But you’ve also said
An extremely fringe point of view that exists and AFAICT holds seats in Congress.
yes, and? I make a distinction between “lab leak” and “man made” (as we all should) but even the term “man made” itself is not a particulary precise descriptor (which is what that comment is referring to)
Am I missing something here? Is that comment of mine incorrect in some way?
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Yes, but I hope you agree that the vast majority of people who refuse to rule out the lab leak hypothesis do not agree with that view and that we should be careful to make that distinction.
Vast majority?
Yes, they should be very careful to clearly make that distinction and vociferously denounce the folks that take evidence of a lab leak and gleefully back their otherwise unsupported positions with it.
Yes they should but I was talking about us here on this thread. We should be scrupulous in ensuring that when we talk about “lab leak” we are talking about specifically that.
In my experience yes.
I’ve met dozens of people who are perfectly happy to allow for the possibility of a lab leak. I’ve met no-one who thinks it is a man-made bioweapon.
The fringe are not the majority, no matter how much sensationalist social media might suggest otherwise.
Then you’re fortunate, since there’s been quite a bit of overlap between partisans of the “created in a lab” theory and those promoting a “lab leak”.*
Sen. Rand Paul has said: “If COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab, it would be a laboratory-created virus that the Wuhan scientists have not yet, and are unlikely ever, to reveal.”
Lab leak proponents are also fond of linking gain-of-function studies to the pandemic, meaning that they’re suggesting that scientists created SARS-CoV-2. An example is Rep. Michael Waltz, the self-described “Warrior Diplomat”.
So if Dopers want to bitch about conflating “lab leak” with “man-made” and “deliberately released”, blame the influential people who are doing it.
And save some ire for those who are so utterly convinced that SARS-CoV-2 originated in the Wuhan lab that no possible further evidence could sway them - like Johns Hopkins prof. Marty “No-Brainer” Makary. Makary is no fringe character (at least from the standpoint of public exposure - he’s a Fox News "medical contributor with a considerable Internet presence), and he’s done his part to create suspicion and fear around Covid-19 vaccines as well as opposing other pandemic control measures.
Bottom line: those who don’t like being grouped with people like this shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge that evidence of a lab leak is far less than convincing at this point, and that most scientists favor an animal vector.
*don’t know if being a poster is equivalent to not being a real-life person, but we’ve had at least one explicitly equating a lab leak with the existence of an engineered virus (Hi, Sam!).
I don’t think I’m fortunate at all, I just don’t mistake “vocal opinion” for “majority opinion”. Fringe, wackadoodle beliefs are interesting and newsworthy, that doesn’t make them common.
And I think that the vast majority of people in this thread very much do not, which sort of backs up my own personal impression.
I absolutely agree. Thank you.
Not directed at one person in particular.
Are any of them posting in this thread? Has anyone in this thread cited them as a source?
If no, then it’s completely irrelevant.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
And I agree with your general point. No-one that I know of in this thread is advocating that theory. I’d go slightly further and suggest that, ideally, no-one in this thread should seek to draw a line from the “lab-leak” theory to the “man-made” position.
Frankly its being used as a cudgel to avoid addressing the topics being discussed here.
There are fringe lunatics in the world and saying it’s your job to disavow them is a pretty dishonest way to frame the discussion.
There are idiots who still believe that COIVD is a minor illness, less than a cold. If we inject that sentiment into this discussion, then by the same logic it’s all our obligation to constantly stress how important any research into the disease is as a refutation. That would make this thread pretty tedious, and we’d get nowhere.
As I pointed out earlier, some of those “fringe lunatics” are pretty damn influential and have a lot of adherents. It makes sense to be wary of the tactics they employ and their tendency to have strong beliefs based on flimsy evidence. And yes, it’s important to disavow sleazes who may otherwise appear as allies.
This kerfuffle reminds me of posters who get agitated when anti-Semitism is cited as a factor in vociferously hostile, one-sided attacks on Israel (especially those trading in classic bigoted memes). How dare you sully them by mentioning it?
But such phenomena are real and there’s a responsibility not just to avoid falling into such traps, but also to firmly reject those who do.
Certain idiots being influential in the world is not relevant to the largely factual questions in this thread. If you can’t get your head around the difference, then perhaps it’s time to move on.
People often get agitated when the entire premise of your debate strategy centers around a strawman, regardless of subject. So very astute comparison there.
Speaking of strawmen, I 've seen no one in this discussion dismissing the idea of a lab leak on the grounds that idiots and bad actors promote it. Instead we have doubts relating to lack of good evidence.
I’d be uneasy whenever strongly holding any opinion, only to look around and see such folk on my side. Reappraisal, or at least a diminution of certainty would seem to be in order.
I’m sure it would make you uneasy or even embarrassed. However, the only thing that matters is the quality and reliability of the evidence. Doesn’t matter in the slightest if fringe people attach themselves to your side as it has zero bearing on what can be shown to be true or likely.
An example. If we were discussing evidence for extra terrestrial life I would not reappraise my position or consider it less likely just because alien abduction advocates are nominally on “my” side.
Compared to research into viruses and pandemic prevention, there’s no meaningful impact on public policy from people believing in extra-terrestrial life, whether or not it’s on a rational basis.