zlacker

Most of the media coverage and consensus, from the Washington Post to Nature, seems to be that:

- the lab escape theory has been thoroughly debunked by science

- the WHO investigation put the final nails in the coffin of this theory

- therefore, lab escape continues to be a fringe conspiracy theory at best

- coverage of the lab escape theory is politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated

- continued coverage is largely a combination of irresponsible journalism, disinformation and anti-China political propaganda

Does the USA Today article indicate a shift in this perspective, or is it just an outlier? Has something changed, for example new information coming to light?

>>musica+(OP)
The WHO investigation DID NOT eliminate this theory. From what I remember, while the WHO was investigating, one member said "it didn't come from a lab". Then when everyone returned to their home country, some members suggested that it was possible - and I don't think their official report opined on it coming from a lab.

>>musica+(OP)
No, nothing has really changed. It's an opinion article that's basically saying since lab accidents happened elsewhere, a lab accident could have happened in Wuhan. No smoking gun here.

>>musica+(OP)
> The lab escape theory has been thoroughly debunked by science

This is absolutely not true. Lab invented was debunked, lab escaped was not.

Have a read: https://project-evidence.github.io/

>>musica+(OP)
The Washington Post has already shifted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-...

It's less what new information has come to light, and more what hasn't. For MERS and for the original SARS, the proximal animal hosts were identified within about a year. For SARS-CoV-2, we haven't found that yet. (See my comment history if you're thinking pangolins; they're pretty much abandoned.)

So a year later, despite the considerable effort spent looking for evidence of natural zoonotic origin, we still have nothing. We also have no evidence of lab origin, but that investigation has been thoroughly obstructed--for example, the WIV's private database of viruses went offline in September 2019, and any reporter who approaches the mine where SARS-CoV-2's nearest known relative (RaTG13) was discovered gets turned away by Chinese police.

>>musica+(OP)
Not sure which WaPo articles you're reading - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavir...

I'll give you that Nature is steadfastly on the zoonotic side of things. But even Nature News journo has retweeted the USAtoday article:

https://twitter.com/NidhiSubs/status/1374002441780391940?s=2...

>>ricksu+T7
There's an extensive list of lab-considering origin articles as curated at US Right to Know (recommend starting under Most Recent Articles):

https://usrtk.org/biohazards/origins-of-sars-cov-2-risks-of-...

As you can see, besides WaPo, WSJ editorials & op-eds also figure prominently among those calling for investigation inclusive of lab-associated pathways. New York Magazine, Politico.

Then you can see Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists right in there.

Even an nytimes piece that didn't make that list: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/health/covid-virus-origin...

>>geoduc+Y1
The official report isn't complete yet, but at the press conference, it was clearly stated that the team as a whole viewed a lab leak as extremely unlikely. More recent statements from team members have elaborated that that was a unanimous judgment of the scientists on the team.

>>musica+(OP)
My point was not about what is true (which we really don't seem to know) but rather about what I've observed in the reporting on the subject, and wondering whether there is a shift going on in said reporting.

Someone did note a shift in WP's coverage, which is interesting to me.