zlacker

[parent] [thread] 127 comments
1. strogo+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-22 22:48:18
An eerily prescient quote from a paper[0] published in 2015, two of the authors of which are with Wuhan Institute of Virology:

> Understanding the bat origin of human coronaviruses is helpful for the prediction and prevention of another pandemic emergence in the future.

China has clearly contributed valuable research into bat coronaviruses. They had all the motivation to look into these after the first deadly SARS. I think it’s silly to presume CCP engineered a virus as part of some warfare strategy, or even to vilify/sanction them for a lab leak if it indeed was the cause (mistakes happen). However, CCP’s resistance to a proper thorough study of the origins of COVID is IMO not exactly appropriate.

Active research was taking place in the vicinity of suspected ground zero. Lab escapes happen—there are well-documented cases of the original SARS virus leaking from a lab in Beijing in 2004 (killing at least one person). Why was this time such a scenario discarded as so ridiculously impossible at first, and is still considered “extremely unlikely”? Is it politics?

[0] https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-...

replies(7): >>IgorPa+x6 >>Aeolun+pf >>neolog+Bf >>andrew+6l >>op03+Kx >>chrisa+Sa1 >>batpan+Gk1
2. IgorPa+x6[view] [source] 2021-03-22 23:24:19
>>strogo+(OP)
My naive reasoning on why China didn’t create COVID-19 with the intention of using it is that I suspect (unburdened by education or the thought process) that engineering a virus is as difficult as coming up with a vaccine or treatment. If you are developing some kind of super virus to shut down the world economy and then immunize your own people to take advantage of the situation, wouldn’t you have the cure ready to go?

Now, an unintentional leak would be theoretically possible with these initial intentions but then wouldn’t China still have a leg up on developing treatments? If so, wouldn’t we have seen that in their vaccine development?

Of course you this is all uneducated speculation. Quite possible that engineering a deadly and very infectious virus is easier than creating a cure or a vaccine by orders of magnitude.

replies(5): >>DrJaws+S8 >>alfor+s9 >>Michae+5a >>andrei+Uc >>ggggte+ph
◧◩
3. DrJaws+S8[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:38:08
>>IgorPa+x6
an immediate immunization of your population would drive to a raise of suspicion and if someone found china guilty of that, would mean a world war against them.
replies(1): >>Aeolun+Cf
◧◩
4. alfor+s9[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:43:15
>>IgorPa+x6
From what I read, it’s only about researchers looking to publish something interesting rather than some complicated planned CCP plans.

It’s rather simple to do the so called ’gain of function’, you let the virus have it’s run with bat cells and add lots of human cells in petri with them. Because there is no immune system, the virus have not much to stop it. Slowly it adapt to human cells, you can change the type of cells so it can adapt to other receptors and so on. Those articles where published before the whole crisis erupted.

replies(2): >>IgorPa+yf >>Fomite+rH
◧◩
5. Michae+5a[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-22 23:46:54
>>IgorPa+x6
> Quite possible that engineering a deadly and very infectious virus is easier than creating a cure or a vaccine by orders of magnitude.

"Moderna designed its coronavirus vaccine in 2 days" was a headline I saw. And it's been approved by the FDA. So that seems demonstrably false.

Multiple companies have come up with a vaccine by now, too.

replies(2): >>IgorPa+vc >>thedai+BM3
◧◩◪
6. IgorPa+vc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:04:23
>>Michae+5a
I know my argument is not solid at all. But you seeing a headline that is demonstrably not what we are even talking about does not convince me. If it took two days to create a cure and manufacture a billion doses we would be all fine now. Clearly nobody had a leg up on anyone in the race to a vaccine otherwise someone would have come out with “we have the vaccine and all the doses ready to go” in mid 2020.
◧◩
7. andrei+Uc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:08:32
>>IgorPa+x6
It's not about creating a virus from scratch, but taking an existing virus and performing gain-of-function research to select for certain things (like transmissibility).
replies(1): >>abacad+cE
8. Aeolun+pf[view] [source] 2021-03-23 00:29:47
>>strogo+(OP)
> However, CCP’s resistance to a proper thorough study of the origins of COVID is IMO not exactly appropriate.

It is, in fact, highly suspect. I’m not at all positive that it indeed leaked from a lab in Wuhan, but the fact they won’t let an independent investigation anywhere near it makes me lean more strongly towards that as a possibility.

The description of the last investigation into the origins of the virus felt more like a ‘guided tour’.

replies(5): >>agumon+Ol >>ethbr0+ks >>incomp+As >>KMag+QB >>Nasrud+g93
◧◩◪
9. IgorPa+yf[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:31:05
>>alfor+s9
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
10. neolog+Bf[view] [source] 2021-03-23 00:31:49
>>strogo+(OP)
Don't sanction for the mistake, sanction for the nontransparency.
replies(1): >>Hoasi+4y1
◧◩◪
11. Aeolun+Cf[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:31:52
>>DrJaws+S8
Given how many people died of the virus VS how many would die in a world war that seems like a highly illogical course of action.
replies(3): >>ggggte+5i >>the_lo+Vm >>marcus+ws
◧◩
12. ggggte+ph[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:46:09
>>IgorPa+x6
I'll not conclude anything, but I will say that engineering a virus is an order of magnitude easier than a vaccine.

It's a pure mapping problem. There are thousands of known viruses that affect humans. But most viruses don't have thousands of vaccines.

Additionally, there are constraints. The only contraint on a virus is that is needs to reproduce, and cause harm. Any kind of harm will do, and any kind of spreading is fine. But the vaccine needs to not hurt the person (at least, don't hurt them worse than the virus would).

Even if both processes involved similar techniques, the constraints on virus production are more favorable to the researcher than vaccine production.

To get back to whether China or any nation would intentionally create a biological weapon, however...: most industrialized countries realized a long time ago that bioweapons tends to be a bad strategy. Most western countries stopped their bioweapons programs back in the 70s for the simple reason that there was no reasonable use-case for a bioweapon that isn't done better by simply bombing something (or more recently-hacking their infrastructure). Bioweapons are strategically useful for small nations, and terrorist groups.

replies(1): >>ethbr0+Xs
◧◩◪◨
13. ggggte+5i[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 00:51:40
>>Aeolun+Cf
By that sort of reasoning, when a nation rolls tanks into your borders, you should just let them do it because more people would die if you fight back.

