A year ago it was easy to believe that Chinese people were gross enough to eat bats but not so deplorable to allow a biolab to be run so slipshod.
3 Likes
Fair points. Iâm a bit annoyed about the whole thing and am blanket blaming, which is wrong.
There were a lot of people who used science, and appear to still be using science, to be anti-science. Ironically they are people who generally say follow the science. I donât get them at all and my most charitable reason is they must be CCP.
2 Likes
Back it up or delete .
Like what? Heart stoppage and ceasing of brain function?
1 Like
He canât back it up, because it did not happen in that sequence. The CDC director did say that some early cases of COVID in the USA were likely misdiagnosed as flu, before they had quick tests going.
But this was after the cases had been brought into USA from Wuhan.
and the vaping connection is tenuous. There has been pretty good confirmation that people who were heavy vapers were 5 times more likely to catch COVID, and when they did, their symptoms were much stronger.
3 Likes
Let it stay. The CCP arenât ever getting lovable posting lies with no backing. Theyâre the Millwall of this planet. The question is, do they care? Fat boy Winnie appears to be upset that everybody hates his lying fat arse, but do his indoctrinated slaves feel the same? Maybe theyâre too indoctrinated. Maybe they like it.
2 Likes
Sad to have no choice or oneâs own opinion, but hey, itâs a living.
Releasing it onto Chinese population would not make sense.
The more plausible hypothesis is that the virus was tested with human subjects in Wuhan during the bio-weaponâs final stage of development.
A Human subject escaped, with or without someoneâs help. If someone helped this person, it could be because he or she found out it was too lethal and too inhumane.
Furthermore, the SARS-like bioweapon was designed to target Taiwan, and specifically Taiwanâs fighter jet pilots.
Disagree. The hypothesis that China released it on its own population makes the most sense of all scenarios. They probably did a full risk assessment and calculated that self-release would yield the lowest risk to the general population of China as well as allow for quicker recovery and hoarding of world supplies of PPE to combat local spread before others realized their critical need.
Itâs primarily an Economic Weapon in Chinaâs vision; the virus is a direct retaliation for the escalating Trade War. Chinaâs motive is clear, they picked the perfect time, they picked the perfect location, and the effects benefited China on multiple fronts, including impacting otherâs military capacity, but again, thatâs more of a side-effect, not a primary outcome.
2 Likes
Seems a little farfetched, but certainly within the realm of possibility.
Yeah, Iâm tending towards snowstormâs theory here. It makes a lot of sense from a tactical standpoint (although that does not, of course, imply that it actually happened).
I doubt Taiwan (or the Taiwan air force) was being targeted, for the simple reason that you canât target anything at all with a bioweapon. It goes where it goes. Far better to let the shit hit the fan in your own country, deal with it with the benefit of insider knowledge, and then let everyone else wallow in their own crapulence.
1 Like
You could precisely target enemy personnel by deploying your human agents to carry that virus.
It only takes old-fashioned spy craft to get your human agents physically close enough to Taiwanâs fighter jet pilots. Cough in the same room, etc. Your agents might not even need to know their lungs are being used to carry a bioweapon.
Given the 99.8% survival rate for young, healthy people, this would probably not be an effective strategy, even if physically realisable. COVID is primarily an economic and psychological weapon. Broadly speaking, itâs useless for killing or disabling people.
1 Like
No, if you were CCP, you would not release the virus in Wuhan even if you wanted to conduct a live test on your own population. There are plenty of other places you could have chosen to make it spread internationally or to achieve whatever end goal you hope to achieve, without implicating yourself.
The fact that patient zero happened in wuhan indicates some kind of escape through human test subjects or lab personnel, instead of a planned deployment of weapon.
1 Like
What you described is the current statistics in the current state of this virus, but that doesnât necessarily mean that PLAâs original goal was such.
It could very well be that the weapon was still in development but was unintentionally, prematurely leaked.
Besides, it could very well be that PLA goal with the virus project was simply make Taiwanese pilots sick enough to be unfit to fly for that duration. 10 days, 15 days, or any window of opportunity PLA sought to create. Mortality might not be necessary for this purpose.
Iâm not saying I believe this âintentionalâ theory, but releasing it near Wuhan would make it look like an accident which could be a very clever idea.
1 Like
The virus was an Economic retaliation for the Trade War. They released a virus on purpose, through whatever means (released a bat, lab worker, sprayed it on someone, whatever), essentially into the heart of their supply chain, Wuhan.
Why Wuhan? Because itâs critical to the global supply chain and shutting it down would have the most impact to retaliate for the Trade War.
You donât have to take my word, here is Deloitteâs analysis of Wuhan:
Wuhan specifically is very important to many
global supply chains. While it has been a traditional
base for manufacturing for decades, it has also
become an area of modern industrial change. Major
industries include high technology (opto-electronic
technology, pharmaceuticals, biology engineering, and
environmental protection) and modern manufacturing
(automotive, steel and iron manufacturing).
Putting that into context, over 200 of the Fortune
Global 500 firms have a presence directly in Wuhan.
A new Dun & Bradstreet study also estimates that
163 of the Fortune 1000 have Tier 1 suppliers (those
they do direct business with) in the impacted area,
and 938 have one or more Tier 2 suppliers (which
feed the first tier) in this same impacted area. Just
because you donât have any direct suppliers in the
impacted areas in China, does not mean that you are
safe from disruption. Visibility to only Tier 1 suppliers
will likely be insufficient for most organizations looking
to manage supply disruption risks. However, very few
organizations can trace their supply chain beyond
their Tier 1 suppliers, and advanced digital solutions
are generally required to trace supply networks
reliably across the multiple tiers of suppliers that are
required to fully understand supply-side risk. The
domino effect of plant closures and supply shortages
across the extended supply network can quickly lead
to significant supply chain disruption.
Even for those companies that are not directly
reliant for production or suppliers in Wuhan and
surrounding impacted areas, logistics within China
has been affected.As the transportation hub for many
industries, Wuhan is home to the largest inland port in
the country, and has a well-developed infrastructure
in water, land, and air traffic. Important industrial cities
such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, and
Xiâan, are also all within 1,200 km of Wuhan.
Honestly, I can think of far less complex strategies to cripple Taiwanâs military; and besides, the outcome as it panned out was waaay more interesting from the CCPs point of view. Causing a bit of hardship for (some of) Taiwanâs pilots would be a very low bar for a group with very big ambitions.
I generally assume that the effect produced by human action was the effect that was intended, especially if it persists for any length of time, although I moderate that with the observation that humans screw up more often than they are successful.
1 Like
Why canât we say itâs just shoddy work practices and be satisfied? I mean god forbid China ups their scientific game just a bit so as not to kill dozens in a mine, more in an exploding rocket and now millions in an escaped virus. Isnât this what theyâre most afraid of, being seen as backwards?
Because that might not be the truth. Maybe Iâm not understanding what youâre driving at here.