This, by @zeynep, is the best thing I’ve read on the lab leak theory. Because it:
-clearly explains what we do and don’t know
-includes some history of other viruses
-aims at improving public health, not defending Trump nor whining about the mediahttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html?referringSource=articleShare …
-
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
I’ve been annoyed by lab leak discourse—so much has focused on complaints that some people in 2020 said variations on “there’s no way, shut up” rather than “I doubt it, you haven’t provided evidence”—and found your piece to be a breath of fresh air. Thanks.
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
You’re welcome. The “shut up” approach isn’t healthy or functional. Orienting this only around Trump is short-sighted. And the way so much coverage has excluded the biosafety dimension has been unacceptable. “Normal accidents” a la Perrow > fancier scenarios in this case, imo.
2 replies 2 retweets 15 likes
“Absence of evidence” requires context to interpret especially when it’s so obviously deliberate. Posterior and conditional probability is more useful than “in normal times” arguments made post hoc. Induction, implicitly invoked a lot, breaks most for tail risks so not as useful.
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.