Shock: COVID leaked from a Chinese lab

[Algor]

A general location, not a specific one. That is the same amount of data we are already working with.

Specific: the lab. In the same city, that has had problems with accidental release before. What do you need to require specificity: GPS co-ordinates of the precise point of release? Virology labs studying bat corona viruses are not exactly thick on the ground: it isn't like here was one in every city in China.

An assumption is not data. Again, that is the same amount of data we are already working with.

Um, no, the government systematically destroying relevant data and purging their website is not an assumption. These are facts.

Nothing in your scenario alters what is already assumed.

Holy cow. If a local source of contagion and systematic obstruction and destruction of relevant data are not specific data, you are You are dismissing as irrelevant to the demonstration of one of the threee scenarios described, the very data that supports those scenarios.

And you're welcome to point that way all you want. If you think the lab release options are more likely, that's fine.

It's gracious of you to permit me my opinions. I will say the amount of work you are putting into denying that the co-incidence of the lab and the reaction of the Chinese government are not evidence is quite impressive.

 

[Michael R2]

Specific: the lab. In the same city, that has had problems with accidental release before. What do you need to require specificity: GPS co-ordinates of the precise point of release? Virology labs studying bat corona viruses are not exactly thick on the ground: it isn't like here was one in every city in China.

Where it occurred does not tell you why it occurred. It gives circumstantial information you can use to make your assumptions but does nothing to give you any real data on what occurred.

Um, no, the government systematically destroying relevant data and purging their website is not an assumption. These are facts.

Holy cow. If a local source of contagion and systematic obstruction and destruction of relevant data are not specific data, you are You are dismissing as irrelevant to the demonstration of one of the threee scenarios described, the very data that supports those scenarios.

They are circumstantial information, not data. You can treat them as data if you wish, but I won't.

It's gracious of you to permit me my opinions. I will say the amount of work you are putting into denying that the co-incidence of the lab and the reaction of the Chinese government are not evidence is quite impressive.

I'm not denying the coincidence, I simply don't find it as compelling as you do.

 

[Algor]

Where it occurred does not tell you why it occurred. It gives circumstantial information you can use to make your assumptions but does nothing to give you any real data on what occurred.

The MEANS of escape from the lab would be good to identify to know IF it came from the lab, but are not necessary to establish THAT it came from the lab. "Circumstantial" evidence is precisely all we have about anything, but it is real data.

They are circumstantial information, not data. You can treat them as data if you wish, but I won't.

This would be a strong argument if there were leak-proof bat coronavirus labs scattered hither and yon all across China. But given the context, its a bizarre assertion. What exactly is your definition of 'data" and how do you distinguisjh it from circumstantial information?

I'm not denying the coincidence, I simply don't find it as compelling as you do.

Compelling? You are saying it isn't data. It's amazing.

 

[Michael R2]

The MEANS of escape from the lab would be good to identify to know IF it came from the lab, but are not necessary to establish THAT it came from the lab. "Circumstantial" evidence is precisely all we have about anything, but it is real data.

This would be a strong argument if there were leak-proof bat coronavirus labs scattered hither and yon all across China. But given the context, its a bizarre assertion. What exactly is your definition of 'data" and how do you distinguisjh it from circumstantial information?


Compelling? You are saying it isn't data. It's amazing.

I don't consider assumptions to be data. Right now, all three possibilities are based entirely on assumptions. That's the way I look at it. It leaves all three possibilities open at basically the same odds. There is simply no real data to point to one over the other. The 'fact' that it came from the lab is an assumption. The 'fact' that it came from zoonotic transfer is an assumption. I have my suspicions which may be correct, but until I can see some real data, I remain equally open to all three.

 

[Algor]

I don't consider assumptions to be data.

The co-occurence of a coronavirus lab in the same city as a novel coronavirus outbreak is not an ASSUMPTION. It's a relevant fact. If the closest lab was 600 miles away where the bats actually came from, the lab origin would be less plausible, no? If the lab was not in fact studying bat coronaviruses, then that would also make a lab origin less plausible.

