If you say so. Your paranoia is your own.

There's an oddly one-sided scepticism at work here, were "might have escaped from a lab" becomes an extended narrative about genetic engineering and intentional infection, while the much more likely notion that it crossed from an animal is ignored. — Banno

It's right in my list of possibilities that it could be:

Or perhaps it's just one of those random things nature does from time to time. — boethius

The point of my narration of other possibilities is that they are possible.

"What's more likely?" assumes some model in which we can calculate likelihood. I have already written many months ago why making a model of the globe and relevant phenomena (including what intelligence agencies may or may not be capable of, might be willing or not to do) is basically impossible.

Without solid direct, verifiable evidence, "it's more likely it was natural" is just hand-wavy bullshit.

The narration in the media was never attached to some sort of factual basis, but political expediency.

It was politically expedient to downplay (without any factual or theoretical basis) a lab origin (accident or intentional) as that would help Trump with whom the establishment media was at war with.

Now, Trump is an incompetent buffoon, incapable of managing the crisis and so a scapegoat would have deflected attention from obvious mismanagement (that had nothing to do with where the virus came from anyway) and that could only help Trump in many ways.

However, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon, the (potential) last year of his presidency is the optimum moment to carry out a strategic bioweapons attack.

There's lot's of intelligence agencies on the planet with all sorts of agendas and employing all sorts of crazy people without any moral limitations (nor real intelligence, let's be honest here).

Causing a pandemic is so attractive precisely because it can be made to look natural, look like an accident, and so easily started anywhere on the planet (to support whatever narrative you'd want to establish; if you want to eventually blame China, just start the pandemic near a lab that has worked with the same kinds of viruses, which you expect a potential link China will try to cover up as a matter of course and look guilty anyways; if you're China and want to start the pandemic (to institute next level mass surveillance, crush Hong Kong protests, deflect from the casual genocide concentration camps things etc.) but have a plan B of saying it's "an oopsie" just start it close to your lab anyways as an eventual fallback explanation).

If you look at the history of clandestine operations (that we know about), completely insane things are done all the time in the past. The narration that crazy shit doesn't happen today, all the intelligence agencies (including fairly powerful extra-national private contractors nowadays also) are now all just wise old men who wouldn't harm a fly or disrupt public order in anyway, is just fantasy.

The possibility can't be excluded based on the opinion of a few civilian experts. We don't even know what the state of the art in bio-engineering even it.

The argument seems to be that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it happened.

Compare this to the argument that the US Airforce has a flying saucer, kept in a secret facility. Consider how the Airforce could disprove this.

If the Airforce gave access to every document and to every facility, there are those who would continue to say that there are other documents and other facilities that are still being kept secret.

The Airforce simply cannot prove that it has not captured a flying saucer.

Nor can it be proven that the virus did not escape from a lab. That's built into the logical structure of the accusation.

So it will come down to levels of (in)credulity.

However, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon, the (potential) last year of his presidency is the optimum moment to carry out a strategic bioweapons attack. — boethius

The question that needs to be asked is cui bono?

Obviously, in a dictatorship like Communist China, the state has the means to keep an epidemic under control. In liberal democracy, it's a different story.

So it's a calculated risk worth taking.

China has been building up its military capabilities, massively expanding its worldwide intelligence networks, infiltrating Western universities, think tanks and research institutions, and tightening its grip on our economies.

The argument seems to be that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it happened. — Banno

What are you talking about?

I said pretty in my list of possibilities "Or perhaps it's just one of those random things nature does from time to time".

I didn't provide much analysis of why this possibility is possible because we agree it is, and if it's just some random natural variation, then there's not really any scenario to develop.

The argument seems to be that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it happened. — Banno

Not at all.

The argument is that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it shouldn't be excluded.

The counter-argument is "it happens rarely, therefore it didn't happen".

Which of the two arguments is the most rational one?

I said pretty in my list of possibilities — boethius

...which is exactly what the article said. So what is your point?

There's an oddly one-sided scepticism at work here, were "might have escaped from a lab" becomes an extended narrative about genetic engineering and intentional infection, while the much more likely notion that it crossed from an animal is ignored.

People. — Banno

We're all relying upon sources with far more evidence and expertise than us for our information here. These sources told me the virus was most likely from bats, so then I accepted that. Now they're waffling, so so am I. I have no vested interest here other than finding the truth, and what I'm told today is different from yesterday.

Perhaps it pains you to have to deal with the fact that Trump's claims it came from his boogeyman the Chinese might be correct, but that only proves a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. I'm still not going to gargle Clorox.

Which of the two arguments is the most rational one? — Apollodorus

That it is "Extremely unlikely the virus escaped from a lab", as the cited article says.

The question that needs to be asked is cui bono?