If a nation actually did that (release a bioweapon and pre-immunize their own citizens)... well World War is probably overselling it, but I could certainly imagine contained conflicts, sinking of cargo vessels, shooting down of planes, targeted assassinations... etc. It's very likely that every nation would have highly vested interests in making sure that whoever authorized that weapon was removed from this planet.

14. andrew+6l[view] [source] 2021-03-23 01:14:14
>>strogo+(OP)
My impression was that "lab escape" was conflated with "deliberate release" by conspiracy types early on, and once that took hold it became impossible to talk rationally about the accidental escape hypothesis.
replies(7): >>SkyMar+Zp >>unisha+4s >>abacad+iD >>Izkata+dG >>Consul+6I >>tasoga+sl1 >>loudti+hr1
◧◩
15. agumon+Ol[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 01:19:47
>>Aeolun+pf
It can be pride over shame of incompetence maybe ? the wuhan labs are said to be lacking in standard safety biohazard practices.. so investigating may reveal that.
replies(1): >>marcus+bs
◧◩◪◨
16. the_lo+Vm[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 01:28:40
>>Aeolun+Cf
The reasoning wouldn't be how many people died of the virus vs. how many in a world war; it would be how many people die in a world war vs. how many might die if the adversary does increasingly worse things going forward. The threshold for fighting all-out can't be "as soon as the adversary does".
◧◩
17. SkyMar+Zp[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 01:53:53
>>andrew+6l
That's been my impression too fwiw. There's now a large segment of people who are primed to immediately accept the conspiracy theory over the Hanlon's Razor principle:

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity (or accident)".

replies(1): >>Trispu+SJ
◧◩
18. unisha+4s[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:11:10
>>andrew+6l
Conspiracy theorists are always going to weave conspiracy theories, though. That doesn't absolve the media or the rest of us from being the adults in the room.
replies(3): >>andrew+Qs >>p1neco+Et >>twelve+lW
◧◩◪
19. marcus+bs[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:12:09
>>agumon+Ol
You gotta remember the culture, and that everything in China is political. You can't just say "oops" and learn the lessons.

Any investigations will have the goal not of finding the truth, but of minimising damage to the political powers that control it.

replies(3): >>refene+tD >>thauma+G01 >>domino+vA1
◧◩
20. ethbr0+ks[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:13:23
>>Aeolun+pf
Or, you know, we may just be talking about a paranoid autocracy with an obsession for controlling information?

This is a government that bans talking about multiple periods of the country's history.

replies(1): >>bitrea+Dy
◧◩◪◨
21. marcus+ws[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:15:22
>>Aeolun+Cf
Pearl Harbour killed 2,403 Americans [0].

We're at 500,000 now with the virus, I think?

That's more Americans than have been killed in all the 20th Century wars combined [1].

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

◧◩
22. incomp+As[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:15:57
>>Aeolun+pf
I don't think that's quite accurate: https://thewest.com.au/news/health/who-team-visits-wuhan-res...
replies(2): >>zensav+ax >>Aeolun+CY
◧◩◪
23. andrew+Qs[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:17:47
>>unisha+4s
Absolve, no. Explain... maybe.
◧◩◪
24. ethbr0+Xs[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:19:09
>>ggggte+ph
> But the vaccine needs to not hurt the person

People underappreciate just how complicated and time-consuming this is.

Immune systems are terrifying things, on trigger alert (they have to be!), and you have to tickle it just right without making everything explode.

◧◩◪
25. p1neco+Et[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:24:56
>>unisha+4s
Yes but when when people consistently bring up the mostly unfalsifiable theory that is most associated with conspiracy theories it's basically impossible to separate the conspiracy theorists from everyone else, and sadly much more productive to just not engage.
replies(1): >>Mat342+uq1
◧◩◪
26. zensav+ax[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 02:57:54
>>incomp+As
Except that it was (allegedly) a whole load of BS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evHFsNSMTLM
replies(2): >>hungry+Oz >>incomp+kif
27. op03+Kx[view] [source] 2021-03-23 03:03:49
>>strogo+(OP)
Its not inappropriate. They know they are dealing with characters in the US govt who have a track record of cooking up stories about Aluminium tubes and WMDs to push the herd in whatever direction they want.
◧◩◪
28. bitrea+Dy[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:12:18
>>ethbr0+ks
For that very reason, we cannot accept their narrative at face value. We certainly don't have enough information to confidently eliminate the lab escape theory. The media has largely suggested that the lab escape theory has been disproved.
replies(2): >>ethbr0+iA >>herbst+Fr1
◧◩◪◨
29. hungry+Oz[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:21:29
>>zensav+ax
You have to keep in mind laowhy86 isn't exactly know to be impartial
replies(1): >>coupde+ZW
◧◩◪◨
30. ethbr0+iA[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:24:18
>>bitrea+Dy
If you ask a liar a question, and they lie, then the strongest conclusion isn't that you asked the right question -- it's that they're a liar.

China stonewalls pretty much every attempt by the international community to interfere with their internal control.

So this is more "business as usual" than "Clouseau found the smoking gun."

replies(1): >>bitrea+fT
◧◩
31. KMag+QB[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:35:24
>>Aeolun+pf
I think many bureaucrats everywhere view the press as an annoyance, but in places where they're used be being able to push the press around, pushing the press around becomes standard operating procedure even when there's nothing in particular to hide. Also, without a free press, nobody is incentivized short-term to dig deeper if a cursory investigation doesn't turn anything up. The end result is predictable stonewalling if a cursory investigation came up with nothing, even if the officials are pretty sure they have nothing to hide. (Also, due to incentives, it's harder for officials to be certain they really have nothing to hide.)

Having been in Hong Kong for just under a decade, I've seen several cases of bureaucrats making tone-deaf statements partly because they aren't used to dealing with a free(-ish) press. I have journalist friends, and I wish the relationship with the press were different, but bullying the press is less a sign of a cover-up when officials aren't used to dealing with a free press.

