zlacker

So when we find Anthrax outside its normal "range" but close to a lab we can just say, yeah, no, while it's not endemic to this location it is 1000 miles away, so nothing to worry about? Oh, and never mind the lab.

>>mc32+(OP)
Or you know, 2 days drive depending on road conditions and trucking shipment along the route to a major metropolis.

This is an argument from incredulity.

>>mc32+(OP)
We found Novichok very close to Porton Down. However it actually came from Russia.

>>dboreh+Ld
This is not remotely comparable. Russia uses Novichok as a signature "we did it, don't F around".

This one was, yeah, this is a virology institute, we study corona viruses, we were hiring for corona virus experts, we do GoF work, but trust us, just because it first appeared blocks from our facility, it did not come from us. Also, don't believe our former virologists who skipped town.

>>XorNot+f1
Doesn’t it seem likelier that zoonotic transmission from an animal in Yunnan would infect a local and result in an initial local outbreak, which we have no evidence of? What do you think the ratio of locals in Yunnan are to visitors from Wuhan or potential visitors to Wuhan are at any given time? 100 to 1, 1000 to 1? I have no idea, but excuse the incredulity. It’s less likely that a virus from Yunnan would break out somewhere other than Yunnan, perhaps by a couple of orders of magnitude or more.

I mean sure, anything’s possible, but we have only circumstantial evidence right now and this observation isn’t a smoking gun, but it ain’t worth nothing.

>>krrrh+hr
This presumes COVID-19 had to evolve in the place people are looking for possible coronaviruses and had to jump directly from bats to people, and not in surrounding or isolated areas where the bats might roam. Or that their wasn't - as is suspected now - one or several interim species.

SARS after all was found in civets, and then later several other species as well despite originating in bats.

>>XorNot+LR
It doesn’t presume that it had to, it just conjectures that it is either more likely or not significantly less likely than the scenarios you listed.

We can’t rule it out, ie. we only have evidence right now to try to make a determination based on the preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The story that is emerging is that we may never be able to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt because the debate was quashed for a year by political concerns, institutional biases, and motivated reasoning.