Many people claim that China lied about the outbreak of Wuhan and is responsible for the human and economic damages caused by the pandemic, but is this view actually supported by the evidence? (Spoiler: not really.)
I looked into this very carefully and, in a four-part essay published on @Quillette, I argue that, while there is a grain of truth to some of those accusations, they are mostly nonsense. The first part of the series has just been published. quillette.com/2020/08/24/the…
I know that many of you are convinced the accusations are true, but I hope you will read and share this essay anyway, because I really think you're wrong and I'm pretty sure it will change your mind on at least *some* things.
As I painstakingly argue in the essay, because they don't like the CCP (neither do I), people often draw nonsensical inferences, when in fact there are usually far more plausible explanations for what they see as proof of China's malfeasance.
I also document several cases of downright anti-China propaganda on the part of Western media/governments. Many widely repeated claims are based on clear misinterpretations of the evidence or, in some cases, on bald-faced lies and manipulations.
To be clear, that is not to say that China is entirely blameless. It did lie on some things and there was plenty of incompetence in Wuhan early on, but we've seen far worse in the US and other Western countries and it shouldn't be used as a scapegoat.
I will also post a longer, less polished version on my blog as Quillette publishes the series, because we decided to leave out some technical to keep the essay readable by a general audience but some of you will probably be interested in those details. necpluribusimpar.net/did-china-lie-…
Again, I know that many of you are skeptical, but this essay has required a ridiculous amount of work and I'm really confident about the conclusions I reach, so I hope you will read it with an open-mind. I will post the other parts in this thread as they are published.
The second part of my essay on the role of China in the pandemic has been published. In this part, I examine how and when human-to-human transmission was ascertained by the Chinese authorities. quillette.com/2020/08/29/the…
The Chinese authorities have been accused of knowing that sustained human-to-human transmission was occurring for weeks before they finally admitted it. However, after carefully reviewing the evidence, I conclude that this accusation is mostly baseless.
It's true that, for about a week before January 20 (when they admitted sustained human-to-human transmission was occurring), the Chinese authorities minimized that possibility, even though they knew it was likely.
But they likely didn't know before that and, even in mid-January, it wasn't clear to them exactly how easily the virus could transmit from person to person. I argue that accusations to the contrary are based on flawed reasoning.
However, in some cases, it wasn't just poor reasoning. I also document cases in which the media and/or governments like Taiwan peddled downright lies to make people believe that China had known for weeks that sustained human-to-human transmission was occurring.
Finally, I argue that even if China suppressed information about the virus for a while in January, we can't hold it responsible for the pandemic, let alone blame the botched response in the West on this.
Again I'm also posting a less polished, more technical version of this essay on my blog. So far, the differences are minimal, but this will change when I discuss the origins of the virus in part 3, since technical details will be relegated to the blog. necpluribusimpar.net/did-china-lie-…
Part 3 of my essay was just published on @Quillette. In this part, I discuss the origins of the virus. I argue that it likely didn't originate from Huanan Seafood Market, that it evolved naturally and that it probably didn't accidentally escape from a lab. quillette.com/2020/09/02/the…
Again, I published a longer, more detailed but less polished version on my blog. Part 3 on my blog examines whether China can be held responsible for the pandemic and its consequences, as well as whether the virus originated from Huanan Seafood Market. necpluribusimpar.net/did-china-lie-…
In part 4 on my blog, I examine different versions of the lab escape theory and various arguments that have been offered to support each of them, which I find unconvincing and in some cases downright confused. necpluribusimpar.net/did-china-lie-…
The discussion is a bit technical at times, so we removed the most difficult parts from the version published on Quillette, while including links to the relevant sections on my blog for the people who are interested in that kind of details.
In particular, I refute the Bayesian argument to the effect that, since SARS-CoV-2 just happened to have emerged in Wuhan, one of the few cities that has a lab where people study bat coronaviruses, the outbreak is unlikely to be unrelated to that lab and probably escaped from it.
