maytree.bsky.social
@maytree.bsky.social
Is this team not being used as a means for propoganda by the owner (sportswashing). Does this person not have extensive ties and influence within the country, including permission from the authorities to use the name of the country?
September 9, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Is this team not being used as a means for propoganda by the owner (sportswashing). Does this person not have extensive ties and influence within the country, including permission from the authorities to use the name of the country?
Lab work on C.V. was hardly "across the street". Many miles and a long drive in rush hour away. You may not have a good sense of just what a metropolis Wuhan is. And what most huge Asian cities are like. And how many thousands and thousands of places any given person might go "after work".
April 2, 2025 at 1:45 AM
Lab work on C.V. was hardly "across the street". Many miles and a long drive in rush hour away. You may not have a good sense of just what a metropolis Wuhan is. And what most huge Asian cities are like. And how many thousands and thousands of places any given person might go "after work".
Plus, the fanning out of positives from the wet market, including each lineage, means most likely the spreading event was at the market, and meaning two leaks from one lab at one place. Very unlikely. Then add on top of that, it's the place where we would expect zoonosis to be happening.
April 2, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Plus, the fanning out of positives from the wet market, including each lineage, means most likely the spreading event was at the market, and meaning two leaks from one lab at one place. Very unlikely. Then add on top of that, it's the place where we would expect zoonosis to be happening.
But because there was a ton of testing in Wuhan, and no intermediates found, but both lineages are everywhere, including the market, than you need two lab leaks, one for each lineage of virus. That's unlikely.
April 2, 2025 at 1:28 AM
But because there was a ton of testing in Wuhan, and no intermediates found, but both lineages are everywhere, including the market, than you need two lab leaks, one for each lineage of virus. That's unlikely.
If zoonoisis, then the two lineages developed independently upstream, before animals arrived at wet market. Makes sense we wouldn't find intermediates. If a single lab leak, one lineage evolved eventually to another somewhere in Wuhan. But in that case the intermediates would be easily found.
April 2, 2025 at 1:26 AM
If zoonoisis, then the two lineages developed independently upstream, before animals arrived at wet market. Makes sense we wouldn't find intermediates. If a single lab leak, one lineage evolved eventually to another somewhere in Wuhan. But in that case the intermediates would be easily found.
Hmmm, that two lab workers independently at the lab got sick from independent viruses and both went to the wet market and got animals sick in a city of many millions of people and hundreds of thousands of possible places. Seems stupendously unlikely.
April 1, 2025 at 10:01 PM
Hmmm, that two lab workers independently at the lab got sick from independent viruses and both went to the wet market and got animals sick in a city of many millions of people and hundreds of thousands of possible places. Seems stupendously unlikely.
Otherwise, intermediaries b/t lineages A and B would likely have shown up in humans. But that didn't happen. So one has to assume two independent lab leaks to the wet market, for lab leak to fit the data.
April 1, 2025 at 9:55 PM
Otherwise, intermediaries b/t lineages A and B would likely have shown up in humans. But that didn't happen. So one has to assume two independent lab leaks to the wet market, for lab leak to fit the data.
Nope -- the lineages are independent and thus most likely came from animals way upstream.
April 1, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Nope -- the lineages are independent and thus most likely came from animals way upstream.
Two independent lineages A & B were found in the wet market near the animals, and then in the population. The "leak to the market" would've required two leaks to the market of two independent lineages, not one. Such implausibility is never addressed in the media, just in the science.
April 1, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Two independent lineages A & B were found in the wet market near the animals, and then in the population. The "leak to the market" would've required two leaks to the market of two independent lineages, not one. Such implausibility is never addressed in the media, just in the science.
Bexzex: Perhaps if you agree with bratwebb.bsky.social’s responses to me in the parallel thread then we can chalk it up to me not being able to communicate my responses to you clearly. But if it’s not right then it would be helpful to know.
bsky.app
March 20, 2025 at 11:20 PM
Bexzex: Perhaps if you agree with bratwebb.bsky.social’s responses to me in the parallel thread then we can chalk it up to me not being able to communicate my responses to you clearly. But if it’s not right then it would be helpful to know.
So my hypothetical one lab leak scenario to lead to LA and LB is about 3 in a 100 per Peksr?
March 20, 2025 at 11:02 PM
So my hypothetical one lab leak scenario to lead to LA and LB is about 3 in a 100 per Peksr?
Seems straightforward to me.
March 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Seems straightforward to me.
The best intentions ….. Anyway, Brett Webb’s explanations in the parallel thread seems clear, responsive, and helpful, assuming they are correct. Sorry to bother!
March 20, 2025 at 10:41 PM
The best intentions ….. Anyway, Brett Webb’s explanations in the parallel thread seems clear, responsive, and helpful, assuming they are correct. Sorry to bother!
Okay I think that’s basically what I’ve been trying to get succinctly crystallized from the get go. I don’t really understand why Holmes and Bex seemed to take issue as it sounds pretty close to where I was. Bex struck me as saying the opposite (re more intermediates proving zoonosis).
