10 Apr '20 05:48>9 edits
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
The post that was quoted here has been removedRegardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat's not how the real science works.
The post that was quoted here has been removedand then you wrote;
@eladar saidJudging from the several videos I have seen with real experts talking about this subject, there are good reasons to think that is extremely unlikely albeit still possible. Much more likely C19 had a more 'natural' origin. There are still several theories how it started and few have been ruled out and its difficult to say which is most likely but at the moment, regardless of how it started, it looks more likely it started in China than in any other country simply because China was the first country where it was first noticed (and we should simply ignore all of the several politically motivated currently-baseless stupid wild layperson conspiracy theories to the contrary that seem to be circulating around over the net but, obviously, not ignore any of the scientific ones from the real experts). But we cannot even be sure of that and thus for all we know that might well change if we get more evidence and clues to its origins. In the mean time, it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in China because it was first noticed there, just as it would be rational and reasonable to assume it probably started in the US if it had hypothetically been first noticed there instead.
It was most likely a virus research facility in Wuhan.
@humy saidOne thing to note is that the first detected human case in Wuhan had no links with the market. What is clear is that the virus is zoonotic, and it's main host was bats, it is believed to have infected an intermediate species, possibly pangolins, first. I think it is really unlikely that the cause of the disease in humans is from snacking on bats. For one thing cooking the bat will tend to kill the disease. Encroaching on their habitat is more likely to be the cause, which is also likely to be why we see more Ebola outbreaks.
Regardless of whether the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market will be later confirmed by good evidence, why would the hypothesis of the virus starting in the Wuhan's animal market be "prejudice"?
It is currently one of the reasonable unproven hypotheses to be tested by science.
And if that hypothesis IS then later confirmed by good evidence, would you STILL be calling it "prejudice"?