Re: Corona Virus: is it the beginning of the end?
Ignatriay,
Your first two links are compelling. The first seems to imply that bats couldn't have transmitted this virus to people in its dangerous form directly (i.e., there needs to be an intermediary). I can't contest this assertion on its own at this point, so it might well be true. Your second article is much longer, and essentially throws a lot of shade on the Chinese lab where this sort of thing was apparently being tested. It's important to note that even if that article is correct, and it was leaked from a lab, it was certainly not intentional. Acting as if this is a conspiracy theory is definitely not the way to go. Basically, what I conclude from the links you provided is that the possibility for a lab-created virus exists, but there is no definitive evidence yet, and to go chasing up that alley is kind of pointless. The challenge is in dealing with it, not casting blame.
My first source,
https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus … n-lab.html
is not a definitive rejection of the idea that this virus was lab-made, but it suggests that since these viruses mutate very well, there are a lot of ways this could've happened. It also casts doubt on this virus being man-made because its construction doesn't actually make a ton of sense at first (i.e., people wouldn't have reasonably thought to make it this way, but it mutated anyway). Again, this isn't an outright rejection, it's just more food for thought.
My next source,
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspec … 9-came-lab
amplifies points found in the first article, while focusing on the fact that these coronaviruses do exist in the wild. It mentions that a lab mistake is possible, but cannot be definitively proven at this time. It also takes time to talk about Shi Zhengli, casting her in a more favourable light than your second source. This doesn't mean it's right by default, but an interesting aspect of your second source is that it gets her name backward. You might think that a very small detail, and for some people it is, but there is definitely a bit more anti-China aggression in that article, and combined with getting Zhengli's name wrong, it throws a bit more shade on that article. Some of the assertions made in it, regarding the safety of Zhengli's lab and her personal practices, I would consider suspect, at the least. Put another way, I would have to say that if you stack my second source up against yours, where one talks positively of Zhengli while the other is particularly critical of her, I think we have to call it a draw. My gut says that's not accurate, but in the interest of not carrying this out at length, I think I've made my point.
I do have one further link, however, which raises a couple of nice points:
https://theconversation.com/heres-how-s … lab-141850
Some of this is just amplifying previous points. But you'll notice here that there is absolutely no effort to either praise or vilify China here. Facts are facts. These viruses evolve a lot, and prior coronaviruses have existed following these same pathways before. This article puts forth the theory that someone working in a lab might have gotten infected and accidentally passed it along that way; this would not count as a lab leak, however, as they very well could have been tested in the field. One other issue this article raises is one angle I'm happy to walk back and apologize for. Apparently, there is considerable evidence that while the wet market might well have been a good source of infection - lots of unprotected people in an enclosed space - it was unlikely to have been the actual source of the pandemic. For that much alone, I'll apologize.
I think, then, that my point is made. I can't entirely invalidate your points, Ignatriay, but I think that you can accept that my own sources are at least equally as valid as your own. This suggests that there is not any straight-up, no-doubt-about it truth on this subject. Based on the fact that I've read literally dozens of articles about this, and most seem to support my stance, I'm still going to stick with what I believe was the case (i.e., it occurs in nature, evolution was natural, somebody got infected and it went nuts), but I recognize that there is a very small chance that some sort of cover-up is at play. I don't think it's likely, but sure, I'll admit there's a chance.
But hopefully this puts the straight-up conspiracy theory to bed. Because one thing all of our articles seem to agree on: nobody did this on purpose, and this is not an effort to cull the population or change the world. At the worst, it was people messing with something dangerous when a freak accident happened. At best, this is the sort of thing that happens in nature sometimes, and because we rolled unlucky, we're dealing with a very communicable disease.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
