Coronavirus thread

[Karl Henning]

Not sure how to respond to this post politely. So I'll just ask: what Washington Post article? Are you referring to this?:

What caused the coronavirus? A skeptical take on the theories about the outbreak's Chinese origin.

"There is no evidence of escape from a lab," Andrew Rambaut, a microbiologist at the University of Edinburgh, wrote in an email. "The virus is just like a virus we would expect to see in wild bat populations, similar viruses have jumped from non-human animals to animals in the past, so I see no reason to speculate about this any further."

[Karl Henning]

Greg, why is that utterly unsupported conspiracy theory so dear to you?

[JBS]

Not sure how to respond to this post politely. So I'll just ask: what Washington Post article? Are you referring to this?:

What caused the coronavirus? A skeptical take on the theories about the outbreak's Chinese origin.

I saw a report on my local news (but actually originated with the network, NBC) which was a bit less skepticism about what that Post story calls Theory 2, pointed out that several articles that had appeared on the Virology Institute's website have been taken offline, and ended with the suggestion that if China wanted to restore trust, an international inquiry was needed. The segment includes a clip of a spokesman for the lab assuring an interviewer that no one connected to the lab had contracted the virus. His statement was so categorical and expansive and improbable (unless the lab staffs live in total isolation from everyone else in Wuhan) that it had to be false. I have to guess that the Chinese are so afraid of blame they don't want to let out even the smallest bit of evidence in its favor.

[JBS]

"There is no evidence of escape from a lab," Andrew Rambaut, a microbiologist at the University of Edinburgh, wrote in an email. "The virus is just like a virus we would expect to see in wild bat populations, similar viruses have jumped from non-human animals to animals in the past, so I see no reason to speculate about this any further."

Karl, may I point out that quote was regarding the idea that it was a human-engineered virus being developed as a bioweapon?  The idea now being pushed is that it was a natural bat virus which infected a human working at the lab.  Which actually is not much different from the "official" version it originated in a wet market.  Just transfers the setting to a more technological, more 21st century location.

[André]

Apparently we have to expect that more and more viruses will jump from animals to humans - sometimes after a contact with a more 'human friendly' transitory host. There are many reasons to believe it's only a matter of time before other pandemics hit in a similar fashion to the covid-19.

As we invade and modify their natural habitat, animals get ever closer to humans. « New » viruses that have been living happily alone for hundreds and thousands of years will find their way to populated areas through contact with animals like bats, rodents, hens or hogs. Hopefully this whole coronavirus episode will go away when a vaccine is developed, but lessons will have to be learned.

[Karl Henning]

Karl, may I point out that quote was regarding the idea that it was a human-engineered virus being developed as a bioweapon?  The idea now being pushed is that it was a natural bat virus which infected a human working at the lab.  Which actually is not much different from the "official" version it originated in a wet market.  Just transfers the setting to a more technological, more 21st century location.

Thanks.

[greg]

Karl, may I point out that quote was regarding the idea that it was a human-engineered virus being developed as a bioweapon?  The idea now being pushed is that it was a natural bat virus which infected a human working at the lab.  Which actually is not much different from the "official" version it originated in a wet market.  Just transfers the setting to a more technological, more 21st century location.

Exactly. This has nothing to do with the man-made theory. I don't think people are understanding this for some reason.

That quote is from the microbiologist doesn't even make sense because the second part of the quote doesn't at all disprove the first part at all- the idea is that both happened. So sounds like that dude didn't get it, either? (Or maybe it's just undecipherable out of context?)

[SimonNZ]

I saw a report on my local news (but actually originated with the network, NBC) which was a bit less skepticism about what that Post story calls Theory 2, pointed out that several articles that had appeared on the Virology Institute's website have been taken offline, and ended with the suggestion that if China wanted to restore trust, an international inquiry was needed. The segment includes a clip of a spokesman for the lab assuring an interviewer that no one connected to the lab had contracted the virus. His statement was so categorical and expansive and improbable (unless the lab staffs live in total isolation from everyone else in Wuhan) that it had to be false. I have to guess that the Chinese are so afraid of blame they don't want to let out even the smallest bit of evidence in its favor.

Saying just that articles have been taken down is usefully vague for a conspiracy theory, just as it was in the last one greg posted. To know they were taken down - and are in some way relevant - should mean that they're able to tell us the contents and conclusions of them. So why aren't they doing that in conveying us this "news"? Why don't they post the printouts they should have made?

Also wrt the change from deliberate lab thing to accidental lab thing: I can't respect the a position that says the first conspiracy theory I was certain of may have been wrong, but this new conspiracy theory I'm equally certain of is definitely right. I'll be following the global scientific consensus, and they're all still saying its most probably the market scenario.

[Alek Hidell]

... whether US protests against lockdowns are the result of well-informed critique.

This goes back a couple of pages, and I'm sorry to resurrect political issues again (especially since I generally avoid the political stuff here on GMG), but I can GUARANTEE you that U.S. protests against lockdowns are NOT the result of well-informed critique. These protesters are Tea Party types (if you're familiar with that terminology), among the most reactionary, ill-informed, superstitious, mean-spirited citizens we can "boast." And, like all such protests, they pretend to be spontaneous, grassroots responses - when in fact they're organized and funded by far-right coalitions.

