good faith right now.

Clearly a lab studying coronaviruses is interesting. Clearly its possible that the lab could have had a leak. Clearly it's possible a farmer could have wandered into a cave, or run into a bat in the wild. Clearly it's possible that it didn't originate in China.

There is certainly enough evidence to investigate the lab being a possibility. It definitively being responsible or not is definitely of interest. There was a lot of cover up at the beginning, which implies to me a party who knows they are responsible.

From everything I've read on the topic, the best going theory that I understood is that in order for the lab to perform tests on coronavirus found in bats, coronavirus samples are collected from bats. A person must collect these bats from caves, not in Wuhan. A person might have collected the samples improperly or with insufficient gear, resulting in contracting and then spreading the disease.

That's not a "controversial" (read: conspiracy) theory, that's not an act of the state being evil. That's something that could happen anywhere in the world. That's something that could happen on accident. That's something that could be prevented by improved process/standards/equipment. By denying the possibilities of such things, it makes it look like there was a coverup or an explicitly guilty party. Everyone should want to know the nature of it's origin. It should obviously be a possibility.

> Occam's razor says it's another one of those.

To me occam's razor says that Wuhan is a first apparent epicenter. So it stands to believe it's the first place with major outbreak. Wuhan has a lab that studies this very disease specifically for it's epidemic properties. The most simple occam's razor explanation to me is that it has to do with the lab.

replies(1): >>refene+gx3
◧◩◪◨
20. hayst4+161[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 05:29:38
>>refene+m01
> The accusation that Covid-19 came from there has no evidence besides "china bad" and "I've seen a lot of movies".

https://project-evidence.github.io/

◧◩
21. Americ+2q1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 10:43:02
>>buran7+l3
Then The WHO should be saying "we can't eliminate the possibility of a lab origin because China is engaging in a massive coverup and won't let us investigate anything" rather than "Laboratory contamination can be excluded because...".
replies(1): >>buran7+xs1
◧◩◪
22. buran7+xs1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 11:10:59
>>Americ+2q1
If that is indeed their conclusion then yes, it should say that, perhaps in a somewhat less biased phrasing. In a similar vein, the Reuters title might be called "US government with extremely poor transparency track record raises deep self-serving hypocritical concerns over international report that doesn't paint US enemy in a bad enough light".
replies(1): >>Americ+Gt1
23. croes+Fs1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 11:12:54
>>f430+(OP)
Proving innocence? So that's where we are again? I thought an achievement of modern times was the concept that you have to prove guilt not innocence.
◧◩◪◨
24. Americ+Gt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 11:24:31
>>buran7+xs1
Media biases are a different issue. The WHO’s problem is that it’s supposed to be a politically neutral internationally governing body, and It’s conduct during the pandemic has lead many people to believe that it is operating according to a political agenda. The damage The WHO (and other public health institutions) have done to their trustworthiness has already had will continue to have serious consequences going forward. Anti-vaxx has never been so popular.
25. robin2+3u1[view] [source] 2021-02-14 11:27:29
>>f430+(OP)
Why didn’t Obama immediately share birth certificate during birther stuff?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
26. fsflov+SG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 13:31:02
>>buran7+mH
I indeed intentionally oversimplified that, but consider how NSA is doing illegal things for the sake of "national security", because they are not tranparent or checked by anyone.
◧◩◪◨⬒
27. qubit0+7F2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-14 20:30:37
>>hayst4+NM
Those are assumptions unsubstantiated by evidence. Fact remains that public disclosure of the virus was delayed by 1 week as it was unknown type(novel coronavirus). After determination of the virus was confirmed, it was sequenced shared with the world less than 2wks later, w/subsequent lock-downs shortly after.

Even with this data US and other western countries dismissed it as non-threat for over 3mos while ridiculing China for 'draconian measures' and violating human rights.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
28. refene+gx3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-15 05:09:34
>>hayst4+x51
I'd stack the probabilities as following:

1) Bat->Livestock->Human transmission

2) Direct bat->human transmission (your example fits here as a tiny subset, I don't think specifically employees of that one lab are the only people who could have had contact with a bat)

3) Lab leak

I'm rating the probabilities as I see them. Your scenario is possible! It's just not the most probable, and even if it were, there are a lot of possibilities.

[go to top]