>>delbar+(OP)
I don't see any _new information_ here, it's all stuff we've known for months. To me, this is just a conspiracy theory wrapped up with 'probability charts'.
Unless I'm missing something, is there any non-circumstantial evidence that this is true? All I've seen for the past year(!) is "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" - which isn't science.
>>yabone+x4
I disagree that "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" isn't science. It's a valid argument. In fact it's not unlike a p value. The null hypothesis is "covid came from animals". Under the null, the probability of getting this lab is very low - since there are many large cities in Asia. (The article has more details about e.g. the distance of Wuhan from wild bat populations.)
I don't say that the argument is enough to be persuasive on its own.