2 ms·

With all respect, how do you think this proves your point at all? Do you not find it absurd in the extreme that the novel Coronavirus lab a few km from the out

With all respect, how do you think this proves your point at all? Do you not find it absurd in the extreme that the novel Coronavirus lab a few km from the outbreak of a novel coronavirus was barred from investigation? Is it not a giant raging blinking neon clue that when Australia wanted an investigation China threatened them with economic apocalypse? And in this context, you think a .8% chance that it would appear near a lab is high enough to discount the possibility??? My head is exploding.

kennywinker 5y ago
> With all respect, how do you think this proves your point at all? I wasn’t trying to prove a point, I was trying to dis-prove a point: that you can’t prove the lab leaks based on geography alone. 0.02% chance is VERY unlikely - it’s not proof but it sure does suggest. A 0.2% chance or a 0.8% chance is… well it’s still rare, but not shockingly rare. Again I suspect the geographic odds are even higher, if you properly correlate outbreak-size population density and labs. Bsl3 labs brings the odds closer to 5% (or 19% if you count the four other novel disease incidents and I’m doing my probability math right). Again, none of this disproves a lab leak. But it sure does tell us that we can’t prove it with geography, as the post I was responding to suggested.