◧◩
32. abacad+iD[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:50:22
>>andrew+6l
Or conflated with that by people using it as a straw man to debunk more likely scenarios, your pick.
replies(1): >>varjag+XY
◧◩◪◨
33. refene+tD[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:52:28
>>marcus+bs
That's not a cultural thing, it's a universal human/organizational thing.
replies(3): >>acdha+4E >>ergoco+S01 >>tweetl+Hk1
◧◩◪◨⬒
34. acdha+4E[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 03:58:28
>>refene+tD
It’s certainly widespread but the cultural component is important to how strong the reaction is. China certainly isn’t alone in having it but the political stakes are a powerful amplifier.
replies(3): >>refene+sG >>WildPa+cX >>agumon+bH1
◧◩◪
35. abacad+cE[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:00:05
>>andrei+Uc
Also doesn't necessarily have to be that, maybe the guy who went in the cave to collect samples got sick on the way home. Or maybe some guy harvesting guano for his farm got sick on the way home. The only thing we know for sure is we'll probably never know, and also that the CCP is sketchy
◧◩
36. Izkata+dG[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:18:02
>>andrew+6l
What I saw was the opposite: proponents of "came from a lab" were generally clear about distinguishing whether they meant "escape" or "release", while anyone trying to discredit them were the ones conflating the two - by starting with the ambiguous phrase "came from a lab", ignoring the rest of the argument, and then debunking "created + deliberate release".
replies(2): >>cutemo+WM >>anothe+x11
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
37. refene+sG[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:20:11
>>acdha+4E
The cultural component is just flavor.

Who suffered consequences for getting Iraq wrong, or the financial crisis? Fortune passes everywhere.

replies(1): >>acdha+oH
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
38. acdha+oH[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:30:14
>>refene+sG
Okay, think about that one a bit: in the U.S., power shifted peacefully and a bunch of Republicans left the Bush administration to the private sector and academia because we have a strong tradition of not pursuing political opponents. That is not true of China’s system and not having separate power hierarchies means that you can’t just say, pull a Katrina, and fail upwards into a well-paid private job with no impact on your family. Nobody’s kids are being banned from going to Yale because their dad was publicly shown as incompetent or dishonest. The more that isn’t true, the more it’s unsurprising to see people have the instinct to reach for political damage control when the problem is still raging.
◧◩◪
39. Fomite+rH[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:30:46
>>alfor+s9
While there's some use to gain of function studies (they give us what genetic markers to look for for particularly human-adapted pathogens), researchers have been concerned about laboratory accidents for a long time. Like, it was a keynote talk at a conference I was at in 2008, which estimated a GoF study had an expected number of deaths of, IIRC, 1500. Every one - obviously in the form of a long-tailed but highly consequential outcome.

One of the keys there is that's not uniquely Chinese as a problem. Those researchers were talking about American labs.

◧◩
40. Consul+6I[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:38:01
>>andrew+6l
My impression is that China and China influenced corporate press in the US conflated "lab escape" with "deliberate release" so as to be able to demonize anyone who was asking serious questions. This is a pretty standard propaganda move, pretend the accuser said something that is adjacent to the real accusation but also relatively absurd, then argue against that. Never address the serious accusation.

Another example of this happening is the corporate press conflating "lab created" with "gene editing" instead of using the broader interpretation which would include things like "gain of function research" (much more likely). This allowed China and the WHO to explicitly claim they did not create the virus (by gene editing) while cautiously never really addressing whether it was created via gain of function research.

replies(2): >>throwa+lP >>Mat342+Go1
◧◩◪
41. Trispu+SJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 04:58:13
>>SkyMar+Zp
Sure. We could also invoke Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

A coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan China miles away from a Virology Lab that studies coronavirus and has in the past exercised gain of function research on cornoviruses specifically with novel lung ACE2 bind may have had a lab accident and a live virus broke out if the lab.

The problem is the media labeling common sense as conspiracy and conflating the two.

replies(3): >>cameld+yK >>SkyMar+q61 >>Syzygi+QB1
◧◩◪◨
42. cameld+yK[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 05:08:26
>>Trispu+SJ
Exactly. If there were an Anthrax outbreak in Ft. Detrick, MD, everyone would be immediately assuming the lab was involved. Wuhan is the Ft. Detrick of Coronaviruses.
replies(2): >>aww_da+E51 >>FabHK+h81
◧◩◪
43. cutemo+WM[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 05:39:11
>>Izkata+dG
Maybe people in general don't know about any "good" reasons to keep viruses in labs (eg research for new vaccines), and would reinterpret anything they heard as "intentionally released" or "bioweapon".

So I wonder if, even if trying to be clear about any virus escape probably having been an accident, maybe somewhat many people still would have interpreted it differently (as if it was intentional), and that type of "news" gets more attention, spreads faster, right.

◧◩◪
44. throwa+lP[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 06:09:47
>>Consul+6I
What do you call a cabal of American newspapers, tech companies (policing social media), and politicians (attacking Trump/conservatives) simultaneously conflating the two theories (malicious artificial virus versus leak of natural virus), attacking anyone suggesting an accidental lab leak aggressively, and censoring discussion of the same? It isn’t just “China influenced corporate press”. It’s the entirety of the left and left-leaning institutions (news, tech) that voluntarily participated in this mass gaslighting.

People often stir up fears of foreign influence but in the last few years it really has seemed like the biggest sources of inorganic influence and “propaganda” has been domestic.

replies(2): >>musica+bS >>coupde+pX
◧◩◪◨
45. musica+bS[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 06:42:50
>>throwa+lP
> conflating the two theories (malicious artificial virus versus leak of natural virus)

I have certainly been puzzled by this, for example in a Washington Post article. By conflating the two, lab escape became a "fringe conspiracy theory" rather than a hypothesis that should be investigated.

It seemed like sloppy journalism at best.

replies(1): >>Consul+SS
◧◩◪◨⬒
46. Consul+SS[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 06:51:33
>>musica+bS
The people who work at these institutions were often educated in the best universities in the country. And yet they speak in lockstep fashion in this "sloppy" manner. I think you give them too much credit.
◧◩◪◨⬒
47. bitrea+fT[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 06:55:49
>>ethbr0+iA
The smoking gun is that labs in Wuhan were studying different coronaviruses in bats at the time the virus emerged. One of those labs was right near the seafood market which had one of the first documented outbreaks.

