So... in other words, more of the same research (any new regulation?) that didn't help to prevent or find a cure or vaccine to this pandemic, but might have even potentially caused it. Will the funders actually have an excel spreadsheet tracking the pathogen samples this time?
-
Show this thread
-
This situation... Virologists say that virologists are unlikely to have caused the pandemic. Virologists say that more virology (and more funding for virologists) is needed to prevent a future pandemic.
18 replies 30 retweets 156 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Ayjchan
Oof there are so many logical fallacies in one short thread that it's hurting my head. It's not impossible that it leaked, it is just more probable that it is natural, as most viruses are. So the burden of proof is on those who claim this virus is "special".
7 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @cagrimbakirci @Ayjchan
How are you making that calculation? Just baffles me that people confidently make such claims based on little verifiable evidence—even most basic early outbreak data has been withheld, censored and/or is inconsistent and contradictory. We don’t know much is an honest answer.
5 replies 9 retweets 59 likes -
I agree we don't know much is the honest answer. This thread is not saying that. Ergo, it's a bad take. And in uncertainty, it is better to go with the more plausible explanation than a wilder one. The calculation comes from statistical probability of evolved viruses vs. leaked.
9 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
doesn't a probability assessment like this require some kind of normalization?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At a minimum I’d encourage people to take the epidemiological data published by Chinese scientists in January/February of 2020, try to match it to what’s been told to WHO a year later, notice how much is withheld and contradictory before confidently claiming what’s “more likely”.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Isn't this the case for *anything* with China? They do not release the outcomes of rocket flights until after success. I'm not saying a lab leak cannot happen, of course it can. I am saying "discrepancy" is little evidence (if any) under these circumstances.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cagrimbakirci @zeynep and
Exactly.. This is why it is not right to assign probability estimates to hypotheses without more info..
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Sure. But the "working hypothesis" would be natural cause, instead of randomly pointing fingers. The original thread even attacks those who want more regulation for being incompetent!
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Working hypothesis should be there is an extensive and sustained cover-up, and people should refrain from making broad statistical claims in such a situation. Generalities aren’t illuminating.
-
-
I mean, a subset of researchers can have that working hypothesis to prove or disprove it with data but claiming the default position of the scientific community (or the people in general) to do so is ridiculous. It just begs the question especially when so little evidence exists.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.