[chmod600]

There is also no evidence that it came from animals directly.

Given that there are really only two plausible hypotheses, and nondirect evidence of either, we have to speculate based on circumstantial evidence.

And if one hypothesis is floated around the media, we need to raise the other one as well.

I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning).

[layer8]

Why do we have to speculate? If both hypotheses are plausible, should it make a significant difference for the measures we take which one is actually true? If evidence comes out showing which hypothesis is true, does it suddenly make the other one retroactively less plausible? I mean, it would be interesting to know what really happened, but it doesn’t change all that much.

[ajsnigrutin]

It does. Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again.

If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, or such things should not be done in labs with iffy security practices... or maybe even not done at all.

Many workplace (and general) safety rules were written because someone has died doing something (now considered) against the rules. Killing a few millions of people and stoping the planets economy for almost two years seems like a terrible cost of some research gone bad.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again

I really don't see that. If it is really true that both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless. The next event could as likely come from "the other source", or from a new entirely one you don't even know about.

Your only reasonable option _in any case_ is to just strengthen your protection from both potential sources.

Suppose you are investigating a plane crash, and the evidence points to a possible uncontained engine failure, which apparently was caused by previously-undetected metal fatigue. The evidence, however, also almost entirely fits a bird strike. It doesn't really matter if you eventually find it was a bird strike, or not. Your engineers really think the metal fatigue could have brought down the plane? You are going to increase metal fatigue inspections, birds or not. And viceversa.

[kcplate]

> both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless.

How is it “absolutely meaningless” if you can narrow the chance of happening of the one you have control over? Is a global pandemic is a rare occurrence already don’t you make it more rare if you mitigate the risk of one of the possible sources?

[AshamedCaptain]

What is absolutely meaningless is _which_ was the cause of this one particular event, since both clauses are almost equally plausible. I am obviously not claiming that the best course of action is not to mitigate anything; I am claiming that the best course of action is the same irregardless of the particular cause of this one event.

[kcplate]

No doubt, but if the catalyst for the folks involved to take that best course of action is a global public revelation that governments and scientists had a hand in this either by irresponsible experimentation or lax safety over dangerous experimentation then it’s not meaningless.

[namose]

Gain of function research can either be outlawed or not outlawed. We don’t get to try both because viruses are global issues.

[mellavora]

> If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do.

Some people say the main progress of civilization is the ability to do things about forces which were previously seen as natural and random.

> If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken,

Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings?

We don't have to prove that covid was a lab leak to review the procedures. Likewise, we don't have to prove that covid was natural and random (I am glad you separated those two, by the way) before reviewing how we handle food safety and animal transportation measures.

[Closi]

Nontheless, noting and acknowledging that a worldwide pandemic was actually caused from a lab leak would certinaly drive stricter regulation and higher adherence to procedures.

Conversely, a strong belief that it wasn't a lab leak would, of course, reduce the pressure to implement changes to safety protocols.

In theory everyone would react in a way which optimally reduces risk, but in practice acknowledgement of an incident drives significantly different behaviour.

[layer8]

Right, but I believe that this bias created by knowing the actual outcome for a single instance is much too strong, and we should rather strive to reduce that bias. In that light, the effort expended in continued speculation about the actual truth seems mostly wasted and misdirected energy to me.

[Izkata]

> Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings?

Part of the lab leak claim is that the 2018 experiments mentioned in the tweet were done in a BSL2 lab even though they required BSL3 or 4.

[PurpleRamen]

> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning).

That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.

[mejutoco]

> "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional"

Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc".

In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance.

Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts.

If one can ignore the bizarre political associations that formed in the US regarding masks, it is difficult to argue that the effort of wearing a mask is not worth it. Even if, as I said before, they are far from perfect.

[ubertaco]

> In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't remember ever hearing "masks don't work unless you're a medical professional" (outside of later revisionist accounts by the right-wing "COVID isn't real and this is all a vast conspiracy" crowd); I mostly remember hearing "initial findings show that masks seem to be effective, but supplies are so short that we should ensure that our medical responders have access to them, so please don't go out and panic-buy them like you've been doing with toilet paper."

[namose]

Fauci directly said masks don’t work at the start of covid

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...

