The paper itself was already submitted and briefly discussed, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593098 As fo

The paper itself was already submitted and briefly discussed, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593098 As for previous attempts from the same authors (e.g. Pekar's "The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2"), it starts with low-quality data from the early pandemic, does some complicated math, and concludes that the pandemic originated from zoonotic transmission in the Wuhan market, "beyond reasonable doubt". It therefore wasn't a research accident, and there is no need for increased regulation of high-risk research of the type performed at the WIV. The details can and should be criticized, and I linked a detailed rebuttal in the other post. But fundamentally, how could any model reach any conclusion with the confidence they express? Western authorities had prior warning, much more advanced surveillance, and good knowledge of where the virus might get introduced (by necessity, an airport or seaport)--and yet they succeeded in tracing almost zero cases back to their introduction. So how could anyone possibly believe that a much cruder set of tools has succeeded at the more difficult task of determining the pandemic's earliest origins?