The fourth and last part of my essay on China's role in the COVID-19 pandemic has been published. In this part, I discuss whether, as many people claim, China fudged its numbers about the epidemic and conclude that it likely didn't. quillette.com/2020/09/06/the…
That is not to say that China's official data are perfectly accurate. As I also explain, they are not doubt very imperfect, but for the most part it's for the same kind of reasons data have been very low quality pretty much everywhere, not because China deliberately fudged them.
The main approach I have used consists in asking this question: suppose that I gave you an "anonymized" dataset about the pandemic in different countries and asked you which country is most likely to have manipulated its data, would you pick China? The answer is no.
I also respond to various arguments to the effect that China manipulated the data and show they are totally unconvincing. As with the lab escape theory, there are so many I couldn't discuss all of them, so I focused on the most popular and/or less nonsensical ones.
Again, I published a less polished, slightly more technical version on my blog. The code I used for my analysis of the data has also been uploaded on GitHub and you can find a link to the repository in the article. necpluribusimpar.net/did-china-lie-…
This concludes my series. I like to think it's pretty convincing, but I'm under no delusion it will convince many people. I think that, *at the very least*, it should convince a rational person that many of the arguments that have been made for months against China are garbage 🤷♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The document in which the Romanian Constitutional Court justifies its decision to bar Georgescu, who already won the first round of the presidential election in December and was running ahead of everyone else in recent polls by a wide margin, from running for president is one of the most insane things I have ever read.
The text is very confused, the translation probably doesn't help, but the argument the Court seems to make is that, in deciding whether someone can run for president, it has to check whether that person would threaten the country's constitutional framework if he were elected and it claims that Georgescu will not defend democracy.
The only argument it gives to justify that claim is that the very same Court previously annulled the first round of the presidential election that Georgescu had won, which means that he didn't respect the electoral procedure and in turn this ipso facto demonstrates that he violates the obligation to defend democracy 🙃
But the December ruling to which it refers, which annulled the first round of the election, mostly didn't talk about Georgescu's alleged violations of electoral legislation to justify the decision, but instead made ridiculous arguments based on what supposedly happened on social media during the campaign, such as the claim that "equality of opportunity" was not ensured on social media due to the "exploitation" of algorithm.
(Of course, even putting aside that such a claim is so vague as to be meaningless, this argument is preposterous since, by the same logic, one could justify cancelling literally every election in history because "equality of opportunity" has never existed anywhere in the traditional media either. Do people think, for instance, that the traditional media treat every candidate equally well? There is no principled difference here.)
The only accusation made specifically against Georgescu in the December ruling is that he violated the electoral legislation by failing to disclose payments his campaign had allegedly made on social media, but the only evidence the Court cited in support of that claim was a report declassified by the Minister of Internal Affairs after the first round of the election, which claimed that Georgescu had benefited from a social media campaign that wasn't properly marked as electoral advertisement.
However, although the document in question did note that Georgescu had not declared any spending on electoral campaigning (which is obviously suspicious), at no point did it claim that his campaign had paid for those social media posts and in fact evidence has since then surfaced that the social media campaign in question was paid for by the liberal party!
(Let's put aside, because that's not truly relevant, the fact that even if Georgescu's campaign had in fact been behind that social media campaign, the idea that a $1 million dollar campaign on TikTok can swing millions of votes is nothing short of ridiculous. If this were true, the guys behind Georgescu's online operation should quit their current job, whether it's in the Kremlin or somewhere else, to create their own political advertisement company because they're apparently the most effective people in the field anywhere in the world by a very wide margin.)
So the Constitutional Court barred from running for president the candidate who, according to the polls, was bound to win in a landslide, by arguing that its own decision to annul the first round of the election last December, justified by insane arguments about the general context in which the election took place and an accusation against that candidate for which it produced no evidence, showed that he could not be counted on to defend democracy 🤯
I'm sorry but this is nothing short of a legal coup and a denial of democracy. Anyone who defends that decision while claiming to support democracy and the rule of law is a clown. This is the same kind of arguments that dictatorships around the world use to prevent "dangerous" candidates from running and the fact that so many people who constantly pose as defenders of democracy are currently applauding the Court's decision speaks volumes about how deep their commitment to democracy actually runs.
SOURCES
- The latest decision by the Constitutional Court, barring Georgescu from running in the new presidential election: g4media.ro/document-candi… (thanks to @marginletter for telling me about this)
- The document on the social media campaign that was declassified by the Minister of Internal Affairs: s.iw.ro/gateway/g/Zmls…
(I used Google Translate to read all those documents.)
@marginletter I had forgotten to include an article on the report that linked the social media campaign that allegedly boosted Georgescu, again keep in mind that the claims people make about the effects it had are preposterous, to the liberal party, but here it is. politico.eu/article/invest…
Okay, let me reply to this thread, because I think it's actually very helpful to explain what is wrong with the argument in the paper I was criticizing 🧵
The point @lymanstoneky makes is that, since the longitudinal analysis in the paper only looks at the 2018-2023 period and immigrant flows during that period were dominated by low-crime propensity groups, it's plausible that immigration during that period didn't increase crime.
I obviously agree with that, but that's not a defense of the paper! In fact, not only is that not a defense of the paper, but that's actually one of the reasons why the argument made by the authors is so disingenuous, as even Lyman hints at toward the end of his thread.
Not only does it show no such thing, but it couldn't possibly show that, because that's obviously false. Immigration has a large impact on crime in Germany and this paper is just another example of politically-motivated academic malpractice. Let's take it apart 🧵
The key finding in the paper is that, when you control for the time-invariant characteristics of districts and year-specific effects that affect all district equally, a change in the proportion of foreigners in a district isn't associated with a change in the crime rate.
The authors interpret that as showing that, though foreigners are suspected of crimes at a higher rate than Germans, that’s because they live in deprived areas that turn them into criminals in the same way they do for Germans, so the crime rate is unaffected when they move there.
This reminds me of the Reykjavik summit, which was supposed to be about making relatively small progress on arms control, but where Reagan and Gorbachev came very close to agreeing to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to the horror of their respective advisers. Putin and Xi are no Gorbachev though, so I don't think it will play out in the same way 😅
The Gorbachev/Reagan dynamic at Reykjavik is fascinating, because they were both sincerely convinced that nuclear weapons were a moral abomination, but their advisers and allies clearly didn't share that conviction and freaked out upon realizing that they were serious about it.
What prevented a deal in the end was Reagan's almost religious commitment to the SDI. When Reagan assured Gorbachev that the US would share the system with the Soviet Union, Gorbachev assumed that he was fucking with him, but he was actually dead serious about it!
In other news, it looks like the chickens are finally coming home to roost for Macron, as Le Pen seems to have decided to pull the plug on the government. Not only do we have no plan B to form another government, but we also don't know how we're going to vote a budget 🤷♂️
As I've been saying since last June, I'm really not sure that Macron will be able to finish his term. I know that everyone thinks I'm insane when I say that, although that's probably less true now than a few months ago, but I really think people underestimate the probability.
In general, when I say that, people reply that nobody can legally compel Macron to resign. Well, that's true enough, but nobody could legally compel Biden to withdraw and it still happened 🤷♂️ There are scenarios in which the pressure will prove very hard to withstand.
Okay, you're going to say that I say that because I'm a reactionary who hate protesters in general (which again is kind of true though besides the point here), but pro-Palestine protesters have to be some of the most retarded people on earth.
It's true that the deck is stacked against the pro-Palestine side of this thing, but at the end of the day it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that, if they weren't so fucking stupid and unhinged, things would go a lot better for them.
And please don't be telling me that at least they don't stay silent about what Israel is doing in Gaza. These morons obviously couldn't care less about that or they wouldn't be doing this shit. They're just a bunch of petulant and retarded children who only care about themselves.