Similarly, the deliberate destruction and obstruction of the Chinese government is not an assumption. It's a fact. If the Government had been transparent and co-operative and had released relevant data ASAP that would ALSO make a lab origin less plausible.

These are not assumptions: this is evaluating hypotheses in light of evidence.

Perhaps a bit of a reminder: DATA are facts collected for the purposes of answering a question. The two facts that I cited are pertinent to the three hypotheses, and we know this because the contrafactual suppositions I cited by contrast alter the results of the evaluation.

You really do need to think about this.

 

[Michael R2]

The co-occurence of a coronavirus lab in the same city as a novel coronavirus outbreak is not an ASSUMPTION. It's a relevant fact. If the closest lab was 600 miles away where the bats actually came from, the lab origin would be less plausible, no? If the lab was not in fact studying bat coronaviruses, then that would also make a lab origin less plausible.

Yes, that's why it is considered as a possible source. There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

Similarly, the deliberate destruction and obstruction of the Chinese government is not an assumption. It's a fact. If the Government had been transparent and co-operative and had released relevant data ASAP that would ALSO make a lab origin less plausible.

That's why the lab leak, and even deliberate leak are considered a possible source. There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

These are not assumptions: this is evaluating hypotheses in light of evidence.

They are some of the assumptions used to frame the three hypotheses. They are still assumptions, not evidence. There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

Perhaps a bit of a reminder: DATA are facts collected for the purposes of answering a question. The two facts that I cited are pertinent to the three hypotheses, and we know this because the contrafactual suppositions I cited by contrast alter the results of the evaluation.

For you, yes. You can weigh your suspicions as lightly, or heavily, as you wish. I have done the same, and your argument is not in the least bit persuasive for me.

You really do need to think about this.

I have.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

So it is after lunch. If three people in my office get sick and go home this after noon, that had lunch together, where they ate is the first place to check.

Before we heard of covid, 3 lab workers were admitted at a hospital with what was later diagnosed as covid.

We can see the motives by the lab and fauchee to trick people into believing any place but the lab.

I can notice the motive for China to not allow anyone to investigate the lab which works with assorted pathogens.

We noticed the whistle blower was threatened for speaking out. fauchee tried hard to convince Congress under oath that he didn't send funding to the virology lab. His boss Dr Collins also lied about funding.

 

[Algor]

Yes, that's why it is considered as a possible source. There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

The co-incidence of the outbreak and the location of the lab IS evidence that it came from the lab.
Holy cow. It isn't CONCLUSIVE but it is, nevertheless evidence.

That's why the lab leak, and even deliberate leak are considered a possible source.

You just contradicted yourself. If the lab is a possible source, then a fortiori there is evidence that it could have come from a lab.

There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

You are conflating two different questions.

1. Does the existence of a lab studying novel coronaviruses in a city with a novel coronavirus outbreak constitute evidence that the coronavirus outbreak in question originated from a lab? The answer to that is yes: you have 2 rare things (labs studying novel coronaviruses , and novel coronavirus outbreaks) occurring in close geographic and temporal proximity, and any number of plausible mechanisms by which the two rare facts might be connected.

2. Does the existence of a lab studying novel coronaviruses in a city with a novel coronavirus outbreak necessarily indicate that the outbreak originated in the lab? The answer to that is no.

They are some of the assumptions used to frame the three hypotheses. They are still assumptions, not evidence. There is still no evidence that shows the virus did, in fact, come from there, whatever the suspicions.

No, assumptions are not facts. I am citing facts, and contrafactual assumptions to demonstrate that the facts are relevant. This is how hypothesis evaluation works.

For you, yes.

