zlacker

That's not what the person you are responding to said at all. Please stop dishonestly conflating the two theories. You can believe that a coronavirus accidentally leaked from a lab that was studying coronaviruses without believing that it was intentional, or that the disease was a bioweapon.

Honestly, this is not a difficult distinction to understand. You have to wonder why people are so eager to conflate the two.

>>tannha+(OP)
If it's nothing to do with an engineered virus conspiracy then there's no reason to constrain ourselves to the 1 or 2 labs doing that kind of research. If we don't have that constraint then appearing in Wuhan is much less coincidental.

>>flukus+w
Listen, if the virus originated in a city that simply had an infectious disease lab, that’s one thing.

For a virus to originate in a city with one of three labs in the entire world conducting heavy-duty researching involving the exact kind of virus that unleashed this pandemic, with the stated intention of working with said viruses to make them more infectious (NOT for the purposes of making a bioweapon) that deserves special consideration. Especially with the fact that the animal the virus is thought to come from ranges 1500 miles south from said city, and started during a time that animal is typically hybernating.

>>kaesar+n1
I think it may be possible to compute the probability that this is a coincidence. Someone should do that.

>>kaesar+n1
> with the stated intention of working with said viruses to make them more infectious (NOT for the purposes of making a bioweapon)

Why is this relevant unless you're claiming that the virus that we've observed has been engineered in that way? Otherwise it seems like the chance of a coronavirus outbreak caused by poor handling in a lab is the same for any lab that's studying them for any purpose.

>>kaesar+n1
You do know that there's genetic evidence that seems to point to an origin 600 miles from Wuhan?

> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types. [0]

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...

>>lmm+v8
Good point, now that you mention it, it does now seem possible that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of some sort of engineering tests. Not saying it’s a certainty, but it’s surely at least a plausible consideration.