u/Daniel_Spidey

So right off the bat I understand that this is just how science is written, confidence is always hedged out of need for caution and precision. It just appears to me that we have sufficient research to rule it out to a degree in which entertaining it at all feels a bit absurd.

For context, I thought up until very recently that there was enough room for some reasonable doubt in zoonotic origin even though it was more likely the explanation than a lab leak. Then, while debating someone who favored lab leak, I started catching up on some studies from just the past 2-3 years and realized how far behind I was.

This study in particular really put it all together for me in a way where I could no longer conceive of a way in which the alleged cover ups or a lab made source could ever explain all these studies when placed together:

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2?utm_campaign=Press%20Package&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=324423428&utm_content=324423428&utm_source=hs_email#

>

>Multiple lines of evidence are consistent with the infection of wildlife animals with SARS-CoV-2 in the Huanan market. Animal carts, a cage, a garbage cart, and a hair/feather removal machine from a wildlife stall tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and there was more DNA from mammalian wildlife species in these samples than human DNA. The surrounding stalls also had relatively higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and drains adjacent to and downstream of this wildlife stall tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Finally, there were several other viruses known to infect wildlife in these samples. These data indicate either that the animals present at this stall shed the SARS-CoV-2 detected on the animal equipment or that early unreported human case(s) of COVID-19 shed virus in the exact same location as the detected animals. Under a zoonotic scenario, viral shedding by infected animal handlers is expected to occur after shedding by the animals they were infected by. Therefore, human viral shedding post-zoonosis could plausibly also explain these data; in such a case, the animals brought into the stall are therefore still the most likely candidates for the zoonotic source. Although either animal or human viral shedding is consistent with these data, only a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 directly predicts co-detection of SARS-CoV-2 and wildlife genetic material.

>It has been proposed that humans could have introduced the virus into the Huanan market.^(25)^(,)^(57) It is most likely that there were human infections of SARS-CoV-2 earlier than the first documented and hospitalized market cases, including unascertained market cases or contacts thereof. However, the detection of lineage B and lineage A both within and indirectly (geographically) linked to the Huanan market implies that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged there or its supply chain before the tMRCA, by which time there would have been an estimated median of just three people infected (95% HPD, 1–18).^(11) Any hypothesis of COVID-19’s emergence has to explain how the virus arrived at one of only four documented live wildlife markets in a city of Wuhan’s size at a time when so few humans were infected.^(3) Human introductions linked to the animal trade offer one explanation for this, and the introduction of the virus by an animal trader or farmer cannot be excluded, but these hypotheses are challenged by phylodynamic evidence for multiple spillovers.^(11) The introduction by an animal trader infected by animals upstream of the market is further challenged by the probability that transmission chains dependent upon a single human would likely go extinct,^(17) while a sustained interface between infected animals and humans in a market is more likely to result in the establishment of an epidemic.

I am not a geneticist, I took a few course as part of my major but that was years ago. Am I missing something though? Is there a flaw in the methodology of any of these studies I’m not seeing? Have I just fundamentally misunderstood what I have read? Or are communicators being far too charitable in messaging about how confident we can be about the origin?

This isn't about whether or not any of these sets are weak or 'bad' or whatever. I am also extending this to adjacent non-standard products within the IP. I am mostly talking about potential commanders. Even within Final Fantasy it is mostly leaning on evergreen mechanics, so most of it does feel generic, but I won't say there aren't standouts.

When I look at Spider-Man, TMNT, and Marvel, they are filled with legends that are at best 'good in the '99', with the rest being generally redundant or worse than existing options. They're not really doing anything interesting enough in the mechanics they introduce, nor do they do anything to meaningfully expand existing mechanics.

I know there was an intention to make standard era UB 'less complex', but there's probably a better way to do it that still incentivizes players to discover complexity. In Avatar for example, any new player can wrap their head around Katara, the Fearless and just build her as an allies deck. More experienced players can see another layer to the card where you can build around granting her or other allies abilities that can then be copied.

Let's look at Earthbending as well. This mechanic on its surface is obviously good for just making a deck around land creatures and just below the surface most players will notice the landfall implications. The longer you look at it though, the more interactions open up. You start using cards that turn your creatures into lands so you can earth bend them, or you just casually include earth bending to get more value out of fetchlands. It just feels very versatile without demanding a new player grasp every possible way to exploit the mechanic.

Then I look at a card like Dr. Doom, King of Latveria, one of my favorite marvel villains. He does almost nothing. You could not build a deck where his presence in the command zone actually matters. Thanos, the Mad Titan has an ability that is incredibly flavorful, but it doesn't inspire an actual build, it's an ability that is rarely worth the restrictive mana cost it demands. A large part of the issue is the parasitic hero/villain synergies, which don't even fell very fleshed out.

I want more UB to feel like Avatar, but instead they feel like core sets. Does anyone else feel the same?

This past weekend I played a lot of bracket 3 games with a variety of groups. It feels like the average power is a lot higher than prior years where the average casual deck was on the weaker side before.

Anecdotally I’d say at least a third or more of the players in this bracket were trying to push it to its absolute limit, where all their decks have exactly 3 game changers, game winning combos that that more than two cards or cost enough mana to fall outside of bracket 4. One guy even had Sage of Hours in his counters deck but I didn’t mind because despite the technicality of looping turns meaning it’s a 4 he probably had the weakest deck in the pod.

The power creep of cards, particularly around +1 counter synergies was a big factor. Even players who were seemingly inexperienced and had made few upgrades to their precons were still able to sweep with counters decks.

I also spoke to a player after game who had just won that his deck was actually bracket 2 because it didn’t have game changers or fast infinite combos. I’m not really sure how common this mentality still is, so I am curious about peoples experiences playing in bracket 2.

For bracket 3 it feels like it could easily be split into two groups, one that’s ok with game changers and fast combos, and one that’s isn’t. That‘s not a new take by any means, but I just think the bracket 3.5 players are a mismatch for the bracket 2.5 in terms of what kind of game they want and I’d rather avoid going to bracket 2 where it would likely feel like pubstomping.