Re:Study shows proof that a safer UV light effectively kills...
by groby_b on Friday September 18, 2020 @01:51PM
(#24519782)
There are, however, strong indications. I don't have my cites handy, but IIRC for COVID, they were twofold. One, it relied on a mechanism that pre-COVID was considered ineffective/borderline for spread, and that actually doesn't work well in simulations - so it's unlikely humans would've picked that. Two, it's closer to typical bat viruses than typical coronaviruses - again, an unlikely choice for humans to make.
No, that doesn't rule out manmade 100%, but it makes it quite unlikely. It's essentially saying "hey, I built a virus in a structure that doesn't rely match a well-working virus class. Also, it completely fails to do what we want to do in simulations. We should invest a lot of money to build that".
Occam's barbershop would like to point out the very high number of unlikely events required to go down that path ;)
Ah, here we go: https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-la...
No, that doesn't rule out manmade 100%, but it makes it quite unlikely. It's essentially saying "hey, I built a virus in a structure that doesn't rely match a well-working virus class. Also, it completely fails to do what we want to do in simulations. We should invest a lot of money to build that".
Occam's barbershop would like to point out the very high number of unlikely events required to go down that path ;)