Your scale looks pretty biased toward one side. If you throw away the two most extreme options and focus on 2 - 4, notice there is no reasonable counterpart to

Your scale looks pretty biased toward one side. If you throw away the two most extreme options and focus on 2 - 4, notice there is no reasonable counterpart to those expressed on the other side. In other words, 2 - 4 are worded to look reasonable, while 6 - 7 are not, when they easily could have been worded differently to be more reasonable. Number 5 is worded to have the appearance of looking neutral, while it's really expressing the fallacy of "there are two sides so let's assign them 50/50 likelihood even though the data weighs clearly on one side." So that one is also on the side of 2 - 4, while appearing on the surface to be reasonable. Then 6 immediately leaps to an extreme and untenable position, saying "almost certainly" and making that side look non-credible, as if they jump to conclusions and near certainty when the evidence is still coming in. And 7 goes even farther to the extreme. So again I would suggest this scale is a bit weighted against one side here. I assume this was not your intent. If my assumption is correct, perhaps you could edit it to address this issue. But the view that is really not expressed at all on this scale is: We do not know for certain at this time. But we should continue to follow the evidence where it leads, and we should not solely rely on people who have a conflict of interest, especially people who have tried to hide their conflicts of interest, such as Peter Daszak reportedly did in the Lancet.