Obviously, in a dictatorship like Communist China, the state has the means to keep an epidemic under control. In liberal democracy, it's a different story.

So it's a calculated risk worth taking. — Apollodorus

It's a possible scenario (and my fellow leftists saying a regime doing concentration camps in the broad daylight of the international press, is too pure and innocent to contemplate such a move, I don't get; I don't think there are moral limitations on China's current policy), but the problem with cui bono on large scale events is that there are many parties that are going to benefit. Amazon has also benefited, as the other tech giants. Various other countries also can be argued to have benefited.

One must also take into consideration that complex global events are not predictable and often people are extremely stupid. Someone may have attacked China not realizing they would be able to contain it and the West would do everything possible not-to-contain it. I don't think this was a foregone conclusion at the time.

Likewise, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon he may have authorized some crazy general, colonel, what-have-you to carry out an attack on China.

Likewise, precisely because Trump is an incompetent buffoon he may have authorized some crazy general, colonel, what-have-you to carry out an attack on China. — boethius

There was no Trump attack on China though, was there?

The fact is this, there were at leas 12 (twelve) virus lab escapes from 1963 to the present.

That makes an average of one escape every 4.8 years. Is that "extremely rare"? I don't think so.

Ergo, @Banno's article is misleading to say the least.

...which is exactly what the article said. So what is your point? — Banno

My points have been in response to your claim:

There's an oddly one-sided scepticism at work here, were "might have escaped from a lab" becomes an extended narrative about genetic engineering and intentional infection, while the much more likely notion that it crossed from an animal is ignored. — Banno

You say it's "much more likely notion".

I have actually studied maths, and if you bring up the idea of "likely" you need some way to calculate that. If I say I'm more likely to get a pair of kings than a straight flush, that's only true based on some model of how the cards and game work which will allow me to make that calculation.

Months ago I've already explained anyone talking of "likely" in the cause of the pandemic will need to do a lot of work to actually make probabilistic claims.

And, on both sides of the narrative battle: for instance, is it even an "unlikely" event the pandemic would first emerge near a lab? To say so one would actually need to map out where such labs are, where a natural pandemic would likely emerge, consider the fact a disease is more likely to be detected near a place capable of detecting disease etc.

You're the one claiming you know what's a more likely notion, please explain how you know.

There was no Trump attack on China though, was there? — Apollodorus

How do we know?

I'm pretty confident Trump is capable of signing a paper authorizing a strategic bioweapons attack and not even remember doing so, if he even understood vaguely the general subject matter at the time.

lol But he didn't, did he? Is that your "evidence"?

please explain how you know. — boethius

I don't understand your scepticism. I cited an article that summarises the analysis of "a joint exercise between the WHO and the Chinese health commission. In all, there were 17 Chinese and ten international experts, plus seven other experts and support staff from various agencies."

Doubtless they have "actually studied maths", too.

On the other side, we have politically inspired conjecture.

You choose. I'll not be commenting further.

I don't understand your scepticism. I cited an article that summarises the analysis of "a joint exercise between the WHO and the Chinese health commission. In all, there were 17 Chinese and ten international experts, plus seven other experts and support staff from various agencies."

Doubtless they have "actually studied maths", too. — Banno

Unfortunately, this isn't how science works, it's how politics works.

Can we do any reproducible experiments to verify these claims for ourselves?

Can we examine their statistical model (that includes the cutting edge of bioweapons research and capabilities/intentions of various state and non-state actors with varying degrees of proficiency relative the cutting edge)?

China investigating itself and finding no wrong doing isn't very convincing. The WHO is a small organization with limited resources and politically constrained and isn't going to conclude anything politically disruptive (i.e. is not going to carry out any honest intellectual exercise of analysis and call a media armegedon onto itself / start international tensions (that's not it's job, countries respective intelligence agencies have that job; WHO's job is to reassure the public in this situation, which it has been doing). Civilian experts are, in anycase, simply not useful in this case.)

The best analysis that currently exists has been done by bio-weapons experts (who's job it is to do things like model pandemics, see what statistical signatures a bioweapon may leave compared to what's expected naturally etc.) and such analysis is not available to us. Actual analysis of actual experts on what is the cutting edge (assuming their opponent doesn't outclass them) are state secrets currently.

lol But he didn't, did he? Is that your "evidence"? — Apollodorus

I said he's capable.

The evidence is his erratic, irrational, obvious poor grasp of new concepts, and morally void behavior.

The argument seems to be that the possibility can't be excluded, therefore it happened. — Banno

Absolutely wrong.

A possibility is a possibility. You are the one making the argument that a person in one article says that it's extremely unlikely, so other people here have no logic.

I genuinely don't understand such rejection of a possibility when the pandemic started from a city with a lab that not only researches coronaviruses, but genetically engineers coronaviruses to attack human cells...and then when we have not found the trace from the market to an animal (as the natural cause).

