[ad_1]
Does that mean Washington Post true verifiers and Wall Street Journal editorialists they wrote the lab escape hypothesis “credibility?” that he has won
Or, let me ask you again: If the virus that causes Covid-19 has not jumped from animals to people, where is it from?
Was it an animal virus that scientists inadvertently collected and then collected for analysis? Worse, did the scientists do any research on the function of the natural virus so that they would be more likely to be pandemicized and then accidentally released? Or worse than that, did they try to make a bio-weapon that accidentally came out? Worst: Did they do it on purpose release a bioweapon?
The answer is: Probably not, but maybe. And that’s the real problem here. Evidence has not changed since the spring of 2020. That proof was always incomplete and may never be complete. History and science say that animal jumping is much more likely than laboratory leaks / covers. So what we’re talking about now is how people shape our view around the raw evidence we have.
Not all frames are the same except. You are watching in real time for an ugly and confusing search for a better answer, for international responsibility, and for scientific clarity. But you are also seeing the emergence of uncertainty. Some who are talking about escaping the lab don’t want an answer. In some cases they want to escalate it and even for venal reasons, create doubt. Because then they can use that doubt — leaders, scientists, in the process — to have or build power. It has worked so well, including the president and the heads of the national institutes they to respond.
Scientists wrote that letter that year Science don’t think the laboratory leak hypothesis has had more (or less) chance since last spring. The evidence has not changed. As some of them said New York Times, were questioned when Trumpists spoke out against anti-China sentiment, but would still like to see virology labs (and the world) safer.
But more writers have climbed on board as well. People with important experts have spoken; so without even people, people just asking questions on social media, in magazine articles, in the Middle. These small impressions, circumstantial coincidences, rather strange initial denials … all add up. something, is not it? Don’t they?
When scientists say “We are not entirely sure” means that the analysis of some event or result is incorrect with a statistical chance. They never go to 100 percent. Sometimes they think they can be worse than others. This is the world of confidence intervals, mathematical models and curves, the principles of uncertainty. Those who don’t have scientists hear “we’re not entirely sure” when they hear, “Do you mean there’s a chance?” It is a crazy interstitial space between scientific (let’s say statistical) uncertainty and the meaning of normal human uncertainty. That’s “just asking questions [wink]”lives.
It’s a subtle difference. When Tony Fauci says he’d like to get more certainty, for example, it probably means, yes, that all things being equal, it’s better not to know, especially if it’s the way the political wind blows.
But when senators and political actors like right-wing TV commentators talk about this uncertainty and doubt, they are trying to open an open lever in understanding. They still warn that the Chinese government is doing something evil here, something for war – and scientists believe it is possible. It seems to have the protection of science because they can use that power elsewhere. They can step on their feet to stay away from the lies about the inactivity of the Biden administration and the scruples at the Chinese election table, about attempts to reduce voting rights, about the January 6 uprising, about the effort to insert the world against the disease they want. better understood.
[ad_2]
Source link
