3 ms·

> Have you considered the possibility that it first appeared in the vicinity of a lab that experiments on similar viruses is because if it had appeared elsewher

> Have you considered the possibility that it first appeared in the vicinity of a lab that experiments on similar viruses is because if it had appeared elsewhere, there would have been no sufficiently-equipped lab to isolate it? You are essentially arguing for lab leak theory. Initially there was only one cluster of COVID and that was at Wuhan. That's why lab leak hypothesis is more plausible. It was not the case that there were dozens of clusters all over the world and Wuhan lab was first able to identify the virus. Your argument would have _some_ validity if there are lot of clusters of outbreaks at the same time. But that was not the case. The initial cluster was only at Wuhan.

cratermoon 5y ago
The initial cluster was found at Wuhan, because there's a lab there. We have no idea how many sub-pandemic clusters arose and fell before this particular mutation got into a population sufficiently dense and mobile to spread it. Did you know that 1918 flu arose in Haskell County, Kansas, killed many, and then just .. died out? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340389/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340389/
- johncena33 5y ago
  > The initial cluster was found at Wuhan, because there's a lab there Citation needed. This seems hand-wavy at best. As a matter of fact, people were uncertain about disease itself [1]. I havent seen any article yet that asserts the fact that Wuhan cluster was detected because of the lab. Furthermore, Wuhan lab is a research lab. It's not some diagnostic lab that people go there to get tested for new variant of SARS viruses. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50984025 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50984025