Batsh*t Thread

[CEB]

When he posts it, I’ll take my lead from him and never say anything else on the subject ever aside from “I don’t care”

[gshaw]

It's interesting that people think there is a building consensus that a lab leak is more likely when actually the overwhelming sciebtific consensus is that the research over the last few years has increased confidence in the likely cause of the outbreak being zoonosis. No one can say it wasn't a lab leak but it's much less likely.

I suppose it just depends whether you think peer reviewed and replicated scientific research carries more weight than a Jon Steeart joke.

Have a listen through this series, very interesting. The first episode even named after this thread

You'll see how much of the narrative was being controlled by China...

BBC Sounds - Fever: the hunt for Covid's origin
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... j4ICprxfIf

[Mick McQuaid]

I listened to a bit of that in the car when it came out. Again, I think I'll plump for the weight of scientific opinion rather than a podcast.

No doubt the Chinese government hampered the investigation and they probably would cover up a lab leak if it had happened, but it probably didn't un this case.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I listened to a bit of that in the car when it came out. Again, I think I'll plump for the weight of scientific opinion rather than a podcast.

No doubt the Chinese government hampered the investigation and they probably would cover up a lab leak if it had happened, but it probably didn't un this case.

Can we plumb for the scientific opinion as well please, mick? Post it up

[gshaw]

I listened to a bit of that in the car when it came out. Again, I think I'll plump for the weight of scientific opinion rather than a podcast.

No doubt the Chinese government hampered the investigation and they probably would cover up a lab leak if it had happened, but it probably didn't un this case.

The guy does speak to all different sources across the series, would definitely recommend giving it another chance

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I listened to a bit of that in the car when it came out. Again, I think I'll plump for the weight of scientific opinion rather than a podcast.

No doubt the Chinese government hampered the investigation and they probably would cover up a lab leak if it had happened, but it probably didn't un this case.

The guy does speak to all different sources across the series, would definitely recommend giving it another chance

But if it’s not EXACTLY aligned with the specific theory Mickey has dogmatically pinned his sail to then he ain’t interested. You’d think the people bleeting on about not believing what you’re told would be open to diverse views and theories baaah

[Mick McQuaid]

I am assuming neither of us have the ability to replicate the phylogenetic or epidemiological studies that have concluded that zoonoisis is the more likely explanation. I am assuming, like me, that you have no more than a vague understanding of the theory of how this can determine whether zoonosis or a lab leak is a more likely theory.

If that's correct then it's simply a case of who you choose to belive. It is a fact that there is no serious scientific paper that has said there can be certainty about covids origin but almost all conclude that animal to human transmission at the Wuhan Market is more likely than a lab leak, there is one paper from the University of New South Wales that concluded the opposite (and got a lot of press for it) which attempted to factor in the non scientific evidence that China is generally well dodgy.

It makes sense to try and look at the credentials of the people who publish the papers, but beyond that it's deciding whether the general scientific consensus is more or less likely to be closer to the truth than a podcast by the Beijing correspondent, some bloke on YouTube or Matt Le Tissier.

The youtube video and the podcast will be far more interesting, and feed into the idea that fuels conspiracy theories, that you can weigh the evidence yourself and reach an informed decision. You do not have the knowledge to do that and neither do I.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, my point was merely that I thought it was interesting that there is a general belief that the scientific view had shifted towards a lab leak being more likely, it absolutely hasn't.

[Dunners]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, my point was merely that I thought it was interesting that there is a general belief that the scientific view had shifted towards a lab leak being more likely, it absolutely hasn't.

My view isn't quite this. And, having listened to the BBC podcast series, I dont think that's what's being inferred either.

Instead, it's that the "scientific view" has shifted to acknowledging that it was wrong for the lab leak theory to have been dismissed so eagerly by WHO and others. This is not the same as thinking the lab leak theory is more likely than animal to human transmission.

[Max B Gold]

This is all getting very confusing.

The easiest way to settle the argument is to toss a coin. Heads it's the lab, tails its the animal to human one but which dirty b*stard shagged the animal to kick it all off. That's the question I want answered.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I am assuming neither of us have the ability to replicate the phylogenetic or epidemiological studies that have concluded that zoonoisis is the more likely explanation. I am assuming, like me, that you have no more than a vague understanding of the theory of how this can determine whether zoonosis or a lab leak is a more likely theory.

If that's correct then it's simply a case of who you choose to belive. It is a fact that there is no serious scientific paper that has said there can be certainty about covids origin but almost all conclude that animal to human transmission at the Wuhan Market is more likely than a lab leak, there is one paper from the University of New South Wales that concluded the opposite (and got a lot of press for it) which attempted to factor in the non scientific evidence that China is generally well dodgy.

It makes sense to try and look at the credentials of the people who publish the papers, but beyond that it's deciding whether the general scientific consensus is more or less likely to be closer to the truth than a podcast by the Beijing correspondent, some bloke on YouTube or Matt Le Tissier.

The youtube video and the podcast will be far more interesting, and feed into the idea that fuels conspiracy theories, that you can weigh the evidence yourself and reach an informed decision. You do not have the knowledge to do that and neither do I.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, my point was merely that I thought it was interesting that there is a general belief that the scientific view had shifted towards a lab leak being more likely, it absolutely hasn't.

You literally said

the overwhelming sciebtific consensus is that the research over the last few years has increased confidence in the likely cause of the outbreak being zoonosis

Now you’re saying no one knows. Which is right, of course. You also said you’re following the science but now seem to be backtracking when asked for said science.

