4 ms·
I'm confused, do you mean the animal origin had no evidence either, but was favoured? But not having evidence for 5 years suddenly makes the other theory favour
by frde_me 2y ago
I'm confused, do you mean the animal origin had no evidence either, but was favoured? But not having evidence for 5 years suddenly makes the other theory favoured instead?
So basically neither had real evidence, but one was favoured?
- _cenw 2y agoFalse equivalence. Zoonotic diseases have precedent (SARS, MERS) and SARS-CoV-2 most closely resembles BANAL-52, a bat Coronavirus. Animal origin still seems more likely to me, but less than 5 years ago, since we have a missing link one would expect to see.
- wongarsu 2y agoAnimal origin does not contradict a lab leak however. Especially if you have a biolab studying coronaviruses in bats in the city identified as ground zero. It does favor an accidental lab leak over a targeted weaponization and release, but it doesn't contradict a lab origin.
- morepedantic 2y agoCoronavirus lab leaks in China also had precedent. What's your point? There was no evidence for a zoonotic origin other than it was possible. There was little evidence for a lab leak other than it was possible, but at least there was some.