Or, I also ask: If the virus that causes Covid-19 did not jump from animals to humans, where did it come from?
Is it an animal virus collected by scientists for study and then accidentally released? Worse, did scientists do so-called gain-of-function research on a natural virus, making it the most likely to be infected, and then accidentally release it? Or worse than that, did they try to make a bioweapon without accidentally coming out? The worst: Do they mean it release a bioweapon?
The real answer is: Maybe not, but maybe. And that’s the real problem here. The evidence has not changed since the spring of 2020. That evidence is often incomplete, and may never be complete. History and science have suggested that animal jumping is more likely than lab-leak / cover matter. Now what we are talking about is how to put people in their perspectives on the surrounding evidence that we have.
Except that not all frames are the same. You see, in real time, the sometimes ugly and confusing search for a better answer-to capture international accountability and scientific clarity. But you have also witnessed the creation of uncertainty. Some of the people who talked about the lab leak didn’t want an answer. They want to magnify and in some cases create even more, for most fundamental reasons, skepticism Because they can use that skepticism – of leaders, of scientists, of the process – to hold or building power. It worked so well that even the presidents and the heads of the national institutes there in response.
The scientists who wrote that letter on Science don’t think the speculation of a lab leak got more (or less) likely from last spring. The evidence has not changed. As some of them said in New York Times, they are hesitant to say whether the Trumpists have fueled anti-China sentiment, but they still want to make virology labs (and the world) safer.
But many writers have come up. People with relevant skills speak; so are the people who don’t have it – people just asked on social media, in magazine articles, in Medium. These small impressions, the random coincidence, the strange healing of early rejections … they all add up. something, isn’t it? Isn’t it?
As scientists say “We’re not entirely sure,” they explain that their analysis of certain events or outcomes has a statistical probability that they are wrong. They never go 100 percent. Sometimes they think they are probably worse than others. This is the world of trust gaps, of mathematical models and curves, of no specific principles. But non -scientists have heard “we’re not entirely sure,” like “so you mean there’s a chance?” This is the crazy interstitial space between scientific – say, statistical – uncertainty and what is meant by normal human uncertainty. Here ”just asked [wink]”Buhi.
This is a subtle difference. If Tony Fauci says he wants to be more sure, for example, he probably means that, yes, all things are the same, it’s better to know than not to know especially if that’s the way to spend wind in politics.
But when political actors like senators and right -wing TV commentators talk about this uncertainty, this skepticism, they try to confuse a lot of people in this space to understand and open it up They even show that the Chinese government is doing something distrustful here, something like war — and even scientists think it’s possible. Because if they could have the support of science, they could use that power anywhere. They can put shoes on the tables about the incompetence of the Biden administration and China’s skullduggery to disrupt their lies about the election, about attempts to suppress voting rights, about the January uprising. 6, about efforts to vaccinate the world against the disease they claim are better understood.