Hence why I explicitly clarified "not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either". Whether the premise is correct or not, the argument that it wo

Hence why I explicitly clarified "not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either". Whether the premise is correct or not, the argument that it would reduce the prior were the premise to be true is correct. That would not be the case in the initial suggestion, i.e. that the fact that these institutions would lose prestige would somehow increase the base chances of the event happening. Regarding your own interpretation of the argument, i.e. that large human organisations are more likely to have ineffectual preventative measures, therefore increasing the prior probability of a lab leak, that would technically be a valid argument. However, in this case in particular, assuming that premise raises the question "Compared to what?". It's not like there is a cottage industry of artisanal HS4 laboratories that we can say are better at following safety requirements than large ones. I myself have no strong opinion either way regarding the lab-leak vs. natural origin hypotheses. In fact, a while ago I thought of a "consensus" hypothesis, which is that the origin was accidental human infection during sample collection in caves. However, this possibility would fit better with a purely wild-type virus, and thus would not be consistent with the sequence oddities explained in the linked Twitter thread.