Submitted by Square_Tea4916 t3_11sthk3 in dataisbeautiful
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfmczw wrote
Reply to comment by SafeExpress3210 in [OC] More Americans are believing COVID-19 originated from a lab in China. However, there is still no conclusive evidence to support one theory over another. The topic is highly politicizing both internally (US Political Parties) and externally (US-China relations). by Square_Tea4916
No, that’s not how that works. But if you really want to do it the wrong way, it’s still +1 for natural.
hatethiscity t1_jcfnmxl wrote
Has self-proclaimed "no confidence" but argues passionately for one side more than the other. Makes sense.
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfnxhv wrote
My argument is for “not sure”.
[deleted] t1_jcjcfih wrote
[removed]
SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfmn19 wrote
- low confidence in natural
- low to moderate confidence in lab leak
- ‘low to moderate’ > ‘low’
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfnhuk wrote
Dude.
4 agencies claim low for natural. 1 agency claims low for lab leak, 1 moderate.
4 > 2
SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfonqu wrote
So all confidence for natural is low and half confidence for lab leak is moderate
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcforlp wrote
SafeExpress3210 t1_jcfpymu wrote
So the theory with the most confidence was that it was a lab leak.
Then it comes down to which sources of evidence the intel committees give the most weight to. The most relevant sources of evidence imho really point in one direction but if you choose to follow the evidence given by sellouts then that is your prerogative.
[deleted] t1_jch0dcz wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments