Covid Lab Leak Theory

[chaos]

Typically, a group size of around twelve people is considered optimal for reaching consensus effectively, as larger groups can complicate the process.

[Primemuscle]

Typically, a group size of around twelve people is considered optimal for reaching consensus effectively, as larger groups can complicate the process.

This is the approximate number of folks sitting at the bargaining table in the multiple contract negotiations I participated in on behalf of Classified employees for many years. We liked to think reaching consensus as "getting to yes." Yes, being an agreed upon acceptable contract between the district (management representing the school board), and Union officers who represented Classified employees. If I remember correctly, there was only one contract negotiation requiring a moderator and we still did not reach consensus until we picked the district during a board meeting in front of the administration offices.   

[Dos Equis]

What kind of retard uses a 4 year old paper funded by the government? Same people that helped develop the virus. LOL nothing to see here!!
And still they left behind hints in their paid for "findings".

lol. You actually read it?  I bet he didn't.   

[Dos Equis]

In your view, how many people are needed to reach consensus? Would you agree that, technically, consensus can exist with as few as two people? It can also refer to a broader or more general agreement. Were you looking for a more formal consensus?

Your questions don't really have anything to do with this context.  We're not talking about two people.  Or a handful of people.  The context is the entire medical and scientific community.

I don't know where you got your consensus comment, which is why I asked.  There is very clear evidence that this virus came from a lab. 

[Necrosis]

Typically, a group size of around twelve people is considered optimal for reaching consensus effectively, as larger groups can complicate the process.

Do you really want to embarrass yourself again with this? last time you couldn't even read the paper nor understand what it said. I posted the paper and you post a line from the abstract as a gotcha when I clearly said it weighed multiple sides.

Come on man,  show some intelligence.

[Necrosis]

Tell us you lick the government boot without saying you lick the government boot. LOL dumbass

You are dumb and unfortunately in a cult it appears.

The W in WHO stands for world ftr.

Bro trusts pundits getting paid by the very same government over experts in the field from across the globe. Brilliant!! Thinks the democrats unleased the virus which has been categorized as zoonotic 100s of times in many variants to control us. The nations across the world- autocracies, dictatorships all bowed to the democrats wishes LOL

LOL. I gotta stop posting on here, it's making me dumber just interacting with these folks.

[chaos]

lol. You actually read it?  I bet he didn't.   

I read enough to see that only a moron would post that and think it reaffirmed his point of view.

[Necrosis]

I read enough to see that only a moron would post that and think it reaffirmed his point of view.

Nice one, I see you guys are trauma bonding again.

Imagine weighing both sides. You ever do that except at the buffet?

[Primemuscle]

Your questions don't really have anything to do with this context.  We're not talking about two people.  Or a handful of people.  The context is the entire medical and scientific community.

I don't know where you got your consensus comment, which is why I asked.  There is very clear evidence that this virus came from a lab.

I initiated this context -- not you. Therefore, whether my questions have anything to do with what 'this context' is, is not for you to determine. 

Just imagine. However, consensus generally favors a natural zoonotic origin.

[Dos Equis]

I read enough to see that only a moron would post that and think it reaffirmed his point of view.

He is a legend in his own mind.  Very entertaining though.   

[Dos Equis]

I initiated this context -- not you. Therefore, whether my questions have anything to do with what 'this context' is, is not for you to determine.

You mentioned consensus.  Then you tried to limit consensus to some irrelevant context involving a handful of people.  You are obviously free to do that, but it doesn’t make any sense in this context (so to speak).

And the real issue is whether this virus came from a lab.  I frankly don’t care what the consensus is, because so many people in powerful positions outright lied to us, repeatedly, during the pandemic. 

As I’ve said, this virus came from a lab.  Hard to reach any other reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. 

[Primemuscle]

You mentioned consensus.  Then you tried to limit consensus to some irrelevant context involving a handful of people.  You are obviously free to do that, but it doesn’t make any sense in this context (so to speak).

And the real issue is whether this virus came from a lab.  I frankly don’t care what the consensus is, because so many people in powerful positions outright lied to us, repeatedly, during the pandemic. 

As I’ve said, this virus came from a lab.  Hard to reach any other reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

Not that you should care about the consensus, that you don't care what the consensus is reveals a great deal about how you process information. I understand that it is hard for you to reach any other reasonable conclusion based on what you consider to be solid evidence to support it. Most people want to be right. Almost nobody wants to be wrong. This is just human nature.

Unlike you, I do not know whether COVID came from a lab or was spread, humans via zoonosis or both (which seems likely to me). What I do know is that it was a worldwide, devasting pandemic, and that the virus continues to exist, and people continue to die from it.

[Dos Equis]

Not that you should care about the consensus, that you don't care what the consensus is reveals a great deal about how you process information. I understand that it is hard for you to reach any other reasonable conclusion based on what you consider to be solid evidence to support it. Most people want to be right. Almost nobody wants to be wrong. This is just human nature.

Unlike you, I do not know whether COVID came from a lab or was spread, humans via zoonosis or both (which seems likely to me). What I do know is that it was a worldwide, devasting pandemic, and that the virus continues to exist, and people continue to die from it.

I make decisions based on facts, evidence, and common sense.  Using those three, it is fairly easy to understand that this virus came from a lab. 

[Primemuscle]

I make decisions based on facts, evidence, and common sense.  Using those three, it is fairly easy to understand that this virus came from a lab.

You believe you make decisions based on facts, evidence, and common sense. This does not guarantee that your decisions are always correct.

Have you ever considered that two things can be true at the same time? In this case, that the COVID virus could have accidentally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology but also because of natural zoonotic transmission?

I previously mentioned consensus generally favors a natural zoonotic origin. You asked what consensus. One would hope that to conclude that the COVID pandemic is the result of the Wuhan lab leak you would have investigated other possibilities and therefore known that the leading consensus among major health organizations, including the World Health Organization is that COVID is of zoonotic origin. Zoonotic spillover is also the consensus of the scientific community at large.

COVID is a virus like SARS, MERS, and Ebola, and the vast majority of emerging infectious diseases in human history are zoonotic. The virus "Monkeypox" or Mpox was first identified in captive monkeys used for research in 1958. But there are also many viruses resulting from accidental laboratory escapes, such as the Russian Flu and the Marburg virus, and many other viruses.

[chaos]

The consensus is split and recognizes the possibility of a lab leak. Why don't these idiots accept that?

[Primemuscle]

The consensus is split and recognizes the possibility of a lab leak. Why don't these idiots accept that?

My post allows for the COVID virus to be both a lab leak and a zoonotic origin.

Technically and by definition (consensus means absolute agreement), and therefore it cannot be split except in computer science and game theory. When consensus cannot be reached, it becomes
a majority rule, a split decision, or a deadlock.

The term "consensus" is frequently misused to describe a simple majority.