What happened us that the initially nuanced criticism of some lab leak speculation had its nuance erased by increasingly sensational headlines and tweets. As this occured, lab leak speculation was repeatedly and increasingly conflated with theories that it was man made. See recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27307175
I don’t run out and do significant new research every time somebody drags out something that I saw no reason to believe in the past - I would never get anything done if I did! “The boy who cried wolf” is a bit allegorical here.
The other part of this is that the lab leak hypothesis has been used as a gateway by people peddling anti-Asian rhetoric, including that this was a bioweapon or evil plot to cripple America. As such, I tend to tune out of such discussions pretty fast. It’s like if somebody mentions judaism and bankers in the same sentence - I can normally just assume whatever comes next will be nonsense. There’s so much bullshit on the internet that paying attention to all of it would be crippling, and unfortunately the lab leak idea managed to become associated with that sort of vitriol early on.
That said, even today I reject any definitive affirmative on the lab leak hypothesis. There’s nothing even vaguely approaching hard evidence, and the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support. If/when somebody pulls out better evidence I’ll reconsider.
This isn't how it actually happened. I've linked a good analysis of what did happen elsewhere in this thread.
> the less dramatic explanation still seems to have very good scientific support
Which explanation is that? AFAIK, We don't currently have any clear explanation of how the pandemic started. If it was a zoonotic origin we are still missing the details of how that happened.
This evidence is far more convincing than a hypothetical idea that the disease spontaneously evolved from some animal some other place.
China historically always cover up and delay any bad news. Even most of the random accidents are delayed for reporting, until the officials can come up with a complete and meaningful reports.
This is, well, bullshit. No, what happened is that one side of the divide decided to demand that something be discussed without evidence, and the other side... waited for evidence before discussing it. And now we can have the discussion, because we have some evidence to discuss.
That's the system working, right? How would you prefer this have gone? People decide to discuss groundless conspiracies before anyone comes up with evidence to support them, just... out of politeness?
Aren't we supposed to shut down arguments presented without evidence? Isn't that what "argument" means?
Explain how you aren't just asking for license to be wrong without challenge here? I mean, when people (the WSJ, notably not the conspiracists) came out with real evidence, we listened!
I'll fully admit, my priors were wrong. This isn't a total dingbat idea, it might have happened. But I think that now, based on better data. I didn't think that then, and nor should you have.
I do not personally have any thought or idea about which covid origin theory is true. For me this isn't about the lab, but instead the thought police.
So we should also have shut down people saying it was not a lab leak ?
What we did know from the beginning was that there is a lab in Wuhan playing Umbrella Corp with the coronavirus.