It's stupid and gross that the possibility of accident in dangerous but necessary research turns into violence, but I strongly blame the exact same media that writes (IMO trashy) pieces like this for being fecklessly incapable of talking honestly and consistently about government corruption and for intentionally blurring lines between state and skin.
How hard would it be to write "Local, regional, and national governments in China have been suspiciously obstructionist from the start, but your Chinese neighbors are just humans like you, no more responsible for the CCP's shitty actions than you are responsible for your president's shitty actions. Don't be a fucking racist."
This, like every other handwaving dismissive editorial piece, completely ignores apparent repeated government coverup attempts, from the early arrest and censoring of Drs Li Wenliang and Ai Fen to altering hospital diagnoses, deleting data, and refusing to give WHO investigators access to more than summaries, as if stonewalling and suppression isn't itself a kind of evidence.
If a cop turns off all the cameras before a suspect dies, we don't suddenly say "See, there's just no evidence!" We say, "That act alone creates strong suspicion of guilt. Nothing is proven, but we will be grossly negligent if we don't dig deeper."
The circumstances around evidence or lack thereof matter, and if they don't alter your perception of probability to the point where you at least mention it, then you don't understand how probability works when it intersects human behavior and don't get to say what's more or less likely.
How hard would it be to write "Local, regional, and national governments in China have been suspiciously obstructionist from the start, but your Chinese neighbors are just humans like you, no more responsible for the CCP's shitty actions than you are responsible for your president's shitty actions. Don't be a fucking racist."
This, like every other handwaving dismissive editorial piece, completely ignores apparent repeated government coverup attempts, from the early arrest and censoring of Drs Li Wenliang and Ai Fen to altering hospital diagnoses, deleting data, and refusing to give WHO investigators access to more than summaries, as if stonewalling and suppression isn't itself a kind of evidence.
If a cop turns off all the cameras before a suspect dies, we don't suddenly say "See, there's just no evidence!" We say, "That act alone creates strong suspicion of guilt. Nothing is proven, but we will be grossly negligent if we don't dig deeper."
The circumstances around evidence or lack thereof matter, and if they don't alter your perception of probability to the point where you at least mention it, then you don't understand how probability works when it intersects human behavior and don't get to say what's more or less likely.