Comments (5)
sorted by:
flounder69 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is so good I listened to it twice. Shame the boys lost their nerve. Could have been legends.

muslimporn 1 point ago +1 / -0

IHe's wrong that it's not effective for population control. Taking out the oldest and weakest would be the optimal for culling. That's the aging population. The unproductive population. It's often a quarter of the budget to a third for developed nations. OAPs are a major burden and it's also why for example many developed countries want to import foreigners for a younger population to bolster the workforce.

This virus is a dream come true for economists, politicians, environmentalists, etc.

In Britain if a virus wiped out all retirees we have a budget of around £800 billion and it would free up £150 billion. Defence spending is £52 billion.

It's not small potatoes. If this virus were allowed to run its course it realistically not wipe out all retirees as it's not that powerful and you wouldn't want it to be. Instead full the population in waves and reduce life expectancy rather than something potentially too deadly. It would however likely bestow a positive economic benefit. Worth a couple billion on the budget, probably more especially over years and also reduce things like housing contention as well as liquidate frozen assets through inheritance.

muslimporn 1 point ago +1 / -0

2015 a SARS like virus explains the protocol.

He's wrong that it necessarily involved a single ancestral virus and serial passage.

Instead you can get two ancestral viruses. Chop their RNA into parts then shuffle them.

Two viruses are actually hundreds of viruses or near infinite.

muslimporn 1 point ago +1 / -0

They colluded to cover up the likelihood of a lab leak to reduce chaos, workload and mass panic.

muslimporn 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not sure if he's really right on theory versus hypothesis.

Technically speaking most things are forever theories.

There's a missing category for theories that are not contested.

There's been this habit in science to move toward a stronger definition of theory. This came out partly from the argument that evolution is a theory. In reality it's about as close to a fact as you can get but as more of a technicality we still call it a theory.

I describe the lab leak as a theory. The exact line between hypothesis and theory isn't an exact science. Typically it's at least when you make some effort to compare your hypothesis to surrounding theory or fact to ensure that it fits. I've done this for the lab leak hypothesis and it is compatible. It's established as a fact that it's possible. It's also not prohibitively improbable.

There's sometimes a lack of vocabulary in science. Theory has come to mean the accepted theory or dominant theory. Even using his terminology for theory the lab origin possibility as even he points out has enough evidence to consider accepting it over competing theories.