It's all circumstantial evidence of course, but that's really all you're going to get with a country like China. We can be damn well sure that they would never admit to the virus originating from a lab leak. To me, this is the clearest and most likely source of the outbreak.

replies(4): >>the-du+d51 >>j4yav+v81 >>roelsc+9d1 >>zo1+Ze1
◧◩◪
48. twelve+lW[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:27:25
>>unisha+4s
But some things make no sense at all. The most populated country on the planet - a vast, vast population across the area almost as big as the US - has been inexplicably reporting almost zero infections since like March 10, 2020 (way before any vaccines) while the rest of the world (except small and isolated regions), the richest and presumably the most advanced societies still can't get their shit together, are still FUDdding over the upcoming Nth wave and locking down again (see EU today). How???
replies(8): >>TimJRo+hX >>anthk+zY >>selfho+Cb1 >>gwd+6p1 >>bingbo+oq1 >>umanwi+Xw1 >>heavys+sf3 >>strogo+0H3
◧◩◪◨⬒
49. coupde+ZW[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:34:07
>>hungry+Oz
How so? Be specific.
replies(2): >>bmn__+Nd1 >>tim333+Vh1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
50. WildPa+cX[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:36:35
>>acdha+4E
I don't know about China, but the whole science around COVID seems to have a really strong cultural component that before was totally unfamiliar to me.

When looking at some German Epidemiologist blog I found something like: "Next thing on the list is to proof that government measures worked"

I would have expected something like: "I'm looking at data - and want to find out what helps"

◧◩◪◨
51. TimJRo+hX[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:37:32
>>twelve+lW
Australia, NZ and many countries in Asia did just fine. You just need a government that has its shit together and a populace that complies with the government. When you're missing one or both of those elements of course you're going to have problems with a pandemic.
replies(1): >>twelve+eZ
◧◩◪◨
52. coupde+pX[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:38:37
>>throwa+lP
There has been a massive, concerted effort by the PRC to deflect culpability. I'm a long time china observer/sinophile, and Chinese social media was abuzz with conspiracy theories that the virus was released by the US military before all the nonsense conspiracies started in the States. In review, China has accused the USA, Japan, Italy, Korea, and probably some others I'm forgetting for releasing the virus.
◧◩◪◨
53. anthk+zY[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:49:51
>>twelve+lW
When the Chinese GOVT says "stay at home", you-better-stay-at-home. That's the difference with the EU, and don't let me start on the US.
◧◩◪
54. Aeolun+CY[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:50:14
>>incomp+As
I uh, don’t see anything in this article except fluff? It basically says ‘researchers were in wuhan’.

The original I read had such helpful statements as ‘the chinese government insisted that every outside researcher was accompanies by a chinese partner’, ‘the government took days to procure the data, and when they finally did, a lot was missing’ and ‘a visit to x was denied for unclear reasons’.

I’m sorry, I’m vaguely remembering these, so they may not be 100% accurate.

Then the western researchers made one gloriously ambiguous statement while still in China, and turned about after they left the country.

replies(1): >>tim333+si1
◧◩◪
55. varjag+XY[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:52:33
>>abacad+iD
It happens in the comments here still, and not necessarily a malice. A kneejerk reaction to any claim amplified by the former administration, even if it's "the sky is blue". Same reason many otherwise sane folks mourned Soleimani.
replies(1): >>epakai+CO1
◧◩◪◨⬒
56. twelve+eZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 07:55:20
>>TimJRo+hX
So both China's government and 1.4B populace have their shit together, fully solved at ~0 infections pre-vaccine for one full year now, but the US, the EU, the newly non-EU UK, and (to a lesser extent) Japan all failed miserably?
replies(4): >>mathw+T51 >>Pyramu+a61 >>keerk4+ec1 >>herbst+cs1
◧◩◪◨
57. thauma+G01[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 08:11:25
>>marcus+bs
> Any investigations will have the goal not of finding the truth, but of minimising damage to the political powers that control it.

This seems sufficient to explain why China wouldn't be interested in a foreign investigation into their labs.

◧◩◪◨⬒
58. ergoco+S01[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 08:13:02
>>refene+tD
Every time when there's a question about China's bad behaviour, someone will point out that it happens everywhere.

Yes, but in a vastly different degree, China goes to an extreme of making it political and look good.

In US, most leaks don't look good. Sure, US tries to make some problems look good, but they don't try very hard (or there's more balance in how an issue is investigated with multiple different parties).

◧◩◪
59. anothe+x11[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 08:19:44
>>Izkata+dG
Some of the debunking relied on the analysis showing that it wasn't the result of Gain of Function research. Whereas an accident could certainly be a release of a natural sample they were originally working on.
replies(1): >>ganafa+G71
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
60. the-du+d51[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 08:53:47
>>bitrea+fT
Could you please define "right near" ? Are we talking about the lab ~10km away ?
replies(2): >>mikhai+ud1 >>exdsq+lo1
◧◩◪◨⬒
61. aww_da+E51[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 08:58:25
>>cameld+yK
There were two incidents at that facility. The first led to a building being condemned.

The second was a more nebulous investigation into the yet unsolved 2001 anthrax attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hatfill#Lawsuits

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
62. mathw+T51[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:02:00
>>twelve+eZ
It's not so much about having their shit together as having a terrifying autocratic government of the kind the UK government are still pretending (unconvincingly) they don't dream of emulating.

Also there may well be areas of China where the virus never reached. I gather internal travel isn't massively widespread, and the severity of the lockdowns they imposed exceeded anything seen in the US or UK.

replies(1): >>twelve+Kq4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
63. Pyramu+a61[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:04:51
>>twelve+eZ
There is no silver bullet here - China is not exactly your friendly democracy.

Also beware that there are reports of China having started vaccinations long before safety and efficacy results.