[BWStearns]

The more conspiracy minded started parsing "please don't go out and panic-buy them like you've been doing with toilet paper" as "you don't need masks" almost immediately. It was dumb when it happened, it's still dumb today. I'm sure at least one talking head said something to that effect but that was not actually the consensus message.

"Don't buy these masks unless you're a medical professional" ≠ "Masks don't work unless you're a medical professional."

[namose]

Stop doing revisionist history. Fauci said directly that masks don’t work.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-...

It’s fine to be wrong, that’s what science is all about, but at least admit it and explain the reasoning behind the change.

[hackerfromthefu]

Yes, you missed a lot then.

[PathOfEclipse]

To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show causation, then maybe it's time to stop blindly repeating the mantra that masks are effective.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729

[gilbetron]

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't even looking. Please look and stop trying to sit in your echo chamber.

[nostrebored]

Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear.

There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters.

Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to turn course.

[gilbetron]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Your first two statements are just wrong, shockingly so after over 2 years where you could have educated yourself and decided not to.

Your last statement is definitely something we need to look into, but I think the development delays are probably minimal (speaking as a parent of a kid that wore masks at a critical age), but I think the social isolation was far more significant.

[PathOfEclipse]

Your response should be a comedic parody, yet, sadly, you are actually being serious. It's a depressing reflection on the state of the world.

I said there are zero RCTs, a type of study that can establish causation, and you respond, "there are lots of mask studies! You just aren't looking!" Your response literally contradicts nothing that I said. I even linked a BMJ-published opinion lamenting the fact that there are a lot of mask studies, but they are mostly low-quality. I'm going to guess you didn't bother reading it.

Not to mention that you tell me there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks, but you can't even be bothered to cite one yourself. Lastly, you accuse me of sitting in an echo chamber, an accusation that is beyond baseless. What else would you be willing to accuse me of without a shred of evidence?

Your response is just another example that people don't follow the scientific method; they are driven by ideology and tribalism.

[gilbetron]

First google hit, not difficult: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Again, you have an agenda that is at odds with reality, please stop, it is literally hurting people.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

You do you, but I've enjoyed not even getting the slightest cold for the last couple years that I might just keep masking in a lot of public spaces for the foreseeable future. It's anecdata for sure, but my experience seems to suggest that masks can help protect against airborne transmissible viral infections.

For more anecdata, pretty much everyone in my extended contacts that has chosen to relax their masking posture has gotten covid at some point since. Those that continue stricter protocols get sick less, bet it colds covid or flu.

I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why...

[californical]

I do wonder if there are long-term affects from sheltering our immune systems for extended periods.

Now, I’m still in favor of wearing masks in some particularly high-risk places. And absolutely supported masks in the earlier days (until vaccines were readily available & common).

But by not getting exposure to the regular tiny amounts of bacteria and viruses that float around from other people (our body deals with quickly and we never feel sick), do we know anything about the long term affects of that on the immune system? Genuinely curious because I couldn’t find anything.

We know it causes an increase in blood-CO2 concentration: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/

And possibly a decrease in white blood cell count: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585544/

But I don’t think we know yet if there are long-term immune system complications

[Izkata]

> I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why...

Those masks are as much about blocking blood spurts from the patient as they are about blocking spit from the doctor. They're not meant for blocking airborne viruses either way.

[aljungberg]

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion.

(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

[ubertaco]

>(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy).

I do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.

[lmm]

> My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses

The point is that if they are not certain then they should make it clear they are not certain. We were told very confidently that masks didn't work, that using them was nothing more than superstition. We are now told equally confidently that they do work. The establishment, taken as a whole, is extremely, dangerously overconfident.

[aljungberg]

It’s fine to make mistakes, especially in a fluid, developing situation. And it is precisely therefore we shouldn’t dress up our hypothesises as fact.

The actors here presented mask dictates as gospel. They were either wrong when anti-mask or wrong when pro-mask, but somehow conveyed absolute confidence in both cases. This is very harmful for the public discourse and for the reputation of the authorities during a time when reputation was paramount.

It’s okay not to know everything, just be honest about it.

[claytongulick]

> My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy).

When public policy is based on it, people are threatened with jail, forceably removed from outdoor open-air sporting events and denied basic services, yeah - you sure as hell better not be wrong about it.

When people in the street yell at you and call you a murderer for not wearing a mask outside in the sunshine (this happened to me) - yeah, you don't get to go back later and say "oops, my bad".