Umm, no. not just for me. This is how hypothesis evaluation actually works. You have data, you have hypotheses. You evaluate what the plausibility of the hypothesis is given the data and, importantly, by assuming what is CONTRARY to what the data are, and you compare your evaluation. If your evaluation would be changed by contrary data, then the data are relevant.

I can't emphasise this enough: this is a primary method of evaluating hypotheses with data.

You can weigh your suspicions as lightly, or heavily, as you wish. I have done the same, and your argument is not in the least bit persuasive for me.

LOL that comes through clearly enough.

I have.

Try again. Seriously, what would be at the top of your mind if there were news of an anthrax outbreak just outside Fort Detrick? Give it a whirl.

 

[Michael R2]

The co-incidence of the outbreak and the location of the lab IS evidence that it came from the lab.
Holy cow. It isn't CONCLUSIVE but it is, nevertheless evidence.

You just contradicted yourself. If the lab is a possible source, then a fortiori there is evidence that it could have come from a lab.


You are conflating two different questions.

1. Does the existence of a lab studying novel coronaviruses in a city with a novel coronavirus outbreak constitute evidence that the coronavirus outbreak in question originated from a lab? The answer to that is yes: you have 2 rare things (labs studying novel coronaviruses , and novel coronavirus outbreaks) occurring in close geographic and temporal proximity, and any number of plausible mechanisms by which the two rare facts might be connected.

2. Does the existence of a lab studying novel coronaviruses in a city with a novel coronavirus outbreak necessarily indicate that the outbreak originated in the lab? The answer to that is no.



No, assumptions are not facts. I am citing facts, and contrafactual assumptions to demonstrate that the facts are relevant. This is how hypothesis evaluation works.


Umm, no. not just for me. This is how hypothesis evaluation actually works. You have data, you have hypotheses. You evaluate what the plausibility of the hypothesis is given the data and, importantly, by assuming what is CONTRARY to what the data are, and you compare your evaluation. If your evaluation would be changed by contrary data, then the data are relevant.

I can't emphasise this enough: this is a primary method of evaluating hypotheses with data.


LOL that comes through clearly enough.

Try again. Seriously, what would be at the top of your mind if there were news of an anthrax outbreak just outside Fort Detrick? Give it a whirl.

What you call evidence in this case, I call assumptions or suspicions. I have plenty of assumptions and suspicions here as well. I'm just not going to assume any conclusions.
Until there is some definitive evidence that this particular virus was, in fact, in that lab or is found occurring naturally, I am reserving my judgement. Case closed.

 

[Algor]

What you call evidence in this case, I call assumptions or suspicions. I have plenty of assumptions and suspicions here as well. I'm just not going to assume any conclusions.

The coincidence of two rare facts (for instance) is not an assumption or suspicion. It is the evidential foundation for a suspicion, which is entirely a different matter.

Until there is some definitive evidence that this particular virus was, in fact, in that lab or is found occurring naturally, I am reserving my judgement. Case closed.

That's your business, but saying evidence is not evidence is not correct.

 

[Tyrion]

The coincidence of two rare facts (for instance) is not an assumption or suspicion. It is the evidential foundation for a suspicion, which is entirely a different matter.

True. Similarly, coincidences form the evidential foundation for the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

There is the coincidence that the earliest cases were tied to the Huanan market, rather than some place closer to WIV, and the further coincidence that the cases were tied to one section of the market where vendors of live wild animals congregated and where virus-positive environmental samples concentrated.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

The MEANS of escape from the lab would be good to identify to know IF it came from the lab, but are not necessary to establish THAT it came from the lab. "Circumstantial" evidence is precisely all we have about anything, but it is real data.

This would be a strong argument if there were leak-proof bat coronavirus labs scattered hither and yon all across China. But given the context, its a bizarre assertion. What exactly is your definition of 'data" and how do you distinguisjh it from circumstantial information?


Compelling? You are saying it isn't data. It's amazing.

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) sought hospital care in November 2019, a month before China reported the first cases of COVID-19, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday, citing a U.S. intelligence report.