The flipside of exponential growth is exponential fall: In the best case if you can eliminate all social contact for 5-14 days the virus is essentially gone. But very few Western democracies are able to agree on super strict lockdowns, and if they do, they need their neighbouring countries to follow.

◧◩◪◨
64. SkyMar+q61[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:07:49
>>Trispu+SJ
Yup, though to nitpick, Occam's Razor actually says that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one. Subtle but important difference. Otherwise, /agree, especially with the media being confused.
replies(1): >>diydsp+sA1
◧◩◪◨
65. ganafa+G71[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:20:15
>>anothe+x11
The original article that our thread here is about cites a Wuhan researchers relief that the wild virus is not genetically close to anythibg they had in their lab. That's a complete contrast to what you are speculating.
◧◩◪◨⬒
66. FabHK+h81[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:26:06
>>cameld+yK
I wrote this on 2020-01-24 (when that speculation was fairly new), and wonder why that sort of simple statistical argument has rarely been made explicit:

It certainly is an interesting coincidence that the only lab in China that can deal with it happens to be in Wuhan. The question is, how big of a coincidence. If the disease hit a random person randomly uniformly anywhere in China, the probability that it would have happened in Wuhan is a bit less than 1% (as there are about 10+m people in Wuhan, and 1400+m people in China).

If you think it might have struck randomly any city above a million people in China uniformly, it’s also roundabout 1% (as there are about 100 of those).

So this is by no means proof that something fishy happened, but it is significant enough to warrant investigation.

If you assume that this could only have happened in a city with, say, more than 5m people, Wuhan is one of about 15 to 20 of those (so we're just above the "usual" 5% significance threshold).

Still, an independent investigation of that lab seems warranted. Of course it’s China, so unlikely to happen...

(I must say that I think the comment has stood the test of time, so far.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
67. j4yav+v81[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:28:11
>>bitrea+fT
Can a smoking gun really be circumstantial?
replies(1): >>nickal+I76
68. chrisa+Sa1[view] [source] 2021-03-23 09:47:06
>>strogo+(OP)
> [...] China has clearly contributed valuable research into bat coronaviruses. They had all the motivation to look into these after the first deadly SARS. I think it’s silly to presume CCP engineered a virus as part of some warfare strategy, or even to vilify/sanction them for a lab leak if it indeed was the cause (mistakes happen). [...]

Maybe it‘s just me, but I do not have enough trust in humans that they will say „hey shit happens, do just better next time“. I mean, we are pretty good today in blaming others just so someone gets blamed.

◧◩◪◨
69. selfho+Cb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:52:38
>>twelve+lW
If you disobey the CCP, you won't stay around for long. Also they have ironclad grip on the press, so it's no surprise that they are reporting zero cases. Not to put a tinfoil hat on, but it's not exactly like the Soviet Union, and China in the past, haven't been known for prettyfing their news.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
70. keerk4+ec1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 09:58:22
>>twelve+eZ
The difference is that the US, EU and UK are highly individualistic democracies, where governments are really weak at enforcing anything. It's no surprise that they suck at handling disease compared to societies with effective authoritarian governance.

Individuals who don't care exist everywhere, but in China government can force them to do the right thing. In the West it can't do that easily. I guess it's the price of individual freedoms.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
71. roelsc+9d1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:05:11
>>bitrea+fT
> The smoking gun is that labs in Wuhan were studying different coronaviruses in bats at the time the virus emerged.

As far as I know, those labs always study coronaviruses in bats -- it's a large part of what they do. That makes it less of a suspicious coincidence than your way of putting it implies.

By which I don't mean it didn't happen. There's just not enough information one way or the other.

replies(1): >>LargeW+S83
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
72. mikhai+ud1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:08:52
>>the-du+d51
Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC) is 300 m from the market.

Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), with the more highly classified work, is 14 km away, but linked to the PLA Hospital, WHCDC and seafood market on Line 2 of the Wuhan metro:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-and-the-laboratorie... (contains link to google maps)

https://zenodo.org/record/4119263

https://zenodo.org/record/4119263/files/COVID%20Pandemic%20B...

replies(1): >>Monste+el4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
73. bmn__+Nd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:10:38
>>coupde+ZW
I make no moral judgement about impartiality. Work out the implications yourself.

I make no comment about the content of the video linked in GGP's post.

That being said, the following is publicly known (but unverified by me) and quite apt to affect impartiality (whether under his control or not, whether consciously or not):

1. He was persecuted in China by the authorities and barely escaped with the posessions on his body.

2. He is currently under attack by brigades and agents of the persons he is critical of. The attacks follow standard psychological warfare patterns, including death threats to himself and the family.

Additionally, some speculation from me:

3. He has no journalistic training, both his business partner and his peers in the wider YT/Patreon business don't have either, and to me it seems both content producer and audience have come to a shared understanding that the shows are primarily entertainment and should not be held to the same rigour of journalistic integrity one would expect from e.g. a traditional print periodical. Adv Media's income entirely depends on YT/Patreon, and employing sensationalism – which results in uneven amplification of the reported reality – brings in more money. I haven't seen a completely sober/dry video.

replies(1): >>coupde+nl2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
74. zo1+Ze1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:21:06
>>bitrea+fT
Also, it's not like they can actually find out what happened now, a year later. Not without a time-machine or perfect recordings showing some sort of ridiculously straightforward sequence of events. E.g. They find a recording showing a bat biting someone in a lab and that person hiding it and then later showing him touching fish at the market. Come on, who thinks it'd be that easy?

What they'd most likely output is a "report" with "findings" that "point to" or "suggest" certain things like bad protocols or insecure procedures or disconnected safety sensors etc. Hardly evidence, and not really actionable even if they were allowed to get there and eventually publish it.

This is the same kind of crap as with the "election" report in the US. They couldn't find hard-evidence because despite this being 2020, camera's aren't everywhere, evidence isn't readily available, and not everyone is keep ridiculous-level audit logs and collating as much info as we want. All they eventually put in their report were discrepancies, not-installed windows updates, internet-connected machines, etc. No smoking gun, and understandably so because even if it did happen, there is no easy and straightforward way to prove it.

replies(1): >>fakeda+HF1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
75. tim333+Vh1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:46:50
>>coupde+ZW
He says the second WIV job ad is something like help we need someone to deal with a virus emergency. That's not at all what it actually said.
replies(1): >>coupde+Tl2
◧◩◪◨
76. tim333+si1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 10:50:32
>>Aeolun+CY
Also an interesting thing - the WIV used to put all their virus sequences in a publically available database. Around autumn 2019 they took it down they said because people were trying to hack it. I think it's still confidential even to the WHO. I mean if they were worried about hackers they could just publish a copy of the data.
replies(1): >>fakeda+YG1
77. batpan+Gk1[view] [source] 2021-03-23 11:08:20
>>strogo+(OP)
It's not eerily prescient at all. It has been known a long time and the subject of much research that viruses jumping from bats to humans is one of the most likely, and most dangerous sources of new infectious diseases in humans.
◧◩◪◨⬒
78. tweetl+Hk1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:08:23
>>refene+tD
That is true, but the difference is the lack of accountability, which is cultural/societal/political - there are virtually no external forces to counter a potentially dishonest official narrative.

A one party state means that there is no pressure from political opponents (political battles inside the party will never trump the party itself). And there is no pressure from journalists - China has the worst score for press freedom [1] (bar Eritreaa, Turkmenistan and North Korea) with a downward trend over the last decade. If there's no one to hold your feet to the fire, there's little incentive to self-incriminate.

[1] https://rsf.org/en/china

replies(1): >>refene+WB1
◧◩
79. tasoga+sl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:14:29
>>andrew+6l
> My impression was that "lab escape" was conflated with "deliberate release" by conspiracy types early on

No, the conflating was done by the media and this is exactly how I know it’s actually the most probable theory. The same thing happened for other few big "accidents", where the media/government were prompt to demonize a particular option and push a less convincing one.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
80. exdsq+lo1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:35:51
>>the-du+d51
The idea it spread via the seafood market has been largely debunked even by CCP and WHO -- there were cases before those occurred, there were no traces found there, etc...
replies(1): >>herbst+Pr1
◧◩◪
81. Mat342+Go1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:38:49
>>Consul+6I
They also changed wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavi...

to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic

◧◩◪◨
82. gwd+6p1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:42:53
>>twelve+lW
FWIW my office works closely with an office in Nanjing. They've all been back in the office for ages (and we can see the conference room on the video call). If they were having outbreaks like the rest of the world, there would be bodies piling up like mad. They tried to hide the bodies back in Jan / Feb 2020 and failed, so I don't think they're hiding bodies now. Which means there aren't any bodies; which means their lockdown must have actually been effective at containing the virus.

The rest of us could have done what Taiwan did, and almost entirely avoided becoming infected. Or we could have done what China did -- clamp down hard for three weeks and then go back to normal.

◧◩◪◨
83. bingbo+oq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:51:39
>>twelve+lW
With this logic you can criminalize all of Chinese success...how convenient...
◧◩◪◨
84. Mat342+uq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:52:03
>>p1neco+Et
Wait people can't debunk dumdum conspiracy theories? sad
replies(1): >>Initia+B13
◧◩
85. loudti+hr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 11:58:25
>>andrew+6l
If there was a lab leak.. The resistance to independent investigation, the disappearing of doctors who reported on this early on and such makes them just as guilty as if it was done on purpose.

At this juncture maliciousness or negligence is just splitting hairs. How they handled the negligence might as well have been malicious.

replies(1): >>cartoo+M02
◧◩◪◨
86. herbst+Fr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:00:46
>>bitrea+Dy
On the other side we have a dying super power with a carot as president tgat proclaims the opposite is true.

Both sides cant be taken at face value.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
87. herbst+Pr1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:01:55
>>exdsq+lo1
And many initial cases having no connection to the market
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
88. herbst+cs1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:05:32
>>twelve+eZ
Do you even remember the early responses from these countries? If you do that does not sound that unlikely
replies(1): >>Izkata+Hx1
◧◩◪◨
89. umanwi+Xw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:43:57
>>twelve+lW
It took NYC, which is much richer than any part of China, 100 years to build the Second Avenue subway line, whereas China can build several new subway systems every decade.

Wealth doesn’t necessarily translate to organizational agility.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
90. Izkata+Hx1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:49:34
>>herbst+cs1
I remember China had uncontrolled community spread for about a month and a half before even admitting there was a new virus, let alone taking action (earliest confirmed case was backtracked to mid-November).
replies(1): >>herbst+7C1
◧◩
91. Hoasi+4y1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 12:53:11
>>neolog+Bf
> Don't sanction for the mistake, sanction for the nontransparency.

Sanction the CPC for non-transparency and their constant lies to their and the world's population. Demand liability.

◧◩◪◨⬒
92. diydsp+sA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:12:36
>>SkyMar+q61
Why do people rush to differentiate, e.g, the diffs bt correlation and causation, but never question Occam's razor (I'm officially leading the charge to cease its capitalization), which isn't science, isn't a law, but merely a design principle.

It's been treated as an irrefutable endpoint at best and as a spell at worst. I find it a convenient false authority for lazy thinking.

Consider a statement like: "an expressive programming language is necessary to manage a resource distribution system such as a food production, processing, and delivery system." One could quote Occam and say "nah let's hunt and gather," but how is that consistent with our values? Ergo, Occam's quote is a selectively applied false authority. We need to use our heads and put it to bed!

◧◩◪◨
93. domino+vA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:12:39
>>marcus+bs
but what the motivations of us scientists like Peter Daszak who were single handedly responsible for suppressing lab leak theory.

It wasn't the ccp, it was Peter Daszak and co.

◧◩◪◨
94. Syzygi+QB1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:22:44
>>Trispu+SJ
I invoked Occam's Razor when I wondered what was more likely: that it was spread via a wet market or escaped from a lab with biosecurity protocols staffed by professionals?

Of course I still don't know and my ideas regarding the latter have changed because of this article but I'm now pretty sure that I don't have enough information to invoke Occam's Razor in any kind of insightful or effective way.

replies(1): >>text70+WO1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
95. refene+WB1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:23:39
>>tweetl+Hk1
In theory that might be true, and it's the way they teach it in American civics class.