Bit of a coincidence. And actually gave a great article back from 2012 when Trump wasn't yet in politics etc. Here's a quote about the probabilities of lab leaks happening:

Simple mathematical analysis gives real reason for concern about the handling of these dangerous viruses. Consider the probability for escape from a single lab in a single year to be 0.003 (i.e., 0.3 percent), an estimate that is conservative in light of a variety of government risk assessments for biolabs and actual experience at laboratories studying dangerous pathogens. Calculating from this probability, it would take 536 years for there to be an 80 percent chance of at least one escape from a single lab. But with 42 labs carrying out live PPP research, this basic 0.3 percent probability translates to an 80 percent likelihood of escape from at least one of the 42 labs every 12.8 years, a time interval smaller than those that have separated influenza pandemics in the 20th century. This level of risk is clearly unacceptable. (A detailed analysis, additional arguments, documentation, and mathematical justification for these conclusions can be found in the research report written by one of us, “Sharpening Our Intuition on Man-made Pandemics.”)

Awful as a pandemic brought on by the escape of a variant H5N1 virus might be, it is SARS that now presents the greatest risk. The worry is less about recurrence of a natural SARS outbreak than of yet another escape from a laboratory researching it to help protect against a natural outbreak. SARS already has escaped from laboratories three times since 2003, and one escape resulted in several secondary infections and one death.

What is the likelihood that the virus’s escape could lead to a pandemic? Too high, given the lessons taught by the natural SARS outbreak a decade ago.

But somehow Dominic Dwyer saying that the risk is extremely low, then people ridicule others that say that it still is a possibility.

I genuinely don't understand such rejection of a possibility — ssu

I have not rejected the possibility.

And I have not yet rejected the possibility that it isn't a lab leak.

I can change my views if new information comes to light.

the possibility — Banno

the possibility — ssu

And that's all you two are gonna get. The CCP are not imparting shit.

And likely will float counter conspiracy theories, which will sink into people as a knife to soft butter. The objective is smudge everything over and confuse people.

As I said, a positive outcome would be that historians later are in agreement what happened in 2019 in Wuhan.

The misinformation and censorship regarding the lab theory is quite the scandal. Facebook went so far as to ban any discussion of the theory on its platform, ironically to protect the public from misinformation. And these measures were all based on poor science. One has to wonder what sort of information and evidence has been lost during that time.

Are the Chyneez trying to kill the good ol’ boys of Stoopid, USA again? Tricky buggers never give up, do they?

Who let the dogs out? That is a legitimate question, the answer to which can inform future action. But in the meantime, I'll not stop anyone who's out shooting and killing the dogs before they start packing up and running deer, cattle, or anything else.

Don't let the origination issue inform the wearing of masks, distancing, cleaning, or vaxxing. Even if a bad actor was a vax company who released it to make sales, take the vax and deal with the perp later. Likewise a lab release or other nefarious activity.

As to the Facebook thing, what were the lab theory people saying that would slow the roll on masking, distancing or vaxxing? Or was it just an environment so polluted with BS from the likes of POTUS that FB over-reacted and started shutting down everything out of an abundance of caution? If the latter, then, while calling out FB, it might be a good thing to remember what might happen when slinging shit in tweets.

British intelligence or at least former bosses have always viewed the lab scenario as realistic.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coronavirus-chinese-laboratory-wuhan-mi6-richard-dearlove-conspiracy-theories-a9547851.html

According to the Sunday Times they now believe the theory is "plausible."

But intelligence agents, according to the report, have few human sources of information in China, so they are trying to recruit them on the darknet, where they can speak anonymously without fear of reprisal.

In recent weeks information has emerged suggesting that the virus, which has spread across the globe, killing more than 3 million in the worst pandemic for generations, may not have developed from nature, as scientists initially believed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uk-spies-say-theory-covid-19-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-is-plausible-2021-5?r=US&IR=T

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why.

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

Humanity in general. It makes a fascinating plot. The mind zeroes in on it like a moth to a flame.

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why. — Baden

True. However, just as interesting is considering who desperately wants it not to be true and why.

China would be one possible answer that comes to mind. I tend to doubt that the regime arrested 5,000 scientists, doctors, lawyers, journalists and others for no reason.

"The Chinese government has engaged in disinformation to downplay the emergence of COVID-19 in China and manipulate information about its spread around the world. The government also detained whistleblowers and journalists claiming they were spreading rumors when they were publicly raising concerns about people being hospitalized for a "mysterious illness" resembling SARS."

COVID-19 misinformation by China – Wikipedia

(unlikely — Baden

Upon the basis of what information would you consider it unlikely, rather than likely? Note: I think it neither likely nor unlikely, on account of what I consider to be not enough information.