The newspaper said the previously undisclosed report - which provides fresh details on the number of researchers affected, the timing of their illnesses, and their hospital visits - may add weight to calls for a broader investigation into whether the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from the laboratory.

Means of escape
Hospital didn't do a routine isolation room protocol. So it escapes the hospital.

In epidemiology. we conclude they got infected from a WIV virus.

But don't stop there. Try to find another source. to over rule the lab. Try to find infected patients from November that had no direct or indirect contact with the lab.

 

[Algor]

True. Similarly, coincidences form the evidential foundation for the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

There is the coincidence that the earliest cases were tied to the Huanan market, rather than some place closer to WIV, and the further coincidence that the cases were tied to one section of the market where vendors of live wild animals congregated and where virus-positive environmental samples concentrated.

Right. This is (to my mind) the best evidence FOR the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

OTOH, this does not explain why the outbreak was in Wuhan, whereas there are many other such markets in China. Again, an outbreak of a novel form of highly virulent anthrax occurs just outside Fort Detrick. Center it on a sheep farm if you want. The US federal gov't massively obstructs inquiry. What's at the top of your list?

(Also, I note that the geographic analysis has been disputed, but hey, everybody disputes everything, so whatever).

 

[Tyrion]

Right. This is (to my mind) the best evidence FOR the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

OTOH, this does not explain why the outbreak was in Wuhan, whereas there are many other such markets in China. Again, an outbreak of a novel form of highly virulent anthrax occurs just outside Fort Detrick. Center it on a sheep farm if you want. The US federal gov't massively obstructs inquiry. What's at the top of your list?

(Also, I note that the geographic analysis has been disputed, but hey, everybody disputes everything, so whatever).

I think your analogy would be more accurate if the outbreak occurred a number of farms away from Fort Detrick, and if anthrax bacteria mutated as rapidly as a coronavirus.

And I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on China's obstruction of the investigation. They would obstruct whether it was a lab leak or natural spillover, so they can claim (to their people) that it came from outside of China. Also, the US intelligence community doesn't think their lack of cooperation means that it was a lab leak.

So with your analogy, I would lead strongly towards a lab leak. With covid-19, it's not nearly as clear cut.

 

[Algor]

I think your analogy would be more accurate if the outbreak occurred a number of farms away from Fort Detrick, and if anthrax bacteria mutated as rapidly as a coronavirus.

I suppose if you wanted a better analogy it would be a novel monkey pox outbreak in Atlanta, but even that's just an analogy.The point is simply that the geographic coincidence is striking and obvious, and the degree to which the lab leak hypothesis was downplayed is bizarre. Are there viable alternative hypotheses? Sure. But I really do think that if Trump had favored an animal origin, many people who are saying the same thing now would be calling him an idiot for ignoring the lab.

And I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on China's obstruction of the investigation. They would obstruct whether it was a lab leak or natural spillover, so they can claim (to their people) that it came from outside of China. Also, the US intelligence community doesn't think their lack of cooperation means that it was a lab leak.

The US intelligence community has not covered itself with glory in issues with relevance to domestic politics, so I'm just gonna take that one with a very large grain of salt.

So with your analogy, I would lead strongly towards a lab leak. With covid-19, it's not nearly as clear cut.

Maybe.

 

[vibise]

True. Similarly, coincidences form the evidential foundation for the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

There is the coincidence that the earliest cases were tied to the Huanan market, rather than some place closer to WIV, and the further coincidence that the cases were tied to one section of the market where vendors of live wild animals congregated and where virus-positive environmental samples concentrated.

Also, if it is relevant that the Chinese made efforts to clean up those labs and possibly destroy samples and records, then it should also be relevant that the Chinese also closed down the wet market and disinfected it from top to bottom.

It seems clear they do not want to take any responsibility for the origin of this virus based on either of the proposed causes.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

For what it's worth I think the lab leak is very plausible. The CCP has done nothing but obstruct all enquiries. Trouble is, knowing or suspecting is a world away from proving.

