3 ms·
tl;dr: As of today, the U.S. Intelligence Community has “coalesced around two likely scenarios” but has not reached a definitive conclusion on this question. He
by sxp 5y ago
tl;dr: As of today, the U.S. Intelligence Community has “coalesced around two likely scenarios” but has not reached a definitive conclusion on this question. Here is their current position: “while two elements in the IC leans toward [human contact with an infected animal] and one leans more toward [a laboratory accident] – each with low or moderate confidence – the majority of elements do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other.”
So that should at least be sufficient reason to discuss the lab leak hypothesis in public without instantly being called a conspiracy theorist.
- jfengel 5y agoThe problem is that it doesn't give you much to discuss. What can you say about the lab leak hypothesis? They have more information than we do, and still can't come to more than a "lean". We can try to infer things from bits of circumstantial evidence, and that leads into the same reasoning as conspiracy theorists. I know a lot of people find enjoyment in the process, and if being called names for doing so bothers you, I suppose you can take this as absolution. I don't call people "conspiracy theorists"; rather, I simply ignore them because they're not providing anything useful. I don't think you'd like that any better.