4 ms·

I think you've mentioned there currently there is only circumstantial evidence. However, broadly speaking circumstantial evidence can be very convincing for peo

I think you've mentioned there currently there is only circumstantial evidence. However, broadly speaking circumstantial evidence can be very convincing for people. (and 'being convincing' is not the same thing as 'being true.') It's further the case that there is no hard forensic evidence (at least that I'm aware of currently) that this is natural. In other words, because there's not really a lot of hard forensic evidence available to people, it makes the the circumstantial evidence weigh heavier in people's minds. I also haven't followed this very closely, so if there is great specific evidence that I'm unaware of, I apologize. I'm not trying to advocate a particular position here, just trying to explain why the lab leak theory is convincing to people. In fact, I think a lot of people would take the list of evidence you've presented and draw the opposite conclusion that you have -- ie, that with the list you've provided, the lab leak is the likeliest conclusion. Just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting that circumstantial evidence _does_ prove anything, I'm only making the point that circumstantial evidence successfully convinces a large number of people.

baja_blast 3y ago
Also keep in mind all the evidence in support of a natural origin is also circumstantial. So much so Worobey's paper included a photo Eddie Holmes took on his iPhone in 2014 of animals at a market as evidence. So we are working with ufology levels of evidence here. The fact that we lack so much data to support zoonosis when compared to the two previous coronavirus outbreak really stands out. We are missing: - an intermediate host being identified. Something that was identified within months for SARS and MERS. - Lack of non human mtDNA reads - Missing point mutations as the virus adapts towards humans. - Explanation on how the virus binds better toward human ACE2 than any other animal species. - Separate spillover events And the list goes on, it's honestly shocking

baja_blast 3y ago

Also keep in mind all the evidence in support of a natural origin is also circumstantial. So much so Worobey's paper included a photo Eddie Holmes took on his iPhone in 2014 of animals at a market as evidence. So we are working with ufology levels of evidence here. The fact that we lack so much data to support zoonosis when compared to the two previous coronavirus outbreak really stands out. We are missing: - an intermediate host being identified. Something that was identified within months for SARS and MERS. - Lack of non human mtDNA reads - Missing point mutations as the virus adapts towards humans. - Explanation on how the virus binds better toward human ACE2 than any other animal species. - Separate spillover events And the list goes on, it's honestly shocking