March 20, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Okay I think that’s basically what I’ve been trying to get succinctly crystallized from the get go. I don’t really understand why Holmes and Bex seemed to take issue as it sounds pretty close to where I was. Bex struck me as saying the opposite (re more intermediates proving zoonosis).
You have three negatives in that sentence so I’m not sure I understand. Could you rephrase. Also the other person who is engaged seems to be saying what I thought was the right answer.
March 20, 2025 at 10:21 PM
You have three negatives in that sentence so I’m not sure I understand. Could you rephrase. Also the other person who is engaged seems to be saying what I thought was the right answer.
Can I reasonably say then: highly likely zoonosis because two lab leaks, one 4 each lineage, in the market is obviously unlikely, and a single leak to the market resulting in two lineages is also unlikely because we would expect to find CC or TT intermediates somewhere in that case and we don’t. (?)
March 20, 2025 at 10:16 PM
Can I reasonably say then: highly likely zoonosis because two lab leaks, one 4 each lineage, in the market is obviously unlikely, and a single leak to the market resulting in two lineages is also unlikely because we would expect to find CC or TT intermediates somewhere in that case and we don’t. (?)
Seems contradictory to what you and I seem to just
agreed on (does the lack of intermediates bolster zoonosis, or would finding them bolster it?(Bex)), I expressed that, and so it’s not that I’m not listening.
agreed on (does the lack of intermediates bolster zoonosis, or would finding them bolster it?(Bex)), I expressed that, and so it’s not that I’m not listening.
March 20, 2025 at 10:04 PM
Seems contradictory to what you and I seem to just
agreed on (does the lack of intermediates bolster zoonosis, or would finding them bolster it?(Bex)), I expressed that, and so it’s not that I’m not listening.
agreed on (does the lack of intermediates bolster zoonosis, or would finding them bolster it?(Bex)), I expressed that, and so it’s not that I’m not listening.
But Bex said the following is what threw me. “But keep in mind that identifying intermediates in environmental samples from the market would only strengthen the case for a market origin. Finding 0 lineage at the market makes the market-origin scenario less likely than finding 1 lineage”
March 20, 2025 at 10:01 PM
But Bex said the following is what threw me. “But keep in mind that identifying intermediates in environmental samples from the market would only strengthen the case for a market origin. Finding 0 lineage at the market makes the market-origin scenario less likely than finding 1 lineage”
Appreciate that there are multiple responses to different people and you might not have tried to digest every thing said. I appreciate the help.
March 20, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Appreciate that there are multiple responses to different people and you might not have tried to digest every thing said. I appreciate the help.
I’m fine with statistically very unlikely as a strong conclusion bolstering that likelihood of zoonosis. It doesn’t have to be 100 percent
March 20, 2025 at 9:55 PM
I’m fine with statistically very unlikely as a strong conclusion bolstering that likelihood of zoonosis. It doesn’t have to be 100 percent
Okay so is it correct then that it’s quite statistically unlikely (due to the Monte Carlo and the lack of intermediates found anywhere, ever) though perhaps possible, that the virus could have leaked from lab to market once and then evolved there into two lineages.
March 20, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Okay so is it correct then that it’s quite statistically unlikely (due to the Monte Carlo and the lack of intermediates found anywhere, ever) though perhaps possible, that the virus could have leaked from lab to market once and then evolved there into two lineages.
I literally stated earlier in the thread that I understood that there was the low probability. Then i asked if that just meant there was some chance it was possible and some chance we didn’t find intermediates due to sampling errors.
March 20, 2025 at 9:50 PM
I literally stated earlier in the thread that I understood that there was the low probability. Then i asked if that just meant there was some chance it was possible and some chance we didn’t find intermediates due to sampling errors.
How is that diff than what I said that u dsgrd with: “ It's the very lack of intermediates that we would expect to have found--given two lineages were found that were also found in humans--that indicates that for a lab leak theory to fit the data, you need two lab leaks, which is "bonkers".”
March 20, 2025 at 9:47 PM
How is that diff than what I said that u dsgrd with: “ It's the very lack of intermediates that we would expect to have found--given two lineages were found that were also found in humans--that indicates that for a lab leak theory to fit the data, you need two lab leaks, which is "bonkers".”
Well in my mind that’s what I repeated above and you and Eddie said it was wrong.
March 20, 2025 at 9:39 PM
Well in my mind that’s what I repeated above and you and Eddie said it was wrong.
“Given enough time, intermediates can arise by chance. Pekar 2025 analyzed Lv to be this case.” Does it mean there likely wasn’t enough time for one virus leaked to the market to evolve such we found two distinct lineages?
March 20, 2025 at 9:38 PM
“Given enough time, intermediates can arise by chance. Pekar 2025 analyzed Lv to be this case.” Does it mean there likely wasn’t enough time for one virus leaked to the market to evolve such we found two distinct lineages?