Try reading the post immediately before yours again, for comprehension.
Also, cite that Fauci said it was “a conspiracy theory”?
I’m pretty sure he didn’t.
Some scientists did, foolishly in my opinion. Part of the problem was that they wrongly equated any kind of lab-associated event (such as a wild origin, but the subsequent leak of a sample that had been brought to the lab) with reckless and sinister bioengineering experiments. It’s questionable whether it’s appropriate to call even the latter a “conspiracy theory”, since that term implies zero evidence and total implausibility.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
Now why would @SuntanLotion think otherwise? Maybe getting news from bad sources?
Twitter.
I think there may be genuine lack of clarity - there were certainly times when Fauci was talking about COVID conspiracy theories. But I’m pretty sure he was always referring to the actual conspiracy theories (it doesn’t exist, Bill Gates / microchips etc.).
Twitter isn’t what I would call a news source, but then I may be behind the times. There’s an amusingly named test to evaluate a source: CRAAP.
Currency
Relevance
Authority
Accuracy
Purpose
While it has its limitations and detractors, not to mention alternatives, it can be put to use for checking certain things in the news.
Does any of this clarify whether it was an accidental release from the lab of a natural virus, or some bio-engineered or tinkered virus?
Because as far as I know, all evidence still points to a natural virus, whether it was accidentally released from a lab or from a market. COVID conspiracy theorists have been intertwining the two practically from the beginning.
Natural virus → escaped from lab: improve virus handling protocols
Natural virus → transmitted in wet market: improve conditions and hygiene in wet markets, maybe ban the sale of wild animals
Bioengineered virus → escaped from lab: ooh, sinister plot, bio-weapon, China=bad, etc.
Who, other than experts in lab and market practices, care if it’s one of the first two?
I’ve wondered that, too. Because i was a trusted source to my friends, i was asked several times about the lab leak hypothesis. And what I’ve said consistently is that the entire genome of the virus was published, and people i trust said that there would be “tells” on a bioengineered virus that weren’t there. So i was pretty sure it wasn’t intentionally created. But that lab had been collecting this type of virus, and it seemed reasonably plausible that it accidentally leaked from the lab. There was also an entirely plausible chain of events to get it to the wet market without being accidentally released from the lab. And China destroyed most of the relevant evidence very early on, and i doubted we’d ever know for sure.
But the “divide” people asked about wasn’t “bioengineered vs accidentally introduced to people”, it was “market vs. lab”. And that never made sense to me.
Actually, I care if it’s one of the first two. Improving virus handling protocols is going to be way easier than preventing spillover from the wild. Even if hygiene in wet markets are improved, the chances of getting the virus from nature is so much higher. It’s what worries me the most.
Saying it was natural versus manufactured is not germane to the idea that it escaped from the Wuhan lab.
I agree, having some certainty about where it came from can only be a good thing no matter what the answer is.
What I’ve cared about from the start is that we don’t allow people to completely discount plausible causes due to political concerns. The first WHO report was shockingly bad in that respect and the CCP remains completely opaque and untrustworthy when it comes to these matters.
I never said anything about natural vs. manufactured. I’m talking about lab escape vs wet market animals, which is very relevant to this discussion.
I didn’t say you did. I didn’t quote you.
I don’t think you quoted anyone, but I assume you mean me?
Can you explain why I should care whether a natural virus escaped from a lab or a market? I’m not a virus lab expert and I’m not a wet market hygienist. For me, it’s a “oh, interesting, they should probably do a better job (with lab safety) (with wet market safety)” and that’s about the end of it.
What do you think it shows if a lab tech mishandled a natural virus they were studying or a live bat transmitted it to someone in a market?
Because it’s the topic of the thread.
No. It wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.
It shows that China engaged in attempts to hide this to save political face and in doing so delayed the process of stopping it from spreading.
Couldn’t that be true in either scenario?
Yes. It could. But the lab adds a significant layer of direct involvement with the Chinese government. They shut down trade with Australia over remarks suggesting it.
You replied to my post.
Because the bigger issue is and was the censoring, ridiculing and suppression of legitimate inquiry due to tribal political correctness. When supposedly neutral and objective institutions knowingly suppress the truth and the discovery of the truth in order to advance an ideological agenda or to conform to tribal pressure they seriously undermine themselves and more importantly they undermine the concept of the impartial discovery of objective facts. Trust the science? When you can’t trust the scientists?
And it’s funny now to see the change in tone from that’s a racist conspiracy theory to what does it matter?
No, I didn’t. If I was replying specifically to your post I would have quoted you. I was the next post following yours.