[JBS]

Saying just that articles have been taken down is usefully vague for a conspiracy theory, just as it was in the last one greg posted. To know they were taken down - and are in some way relevant - should mean that they're able to tell us the contents and conclusions of them. So why aren't they doing that in conveying us this "news"? Why don't they post the printouts they should have made?

Also wrt the change from deliberate lab thing to accidental lab thing: I can't respect the a position that says the first conspiracy theory I was certain of may have been wrong, but this new conspiracy theory I'm equally certain of is definitely right. I'll be following the global scientific consensus, and they're all still saying its most probably the market scenario.

If the articles were removed from the web site, that's evidence of Chinese obfuscation. The question is simply, what are they obfuscating.

And as I pointed out in my prior comment, the theory simply means the point of transmission was a different location in Wuhan, nothing more. It still presumes a natural bat virus was unintentionally transmitted to a human.

[JBS]

This goes back a couple of pages, and I'm sorry to resurrect political issues again (especially since I generally avoid the political stuff here on GMG), but I can GUARANTEE you that U.S. protests against lockdowns are NOT the result of well-informed critique. These protesters are Tea Party types (if you're familiar with that terminology), among the most reactionary, ill-informed, superstitious, mean-spirited citizens we can "boast." And, like all such protests, they pretend to be spontaneous, grassroots responses - when in fact they're organized and funded by far-right coalitions.

Exactly. For many of these people, the fact that a person has expertise in a field is a reason to disbelieve them.

[greg]

Saying just that articles have been taken down is usefully vague for a conspiracy theory, just as it was in the last one greg posted. To know they were taken down - and are in some way relevant - should mean that they're able to tell us the contents and conclusions of them. So why aren't they doing that in conveying us this "news"? Why don't they post the printouts they should have made?

Maybe, because, you know, the CCP likes to take stuff down that they don't like.

Like the free internet. Or Winnie the Pooh. I guess if you want to broaden the definition of conspiracy, then they are, too.

I'll be following the global scientific consensus, and they're all still saying its most probably the market scenario.

Where even is the consensus on the new lab theory? Probably doesn't exist yet.

Why? Because the "official" story is all they will be asked about so far. China says wet market, scientists are asked about that, they say it's likely (because it is), convenient diversion possibly successful. Nothing asked about bad lab safety practices while they were studying the bats at the same time the outbreak started.

It's consensus because it makes sense. But it's not the only possibility that can make just as much sense.

[Karl Henning]

If the articles were removed from the web site, that's evidence of Chinese obfuscation. The question is simply, what are they obfuscating.

And as I pointed out in my prior comment, the theory simply means the point of transmission was a different location in Wuhan, nothing more. It still presumes a natural bat virus was unintentionally transmitted to a human.

Check.

[JBS]

In reference to Alek's point

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/seeing-the-open-the-economy-protests-in-their-proper-light

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/19/pro-gun-activists-using-facebook-groups-push-anti-quarantine-protests/

H/T to Karl and Milos

[Ratliff]

Any lab can have individuals that in some occasion or habitually fail to follow proper procedure. The first batch of CDC tests was ineffective and reports say it was because correct procedures were not followed in preparing the reagents. However, the novel coronavirus was initially thought to be transmissible only from animals to humans because the initial patients all had a connection to the wet market (and because of wishful thinking). The new theory about the lab source is more complicated and doesn't fit the data as well. You can't say it is impossible, but Occam's razor would make it an unlikely explanation.

[JBS]

Any lab can have individuals that in some occasion or habitually fail to follow proper procedure. The first batch of CDC tests was ineffective and reports say it was because correct procedures were not followed in preparing the reagents. However, the novel coronavirus was initially thought to be transmissible only from animals to humans because the initial patients all had a connection to the wet market (and because of wishful thinking). The new theory about the lab source is more complicated and doesn't fit the data as well. You can't say it is impossible, but Occam's razor would make it an unlikely explanation.

I think the lab theory assumes the Chinese (most likely the local officials) lied about the identity of Patient Zero. Probably unprovable at this point.

[SimonNZ]

If the articles were removed from the web site, that's evidence of Chinese obfuscation. The question is simply, what are they obfuscating.

Well yes. I'm aware that the Chinese government suppresses information and is trying to control the narrative. I was referring more specifically to the shortcomings and tone of that reporting.

[Daverz]

Well yes. I'm aware that the Chinese government suppresses information and is trying to control the narrative. I was referring more specifically to the shortcomings and tone of that reporting.

JBS is Just Asking Questions.

[Daverz]

  What I think is wrong though and what I was responding to is being unkind/rude to other persons on this forum.  Yes, it's fine and certainly fair and right to disagree and certainly is and should be allowed, but doing one's best to be polite and kind to other people does matter to me.

Best wishes,

PD

Edit:  Am I alone in this?  I hope not.

I haven't been paying close attention.  I'm more worried about the disinformation being posted and some failure to exercise some basic critical thinking skills.  Any CV-19 thread is likely to turn into a shitshow, I suppose.

[SimonNZ]

some local news I'm reading for the first time in the Guardian:

New Zealanders donate $230,000 to help zoo feed animals during Covid-19 crisis
Orana Wildlife Park appealed for help after struggling to pay weekly food bills, including gorillas' $800 vegetable bill