It's disappointing that they seem to be basing things more on what it politically pleasing to China - lab no way, frozen food yay - rather than doing stuff like analysing blood and wastewater samples etc which is what a proper scientific study would look like I think.
Two things: That's a real tweet? Trust first and then verify? Sounds like what I'd call "silverback science".
Second "I am obvious not qualified to render judgments as to the likelihood of various COVID-19 origin hypotheses, but I am well qualified to render judgments of the validity of evidentiary claims in support of hypotheses." I think the idea that folks from other disciplines are capable/incapable of that judgment is worthy of much more thought and discussion- since we don't seem to have that discussion across disciplines much in parts of climate science. The difference that in more humble realms with more humble scientists is called... "the best answer we can give with the time and funding available" versus "the correct answer."
It's disappointing that they seem to be basing things more on what it politically pleasing to China - lab no way, frozen food yay - rather than doing stuff like analysing blood and wastewater samples etc which is what a proper scientific study would look like I think.
Two things: That's a real tweet? Trust first and then verify? Sounds like what I'd call "silverback science".
Second "I am obvious not qualified to render judgments as to the likelihood of various COVID-19 origin hypotheses, but I am well qualified to render judgments of the validity of evidentiary claims in support of hypotheses." I think the idea that folks from other disciplines are capable/incapable of that judgment is worthy of much more thought and discussion- since we don't seem to have that discussion across disciplines much in parts of climate science. The difference that in more humble realms with more humble scientists is called... "the best answer we can give with the time and funding available" versus "the correct answer."