> all you need is for some people to be near some sick bats.
Seems that there are multiple problems with that..
1. High level of optimisation for Human transmission, without many mutations indicating the possibility that it was pre-optimised somewhere before making the jump.
2. Presense of double `CGG` which is left as a common market to denote lab insertions.
>The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
So on the other hand, for lab leak, only these needs to be satisfied.
1. They were doing GoF research on viruses trying optimise for human transmission.
2. Someone had a bad day and didn't follow the strict procedures, and ended up getting infected with a super charged virus.
What makes the above far fetched is only if you take the chinese researcher's word for granted, and accpet that there was no such research being conducted there, and no virus that was close enough was stored in the lab to start the research with. But without that, I think the lab leak is much more probably, and I think most experts will agree as well (They don't because they have a hard time doubting fellow reserchers without evidence).
> The technology is insufficient for the task, and it will never get better.
This is very true. But I don't think it is a problem with technology.
It is just that you cannot really have a valuable insight by putting a 10000 idiots in a room and have them argue it out. In other words, you cannot replace one intelligent man with a 10000 idiots, hence the failure of HN and similar forums.
These things are only good for sharing interesting things, so the best way to use is to just use posted links, and never to engage in discussion.
Commenters going on about how other people are idiots is actually a strong marker of mediocre comments. If you guys would please indulge in that kind of thing somewhere else, we'd appreciate it. It's tedious, and it's against the site guidelines. Note this one:
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.
If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)
You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts.
So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.
If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.
> If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)
That's the nice thing about science though. It's based on (readily available, well recorded) evidence. Deciding that an individual is smarter and/or doesn't believe in science (aka the entire anti vax movement) may be a matter of opinion, but the actual data and risks are not.
> So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.
I don't mean this as a personal attack on that user, but It is really concerning how blind and apologetic some people are to the various things that can go wrong with a Vaccine.
I would like to see all the data W.H.O looked at before making the evaluation. Also why is VAERS not mentioned?