> but from the data the likelihood really doesn't strongly favor any of the two hypotheses. I mostly agree with this. I personally think the totality of the ev

> but from the data the likelihood really doesn't strongly favor any of the two hypotheses. I mostly agree with this. I personally think the totality of the evidence favors the lab hypothesis, for a variety of reasons (note the the other lab conducting and publishing about live bat research in Wuhan - the Wuhan Centers for Disease Control - was BL2, I agree it's unlikely to be the BL4 Institute of Virology). But I also agree there's also a decent probability it was the market. I'd say 3:1, if I had to put a number to it. However, folks on the other side seem to want to categorically rule out an accidental lab release, seemingly for some social or political reason. That seems very wrong-headed. Edit: btw, regarding your point 4, a Bayesian approach would seem to provide more support for the accidental lab release, given the posterior. That's actually the approach I'm using here, I even meant to mention it in one of my comments. That said, I hadn't thought of your interpretation. I'll think about that, but I think that what may be different here is that one of the labs in question here isn't under national control, unlike the previous ones that have had accidental releases. And we all know the problems provincial governments have had with corruption and coverup. But I'll think about what you said.