That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    24 hours ago

    These things already happen to an insane degree, which is good. Others are using this argument to either jump to the conclusion that it’s man made or that we should shut down all coronavirus research. There is a clear distinction between these thoughts that are being intentionally blurred by those with an agenda.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      We ought to be vigilant about leaping to conclusions or letting biases creep in, and I can’t control others doing that.

      Contrary to these things happening to an insane degree, it’s not clear the laboratories in question took adequate precautions.

      Concerns about biosafety standards first caught my notice with this report stating that the laboratory may have been working with coronavirus at inappropriate biosafety levels as low as 2 (eg, unblocked respiratory paths of infection). Questioning the source (even though it seems coherent), I noticed other corroborating reports with references. If the reports are true, then these laboratories in the Wuhan Institute worked with infectious coronaviruses at inappropriate biosafety levels lower than their US counterparts.

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Okay you’ve refused to acknowledge or read my more important points so it appears you don’t want a conversation with perseverations on your agenda. Good luck.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I don’t know what logically led you to that conclusion. Maybe you ought to self-reflect & work on your own biases/not jump to conclusions?

          I’m linking to supporting references, and you’re not, so 🤷.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              21 hours ago

              This nature article has the title

              Wuhan lab samples hold no close relatives to virus behind COVID

              But you previously claimed

              All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history clearly show this virus existed in nature

              Which is it?

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                20 hours ago

                Both. “All sequence data, wild type virus, and previous research history” refers to the disease causing virus and wild type relatives. The Wuhan research viruses are unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.

                  • rusticus@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    17 hours ago

                    Good lord you’re dense. What does this even mean and what relevance is it? The nature article and your articles say this wasn’t created in a lab yet you insist on keeping the tinfoil hat on. Lololol

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              A YouTube video and an opinion piece lol.

              News investigation & report quoting correspondence between biosafety experts/researchers & their letters to journals?

              a Nature article

              Paywalled & also in the news section?

              It’s possible despite lax biosafety, they didn’t leak the virus & didn’t have it. Based on what little I can read of the article: the word of a person at the center of the matter may be true; however, that’s considerable weight for their word to carry that leaves doubt over impartiality & independence. Findings of an independent monitor/investigation would be more convincing.

              • rusticus@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                20 hours ago

                Nature is the most highly regarded scientific publication in the world. I can’t help you with your paywall issues.

                • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  59 minutes ago

                  It’s a news article in their news section, not a scientific study, Nature’s domain of prestige/authority. In the hierarchy of evidence, this ranks at the bottom as background information.

                  The previous comment stands: it’s an isolated claim lacking independent, impartial corroboration.