8/ Now, absolutely, the fact that the author of a highly selective essay that omits all the evidence against its speculative conclusions has a history of coming to conclusions opposite those of the research on which he depends is not proof that this story is wrong too. But...
-
Show this thread
-
9/ It should evoke real caution in any editor, reporter, or pundit pursuing that same story. And here's my point (I do have one!)...
1 reply 2 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
10/ The lab-escape story depends wholly on a lot of deep and detailed knowledge across a number of domains: epidemiology, the dynamics of zoonosis, molecular biology in general and the highly subject-specific problems of lab work on any given organism...and more...
3 replies 9 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
11/ "Amateur epidemiologists" aren't qualified to have independent opinions across that spectrum. "Data guys" aren't. Philosophy Ph.D's-turned pundits aren't. Etc....
11 replies 5 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @TomLevenson
Disagree. The politics matter. The history matters. Epidemiologists are divided. Significant number who signed March letter are rethinking. Pandemic has taught us that epidemiologists too can be wrong on fundamentals.
@zeynep &@RosenthalHealth are reliable sources in my book.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
We will agree to disagree, then. Please see this for a very compelling take down on the chain of inferences that dominate lab-escape argumentation:https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-leak-theory?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=EB_TNR&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1624975820 …
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Subhead raises a flag, though: bioengineered virus is only one lab possibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
a) subheds are not the story (and not written by the reporter). b) the story is clear: there's essentially no there there in the lab-escape, & especially in the engineered virus escape story. What frustrates me most RE
@zeynep's piece is that she almost did something really good.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
May I recommend this article with extensive quotes by Ralph Baric that explains the concerns fairly clearly, and be untagged? Thanks. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ …pic.twitter.com/z0C6kgz2IB
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
My apologies. I did not tag you in, and will untag (or more likely, give up on a conversation that's chasing its tail.) The Baric-centered article is useful and interesting, and in my reading still not terribly supportive of lab escape as close to as likely as zoonosis. YMMV.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm with Dr. Akiko Iwasaki on this who essentially said given so little evidence, either way, the real issue isn't trying to assign a faux precision to probabilities but to deeply understand what were the viable paths, and how to address it all as best we can.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @TomLevenson
We don't address a plane crash by saying "most of the time planes are safe." We investigate, as best we can, and work to make it all safer and I think proclaiming certainty about likelihoods without much evidence doesn't give us answers or a path forward. Have a great day.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I am having a nice day, thanks. I wish the same for you. There are problems with your analogy, & I'm afraid the problem of misplaced certainty fall rather on the escape side of the argument, but I guess we disagree. I do think you missed an opportunity in your long piece.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.