I guess the disagreement is around the word "undetected". It's possible some failure was covered up and I trust the Chinese government to be capable enough to do that.
> virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab
That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan:
- Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab.
- Improper handling of samples in the lab.
- Improper disposal of samples in the lab.
- Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs.
- Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research.
And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up.
> You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively
I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online.
> unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos
Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?
The whole point is that the virus that was collected would already need to have some properties that predispose it to become a dangerous pandemic. Which is unlikely because those Viruses are pretty rare.
And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology.
So the crux of your argument is that it's more likely that a virus with that type of predisposition occured in nature in a specific area around the Wuhan market as opposed to being sampled from one of many areas, potentially modified, and then leaked into said area? Seems unlikely considering the rarity as you pointed out.
>And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology.
No need to resort to ad-hominems ; all it achieves is tainting your future responses on the topic with a lingering question of whether they are being made in good faith.
It's not ad-hominem if it's true. I really don't have the energy to debunk every "argument" that is borne out of misunderstandings about basic biology.
The alternative hypothesis is not that a very dangerous zoonotic virus emerges in a specific area around Wuhan (which also isn't really the agreed upon origin anyway), but rather that it emerges anywhere and causes a pandemic. Your argument here is a basic misunderstanding about how random processes work. Our observation that Wuhan was the first epicenter of this pandemic already preconditions us to assume a pandemic-capable Virus emerged there in some form or another.
Such viruses are indeed rarities. But they exist and every once in a while they come into contact with Humans and cause a pandemic. However this is not the same likelihood as with the lab leak hypothesis, because collecting viruses for labs is an event that happens multiple orders of magnitude less often than contacts between animals and Humans. So while it is a rare coincidence that a lab would collect a killer virus when randomly collecting bat viruses, it is not so strange that every once in a while a novel pandemic virus makes the jump from animals to Humans somewhere in the world.
Non sequitor. That's not the statement I'm referring to. It's certainly the case a virus emerged from nature with all or most of the properties we saw in the original. Unless it was engineered in Loas lol
Good job defending your point. If the error bars weren't so wide on the biological clock idea why we would we be having this discussion? Does the west supress that, and you're one of the few smart ones who have the truth?
> virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab
That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan:
- Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab.
- Improper handling of samples in the lab.
- Improper disposal of samples in the lab.
- Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs.
- Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research.
And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up.
> You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively
I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online.
> unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos
Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?