Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hikikomori | Hacker News Reader

>China is an authoritarian, autocratic state.

As opposed to current America?

Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.

>In these situations we rely heavily on intelligence services

I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?

https://archive.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Rep...

>The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARSCoV-2

View on HN

> Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.

They cannot evaluate evidence if all evidence has been destroyed.

> I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?

I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can't have it both ways.

To point, the US intelligence report “does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses.” Its purpose was to declassify information concerning potential WIV connections and describe what US intelligence knew about WIV activities. You cited a report you didn't read or didn't understand.

I should also point out that the US agencies couldn't agree. In 2023, FBI favoured a lab incident, Department of Energy favoured a lab incident, CIA favoured lab incident, and NIC + four other (name withheld) intelligence agencies favoured natural spillover.

> I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure if you just aren't engaging with what is being said or are not reading the full post - he only shared that link IN RESPONSE TO you appealing to intelligence services. Read again:

"I don't think intelligence services are equipped to do this. >>>BUT if we go by who has the better data<<<"

He is saying "well IF we ARE going by intelligence services because YOU made that argument, then what about this?"

You missed his first two sentences:

> > China is an authoritarian, autocratic state.

> As opposed to current America?

He is implying that America is also an authoritarian, autocratic state. This was in response to my comment explaining why China will not comply with investigations. He is arguing that America cannot be trusted to provide accurate information, or comply with investigations. He argues this first, then attempts to argue that America is a more trustworthy source than Germany.

I'm just using your argument against you. Both are unreliable, China is authoritarian, America has been taken over by an authoritarian and science denying regime.

That's fine - both are unreliable. So we should lean more on the source I cited at the beginning: Germany's intelligence agency.

no, you should go off of the preponderance of evidence. Why would we choose a report from a single country?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com