In practice, Xi went on an 'anti-corruption campaign' that purged all his political enemies from power as his first initiative. The exact opposite of what your theory predicts, and actually a stronger cyclical purge than our typical repubs->dems->repubs one.

replies(1): >>tweetl+yF1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
96. herbst+7C1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:24:29
>>Izkata+Hx1
After china finally admitted it and spoke out warnings, america did not admit its dangerious for months to come, some european countries basically run the same shit campaign. Splitting society more than anything else in recent history
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
97. tweetl+yF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:45:22
>>refene+WB1
The campaign was a unique event in decades of party history and the Wikipedia page for the campaign lists 4 different theories for political motives. I'm not sure you can view it as a sign of a culture of healthy accountability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...

replies(1): >>refene+GN1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
98. fakeda+HF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:46:18
>>zo1+Ze1
> What they'd most likely output is a "report" with "findings" that "point to" or "suggest" certain things like bad protocols or insecure procedures or disconnected safety sensors etc. Hardly evidence, and not really actionable even if they were allowed to get there and eventually publish it

The WHO team wasn't even allowed near the labs, much less enter it. They got a very curated tour of Wuhan (which isn't surprising).

◧◩◪◨⬒
99. fakeda+YG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:52:01
>>tim333+si1
Is there a source for this? My Google-fu isn't turning up anything.
replies(1): >>tim333+FX1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
100. agumon+bH1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 13:53:35
>>acdha+4E
yeah I agree that political context acts as an amplifier.. every country have it's own flavor but China like USSR is still fond of secrecy and murder..
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
101. refene+GN1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:23:36
>>tweetl+yF1
The point remains that they have politics. It's not some lockstep monolith.

As far as which culture has more healthy accountability.. plenty of corruption to go around on all sides, the comparison would be pretty nuanced.

I'd say that China has a lot more low-level corruption, as a bigger % of their economy, what with large swaths of the country being pretty third-world, but also more accountability for senior people who fuck up badly. They executed a baby food exec who poisoned kids, while nobody saw a day in jail for poisoning the city of Flint. Rick Snyder probably has a nice lobbyist job.

Or, look at Covid -- the mayor of Wuhan and governor of Hubei were sacked over their poor initial handling. Is NY gonna elect a Republican over it? TX elect a Democrat? No way in either case. Maybe we have less accountability in some ways specifically due to the 2-party system's polarization. Arguably Trump lost over it, but the guy literally got covid, right before the election, after downplaying it for 6 months and still got the 2nd most votes in history.

replies(2): >>Initia+M03 >>thedai+qN3
◧◩◪◨
102. epakai+CO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:28:12
>>varjag+XY
Nobody was mourning Soleimani. This is a ridiculous straw man. Soleimani's assassination was problematic on a number of fronts, and people were right to criticize it.
replies(1): >>varjag+go2
◧◩◪◨⬒
103. text70+WO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 14:29:16
>>Syzygi+QB1
When the virus broke out there was an early paper, later retracted, which tried to link the virus with engineered HIV carrier strains.

Undoubtedly after looking at the sequences of that paper, there were some alignments, but how they were structured doesn't point to being engineered, but rather of co-infection, which did not match the conclusions of the paper.

What they do actually indicate might even be more politically inflammatory. That the virus evolved out of a recombination event in an HIV infected person infected with a SARS-like virus, and repackaged as a new SARS-CoV-2 virus.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
104. tim333+FX1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 15:13:56
>>fakeda+YG1
> It emerged last week that the team had not even asked to see the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s online database, locked since September 2019 and taken down altogether in the spring of 2020. That database is known to contain 22,000 samples, mostly of viruses, 16,000 of them from bats. These include eight viruses very closely related to the virus causing the pandemic but whose genome sequences have not been published. They were collected in 2015 from a disused mineshaft, a thousand miles away, where in 2012 six men fell ill with a disease very like Covid.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/15/world-health-org...

◧◩◪
105. cartoo+M02[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 15:30:56
>>loudti+hr1
Indeed. The virus itself may not have been weaponized, but the aftermath most certainly was.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
106. coupde+nl2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 17:17:03
>>bmn__+Nd1
Have you seen their older videos? They had to hold back any criticism, and everything was mostly peachy. Now, the gloves are off, and they do have an ax to grind, unquestionably. However, just because they have to respond to tons of wumaos and tankies doesn't mean what they say isn't true. Furthermore, they do not pretend to be journalists, so I don't think this criticism has integrity.

Their experiences living in China line up with mine. I haven't seen an instance of them compromising their integrity.

replies(1): >>bmn__+aZ2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
107. coupde+Tl2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 17:19:02
>>tim333+Vh1
Can you read Chinese, or is that what you read somewhere? I don't remember, so I'll go back and check that sometime.
replies(1): >>tim333+t94
◧◩◪◨⬒
108. varjag+go2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 17:28:55
>>epakai+CO1
Plenty were mourning Soleimani, and Twitter just couldn't shut up for a while about how the world is on the way to WW3 over this. It however turned out to be perhaps the most useful FP action of that administration.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
109. bmn__+aZ2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 20:21:08
>>coupde+nl2
You have not understood me well. I did not say that I think "what they say isn't true". I did not say that I think they "pretend to be journalists". You interpret things into my post and attempt to refute that are not there, which is a shame because I took great deliberation to formulate it precisely the way it is. The topic under discussion is impartiality, not integrity! Be mindful of the difference.

> Have you seen their older videos?

I am subscribed since late 2016.

> Their experiences living in China line up with mine.

same

replies(1): >>coupde+nnc
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
110. Initia+M03[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 20:31:08
>>refene+GN1
>Or, look at Covid -- the mayor of Wuhan and governor of Hubei were sacked over their poor initial handling. Is NY gonna elect a Republican over it? TX elect a Democrat?

