The answer to the covid origins question will help us decide whether we should be building new coronavirus research labs or tearing them down. Whether this answer helps the opponents of science, or helps Trump, or upsets China, or destroys public confidence is irrelevant.
-
Show this thread
-
The circumstantial evidence Stewart points to is compelling. You have a novel coronavirus arise in the same city as one of three labs in the world that study these viruses, and nowhere near where we find related diseases in the wild. You have a lot of people trying to cover up.
3 replies 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
We know we're about 1/5 for iatrogenic pandemics in the 20th century; we know the base rate of lab accidents is high; we know this all happened in a surveillance society where any tracks leading to an alternate source would be retrospectively visible to the authorities.
5 replies 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
So Stewart is in fact applying scientific principles in his hypothesis—in this case Occam's Razor. Check out the novel virus lab down the street from the novel virus spreading event, he says, and don't let political or social considerations derail your inquiry. That's science.
3 replies 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
If millions of people died because research into preventing a pandemic created the conditions for starting one, that is the most important lesson we could learn from covid. Getting the answer right, one way or the other, is the only way to prevent this all from happening again.
6 replies 5 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
I'm not asking anyone to believe the evidence we have right now is adequate. But I wish commentators like Rather would stop conditioning their beliefs on the consequences of one answer or the other being right, and stop attacking the question itself as somehow harmful.
5 replies 6 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
The one thing that science is supposed to be best at—updating beliefs based on new evidence—is something we've consistently failed at all through the pandemic. The mantra of "believe the science" revealed itself as just an argument from authority dressed up in a lab coat.
3 replies 11 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
My own perception has been that the science has been updating CONSTANTLY due to new evidence over the course of the pandemic. Policy changes have lagged of course but the pace of scientific discovery and the updating of scientific consensus has been astounding.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @AstroKatie
There has been incredible foot-dragging on the scientific side, for example on the issue of aerosol transmission. The institutional rot goes deep.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard @AstroKatie
I think you’ve misunderstood science vs public policy. It takes a long time for science to prove things. Health public policy should probably have moved ahead of the science. They aren’t remotely the same thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I'm not confused about the distinction. It takes very little time to disprove something, and we had early and compelling evidence disproving the accepted model of transmission. That was ignored for reasons that implicate the scientific community, not policymakers.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard @AstroKatie
Weird how you learned all this from journaled publication but “science” suppressed it. Who is this community that should be implicated?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jandersen @AstroKatie
A nice writeup of all of it is here:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.