Actually it is the other way around. It is irresponsible to exaggerate the mere “possibility” the virus came from a lab when such an origin has not been conclusively demonstrated. But yours is the better story, and in times like this people do crave a good story.
Nothing has been conclusively demonstrated. That’s the point. Nothing is a story, it’s science not “exaggeration” that some are trying to discuss here and which evidentially some prefer not to do but to marginalize instead. Unfortunate.
abcnews.go.com
That is and must be done in all epidemics.
About matters of fact? Opinions contrary to fact are errors.
Science is now conspiracy theorizing? Some just don’t like to look at facts that won’t meet their narratives is the problem here.
Again, we don’t know the facts one way or another. Opinions are not errors, they are simply opinions which could be an error or a non-error.
Science is not conspiracy theorizing. the difference between the two is stark.
So let’s study without bias and await results. In particular, let’s await results before proposing policy to address them.
Again, the difference between an argument and speculative conspiracy-theorizing is not subtle.
Then some should labeling scientific studies or scientist as such maybe.
That could be directed to quite a few.
And the difference between science and counter arguments and data and conspiracy theorizing is not subtle either.
This may be helpful:
www.bbc.com
No, conspiracy theorizing is taking a bit of science and then theorizing about a conspiracy. Unfortunately it is easy to convince people who do not understand the science that the bit of it you have cited really does support the conclusion.dvdjs:
Science is now conspiracy theorizing?
And some like to take a few facts and spin a convincing narrative that is not rigorously justified. You think we are denying facts. But actually we are denying the conclusions you draw from those facts. Big difference.
Take to heart what you just wrote here, for it contains a truth which you have not embraced.
This is an appeal to arrogance. The appeal goes like this: “Even though you have never formally studied epidemiology or infectious diseases as a professional, you are smart enough to arbitrate between professional arguments and decide which one you think is more likely based on the content of their arguments (never mind that you don’t really understand 75% of the arguments).”
Despite posting that SARs/COV-2 likely originated in a lab, you have not posted a single authoritative scientific study that says so. The facts in those studies may be true, and I am not questioning them. But the conclusion you draw from them is not what you state. As I said, it gets tiring pointing out your errors, so excuse me if I don’t take a deep dive into the paper uploaded by Zerohedge.
Wrong, completely wrong. I guess that is what happens you miss it when you don’t attempt to read the studies.
Ha? My errors? Comical. Yes, PLEASE dive into that study and you’ll find your error in the statement you made above, and dive into the other studies as well while you are at it to see some facts here and why there is a ongoing debate and questioning around the origins of the lab. Sorry but not everyone is going to agree with what you are attempting to sell here as definite.
I think that what is spun is an alluring narrative, not a convincing one.
Can you provide a link to that claim?
Your criticism of the CCP is quite justified.
Since the WHO was not allowed on site, they could only report what the CCP told them. As for keeping borders open, the WHO has no authority to close borders. They can only give they guidelines that nations are free to ignore. As for the WHO trusting the CCP, their tweet clearly indentifies the source of their info. Various nations are free to apply whatever skepticism they wish. The WHO did not add any credibility to the CCP claim other than reporting what it was. If you think the CCP should have been more skeptical, then the rest of the world should have been more skeptical, because the WHO reported exactly who said what.
They tweeted out what they knew at the time. People were asking. The WHO updated their reports as soon as they had additional information. It is an ongoing process. Relaying what the CCP told them is not the same as putting the credibility of the WHO behind it.
Do you have documentation for that fact?
www.theguardian.com
The WHO blindly accepted it, and tweeted it out. If they didn’t know for a fact or conclude themselves they should have not tweeted such information. They acted as CCPs mouthpiece.
Why?
Do you have evidence that the content of the tweet is untrue?
How do you think the WHO found out? How many deaths were there at the time. Was everyone eating infected bats or pangolins or snakes from the wet markets?
Direct source from the WHO? Why didn’t they tweet it, and why did they tweet contradictory information then on Jan 14th, 4 days later than the claim in the Guardian that they warned nations it could be contacted by human-to-human transmission?