Cut the demand and the market, needing to clear, will sell at lower prices. That is what has happened with the great shutdown of commerce.

You may not have noticed but the cost of energy has been cut in half.

BTW Lucky, consider this "conspiracy theory": In New York, Friday Oct 19, 2019, they conducted an excercise "Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms." Sound familiar?

http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.or...

I know that just having a huge "exercise" that duplicates exactly, what transpires immediately after said "exercise" is totally insane conspiracy theory stuff....but....you know.....

Indeed, the Aussie news channel does not seem very happy with China at all....

I think this is the mainstream source mentioned.
website-
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6...
headline-
China 'willfully inflicted coronavirus upon the world'

The headline is not supported by the story.
What I get out of it is-
" a Chinese bio-lab lost control of some weapons-grade virus and covered it up like Chernobyl".
Efforts on covering-up took away resources from managing the accident. Sufficient evidence for hanging or shooting culprits, no need to exaggerate.

Lucky,

Look at this, it is a group who calls themselves Edge of Wonder, who refer to a Chinese man who is reporting from in China and uses some neat workarounds to get around China censors. About 3:00 in till 4:30. They say the real Patient 0 was a girl named Huang Yenling who supposedly delivered 4 vials to the lab and was never seen again. Of course, that would have, had it been reported by lamestream media, connected the lab that is known to be doing the crazy crap, with the current issue, and China is not going to allow that.

https://youtu.be/NVzne_ZQ0Vo

Thanks for elaboration.
About that gang- I can believe (not quite equal to accept) those horror stories. The delivery girl story- reported where, Washington Post or Washington Times?

Our ewv has stricter standards than me for evidence and inference, eg. if it is in the Post or in the Times, affects my thinking.

Even so, someone said on here weeks ago- in the face of such events in human affairs rather than conspiracy it is usually more reliable to blame a cock-up.

I have a higher regard for the Xi Jinping rationality (for narrow minded self-interest) than for any ethical system. Now this event is not and could not be favorable for China, for the leadership, for the Chinese people. nor for most anyone else. So, I doubt it was deliberate, rather an error. Monumental errors are a characteristic of dictatorships.

nick.. reading your post again-
1 to 5 was the "unrelated facts" that add up to a deliberate effort to obfuscate the issue, which allowed it to escalate out of control
Exactly- errors, accidents, escalation, disaster, obfuscation.
Very strong evidence of criminality - yes, I'd say a hanging offense in China, but weak evidence that it was planned.

Lucky, 1 to 5 was the "unrelated facts" that add up to a deliberate effort to obfuscate the issue, which allowed it to escalae out of control of all the countries as we now see. Such behavhior is criminal in most places, especially when it results in deaths. The 1st sentence is related to one site that tracked the "patient 0" being a grl who was delivering a group of vials to the lab, that somehow let it out, and she is dead, of course. Based on ewvs total disdane for any data not vetted by a major news outlet, I didn't want to take it any further, but the manner in which her name was scratched, her existence erased, but numerous people that knew her statements, it matches their modus operandi.

I accept/agree with the propositions 1 to 5.
But, nothing supports the deliberate release story suggest in the first sentence.
In the last sentence you suggest believing their statement A but not their statement B. There are other options.

This is not an aside-
I have just finished reading 'One Shot' by Lee Child. A man is arrested for a gun slaying, the evidence is impeccable / overwhelming. Bu the story unfolds to show another interpretation without denying any of the evidence.

ewv seems to have missed on all the disparate pieces of data that, when collated, add up to something having been going on for hundreds of years, with a very specific goal of a single world government led by a small group of "elites" (self appointed, through power and money). He also does not understand the petrodollar, or why it is nothing more than fiat, nor seems to have the inquisitiveness to ask how we got there. In fact, a friend of mine was showing me two very signifigant Supreme Court rulings, one from 1815, one from 1892, that basically tell us the Fed is illegal, and that there is no real money but a U.S. Government Note. The Fact FDR stuck a "legal for all debts, public or private" lends 0 credibility to Fed notes, they are not government issued. I believe this will be one of the tools Trump will throw on the table soon when the Fed is vaporized, after we get done with a 2 trillion dollar spending spree with money that does not exist. No wonder he is not worried about the debt, since many countries are also in the same boat. The financial reset will happen, and they have the tools to do it, bringing forth Q's statement "Gold will destroy the fed"....

Unfortunately, your logic was the same logic that led to Pearl Harbor, despite overwhelming evidence of it coming. Ignoring logical connections that rationally describe a particular event (yes, even "conspiracies") is as valid as saying "it doesn't exist". Based on your logic, Flat Earthers are correct because we cannot prove to everyone the Earth is round by showing it to them realtime....

Why bother your babbling replies are empty.

Of course he won’t because he has already convinced himself it is a “conspiracy Theory”
When you factually look at what connected events preceded the panic that stopped the world.

I can see that you would hardly ever conclude anything in the world as it is now. Actual evidence is about as plentiful as hens teeth, particularly when it involves liberals. In order to function in the world of today in any reasonable time, one has to make decisions based on what you can figure out. No one is saying that this approach would result in the absolutely correct decision if all the facts were known. But when they arent known, but a decision is required NOW...

Yes, incoherent, sure ...

You go right on being "right", little man, and lead your band of two people to protest the next tax increase and elimination of the 2nd Amendment, assuming you can still get out and carry a sign.

The rest of us will be successfully guiding others from socialism and government force, while you live in your little "right' world existing completely within your head,

I stand by what I said, all of it, as would an overwhelming majority of people: conservative, liberal, libertarian and socialist. Have fun, yelling at those kids from your front porch...and being "right".

Accumulating knowledge that you don't have is not grounds for making a conclusion without proof. When you don't know you don't know. Reaching unsubstantiated conclusions knowing you can't prove them with a flippant "we can always change it" is Pragmatism, not logic.

When you don't have "real facts" you don't know. Ignoring the many different possibilities is not evidence for a conspiracy theory.

It is not a "ray of reason". It is incoherent and shows no understanding of Ayn Rand.

Understanding Ayn Rand's principles is not "dogma". That is a smear. A proper understanding of what the individual's self interest consists of is "all good". It does not mean a "motive" for dishonestly "hiding" in order to "maintain control and harming others". Pragmatist rejection of principles is bad.

Ayn Rand did not say that "individually being 'selfish' to the exclusions of other is self defeating".

She did not speak in terms of a society "moderating itself" and "unchecked feedback", which is incoherent, nor was the Soviet Union that she escaped from "selfish". It was based on sacrifice of the individual to the collective, which is why she left. So is Chinese communism. China is not "selfish", and in particular what it has done about this virus is not "selfish", it is destructive.

A proper morality is based on the nature of the individual, not avoiding "unchecked feedback". A proper morality in turn implies what is morally proper for choices made by individuals in a social context, which in turn implies the proper nature of government as protecting the rights of the individual. None of this is based on a notion of self "moderation" of collectives like "societies".

No "better argument" is required than Ayn Rand's proper concept of 'selfish' in ethics. The 'Don't be "selfish"' bromide is not a standard for rejecting China's actions. "Selfish" does not mean a "motive" for dishonestly "hiding" to "maintain control and harming others".

I do hope that trump wins. He is not perfect, but is a hell of a lot better than any of the alternatives.

Its so hard to really know about things like this. However, we all have to go through life dealing with them without having absolute knowledge. We have to accumulate the knowledge that is available to us, and go with that. If we are wrong, we can always change our position.

+1!

Yup, the current director has a sordid history, and China has provided 60% of their funding, any wonder he was doing the happy dance with them?