What conspiracy theory about the Pandemic do you think is plausible?

Not nutty ones like Bill Gates is inserting microchips through the Vaccine to track you, that’s ridiculous, he is doing so through your phone.
Nor confirmed ones like Governments didn’t call for universal masking earlier, since they were worried about shortages for frontline workers, that’s pretty much been accepted now, even by those in positions of authority.
This is for stuff which a reasonable person might think is possible.

My list.

  1. The powers that be have directed that for every new emergent situation the medical community will presume the worst, but the public will be given the rosiest scenario. From the beginning. So, whether the disease can be transferred from person to person, to how much of a concern asymptomatic spread is, whether you can be reinfected, to how quickly vaccines can be developed, to how quickly dangerous mutations will present to how many vaccines will work against them.
  1. The USG has been leaking the “lab escape” theory to credulous media in order to hurt a geopolitical rival and shy away from attention from their own near-disastrous response.
  1. AstraZeneca is an excellent vaccine and is as good as the mRNA ones. But since its cheaper , Pfizer and Morderna have been using their own influence within the US and European regulatory agencies to cause unneccessary attention to be placed on it.

Donald Trump minimized the danger of COVID despite being told otherwise to make himself look better and to take swipes at Democrats.

Did you miss the part about “confirmed conspiracies”, in the OP?

I hope it’s not threadshitting to say that plausible conspiracy theory is an oxymoron.

I also don’t understand what the OP is postulating. Is anyone out there actually pushing the entries on his list or has he just made up a bunch of stuff? Is the purpose to find what are the bounds of what people might believe? If not, what is the point here?

As a general rule, people will consider government and large corporations negatively. Being cynical about their actions is the default mode these days. That’s not, to me, close to conspiracy theories, however.

Could @AK84 explain what this thread is meant to accomplish?

You are free not to participate if you don’t want to.

#2 … do you mean Dr. Fauci, who isn’t the USG, wanting to know more about the origin of Covid19?

I admit I was ghasted a bit watching this video because, at this point, finger pointing serves nothing useful. Unless China did accidentally release a “played with” virus and can give a better vaccine to the world.

I need to understand what’s going on to decide whether I want to participate. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

That depends on context. Conspiracies happen. For a conspiracy to be uncovered, someone presumably has a suspicion, or “theory” that it’s happening. Ergo there must be some plausible conspiracy theories.

You win the thread.

I wouldn’t be shocked if it did turn out that the initial outbreak came out of that lab in Wuhan. Not sure it’s a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it would be if you added that it was a deliberate leak, but i wouldn’t be subscribing to your newsletter.

What makes you certain it was? US intelligence reports? Those can easily be cooked up, see Iraq.WMD.

I don’t think anyone is certain but as time goes on there is still nothing to rule it out, the evidence for it is not being debunked, a better explanation has not been provided to any satisfactory degree and unsurprisingly the general scientific opinion is pivoting around to giving it serious consideration and ensuring it remains on the table.

And of course you are right to be sceptical of single sources of information and of hypotheses put forward by those with a vested interest in pushing a specific agenda. We should all be deeply sceptical of any party that claims to know what happened because the facts as presented do not yet make a convincing case for any hypothesis.

Possibly 3. AstraZeneca has the problem that it is not American. Plus a CEO who is clueless about contract law.

Number 2. and the lab escape theory. I dunno. It is plausible, given the PRC’s notorious lack of transparency, but I await more proof. So far it seems to have been yet another case of a virus jumping from animals to humans.

I think that this is pretty much the default in most situations.

Presuming the worst is probably A Good Thing for the scientific/medical professionals to do and the fantastic rapid development of vaccines against this killer disease is part of the result,

Politicians will always try to divert blame onto rivals.

I’m not subscribing to the theory, I’m just saying I’m not ruling it out.

The most “plausible” CT is that it was developed in a lab and escaped somehow.

The counter, of course, is that it’s relatively benign and doesn’t seem to target any specific group.

The counter counter is that is was part of of a binary agent attack and was released before being perfected and the second part would have inflicted devastating results upon the target group.

We’ve been over this a million times. Conspiracies and conspiracy theories are two separate things. Republican state governments are engaging in an ongoing conspiracy to suppress voter participation by groups they don’t think will vote Republican. At the same time Republicans are engaging in a conspiracy theory that tens of thousands, even millions, of false ballots were cast to affect the presidential race - but not lower races - in 2020, a theory not even remotely plausible because their own party officials have adamantly denied large-scale fraud and have carried out multiple audits of the ballots. One is reality; the other is fantasy.

What makes a CT plausible to some people? It all boils down to this, the denial of inconvenient evidence.

My hypothesis (not theory) is that many, possibly most, people, whether technically stupid or not, don’t understand that school is not designed merely to implant a series of facts, but to teach you how to think for yourself about facts or non-facts that you encounter after leaving school.

Thinking is a complex process involving a series of steps. Once a statement is heard, more information must be gathered, the legitimacy of that source of information must be evaluated, the value of the particular piece of information must be judged, and the totality of the information must be sorted into pro and con and then weighed. CTers always stumble over one or more of those steps.

A common taunt by anti-vaxxers is “do you believe everything a scientist tells you?” The correct answer is no. You shouldn’t. But that’s not the issue. When the collected mass of experts around the world, working for different institutions in different countries, come to a consensus that is relayed through the mouth of a scientist, however, you should give it millions of times the weight of a statement made by a single iconoclast.

Not being able to think makes people feel stupid even if they aren’t in other ways. They are lost in a tsumani of need-to-knows, few of which they have to time to study, and many of which are antithetical to their beliefs. The temptation to seize upon the iconoclasts who shout with seeming authority and create a countervailing world order must be overwhelming. Advanced CTers can even use their own ignorance of the subject to provide new “evidence,” which, however nonsensical, will be approved because it builds backwards from the already accepted answer and therefore has to come to the “correct” conclusion.

As I said, conspiracies do occur. Cynicism about public actions is warranted. Nevertheless, cynicism without evidence or worse, with made-up evidence, is invariably dangerous to civil society. Plausibility should mean “with a huge honking pile of evidence.” Without that, all CTs fall into the same rotten barrel and take on each others’ stench.

Well certainly if you define “conspiracy theory” as an implausible theory of conspiracy, they will all be implausible. I’m thinking, work with me here, that the OP is using a slightly different definition of “conspiracy theory”.

I agree with @Exapno_Mapcase that the term conspiracy theory has an idiomatic meaning that entails implausibility (and usually grandiosity), it’s more than just any theory about a conspiracy.

I think you can interpret the OP as asking: what ideas that have widely been dismissed as [implausible] conspiracy theories are in fact plausible?

Well I tried to get the OP to clarify, with no success. Maybe you’ll have better luck.