Posted by noel shelley on 08/03/2020 22:18:26:
A Friend with dealings in China and friends in highish places there has commented that the virus was connected with biolgical warfare experiments and got out, by accident. The poor doctor who tried to warn of the impact, and was told to be quiet only to subsequently die. It fits
Except it also fits with what's known about viruses in the wild.
Occam's Razor applies: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity'. It means, given a complicated and a simple explanation for an incident, the simple explanation is most likely correct.
The idea that a flu virus has escaped after being weaponised is 'complicated'. Why weaponise flu when their are far more effective nasties available? Why develop a not very effective disease which hurts friend and foe alike?
While it's possible for bugs to escape from a research institute, it's unlikely. The last case I know of was Smallpox in 1978 at the University of Birmingham Medical School. Accident, not conspiracy.
And there is a simple explanation for Coronavirus. It's been around forever. However, viruses evolve continually, partly by adapting to their environment, and partly randomly. It's how life works. There are many examples of avian flu (normally only active in birds), making the small genetic change needed to adapt to a human host. As the human immune system hasn't experienced this new variety before, it takes a while to learn how to deal with it. During that time the bug can run amok, perhaps fatally. It spreads rapidly and does more damage than a virus the body has dealt with before.
As killing the host is as bad for the virus as it is for the victim, it's the less unpleasant strains that tend to survive in the long run. Not much in it for individuals, but on average the population will recover. A Corona Virus epidemic is predicted to peak after about 9 weeks, after which – like other plagues – it becomes history. The UK hasn't got to the epidemic stage yet, my guess is it will be over by July.
The urge to blame someone else is always to be resisted. Creating an unnecessary new enemy by acting on bad information is always bad policy. Different entirely from responding robustly to someone who really is up to no good. Evidence, not opinion or rumour please!
Dave