zlacker

>>alwill+(OP)
It's well known that local Chinese authorities silenced a doctor (Li Wenliang) who was giving early warnings about the virus. That to me is a more grave mistake than an accidental lab leak, because they lost a chance to nip it in the bud. Accidents happen and quick response is essential.

An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all. Its like starting a fire in your house to spite your neighbour.

>>dreen+w8
> An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all.

Very few people are arguing that it was intentional. I agree that an intentional lab leak is highly, highly unlikely, but I think an accidental lab leak is at least just as likely as the wet market hypothesis and CCP certainly acted extremely suspicious.

>>dkerst+w9
Accidental lab leaks happen often and are owned up to. Not just in China, everywhere (US, France, Russia, Hungary, Sierra Leone, etc): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecuri...

If you scroll to the bottom of it, China owned up to accidentally leaking brucellosis mere months before Covid became a thing, sourced by China Daily (CP's English website). That's why I don't get the accidental lab leak hypothesis. It's inconsistent with previous ones unless you make some 4D chess plays in reasoning.

As for suspiciousness, is that action different than in other situations, or are we they just behaving like that all the time and most of the West is only learning about it now? I'm leaning towards the latter.