@jeffcliff uncertainty I can accept but while they were uncertain they were calling people speculating about it conspiracy theorists. I also don't understand how one day you can admit to constantly flipflopping and then conclude there's no evidence. wouldn't you say after that "we don't think it's a lab leak" rather than "there's no evidence of a lab leak" what was making them flip flop?
it's misleading to say there was no evidence as well because there was a mutation that was identical to an artificial mutation. there are a lot of reasons even though other coronavirus have had similar mutations that this was unusual so saying "nothing" just sounds wrong.
@Angie_rasmussen went into it, thought i linked it to you when it first came out?
they were unsure of whether it was lableak or not, and the drafts reflected this uncertainty -- the uncertainty prompted further investigation internally which was done. This was all before @Angie_rasmussen 's work -- ie it is pure 'fog of war' stuff
@jeffcliff in the article they admit they came to a firm conclusion as the result of wanting to prevent a "shitshow". even if later research came to the same conclusion why isn't this admission a problem?
@jeffcliff identical mutation to one that happens to be one artificially induced specifically for the purpose of making the virus more virulent to humanized mice. I get "not proof" but this also means you can never make a strong assertion yet they did.
> they were calling people speculating about it conspiracy theorists.
...they were usually conspiracy theorists. People who were suspecting some kind of ecohealth-WIV-CIA-whatever conspiracy *were* positing a conspiracy theory. And it turns out they were very likely wrong [the more groups involved the more wrong they were].
> I also don't understand how one day you can admit to constantly flipflopping and then conclude there's no evidence.
on early drafts of a report we should expect flip flopping. We could even expect it years after the fact.
> wouldn't you say after that "we don't think it's a lab leak" rather than "there's no evidence of a lab leak"
There wasn't good evidence either way for a long time.
> what was making them flip flop?
they weren't sure
> it's misleading to say there was no evidence as well because there was a mutation that was identical to an artificial mutation.
Yes, that was weak evidence, though even that one i think was taken at a great risk of texas sharpshooting.
> there are a lot of reasons even though other coronavirus have had similar mutations that this was unusual so saying "nothing" just sounds wrong.
the whole thing was certainly unusual, and china made things worse by not being transparent about it which to this day leads to some confusion
> in the article they admit they came to a firm conclusion as the result of wanting to prevent a "shitshow". even if later research came to the same conclusion why isn't this admission a problem?
i guess to the extent that they were overly eager, that is a problem to some extent