Consider the following: How can a medical worker speaking about their own experience working at a hospital in any way constitute espionage?
If found guilty of espionage, by law they can be executed. Anyone who speaks up can be killed.
Trying to predict what China will execute people for is like reading entrails.
When you say "China", do you mean the Department of Health, or the Department of Defense, or the Department of Trade, or the Chinese government, or the Chinese people, or some Chinese guy?
It makes as much sense to attribute a Standard Operating Procedure to "China" as it does to attribute something like that to "America", or to say "Americans think...", which is not very much at all, because America, like all societies of more than one person, is a pluralist society.
China is 1.3 billion people. If you treat it as a collection of different interests and points of view, your analyses and predictions will have more cogency.
1 . https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-policy-law/chinas-t...
Well, apparently the CCP told the truth, the whole truth to the world. Authoritarian regime doesn't work.
/s
The pithiest example is the death of Li Wenliang. The doctor who was threatened and silenced for warning others of a SARS outbreak, himself died of the disease when it spread due to inaction.
Can you see the difference between those two propositions?
Apparently not, if you’re quoting one western account of one Chinese guys statement, and imaging that represents all of China monolithically.
In the West, we have an underlying belief that dissent and debate result in better decisions and more circumspect awareness of complicated situations. We tolerate insolence, dissent, and other unpleasant behaviors specifically because we know they serve a purpose.
That doesn't happen with a top-down ("democratic centralist") system. The vast majority of people have absolutely no power to change the course of decisions. Political offices do not turn over from party to party in a way that shakes up underlying corruption. The police enforce political assertions in addition to the laws of the land.
Your argument boils down to "there are many many people in China, so they must be ideologically and behaviorally diverse." Or, "as X approaches infinity, the number of viewpoints also approaches infinity." It's just not true for human behavior in an authoritarian collectivist society.
Not every society of more than one person is pluralistic. Extrinsic forces and incentives make a major impact on human behavior.
Apparently it was available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128 too but not there now.
I found it here: https://img-prod.tgcom24.mediaset.it/images/2020/02/16/11472...
We call this deflecting. And it's a rhetorical device used when you are on the wrong side of the argument.
And the answer is "All Of The Above". All parts of the Chinese government leaders see very little problem with executing those who might upset their status quo.
from [0]:
> Despite the WIV presenting itself as a civilian institution, the United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.
If I had done some work in the past on biological weapons that I didn't want the world to know about, I'd be very concerned about letting a bunch of international investigators examine labs that might be literally right down the hall. Alternatively if I were a government hostile to china who knew damn well what china was doing down the hall but can't find a good way to call them out on it, the opportunity to send investigators in for an unrelated reason would be a godsend.
[0] https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan...
I don't know if COVID leaked from a lab or not. I think it's possible and very much worth investigating. What I'm against is these kind of "social proof" arguments which can seem convincing but are are often vacuous.
Investigate the evidence. Pressure the PRC to show their records and allow external investigations. Publicly bluster that refusal to open up in the face of legitimate questions should be considered evidence of culpability if they refuse to open up! But don't actually consider a repressive government being repressive by default as actual proof of anything.
Incentives gone wrong - when you risk getting gulag'd for missing your quarterly numbers, you will fudge your numbers.
The notorious case of the Chinese spy needing spy auth docs to prove that she's a bona fide spy to the Chinese consulate in the US is an example. Surely they could have authed her using her passport, but no, she needed the auth docs and she got caught for having them.
Nuclear disaster sound scary, but COVID is actually objectively scarier.
(Not sure which way you meant the comparison goes)
>The Chinese government had prohibited labs from publishing information about the new coronavirus, though Zhang later said he did not know about the prohibition. The next day, the Shanghai Health Commission ordered Zhang's laboratory to close temporarily for "rectification". While some media reports argued that the closure was retaliation for Zhang's decision to publish the genome, Zhang disputed this, saying that officials were right to have the lab improve its biosafety protocols.
Why such a sudden change? China certainly didn't change its position on the issue...
A fool insisting it’s a sunny day does not make it rain.
But we are not allowed to call it the Chinese or Wuhan virus.
And the Chinese government did hide critical data from the WHO and international partners to save face, no?
New developments have happened as well, though. I believe we recently started hearing about Wuhan lab employees starting to get sick around late 2019 and early 2020. I don’t think we had known that before.
As opposed to now? <cough>US/Mexico boarder</cough>
That all sounds to me just like a massive authoritarian government bureaucracy dealing with a quick moving disaster on their soil where the beaurocrats didn't know what was happening, because the scientists couldn't tell them, so they leaned in on trying to control everyone.
The argument rephrased reads to me like "The reason why I believe in the lab leak theory is that an authoritarian country behaved like an authoritarian country, when I would have expected them to behave like my western democracy".
As an example, it is possible that this was a lab leak but that this fact was suppressed by the local govt, and no-one in the central govt is any the wiser.
Defending China was because Trump was anti-China. I don't think money was anything to do with it, there is always going to be a section of the media (on both sides) that defines their view as the opposite of what "the other side" believes. There is nothing complicated about this, it is just a terrible idea to think this way and it will almost always backfire. Trump, in particular, brought out this characteristic to an unprecedented level...if Trump had said that grass was green, some sections of the media would have had pundits on an hour later expressing how dangerous that sentiment was and that, whilst grass appears green to the laymen, it is actually a very, very, very subtle shade of brown (even Obama didn't trigger this kind of neuralgia on the right).
As it stands, asian people are getting targeted for attacks in the street by deranged individuals.
I've just started calling covid West Taiwan virus to piss everyone off.
Nice
I agree on both counts. With respect to the latter, I yearn for a time when we can dissect the media's coverage of Trump somewhat dispassionately without being branded a Trump Supporter (as though there is some kind of firm dichotomy in which we must be one of Team Trump or Team Media).
The whole politicization of America is such a problem right now.
Thats been a recurring assumption on this virus that I find frustrating
That, in part, was why no one took this thing seriously at the beginning in the US.
In retrospect, the constant hounding and attacks on Trump damaged all US citizens, simply by blunting messages, by causing unnecessary conflict. While Trump is out of office, the leaders who caused this confusion are still in office. And that is wrong. They need to be fired.
Indeed, a reasonably large contingent of those hesitant to get a vaccine, are parroting the (then) opposition politicians, who cast doubt on the processes. How much damage, how many lives have been lost, because these fools wanted to win a political contest, and score political points?
The media bear significant responsibility in this as well. Their consistent efforts at painting the former administration as "full of crap" all the time, as lying all the time, blunted and confused many messages, and forced secretaries of departments to have to try to handle/answer often idiotic questions.
So here we are today. Lab leak, far from being a paranoid fantasy, is a real possibility. And yet, the media is still playing these games.
We in the US, need, need ... to fire all the pols responsible for this. To no longer consume the media products of the organizations that encouraged this. And to stop believing that just because someone on one side says something that the other side has free rights to attack that without regards for facts.
I'm quite disgusted with the interplay between politics, media, and the pandemic.
Maybe you should change that
And frankly, in the absence of evidence, some guy getting sick from bad meat at a market is a much simpler explanation than an artificially created virus escaped from an institution with good safety standards. Only after an extensive search for the host has come back empty and the institution's actions have been found to be questionable does occam's razor meaningfully shift, and even then it's still hardly certain that this alternative theory is actually correct.
You don't have to hate Trump to admit that he lacks complex strategy and communication skills, as well as a very week, if not incompetent, cabinet.
Politically speaking, being in a "justified war" would have done nothing but hurt the democrats chances. It's hard to unseat a president at 4 years already, but with an ongoing war it's even harder.