Leaks are very simple

The XL crude pipeline leaked crude oil A virology lab can leak pathogens.

The 3 lab workers who got infected went to the hospital November 2019. They know. The whistle blower knew.

 

[Algor]

Also, if it is relevant that the Chinese made efforts to clean up those labs and possibly destroy samples and records, then it should also be relevant that the Chinese also closed down the wet market and disinfected it from top to bottom.

It seemed to be a locus of spread, but its a crowded market, so that makes sense from an infection control of a superspreader event perspective regardless of the origin. I also note that this letter published in reply to the paper is interesting:

In their article, Worobey et al. [1] confirm that the Huanan market served as an early superspreading event for COVID-19,........
Worobey et al. situate the epicenter of earliest cases to a district that also includes the Wuhan Center for Disease Control laboratory, which conducts field and laboratory research on bat viruses [8] and which moved into a new location only 500 meters from the market on 2 December 2019, something they do not mention. The authors do not consider the possibility that this laboratory could be the site of the initial human case, but acknowledge that “upstream events” and “exact circumstances” remain “obscure”.

So the geographic tracking is not without its problems.

It seems clear they do not want to take any responsibility for the origin of this virus based on either of the proposed causes.

Too late I think. I don't think anyone, including the mainland Chinese, hasn'tt figured out that this really started as a Chinese problem.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

It seemed to be a locus of spread, but its a crowded market, so that makes sense from an infection control of a superspreader event perspective regardless of the origin. I also note that this letter published in reply to the paper is interesting:

In their article, Worobey et al. [1] confirm that the Huanan market served as an early superspreading event for COVID-19,........
Worobey et al. situate the epicenter of earliest cases to a district that also includes the Wuhan Center for Disease Control laboratory, which conducts field and laboratory research on bat viruses [8] and which moved into a new location only 500 meters from the market on 2 December 2019, something they do not mention. The authors do not consider the possibility that this laboratory could be the site of the initial human case, but acknowledge that “upstream events” and “exact circumstances” remain “obscure”.

So the geographic tracking is not without its problems.

Too late I think. I don't think anyone, including the mainland Chinese, hasn'tt figured out that this really started as a Chinese problem.

I know, this is from a source that only ever lies, so the story is probably false:

US Energy Department assesses Covid-19 likely resulted from lab leak, furthering US intel divide over virus origin

The US Department of Energy has assessed that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely came from a laboratory leak in China, according to a newly updated classified intelligence report. The assessment further adds to the divide in the US government over whether the pandemic began in China in 2019 as...

www.cnn.com

Do you think they will apologize? Do you think conspiracy deniers will apologize? Dr. I-Am-the-Science Fauci, who bankrolled the gain of function “research” after it was forbidden on American soil? I’m sure he’ll apologize and return his royalties..,

So faucee had the audacity to lie under oath and say he did not fund the lab

So he wants us to believe bats done it. There is NO evidence.

There was evidence of a money trail.

He lied about royalties from Pharma and under court order we find they raked in millions.

The bat story is a Ruse.

 

[vibise]

True. Similarly, coincidences form the evidential foundation for the zoonotic spillover hypothesis.

There is the coincidence that the earliest cases were tied to the Huanan market, rather than some place closer to WIV, and the further coincidence that the cases were tied to one section of the market where vendors of live wild animals congregated and where virus-positive environmental samples concentrated.

This is a preprint of the new paper which found DNA from covid-19 comingled with that of a raccoon dog. Again, these samples came from the segment of the market where live animals were kept, and some of the workers in that segment were among the first covid patients.

Genetic evidence of susceptible wildlife in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market, Wuhan: Analysis and interpretation of data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control

Report: Genetic evidence of susceptible wildlife in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market, Wuhan: Analysis and interpretation of data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control

zenodo.org