When the government exercises extraordinary emergency powers by executive fiat without legislative support to impose masking rules - they had better have damned good science to back it up.

In this case, the science simply didn't exist.

It's a strawman argument to claim "numerous studies show effectiveness of masking" as I've seen several people argue in this discussion.

The only relevant studies are those that evaluate the effectiveness of universal masking, since that's what the public policy dictated.

Universal masking policy was a knee-jerk response to some early studies and models that over estimated the risk of asymptomatic transmission. However, regardless of the new science that demonstrated that asymptomatic transmission was incredibly rare, the authorities refused to change the guidance.

Where was the science that justified the arbitrary and utterly performative rules put in place for restaurants? (wear a mask to walk three meters from the front door to the table, but it's ok to take it off when you're at the table)

Or the painfully performative masking of news people, in a studio by themselves, wearing a mask. Or wearing a mask alone in a car. Or on a walk outside. Or on a video conference for work.

Masks quickly stopped being about science very early on and quickly became nothing more than a flag for showing political alliance with the utter nonscientific nonsense of cloth masks and the overnight development of "fashion masks".

Forcing this on children was especially painful to watch. Children, who will never follow proper masking protocols and who are happy to trade their batman mask for their friend's spiderman mask...

> do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.

I do hope that this entire episode and the bumbling, unscientific, incoherent and political face-saving response from the government makes you take a second look at blanket, authoritarian policy in the future.

Universal masking was the public health equivalent of the TSA. Illusory safety at best, with very little demonstrable effectiveness to justify the intrusion and restrictions put in place.

[mejutoco]

I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you.

There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.

[hackerlight]

It isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy implies planning and plotting. That was just decentralized media figures deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.

[yonaguska]

If you still think we have decentralized media figures simply copying each other...when all your media companies air the same advertisements from the same pharmaceutical companies, it's no surprise that they would all take the same opinions. Speaking for American media only. They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places.

This doesn't cover the other news epidemic we have of state intel actors propping up media conglomerates as a matter of foreign policy. Specifically in Ukraine, and I'm only referencing this as it's probably the most recent example- the US is currently offering grants to organizations in Ukraine right now [0], this actually doesn't seem very nefarious. It's been going on for quite some time however. This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion. StopFake is specifically called out, an organization that was previously hosted by our very own spokeswoman for the now defunct Ministry of Truth, Nina Jankowicz. And we know Taiwan does it, via Epoch Times, Russia does it with Russia Times, and various other state actors use more sophisticated methods. Before I dropped off most social media, it was obvious seeing Chinese propaganda being pushed, oftentimes through New York Times opinion pieces. Israel and China are probably two of the more sophisticated state actors, up there with the US intel agencies.

tldr: nothing is real, most media is carefully curated to shape your opinions and culture, not to inform you.

[0] https://ua.usembassy.gov/education-culture/media-development... [1] https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/most-of-the-fact-checking-or...

[hackerlight]

> They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places.

I don't see enough evidence for this claim.

The simpler explanation is that they're lazy (as most humans are) and scared to dissent (as most humans are), therefore they don't bother doing original work that challenges the accepted wisdom and they copy each other.

I do have some evidence for this. Within hours of the Amber Heard judgement came down, identical false claims about the judgement were blasted across all major news sites. I am rather confident that there was no nefarious plot here, because the stakes were so low and didn't involve powerful actors, and because non-US news outlets parroted the same fake news. Is there some secret clandestine organization doing this, coordinating with US and non-US news sources, on a story of no political significance? I saw the fake news get manufactured in front of my eyes. What happened was there was a viral tweet that created the fake claim, then one journalist picked up on it, and then all the other journalists copied that one journalist, because that's lower effort and safer than doing a thorough job.

Occam's razor + hanlon's razor.

> This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion.

Lol, very few people are minimizing Azov or other far-right groups in Ukraine. Everyone knows they're a huge problem (albeit they are a problem that is caused by Russia's invasion in 2014 - Ukraine, being much smaller, doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing who is allowed to fight, given the imminent threat of further invasion from a larger neighbor). They are mostly just countering the Kremlin's propaganda that Ukraine is run by drug-addicted banderites and that Azov, a fairly small unit, is representative of the entire military and political leadership. The Russian propaganda around this was insane, helped along by treacherous US crypto fascists, and so hypocritical given that neo-Nazi views are more widely subscribed inside Russia than in Ukraine according to Pew polling, and given that the head of Wagner (whom Putin has shaken hands with) is an open neo-nazi with SS tattoos on his neck, and given that Pushilin has been seen awarding a medal to an open neo-nazi, and given that Putin himself is a literal fascist compared to the democratically elected Zelenskyy.

