That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
That’s just wild. The one silver lining to T2 is that I’m not shocked by anything anymore. It’s still outrageous, but the surprise is gone.
And it could have been sprayed by flying saucers. How is that any less probable?
You’re using the words without understanding virology or epidemiology or basic probabilities. We have evidence of prior outbreaks like SARS from the wild and positive cultures in the wet market are major pieces of evidence to back up the origin.
Because only a trail of infected animals arriving at the market would imply a zoonotic origin.
No, because we cannot determine if those virus cultures arrived to the market on an animal, on the shoe of a lab worker or even by ufo.
The data does not help determine the origin. It only documents the spread.
Not at all. You think animals naturally migrated on their own from the forest to the market and would leave a trail? Someone picked one up and brought it in a cage. It only takes one.
I love how everyone online is an armchair zoonotic expert. Your ideas are inexperienced.
Possibly, but there is no evidence that this happened. No animals in captivatity or in the wild outside of the wuhan market have been found with early strains of sars-cov-2.
This is why a lab leak remains as a possible origin.
Expertise is not required to understand what NO EVIDENCE means.
We have plenty of evidence already, such as the positive cultures and the genomic ancestry, you just don’t like what it points to.
Genomic ancestry begins at the marketplace.
The team noted that there was no way to establish that the animals were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Even if they were infected, they could have caught the infection from a person who brought the virus to the market
Stop trying to invent evidence.
Stop trying to pretend you can critically analyze whether any of these claims are valid or not. You’re selectively quoting experts who tell you what you want to hear and ignoring the more popular consensus that says you’re wrong.
So rather than respond to the quoted sources, you decide to ad hominem. That’s not the way to win anonymous arguments.
If I am selectively quoting, then please extend or add more sources.
You claim to have evidence of natural zoonotic origin, ruling out possibility of a lab leak, that has popular consensus so it shouldn’t be hard to link to.
Yeah, thought not.