I mean, whoever they replace the mayor of Wuhan and governor of Hubei with will certainly still be members of the Chinese Communist Party. NY and TX might not flip their governing parties, but I'd be much more willing to assure you that the process of choosing their replacements will be more transparent than that for Wuhan and Hubei.

replies(1): >>refene+0k3
◧◩◪◨⬒
111. Initia+B13[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 20:35:30
>>Mat342+uq1
There's an evolutionary theory of conspiracy theories (that I just made up) that they self-select for plausible unfalsifiability. If a theory has a weakness can be proven incorrect, people will eventually patch it with an ephemeral insinuation that "you know what happened here" and move on.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
112. LargeW+S83[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 21:17:52
>>roelsc+9d1
If anything, it makes it inevitable. The probability of a coronavirus from a bat eventually escaping a lab that regularly studies coronaviruses in bats almost certainly approaches 100% over time.
◧◩
113. Nasrud+g93[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 21:20:15
>>Aeolun+pf
If hypothetically a novel virus caused a global pandemic originated within the US they certainly would say the magic words "national security" and refuse to cooperate and take a hardline against whistleblowers if one of their government labs was suspected. The US Government has a pattern of slapping top secret on their mistakes because people getting rightfully mad at them would be "bad for national security".

It is fucked up and not but governments are reflexively secretive so I don't think it says much about China. A superpower or nation-with-delusion-of-superpowerdom would refuse to disclose something like that regardless unless forced by internal political pressure - meaning there isn't anything to read in. They would likely rationalize resistance as "going transparent because enough of the world thinks this opens up rumormongering as a form of intelligence!".

◧◩◪◨
114. heavys+sf3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 22:04:37
>>twelve+lW
Some sick people had the doors to their homes welded shut by the government in China so that they wouldn't spread COVID.
replies(1): >>strogo+hG3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
115. refene+0k3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-23 22:36:52
>>Initia+M03
They won't flip parties and no incumbent is ever at serious risk of a primary challenge. You can call it transparent I guess but it's also a foregone conclusion.
replies(1): >>rideth+cy3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
116. rideth+cy3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 00:30:44
>>refene+0k3
Not sure I like how transparency plays out currently in the US: "well, he's a moron but at least he's not republican/democrat"
◧◩◪◨⬒
117. strogo+hG3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 01:46:10
>>heavys+sf3
Not just sick people. Videos showed how this was done on entire apartment buildings, if you happened to live in one you’re out of luck even if you didn’t get infected.
◧◩◪◨
118. strogo+0H3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 01:52:33
>>twelve+lW
A lot of the area is countryside and is to large extent ignored. Read articles on one-child policy, which was mostly followed in large cities only and resulted in millions of “extra” children growing up essentially outside of the system with no access to healthcare or education.

It seems plausible that infection stats from deep country are not faithfully reported or even collected. That said, what they did do is really complicate domestic travel, which means infections stay contained as a result.

◧◩◪
119. thedai+BM3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 02:46:49
>>Michae+5a
To be fair, "designing" a vaccine is not the same as testing it to show that it is acceptably safe and effective in humans. That said, the time from design to deployment was amazingly short.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
120. thedai+qN3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 02:52:45
>>refene+GN1
I think it is probably more accurate to say that they have "factionalism," rather than "politics." China has had a one-party system with strikingly low participation (~6% of national population) for the past seven decades.
replies(1): >>dragon+7P3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
121. dragon+7P3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 03:12:11
>>thedai+qN3
They have politics, but (in the absence of parties) not partisanship in the narrow sense. Elections and parties aren't politics, they are just key mechanisms of politics in liberal democratic states.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
122. tim333+t94[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 07:21:21
>>coupde+Tl2
They had English translations of the job ads in I think The Sun of all places.

eg https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/job-ad-experts-bats...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
123. Monste+el4[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 09:33:43
>>mikhai+ud1
Would there be any entity that would travel between the two labs?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
124. twelve+Kq4[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 10:34:42
>>mathw+T51
I haven't compared the severity of lockdowns or intensity of travel in China and other countries. I've never been to China. But, I've read that it's a very complex society with tons of different ethnic groups, massive inequality, massive migration waves back to the cities and forth, massive problems like tuberculosis rate 20x the TB rate in the States, so saying how they just lock every single human down seems like a bit of an oversimplification to me. But what do i know.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
125. nickal+I76[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-24 19:42:31
>>j4yav+v81
Being a little bit pedantic here, but isn't all evidence, for something that can't be proven mathematically or definitionally, circumstantial?
replies(1): >>gadf+BTJ
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
126. coupde+nnc[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-26 19:35:09
>>bmn__+aZ2
I see, I agree. I don't think it's a particularly insightful observation to say they are impartial- they have a very clear voice. When I hear someone labelled impartial, I assume that's an attempt to discredit their character.
◧◩◪◨
127. incomp+kif[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-03-28 01:31:27
>>zensav+ax
Fair points about the one year delay etc., and the initial WHO response. The Chinese government is hardly renowned for transparency. I was just replying to a claim that the investigation hadn't been allowed anywhere near the lab: they did get a cursory visit after a one year delay.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
128. gadf+BTJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-07 13:48:32
>>nickal+I76
This article, and some top comments, are shifting the narrative to how we must not "demonize" China, and must work to deal with lab leaks in future, in effect, presuming the assumption that China is unequivocally to blame, covering it with the mere color of reasonableness and fairness. So with such careful narrative massaging, we get to hold onto our desire to pretend China is 100% to blame, but frame it reasonably.

This sort of bias, or propaganda, or narrative massaging, under the guise of reasonableness, and non-demoization is pernicious.

These sentiments are like, we can frame our China-blaming as reasonable, via pretending the assumption[0], so under the guise of "not demonizing China", "giving credit were due but still holding to account" we can hold onto our excuse to blame China, we can pretend the assumption that China is unequivocally to blame.

Bullshit. Unhelpful, bs. If you want to pretend that you are doing this under the guise of actually discovering the cause, you can to satisfy your own need to pretend that, but it's dishonest, and not actually helpful to discovering the cause.

Blaming the enemy of the day for the pestilence of the season is as old as the hills, and makes boring, and biased, history. And makes you all propagating such cant, useful idiots, manipulated puppets.

Also, how is everyone forgetting the childhood lesson that the one so eager to point the finger of blame is often the one with something to hide, so desperate to deflect suspicion away from themselves?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[go to top]