The origin of Covid - nature or man made?

[Inkubus]

Do you have any data or only opinion pieces?

-Teresa

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, you claim the virus is man made. Now back up that claim with some evidence.

[Dom]

Do you have any data or only opinion pieces?

-Teresa

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, you claim the virus is man made.  Now back up that claim with some evidence.

Me, I claim that we don't know shit. It could have happened either way. It could even be that a lab technician went to a wet market and contracted it there and brought that version into the lab in that manner.

[Tres Leches]

Do you have any data or only opinion pieces?

-Teresa

You are trying to shift the burden of proof, you claim the virus is man made.  Now back up that claim with some evidence.

No, I've made no such claim. You're putting words into my mouth. My thread title has a question mark.

-Teresa

[Mad Hatter]

Jon Stewart weighs in on science, COVID, and Wuhan

[Inkubus]

Science has in many ways helped ease the suffering of this pandemic ― which was more than likely caused by science.

Who is this virologist Jon Stewart of whom you speak?

[Fireball]

"Science" doesn't start or stop anything, people do. Saying "science" just scares all the ignorant people.

[Mad Hatter]

Well, sure. We all know science is 100% infallible. Science is only as credible as the application, and scientists never ever make mistakes. #Wuhandidit

[Dom]

Jon is a comedian. I thought it was funny. He was pushing a weird logic - the "name" (which wasn't the actual name of the virus) and how that was the obvious truth. Very sarcastic, and funny to me. And he is a better actor than I thought, exaggerating emotions...

[Mad Hatter]

Jon is a comedian. I thought it was funny. He was pushing a weird logic - the "name" (which wasn't the actual name of the virus) and how that was the obvious truth. Very sarcastic, and funny to me. And he is a better actor than I thought, exaggerating emotions...

Yeah, Jon is a comedian and I thought the skit was funny too. But in his own comedic and sarcastic way I think he was giving his personal opinion on the origins of COVID.

[Dānu]

Jon is a comedian. I thought it was funny. He was pushing a weird logic - the "name" (which wasn't the actual name of the virus) and how that was the obvious truth. Very sarcastic, and funny to me. And he is a better actor than I thought, exaggerating emotions...

Yeah, Jon is a comedian and I thought the skit was funny too. But in his own comedic and sarcastic way I think he was giving his personal opinion  on the origins of COVID.

The fact that his statement echoes a similar statement he's made about religion suggests it was just a funny line.

[Dom]

Jon is a comedian. I thought it was funny. He was pushing a weird logic - the "name" (which wasn't the actual name of the virus) and how that was the obvious truth. Very sarcastic, and funny to me. And he is a better actor than I thought, exaggerating emotions...

Yeah, Jon is a comedian and I thought the skit was funny too. But in his own comedic and sarcastic way I think he was giving his personal opinion  on the origins of COVID.

I strongly doubt that. And therein lies the flaw - like most everything these days, it is open to interpretation.

[Minimalist]

The problem with Stewart's routine last night was that there are far too many idiots who will go "YOU SEE!!!!!"

[Tres Leches]

Science has in many ways helped ease the suffering of this pandemic ― which was more than likely caused by science.

Who is this virologist Jon Stewart of whom you speak?

I wouldn't put much stock in Jon Stewart's opinions - I did enjoy his old show but as @Dom said, he's a comedian and the only thing he's an expert in is comedic timing.

The show that he appeared on - didn't that show just go back yesterday to their studio with a live audience? I'm sure they want to revive their viewership. What better way to stir up controversy and gin up some more viewers and advertising $$ by talking about... a controversy.

I stopped watching all the late night shows long ago. Bill Mahar, Stephen Colbert, etc, etc. I couldn't care less about the political pontifications of some high paid tv personality/ comedian. Why are their opinions elevated? It's the same reason I wouldn't vote for a reality tv show host for president, either.

-Teresa

[Tres Leches]

The problem with Stewart's routine last night was that there are far too many idiots who will go "YOU SEE!!!!!"

Fear not, his core audience doesn't generally include conspiracy tin foil hatters. They aren't listening to left-leaning comedians.

-Teresa

[Fireball]

Well, sure. We all know science is 100% infallible. Science is only as credible as the application, and scientists never ever make mistakes. #Wuhandidit

"Science" is NOT "100% infallible". That is an extremely disingenuous claim. Scientific discoveries are based on inductive logic, which by its nature is not definitive (Vs Deductive logic). The best people can do is employ "Science" to reduce the uncertainty in our expectations of a result, based on our observations and descriptions of what should happen. It's a tool, not some throne people worship.

[Dom]

Well, sure. We all know science is 100% infallible. Science is only as credible as the application, and scientists never ever make mistakes. #Wuhandidit

"Science" is NOT "100% infallible". That is an extremely disingenuous claim. Scientific discoveries are based on inductive logic, which by its nature is not definitive (Vs Deductive logic). The best people can do is employ "Science" to reduce the uncertainty in our expectations of a result, based on our observations and descriptions of what should happen. It's a tool, not some throne people worship.

Honest science is necessarily full of faulty results. I would smell a rat if science didn't fail to prove theories here and there. It's built in. It is what makes the final result so amazing when an actual conclusion is reached.

[mordant]

Well, sure. We all know science is 100% infallible. Science is only as credible as the application, and scientists never ever make mistakes. #Wuhandidit

"Science" is NOT "100% infallible". That is an extremely disingenuous claim. Scientific discoveries are based on inductive logic, which by its nature is not definitive (Vs Deductive logic). The best people can do is employ "Science" to reduce the uncertainty in our expectations of a result, based on our observations and descriptions of what should happen. It's a tool, not some throne people worship.

