Re:Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory ...
by krageon on Friday April 17, 2020 @08:15AM
(#22898324)
Circumstantial evidence is what you use to support a theory you really want to be true but cannot prove. Direct evidence is what you use when you want to actually figure out what happened.
Re:Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory ...
by DoingIsLearning on Friday April 17, 2020 @08:26AM
(#22898382)
> What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?
Re:Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory ...
by jacquesm on Friday April 17, 2020 @10:27AM
(#22899229)
A couple of million years of Zoonotic events should count as pretty good evidence that that is how these things happen.
Re:Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged from a Biological Laboratory ...
by DoingIsLearning on Friday April 17, 2020 @02:59PM
(#22901831)
True, but then for that to be consistent, the epicenter around patient zero should have been next to a habitat where a large pool of this virus exist. However the closest matched virus seems to be carried by a species of bat that doesn't exist anywhere near the region of Wuhan. But coincidentally, if we trust the facts brought forward by this repo, was a species that was studied in these virology labs.
What direct evidence do we have for the 'wet market' theory that is currently most widely accepted?
Looking from a distance, it appears that the volume of circunstancial evidence for this 'laboratory accident/negligence' theory is far larger.