[yonaguska]

> Lol, very few people are minimizing Azov or other far-right groups in Ukraine. Everyone knows they're a huge problem

Your response to the USA spearheading propaganda efforts to support far right neo-nazi's is- 1) they failed and 2) russian nazi's are worse.

My problem is with the fact that the US did it at all, whether we agree or disagree on the success of that operation isn't part of my point.

As for media being driven by conspiring forces, I agree that they are lazy and scared to dissent, but this doesn't account for everything. I'm not going to take the time to prove that right now. If you truly believe the media organizations are benign, just lazy and conformists, then I doubt I can change your mind anyways.

> albeit they are a problem that is caused by Russia's invasion in 2014

Unrelated, they were an organization that existed long before Russia's invasion, and they arguably played a crucial role in ensuring that the peaceful Euromaiden protests turned bloody. This goes back to CIA Operation ANYFACE, and subsequent Western intervention during the Cold War and after the fall of the USSR to combat Russian influence.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article216406.html https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/operation-anyface-how...

[hackerlight]

> Your response to the USA spearheading propaganda efforts to support far right neo-nazi's is- 1) they failed and 2) russian nazi's are worse.

No, my response is that (1) it's an insane unsupported conspiracy theory, (2) which misdirects from the actual fascist dictatorship that uses gaslighting and DARVO to trick conspiracy minded fools into thinking that actually the democratically elected centrists over in Ukraine are the real fascists.

Consider this. STOPFAKE, an alleged arm of US pro-fascist propaganda, whitewashes C14 by calling it a "community organization", yet the U.S. State Department classifies C14 as a "nationalist hate group". Why would the U.S. State Department do that if the goal of the US led conspiracy (which presumably involves the U.S. State Department) is to paint these groups as heroes? The claims are internally inconsistent and self-refuting.

> USA spearheading propaganda efforts

More DARVO. The US has been trying to respond to Russian propaganda efforts. What Putin is doing is out of Hilter's propaganda playbook for Sudetenland and Poland. If you knew anything about Putin's election interference in 2016, and about how Xi and Putin are weaponizing social media against the US population, and about the Kremlin's propaganda campaign to portray Ukraine as a fascist threat so as to have a justification for the invasion, you would perhaps not automatically assume such a cynical position. That doesn't mean that such efforts haven't sometimes failed, of course, in fact I'd be surprised if they had a perfect track record. But failures and mistakes don't mean that anti-propaganda efforts are themselves concerted propaganda.

> 1) they failed

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. No evidence to the contrary is deemed sufficient because the conspiracy theory is this amorphous thing that has to be true regardless of how well it is falsified by counterexamples.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-probl...

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movem...

> Unrelated, they were an organization that existed long before Russia's invasion

More DARVO. They were nascent at best and had no institutional acknowledgement (and let's not forget that pre-Maidan was a pro-Russian government, so to the extent that Azov was a thing pre-2014, the blame for that goes on their shoulders). Then Russia invaded, and that forced a change in the status quo out of necessity and made eliminating far-right paramilitary groups pragmatically infeasible. Ukraine doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing who can fight to defend their small population.

> I'm not going to take the time to prove that right now.

If someone alleges a conspiracy theory and doesn't present compelling evidence, it can be safely dismissed.

[heartbreak]

You just described the early-Covid shutdown policy-making too.

[chaosite]

Shutdowns weren't done by media figures, they were done by policy-makers inside governments.

[heartbreak]

> That was just decentralized [governments] deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.

Sorry, I thought that substitution was implied.

[yonaguska]

And "consent" to shutdowns were manufactured by policy makers inside governments paying media companies to promote their policies. It was a concerted effort.

[isitmadeofglass]

Where have I heard this kind of reasoning before? Oh yes, I remember:

There is no direct evidence for god not existing. Given that there are only two possible hypothesis, that he exists and that he doesn’t, we need to teach both sides to children, and the case for a 4000 year old planet with dinosaur bones buried to confuse scientists must be taught at equal level!