Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cold-Permission-5249 t1_jcfdyw6 wrote

We’ll never definitively know, but common sense, logic, and what little evidence we have all point to the most likely scenario being an accidental lab leak.

13

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfer2g wrote

There’s more than a little evidence

20

RandoCalrissian11 t1_jcfk6gs wrote

More than a little is understatement. It’s basically mountains of undeniable evidence, and one batshit (pun intended) crazy theory.

3

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfkv7p wrote

Lmao literally though. “Oh the pathogen wildly variant from any naturally occurring viruses just happened to naturally appear in the very area that was developing bio weapons using that exact virus”

I would call it copium but I want to give more credit and call it ignorance

6

QuizardNr7 t1_jchomtq wrote

and there we cross the line between bioterrorism and plausible accident at massive speed

2

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfisum wrote

There’s also plenty of evidence suggesting the opposite. The only reasonable answer to this question is “not sure” and the political polarization around it is unfortunate.

−4

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfjbu6 wrote

You can believe something based on what evidence shows is most likely the case. Which would be a lab leak in wuhan.

2

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfkno8 wrote

The prevailing genetic evidence suggests natural. Timing suggests natural. You can’t just cherry pick your evidence.

4 intel agencies believe natural with low confidence. 2 intel agencies believe lab leak with low and moderate confidence.

You and me? We have zero confidence.

3

Sad-Efficiency-7492 t1_jcjssfd wrote

You’re citing intel agencies? They may be the most untrustworthy institutions on earth.

−2

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jckzbfy wrote

What the hell other source is there? Let me get this straight, you only trust what confirms your own biases? Good grief - get a grip.

3

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcflpbi wrote

That ‘evidence’ is shoddy and outdated.

Besides, the government only just yesterday signed the declassification of origin information so we will have see for more.

−3

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcflztx wrote

And that means intel agencies have more confidence in the lab leak so..

−4

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfmczw wrote

No, that’s not how that works. But if you really want to do it the wrong way, it’s still +1 for natural.

4

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfmn19 wrote

  • low confidence in natural
  • low to moderate confidence in lab leak
  • ‘low to moderate’ > ‘low’
−1

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfnhuk wrote

Dude.

4 agencies claim low for natural. 1 agency claims low for lab leak, 1 moderate.

4 > 2

5

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfonqu wrote

So all confidence for natural is low and half confidence for lab leak is moderate

−1

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcforlp wrote

Just read the damn thing:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

3

SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfpymu wrote

So the theory with the most confidence was that it was a lab leak.

Then it comes down to which sources of evidence the intel committees give the most weight to. The most relevant sources of evidence imho really point in one direction but if you choose to follow the evidence given by sellouts then that is your prerogative.

0

[deleted] t1_jcfk0oz wrote

[deleted]

−2

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcflzp3 wrote

All the right can ever do is run rampant with their heads cut off believing conspiracy theories and scapegoating others. The instinct was right, but the practice was wrong. It’s not a cope to decry the situation.

3

[deleted] t1_jcfmhq2 wrote

[deleted]

1

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfn9s8 wrote

Well, I think you’re taking that a bit too extremely

2

[deleted] t1_jcfns6g wrote

[deleted]

1

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfooz8 wrote

Why do people claim to be left when they’re clearly not? And why do people latch onto one thing from the people they hate and ignore all the things from the people they like and then make extreme hypocritical arguments?

Geez, we’re all fucked.

3

[deleted] t1_jcfq2w1 wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_jcg727m wrote

You’re saying all it takes to change your core values is someone misunderstanding your intentions?

−1

[deleted] t1_jcg8tpq wrote

[deleted]

2

[deleted] t1_jcgcpoy wrote

Again you keep insisting that you’ll give up your liberal beliefs and become conservative if someone belittles you?

Your beliefs are so shallow, so flimsy, you’ll change them anytime someone is rude to you?

−1

Capn_Zelnick t1_jch1vaw wrote

Hoh, then you'll love how a reporter was fired for speaking against DeSantis. Idiot.

−1

[deleted] t1_jch47p8 wrote

[deleted]

0

Capn_Zelnick t1_jch52v5 wrote

So what I'm hearing is that it's permissible as long as the victim is an asshole?

0

[deleted] t1_jch678r wrote

[deleted]

0

Capn_Zelnick t1_jch8fdh wrote

That's the stupidest thing. Other than claims of censorship, why else do you believe most leftists are fascists, especially when it is clear to see that most right people support things like the abolishing of abortion under any circumstance, a violation of women's rights, and can be considered authoritarian because of it?

0