Honest science is necessarily full of faulty results. I would smell a rat if science didn't fail to prove theories here and there. It's built in. It is what makes the final result so amazing when an actual conclusion is reached.

Exactly. There's this thing called applied science, or, if you prefer, "technology" and it's so damned reliable and accurate that we have jet planes and cell phones and laptop computers and autonomous rovers on Mars, etc.

Of course some of those probes crashed, sometimes your computer hangs, and once in a great while a plane crashes.

But even with those glitches, technology provides way more than prayer in terms of reproducible results. Which is putting it charitably.

[Inkubus]

Part 2.

The 1918 pandemic: scientists had a frozen sample and they woke it up.

Say what? Where did they obtain a sample of a virus that didn't exist prior to 1918?

Ok maybe I'm just another Brit who doesn't ‘get’ this style of American humour. The constant animated hysteria, the constant unfunny gag interruptions and the constant milking the audience for laughs. It’s not for me.

[Fireball]

^ A lot of USians need to be told what is funny and when to laugh. 

[jerry mcmasters]

Jon Stewart weighs in on science, COVID, and Wuhan

Don't think the bit is particularly funny but it is good to see people occasionally take a political position you wouldn't expect them too.  Good for Jon.

[Paleophyte]

The most compelling thing that can be said for the Lab Escape Hypothesis is that it hasn't been completely disproven.

What we know is that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble any of the DNA templates typically used by researchers to manipulate coronaviruses nor does it bear any obvious signs of genetic manipulation.

The counter-argument is that the WIV may have used non-standard DNA templates in its research and may have used techniques that did not leave the usual telltales of genetic tampering.

The counter-counter-argument is to wonder why the WIV would bother using non-standard DNA templates or seamless genetic tinkering when off the shelf genetic tools with more obvious signatures are far cheaper and easier to use. Hiding your genetic modifications makes sense if you're a covert bioweapons facility, not an academic research institute.

Regardless of which side of the fence you come down on this should be a relatively simple argument to settle. An analysis of genomes of the WIV's experimental strains will reveal rather obviously which tools they were employing and how obvious their signatures are in the genetic record. Comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 genome can then be made and the matter laid to rest.

[jerry mcmasters]

The most compelling thing that can be said for the Lab Escape Hypothesis is that it hasn't been completely disproven.

What we know is that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble any of the DNA templates typically used by researchers to manipulate coronaviruses nor does it bear any obvious signs of genetic manipulation.

The counter-argument is that the WIV may have used non-standard DNA templates in its research and may have used techniques that did not leave the usual telltales of genetic tampering.

The counter-counter-argument is to wonder why the WIV would bother using non-standard DNA templates or seamless genetic tinkering when off the shelf genetic tools with more obvious signatures are far cheaper and easier to use. Hiding your genetic modifications makes sense if you're a covert bioweapons facility, not an academic research institute.

Regardless of which side of the fence you come down on this should be a relatively simple argument to settle. An analysis of genomes of the WIV's experimental strains will reveal rather obviously which tools they were employing and how obvious their signatures are in the genetic record. Comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 genome can then be made and the matter laid to rest.

Why has not such an analysis been done?

[Dom]

The most compelling thing that can be said for the Lab Escape Hypothesis is that it hasn't been completely disproven.

What we know is that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble any of the DNA templates typically used by researchers to manipulate coronaviruses nor does it bear any obvious signs of genetic manipulation.

The counter-argument is that the WIV may have used non-standard DNA templates in its research and may have used techniques that did not leave the usual telltales of genetic tampering.

The counter-counter-argument is to wonder why the WIV would bother using non-standard DNA templates or seamless genetic tinkering when off the shelf genetic tools with more obvious signatures are far cheaper and easier to use. Hiding your genetic modifications makes sense if you're a covert bioweapons facility, not an academic research institute.

Regardless of which side of the fence you come down on this should be a relatively simple argument to settle. An analysis of genomes of the WIV's experimental strains will reveal rather obviously which tools they were employing and how obvious their signatures are in the genetic record. Comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 genome can then be made and the matter laid to rest.

Why has not such an analysis been done?

Because China hasn't let anyone in to have a look. At least so I heard. And that is the unscientific reason that is the base of a lot of conspiracy theories around Covid. I don't know either why China doesn't cooperate.

[jerry mcmasters]

The most compelling thing that can be said for the Lab Escape Hypothesis is that it hasn't been completely disproven.

What we know is that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 does not resemble any of the DNA templates typically used by researchers to manipulate coronaviruses nor does it bear any obvious signs of genetic manipulation.

The counter-argument is that the WIV may have used non-standard DNA templates in its research and may have used techniques that did not leave the usual telltales of genetic tampering.

The counter-counter-argument is to wonder why the WIV would bother using non-standard DNA templates or seamless genetic tinkering when off the shelf genetic tools with more obvious signatures are far cheaper and easier to use. Hiding your genetic modifications makes sense if you're a covert bioweapons facility, not an academic research institute.

Regardless of which side of the fence you come down on this should be a relatively simple argument to settle. An analysis of genomes of the WIV's experimental strains will reveal rather obviously which tools they were employing and how obvious their signatures are in the genetic record. Comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 genome can then be made and the matter laid to rest.

Why has not such an analysis been done?

Because China hasn't let anyone in to have a look. At least so I heard.

Do the Chinese have something to gain from nobody knowing for sure where this thing came from?

[Dom]

Why has not such an analysis been done?

Because China hasn't let anyone in to have a look. At least so I heard.

Do the Chinese have something to gain from nobody knowing for sure where this thing came from?

No, but they apparently don't want people to see what all they do in that lab. The reason for that can be troublesome or it could just be about industrial espionage.