Just So You Know
- Thread starter WV-FAN
- Start date
Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
They^^^don't know the origin of covid 19.
THE ORIGIN OF COVID 19 IS UNKNOWN.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
They^^^don't know the origin of covid 19.
THE ORIGIN OF COVID 19 IS UNKNOWN.
he said the likely cause is a lab leak from China.
"Likely" means greater than 66 percent. "More likely than not" means greater than 50 percent. "About as likely as not" means 33 to 66 percent. "Unlikely" means less than 33 percent.
--------------------------------------------------------
Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ): IPCC Terminology About Certainty
www.sejarchive.org
---------------------
Now that is the lab leak at the term likely or at least 66%.
China would have to be 100% at that point using any kid of logic. The virus came from China and 66% percent or greater in came from a lab leak in China.
----------------
So we are certain it came from China and 66% chance or better that it came from a lab. That means that the FBI is pretty damn sure it came from a lab and they KNOW It came From CHina.
- "Very high confidence" means at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.
- "High confidence" means about an 8 out of 10 chance.
- "Medium confidence" means about a 5 out of 10 chance.
- "Low confidence" means about a 2 out of 10 chance.
- "Very low confidence" means less than a 1 out of 10 chance.
The FBI Director and the FBI believe it came from a lab leak in China.
It killed millions of people and millions of Americans. It shut our country down and changed us, perhaps forever.
Stop being a ****ing idiot.
Following up on herdfan 06's post:
Syphilis is a multisystem chronic infection caused by treponema pallidum. It can cause psychiatric disorders including depression, mania, psychosis, personality changes, delirium and dementia.
I’ve bought the lab leak as a legitimate possibility for a while (pretty much from the moment you saw everyone at once stop strenuously denying it, which is probably when we really knew it was the most likely source.)
Thing is I’m not sure what the upshot of that is. Let’s say it was an accidental lab leak, what do we do with that information?
Thing is I’m not sure what the upshot of that is. Let’s say it was an accidental lab leak, what do we do with that information?
Well, considering it caused a global pandemic that sent nations into lockdown & destroyed economies, figure out the origin so it can't happen again. If it came from the lab, clearly some lax protocol or security measure needs to be addressed so the likelihood of it happening again are at 0 or as close to 0 as possible. If it was negligence on the lab's part, shut the lab down. If it shouldn't have been funded in the first place, figure out how it did & address it swiftly. It's not like China isn't known for taking shortcuts in construction & quality. Hell, maybe they were following protocols but poor construction/ventilation allowed it to occur, who knows? I keep referencing Jon Stewart on Colbert for a reason - he made incredibly valid points. His response to the media's response from that bit was a topic on his show this week. I would recommend watching that clip as well.
That’s all super reasonable and necessary but I get the impression some are expecting more than that.
Dude, if you don't stop or at least reduce this pointless dialogue with Greed I'm going to put you on ignore by default
You make threads 3x's longer than they need by constantly quoting and responding to this fvcking moron.
fair enough sir. that might be a good idea.
