[Genuine Realist]

Ya pays yer money, ya take your choice.




https://nypost.com/2020/05/02/intelligen...ronavirus/



I'm still thinking of a Chernobyl scenario, a small error magnified into a catastrophe by apparatchiks refusing to admit error.

Touché.  I will note that the NY Post (owned by News Corp) made a reference to another News Corp publication (The Daily Telegraph) as the original article:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/corona...96ad17da60

The article has more "details" of the alleged cover-up.  It notes that it has the 15-page dossier, but doesn't post the document for review.  And if you read the actual telegraph article, it is conflating two things that is apparent in this statement:

"As intelligence agencies investigate whether the virus inadvertently leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the team and its research led by scientist Shi Zhengli feature in the dossier prepared by Western governments that points to several studies they conducted as areas of concern."

First, it says intelligence agencies are investigating whether the virus leaked from the lab, not that intelligence agencies believe the virus leaked from the lab.  Secondly, it states that the dossier pointed to "several studies they conducted as areas of concern".  However, those "areas of concern" are related to past activities, not specific concerns about the lab leaking the virus.  But if you read the statement loosely, it would be easy to come to the belief that the dossier has found evidence that the virus leaked from the lab.

It notes that "The Australian government’s position is that the virus most likely originated in the Wuhan wet market but that there is a remote possibility — a 5 per cent chance — it accidentally leaked from a laboratory."  It notes that "The US’s position, according to reports this week, is that it is more likely the virus leaked from a laboratory but it could also have come from a wet market that trades and slaughters wild animals, where other diseases including the H5N1 avian flu and SARS originated."  Those reports, however, are unspecified, and the piece later states only that the "US intelligence committee is investigating whether COVID-19 was the result of an accident at a Wuhan laboratory."

Then there is a pretty lengthy point:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence acting director Richard Grenell said the virus was not created in a laboratory.
“The entire Intelligence Community has been consistently providing critical support to US policymakers and those responding to the COVID-19 virus, which originated in China,” he said.
“The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified. As we do in all crises, the Community’s experts respond by surging resources and producing critical intelligence on issues vital to US national security. The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

So, the on the record statement by the office of the DNI is that it was not created in a laboratory, and the telegraph claims to be in possession of the dossier, but then point to other (unspecified) "reports" that the US's position is that it leaked from a laboratory.

So this all seems pretty fishy.

BC

Who knows? The CNN article, which apparently was in response, is unsourced, which is the kiss of death for me. Before Watergate, almost no one quoted anonymous sources, only when there is real risk to the source. Now it's become standard, and why not? It minimizes accountability for both reporter and source.

Quoting myself, when you are reading an unsourced news report, you aren't reading news. You're reading an unsigned op-ed.

BTW, the question of the origin of the virus (lab or open market) seems to me secondary. The real question is the adequacy of the Chinese measures in response, and, secondarily, whether the CCP obscured the actual clinical experience with the disease. The trial lawyer in me sees the sanctions imposed on the MD's who reported honestly the actual experience as a very strong indication of bureaucratic embarrassment at the very least.

[Genuine Realist]

Ya pays yer money, ya take your choice.




https://nypost.com/2020/05/02/intelligen...ronavirus/



I'm still thinking of a Chernobyl scenario, a small error magnified into a catastrophe by apparatchiks refusing to admit error.

Touché.  I will note that the NY Post (owned by News Corp) made a reference to another News Corp publication (The Daily Telegraph) as the original article:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/corona...96ad17da60

The article has more "details" of the alleged cover-up.  It notes that it has the 15-page dossier, but doesn't post the document for review.  And if you read the actual telegraph article, it is conflating two things that is apparent in this statement:

"As intelligence agencies investigate whether the virus inadvertently leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the team and its research led by scientist Shi Zhengli feature in the dossier prepared by Western governments that points to several studies they conducted as areas of concern."

First, it says intelligence agencies are investigating whether the virus leaked from the lab, not that intelligence agencies believe the virus leaked from the lab.  Secondly, it states that the dossier pointed to "several studies they conducted as areas of concern".  However, those "areas of concern" are related to past activities, not specific concerns about the lab leaking the virus.  But if you read the statement loosely, it would be easy to come to the belief that the dossier has found evidence that the virus leaked from the lab.

It notes that "The Australian government’s position is that the virus most likely originated in the Wuhan wet market but that there is a remote possibility — a 5 per cent chance — it accidentally leaked from a laboratory."  It notes that "The US’s position, according to reports this week, is that it is more likely the virus leaked from a laboratory but it could also have come from a wet market that trades and slaughters wild animals, where other diseases including the H5N1 avian flu and SARS originated."  Those reports, however, are unspecified, and the piece later states only that the "US intelligence committee is investigating whether COVID-19 was the result of an accident at a Wuhan laboratory."

Then there is a pretty lengthy point:

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence acting director Richard Grenell said the virus was not created in a laboratory.
“The entire Intelligence Community has been consistently providing critical support to US policymakers and those responding to the COVID-19 virus, which originated in China,” he said.
“The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified. As we do in all crises, the Community’s experts respond by surging resources and producing critical intelligence on issues vital to US national security. The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

So, the on the record statement by the office of the DNI is that it was not created in a laboratory, and the telegraph claims to be in possession of the dossier, but then point to other (unspecified) "reports" that the US's position is that it leaked from a laboratory.

So this all seems pretty fishy.

BC

Who knows? The CNN article, which apparently was in response, is unsourced, which is the kiss of death for me. Before Watergate, almost no one quoted anonymous sources, only when there is real risk to the source. Now it's become standard, and why not? It minimizes accountability for both reporter and source.

Quoting myself, when you are reading an unsourced news report, you aren't reading news. You're reading an unsigned op-ed.

BTW, the question of the origin of the virus (lab or open market) seems to me secondary. The real question is the adequacy of the Chinese measures in response, and, secondarily, whether the CCP obscured the actual clinical experience with the disease. The trial lawyer in me sees the sanctions imposed on the MD's who reported honestly the actual experience as a very strong indication of bureaucratic embarrassment at the very least.