I never have believed this was an intentional release. If it's from a lab, I've always assumed an accident (eg first scene from the Last Stand). What I never understood until I read this article was why someone might have engineered this virus to start

nymag.com/intelligencer/…
I always associate bio-engineering of viruses with weapons research, and COVID-19 with its really low mortality under the age of 70 would be a pretty piss-poor weapon. But what I was unfamiliar with was the research to tweak existing diseases to make them more virulent.
Why? The nice answer is that by creating tougher viruses in the lab, we are (supposedly?) learning things that are useful in treating tougher viruses when and if they come along in the wild.
The more cynical answer is that corona viruses are historically not very scary, and so creating scarier ones in the lab supports the desire by labs that research corona viruses for more attention and funding
I usually tend towards the incentives-based, more cynical solution. But it would be interesting to know whether any of our response to COVID-19 was helped by this sort of work on more deadly lab-created versions. That would certainly help back the nicer answer.
Whatever the incentive or end goal, one of the very few labs at the forefront of "rewiring" or juicing corona viruses to be scarier is in Wuhan, within blocks of the first outbreaks.
I think the Chinese response is an interesting "tell." Given that Wuhan was one of the leading labs in the world for researching scarier versions of Corona viruses exactly like this one, one would think a good totalitarian regime would revel in being a savior to the world...
... by throwing its doors open and sharing its knowledge with the decadent first world. It would be a boost for Chinese prestige exactly of the sort the CCP loves, even better than their moon mission. But they did not do this, they did the opposite
They locked down the research center, have generally refused access by outside inspectors, they took their research and data offline. Perhaps this is just a Nixonian response (who ordered the coverup? Nobody suggested that there shouldn't be one.), but it is suspicious
To be clear, I am not considering this hypothesis as a way to ridicule the Chinese people. They have been victims as much as we. I don't even judge them too harshly if they did spill the virus -- the article is pretty clear that western researchers live in a glass house on this

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bring back Gato

Bring back Gato Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Coyoteblog

6 Jan
Here is my COVID math. I am 58 with hopefully, say, 20 good years.

Life given up from year in quarantine: 1 in 20
Chance of contracting & dying of COVID in one year at my age: 1 in 1500
Approx. chance of death from vaccine reaction: 1 in 50,000
By this math:
1. I have zero desire to give up 5% of my life to remove a 0.6% chance of dying.
2. I am happy to take a vaccine -- the odds are good compared to chance of death from COVID and it is really worth it to me if the government will leave me alone after I take it
My fear of course in #2 is that just as I am having a hard time breaking the twitter habit and walking away, government officials can't break the power habit either and won't walk away from their new found powers -- new excuses will be found to make me miserable.
Read 5 tweets
5 Jan
I am so old, I remember when this was a hypothesis too dangerous to even be allowed on social media. I seem to remember @zerohedge actually got their account turned off by @jack for hypothesizing the same thing 9 months ago

nymag.com/intelligencer/…
Speech restrictions like those imposed by social media vis a vis COVID are always political, meant to protect the reputation and power of some group of people. For those of you who disagree, who still think there are legitimate public benefits from banning one side of a debate...
...ask yourself, how do we know which side of the debate is so obviously wrong that it must be banned without having had open discourse and debate on the issue in the first place?
Read 10 tweets
3 Jan
I don't really know much about hospital management ( @boriquagato seems to). But I do know when I am being manipulated, and when the manipulation is obvious I immediately go into skeptic mode. Let's look at this article:

latimes.com/california/sto…
Obviously the title is over the top. But also look at the subheadings. Here they are:

‘Unfortunate outcomes’
Patients gasping for breath
Dying in the ER hallway
Running out of oxygen and critical machines
‘It is so frightening’
L.A. County reporting 20% positive test rate
We wouldn't want the ones who just skim the article to walk away without panicking too!

Here are a few other things form the article that send my skeptical antennae quivering:
Read 14 tweets
26 Dec 20
If you want a "control" against which to evaluate the forced government interventions, I would suggest Arizona. We are right next door to SoCal, we have about the same demographics and (this time of year) similar climate.
My observation is that, since about June, Arizona and California have been on opposite ends of the government COVID mandate scale. While CA continues to lock up tighter and tighter, AZ is mostly open for business.
Schools are open in-person. Our large colleges have in-person classes. Our restaurants and bars are all open for indoor dining -- some at reduced capacity, but some at full capacity. We all wear masks in the Walmart but pretty much no one wears a mask walking outdoors.
Read 25 tweets
13 Dec 20
When I argue with folks on the failures of socialism, I tend to group these failures into three buckets. @boriquagato is getting at the third and probably least discussed of the three
Readers are probably tired of me repeating these, and I know there are others who are better at this who use different frameworks, but here is mine.

Socialism fails in practice, and will always fail (until we get to a Banks' Culture-like end to scarcity) for at least 3 reasons
1. Information: It is impossible for any group of humans (or even humans with powerful computers) to come close to the power of distributed, organic, bottom-up markets in coordinating human behavior to improve the sum of individuals' welfare [insert "I pencil" reference]
Read 25 tweets
11 Dec 20
As a reminder, prior to 2020, the Left critiqued the US hospital system for having TOO MANY beds, arguing that profit motive of hospitals was causing them to spend too much on capacity. See the study, for example, in the attached article which was typical
coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/ca…
As I describe in the attached article, this belief drove the Left to support certificate of need processes (in many states like NY) that require government and often competitor(!) permission to expand capacity or add things like ICU beds or MRI machines

PLEASE don't tell me this makes no economic sense. I know that. A large number of the market "fixes" from the Left make no sense. In this case, the certificate of need (CON) and similar processes were totally and completely counter-productive
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!