> On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be

> On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower. Wouldn’t weighing evidence play a key role in assessing relative likelihoods of two possible causes of an event that had already occurred? Especially since any remaining evidence is not conclusive. (As it happens, there appears to be evidence of some of the parties involved acting in ways that prevent further evidence gathering, too.)