zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
the fact that this theory is still around after more than a year and not completely debunked is quite telling by itself. I thought this was a complete conspiracy theory last year, but the longer it sticks around the more likely it does become.

>>BillyT+Aw
Debunking a theory doesn't make it disappear. Sometime it can do the opposite and reinforce the theory.

In this case there is no smoking gun either way and a natural origin is much harder to trace than lab origin. That lack of absolute certainty, which science is often comfortable working with, leaves room for alternative theories to circulate and attach to those who like the sound of them for various reasons. It is a common human flaw that being aware that an event could hypothetically occur can be mistaken for proof that event actually occurred.

>>altacc+TK
It can be rational to behave as if the event did occur if you don't know that it didn't.

Even if we're 50/50 on the source of the virus, maybe we should still ban or regulate GoF research, and consider banning or regulating some types of wet markets.

>>darker+KU
No, it's not rational as then you're relying on the other side to prove a negative, which is an unreasonable reversal of burden of proof (e.g. Russell's teapot).

As to 50/50 being reason to take large scale regulatory action, would you accept this level of proof to enact any law? That seems a low bar to me.