|
|
|
|
|
|
by jeduehr
1895 days ago
|
|
|
That's... Not at all the core argument. The core argument is actually one of occam's razor. Is such a recombinant /technically/ possible? Yes. How many new assumptions does it require? A lot. Lots of people who help cover it up, lots of people who get sick and say nothing, lots of samples destroyed. And then also the epidemiological and genetic evidence doesn't support it. How many new assumptions do you need for the zoonosis theory? Very few. It consists almost entirely of phenomena we know occur in nature, via mechanisms already described and known to occur at a frequent enough time scale to make it not just plausible, but probable. That's the core argument. |
|
|
People like Michael Osterholm and Peter Daszak and Vincent Muenster and Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli have been saying this was going to happen /for years/. It was a matter of "when" not "if" to us virologists. We absolutely saw the writing on the wall and saw specifically SARS-1 and MERS and knew that meant there were likely other coronaviruses that could emerge.
But funding was always so low, because the viruses weren't currently infecting anybody! So the sampling efforts were always very minimal and underfunded!
And now, because of the lab leak theory, that has actually gotten worse, not better!
https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/gb8yye/nihs_axing...