Good sTuff

[CEB]

To be fair, he said that only in service of his argument about the likelihood (and the perception of the likelihood)
of lab leak Vs wet market

His point is overall a fair one.

[Adz]

Can we have the links to the peer reviewed scientific literature that's come out post covid please, I enjoy a bit of a nerd out.

[Mick McQuaid]

Rich Tea - sorry, i'm not sure where you think the contradiction is. I'm not saying no one knows, I'm saying what is known is that zoonosis is a more likely explanation than the lab leak theory and that view has been strengthened, not weakened, with additional research. A lab leak has not been disproved but it is the less likely explanation.

You can decide you have a better ability to understand and weigh the evidence than the thousands of scientists who have reached that conclusion, even though you obviously don't, or you can decide that there is a global conspiracy and all the scientists who have published papers on the subject are lying, or you can just choose to ignore the evidence, but all those options are quite obviously daft.

Dunners, there was huge pressure on the WHO from China to conclude that there was no lab leak but I think the problem is how the investigation was presented and reported on, the actual report did not dismiss the possibility that the cause was a lab leak, it just said it was unlikely, which it is.

Adz - here's a summary from the journal of virology. Further reading into all the research referenced is a mere Google search away.

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00365-23

[CEB]

Most of what you say here is reasonable MM, and it seems RTW has lost sight of the point a little, but one thing that sticks out to me is the reductive way you describe people’s position as “China is well dodgy” as if that’d self evidently useless as a factor to consider.
Is it not reasonable to factor in the likelihood of “dodgy” intentions, and the impact that has on the balance of probability? And by extension, reasonable to raise an eyebrow at being too quick to discount the possibility of “dodgy” behaviour (which would, almost inherently, seek to subvert the balance of evidence anyway)

But ultimately, the point isn’t about what actually happened, but is about how opinion/theorising quickly divided along political lines, while it’s turned out that either possibility is a reasonable hypothesis that shouldn’t be considered “of the right” or “of the left” or “wrong headed” or “reasonable”

[CEB]

To put it another way, lab leak was once seen as morally imperative to not put any stock in, and to hold that position was seen as a measure of character, not a measure of where analysis has taken them

[Mick McQuaid]

Sorry, China is without question well dodgy, if you could think of a country who would try and cover up either a **** up or nefarious activity they'd be right up the top of the list. I meant it that it's stating the bloody obvious, not to dismiss it. There is case for questioning the validity of any evidence received from the Chinese authorities, they can't have been entirely sure themselves that there hadn't been a f*** up, and they definitely hampered any external investigation just in case.

There's was quite an interesting book I was reading a while ago about why people believe in conspiracy theories (the name escapes me now though) that was looking into how people divide along political lines on opinions that wouldn't seem to be obviously related to politics and this is definitely one of those where people weren't looking at the evidence.

I think some of it in this case was some confusion between a theory of an accidental lab leak and the other truly crackpot stuff about it being a man made bioweapon that Bill Gates had unleashed on us. You also had Trump calling it the Chinese virus and supporting the lab leak theory, I suppose the instinctive response from many was that it if he was pushing it it must be wrong.

Absolutely agree there was a general view then that a lab leak had been pretty much conclusively ruled out when that wasn't the case, and there is a view now that it should be considered more seriously. It's fascinating that the general perception has moved in the opposite direction to the evidence.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I am assuming neither of us have the ability to replicate the phylogenetic or epidemiological studies that have concluded that zoonoisis is the more likely explanation. I am assuming, like me, that you have no more than a vague understanding of the theory of how this can determine whether zoonosis or a lab leak is a more likely theory.

If that's correct then it's simply a case of who you choose to belive. It is a fact that there is no serious scientific paper that has said there can be certainty about covids origin but almost all conclude that animal to human transmission at the Wuhan Market is more likely than a lab leak, there is one paper from the University of New South Wales that concluded the opposite (and got a lot of press for it) which attempted to factor in the non scientific evidence that China is generally well dodgy.

It makes sense to try and look at the credentials of the people who publish the papers, but beyond that it's deciding whether the general scientific consensus is more or less likely to be closer to the truth than a podcast by the Beijing correspondent, some bloke on YouTube or Matt Le Tissier.

The youtube video and the podcast will be far more interesting, and feed into the idea that fuels conspiracy theories, that you can weigh the evidence yourself and reach an informed decision. You do not have the knowledge to do that and neither do I.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, my point was merely that I thought it was interesting that there is a general belief that the scientific view had shifted towards a lab leak being more likely, it absolutely hasn't.

Fair enough and I apologise for jumping down your throat, your earlier posts did hint at you not really being open to debate/sheeple nonsense but what you’ve written above makes sense

[Mickys Bullock]

[Rubex Kube]

Sounds like Edisons famous electric pen or the Twitter peek.

[Long slender neck]

https://news.sky.com/video/dubai-floods ... e-13117296

Dubai floods: Meteorologist says cloud seeding is not to blame for intense rainstorms in UAE

[Currywurst and Chips]

Don’t google project Cumulus

[Dunners]

FFS. You know that's exactly what I'm going to do now, right?

[Dunners]

Phew. I feared the worst and was braced for it being on Urban Dictionary.

[BoniO]

Well you posted this on the correct thread that's for sure.

[Adz]

Cloud seeding has been used for years around the world, it's just not very effective or accurate.