zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward

But then, we should probably also apply Hanlon's razor [2] "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

>>seymor+Jo
There's no razor to apply, both hypothesis are plausible at this point based on available evidence and without any speculation whatsoever.

And still without any speculation, one of those hypothesis could potentially be confirmed if only the main suspect did let us look at the crime scene. In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes.

>>himinl+wA
> In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes.

No, since in a criminal trial the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't been met here.

This article certainly makes a prima facie case which would be enough to trigger discovery in a civil case. A reasonable person could also think that it has provided proof on the balance of probabilities, which would be enough for civil but not criminal liability.