The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Are lab accidents (and theorising that they may be the cause of an outbreak) in general to be dismissed as conspiracy theories? That no matter the details, entertaining the possibility that humans in laboratories caused an outbreak is always a conspiracy theory?
I would say that people who look to science for answers are willing to consider other input if there is evidence, while people who look to theories are never willing to look at science.
fox8.com
According to those in the know, drug resistant bacteria and the lessening of the effectiveness of the current antibiotics is going to be a huge problem unless more money and research is thrown at it. Even drug manufacture seems to be a problem at the moment with many countries unable to get the amount of drugs they require for the usual chronic illnesses let alone the more exotic ones. The pandemic problems are multi layered. The physical illness is just part of it. The economic fall out and changes to the world economy and previous lifestyle is ongoing.I think that Covid has caused, is causing myopic medical mayhem. World wide there are a number of things that have pandemic potential.. and people who take spinning classes or get a bike fit are at more risk than sofa surfers..flesh eating bacteria and other super strains already exist but have through blind luck not taken a huge body count. Recently young kid died shortly after touching contaminated equipment.
Covid is a vast treasure trove of not only medical science, but equal to or greater social science outcomes.
In the US there is dramatic increase in anti vax,anti medicine, anti information, to the extent that a measurable part of the population, does not believe anything, and clearly states that they will not act on or accept any information from the standard sources. That needs immediate attention by officials that design emergency response for the general public. What do you do when large segment doesn't even move when they hear or see a fire alarm in a theater, school, or major sports or music venue? We are there.
Flesh-eating bacteria kills boy after twisting ankle
An 11-year-old boy died after twisting his ankle while running on a treadmill.
It is worth noting that they can't even agree which lab it came from, indicating that the information can't be that compelling. Maybe they should release it so we can all see for ourselves?
Hence the "low confidence" and "moderate confidence". Also as I've asked several times, are other countries' intelligence pointing to labs in China?
I didn't imply you did, nor did I ask you if you did. I asked you how much your stance on this one generalises. Does it? If not, why not?
Almost no one believes that 1977 was a natural flu reemergence. And I have no reason to dispute that based on what I know.
BUT, people who really want it to be a lab leak use that 10% as 'proof' that it was a lab leak.
10 % is pretty far from the two alternatives you presented. If I met a stranger on the street and I had to make an uninformed guess, I'd think there would be about 90/10 % for him to be right/left handed. It's quite obvious to common intuition how that is different to being absolutely sure one way or the other, while still thinking one predicate is more likely than the other.
Wait, what? You said "base-rate would imply a 10 % chance of lab origin. " That's the 10% I'm talking about. I didn't present any alternatives. Assuming that your assumption is correct, people who want it to be a lab leak will use that 10% chance as proof that it was a lab leak. Many of them don't even need 10% to run with it.
How are bad arguments made by no one here relevant?
I know what 10% means. That is irrelevant to how 10% is used by some.
I agree with the last part. Suggesting the possibility of a lab origin and the need for an investigation is not conspiratorial. However, that isn't representative of what the lab leak contingent are saying. Most of their arguments are based in conspiracy theories. And like Qanon, it has caught on among conspiracy theorists.
It was also riddled with fundamental errors about factual matters. It should be noted that he was a clinician, so really doesn't know much about virology. None of the witnesses do and that was by design.
He has access to information and people who know, that is why he should be able to present solid evidence. My boss can't do what my team does, but he can present what we do, though when he does, he usually has one of us with him. Redfield should explain, with evidence, why he has come to his conclusion.
As I've typed and said many times, to the everyday person knowing where SC2 came from changes our lives ZERO. From a scientific and/or national security standpoint it would be beneficial to figure it out.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram