The “lab leak theory” was propounded by a bunch of people who did flat out lie, and made all sorts of bad faith claims (including e.g. Fox News commentators, pr

The “lab leak theory” was propounded by a bunch of people who did flat out lie, and made all sorts of bad faith claims (including e.g. Fox News commentators, predictable anti-China trolls, and fringe conspiracy nutters [not mutually exclusive categories]). They well deserved to be mocked and disparaged, and without them the conversation would have been dramatically healthier and more productive. There were also serious people asking legitimate questions, but those got much less media-circus attention and their commentary was much less self assured, full of caveats and explicit attention to the speculative/hypothetical nature of the claims involved. Those were part of a more scholarly/careful conversation (still ongoing) and were answered carefully and respectfully. One of the biggest problems for anyone asking careful serious questions is the likelihood that they’d be mischaracterized and amplified by the crazies and then interpreted by the general public according to that mischaracterization and roped into some broader political fight. > found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed It was always plausible, as scientists have maintained from the start. It still today (if you listen to conversations among experts and look into the details) seems unlikely, and the “natural origin” theory has somewhat more convincing evidentiary support. But the Chinese government’s reflexive secrecy has made it impossible for independent analysts to gather the information needed to prove or disprove the theory.