3 ms·
There are 3 sentences in OP's post, the first two are wrong or misleading. The third (conclusion) is OK only insofar as it doesn't depend on the (false) premise
by xyzzy123 5y ago
There are 3 sentences in OP's post, the first two are wrong or misleading. The third (conclusion) is OK only insofar as it doesn't depend on the (false) premises.
1. Wuhan is not known for spillover.
2. Cave visits did happen but this has never been connected to the 3 "sick researchers" reported by US intel.
3. Sure, lab origin, zoonosis, engineering or not, all still on the table, just factually what OP wrote was inaccurate or misleading.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoWuhan is a very large city in Central China and a transport hub. So it at least sounds plausible that the virus might have been carried there by someone, though I don't know how plausible it is that (if that's what occured) it did not seem to have left a trail of contamination (or perhaps it did but we don't know...) Also, I believe that the first recorded outbreak of SARS was in Guangdong while the origin of the virus was eventually found to be in Yunnan, 1000+km away.