zlacker

The whole lab thing is people getting cause and effect mixed up, the lab is there because novel coronaviruses keep happening in that region, but because all people know is that COVID-19 is new (and none of the history) they immediately jump to that the lab specializing in this type of disease at the epicenter is too big of a coincidence to ignore (rather than it being there exactly because it is a common epicenter).

It is like putting an earthquake lab in the middle of a seismically active area, then blaming the lab when an earthquake occurs.

>>Someon+(OP)
The lab theory is better suited for a movie, as no hard evidence has been presented.

Oddly enough, it seems the virus will end up transmitting the Chinese control over its people to several western countries.

At least where I live a quite scary addendum to the current epidemic law has been presented. If passed, it will grant the possibility to test people at an event and fine those that won't comply.

>>Someon+(OP)
> The whole lab thing is people getting cause and effect mixed up, the lab is there because novel coronaviruses keep happening in that region...

That is not the case, the outbreak in Wuhan came as a surprise even to the virologists there.

The region where you would expect this to happen is Southern China, where there's bats living close to humans, not Wuhan, where there aren't any bats at all.

The virologists in Wuhan had to travel hundreds of miles to Southern China to collect samples from bats.

>>Someon+(OP)
In the article there isn't any discussion of cause and effect, it is a probabilistic model. Eg. being near a virus lab makes it more likely it's a lab escape, being 1000km away from the main zoonotic reservoirs (bat populations) in China make it less likely it's of zoonotic origin. This is not to say it's impossible as researchers do travel 1000km from Wuhan to get samples from bats. I'll not comment on the probabilities they assigned to each hypothesis (they may very well be discounting the likelihood of zoonotic origins too heavily) but that is the approach they took.

>>incrud+I1
The chief virologist heading bat research at the lab also was very surprised and gave an interview describing her efforts to see if it came from her own lab, being the only known store of bat viruses in Wuhan. Thankfully the genomic sequences were too far apart to make a direct jump credible so at the very least there must have been one intermediary carrier regardless. How the intermediary carrier, i.e. the pangolins, got it, either at bat caves in southern china or otherwise is the part still being explored. This may be the sort of thing where 100% proof is impossible, and a probabilistic answer is the best we will ever achieve.

>>Someon+(OP)
> It is like putting an earthquake lab in the middle of a seismically active area, then blaming the lab when an earthquake occurs.

This is a really bad analogy, though.

Seismic lab doesn't contain self propagating "seismic seed" that has the danger of being let loose and spread across the world, whilst virology lab _regularly_ handle dangerous pathogen.

The major reason people suspecting lab origin is not simply due to the existence of WIV next door. It is due to how the ccp purge information on WIV[1], have the lab taken over by the military[2], and the sentencing/disappearance of numerous civil journalists (陈秋实 Chen Qiushi, 李泽华 Li Zehua, 张展 Zhang Zhan are the ones that come to mind).

- [1](https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6181529370001)

- [2, Chinese](https://sa.sogou.com/sgsearch/sgs_tc_news.php?req=gNWjMh9kjp...)

>>bingoj+F8
The point is, the probabilistic model treats it as “very surprising” that the virus originated in a city where there is a virus lab. But that becomes less surprising if you consider that virus labs will often be located in cities at high risk from zoonotic outbreaks.