MAMEWorld Forums - The Loony Bin - too close to call imo

>Hmm did covid come out of a lab where they study coronavirus or did it come from a market
>less than 300 yards from the lab. Obviously it leaked out of the goddamn lab

Several of those in the various IC group departments are still uncertain, but one thing they are doing is not jumping to immediate half-assed conclusions unlike the useless criminal oval office occupier.

-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142484424

Source: Business Insider

A few hours later, The Washington Post published a report — citing intelligence officials and disease experts — that contradicted this claim.
The Post's sources said there's no evidence connecting the outbreak to the lab, and that the lab accident theory is possible but not likely.

President Donald Trump on Thursday said he had seen evidence that shows the coronavirus originated in a Chinese lab, but US intelligence sources and disease experts seem to be contradicting this claim.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-co...t-report-2020-5

--

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213380590

A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan lab gives 4 reasons why a coronavirus leak would be unlikely

But CIA officers didn't find any evidence.

There's a reason for that, according to Jonna Mazet, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, who has worked with and trained WIV researchers in the past.

"I know that we worked together to develop very stringent safety protocol, and it's highly unlikely this was a lab accident," she told Business Insider. Here are four reasons why.

Reason 1: The lab's samples don't match the new coronavirus

https://news.yahoo.com/us-researcher-worked-wuhan-virology-121100299.html
-

I agree with this poster's views regarding this event.

--
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13381797

I don't see 4 reasons.

I see two claims and perhaps 2 reasons, perhaps 3 claims and 1 reason.

The first claim is their database doesn't have a record. To which the reply isto ask if records can be deleted. And if they did have evidence that a state lab was responsible for this, would have they have motivation to delete that record? Or might they be following orders to deny any state culpability?

Yes, it's sort of ad hominem, but it's not a fallacy: It's a question as to whether somebody is motivated enough to lie, not saying that because of who they are they must lie. Now, if you screw up in the US, it could get bad. If you screw up in the CCP-controlled PRC, I can't imagine what would happen--would the party close ranks to protect you or simply make you not be?

The second is more of the same. They couldn't make a mistake or not follow because they have procedures that keep them from making mistakes and that tell them to follow the procedures. It doesn't help that the witness denies witnessing. I even like the idea that they made mistakes in the past, therefore they're clearly not capable of making any more. People can fix mistakes, but making a mistake 2-3 years ago is clearly not evidence of not making a mistake last year.

Again, you can have the most stringent safety protocol on Earth, but if there's a mistake and it's not followed, you get shit. (Need an example? Here's one. The US CDC-developed PCR COVID test that was developed in January had three steps. The last step was validation, comparing it against a sample known to lack COVID RNA. The protocols in place--stringent, of course--ensured that that last null sample was completely uncontaminated. However, because the protocols were violated, that sample was contaminated and therefore the test was crap. They finally said the first two steps were sufficient and just dropped the third step, at least for a while. Notice: Stringent protocol =/= protocol followed.)

It's still more likely that the virus hopped from animal to host in the market.

But the four reason is also implicitly a claim--one that's is true, but only as an if-then statement. Yes, if you wear protective equipment you're much less likely to get infected than if you don't. That leaves open the question of mistakes, because some of the mistakes documented in the past were precisely *not* wearing the appropriate equipment. Which means we can recast this possibly being the equivalent of "If you're supposed to wear equipment and don't, you're less likely to be infected than if you're not supposed to wear protection and don't." Which is clearly the logical equivalent of a toilet bowl seconds after somebody had a bad case of diarrhea.
==

My guess goes along with his sentence: ' It's still more likely that the virus hopped from animal to host in the market.'

65% possibility it occured naturally (unfortunately in the markets).

35% possibility that someone botched up in the lab safety protocols and mistakenly messed up and things went downhill from there.

*predicts thread gets moved to the jousting battle forum*