zlacker

So you’re criticizing a scientist for expressing skepticism toward a scenario that had (especially at the time) very limited evidence, and then just placing your own bet on a far more extreme, also non-substantiated version?

>>ethanb+(OP)
The article states that at the time people were denying the possibility of a lab leak, there was a lack of credible evidence for zoonosis. If I’m evaluating hypotheses, it’s generally better that I wait for hard evidence before ruling one out. e.g. some kind of patient zero animal population.

The lancet letter was at best extraordinarily premature.

>>eutrop+ig
Errr... yes? None of that is relevant to the claim GP goes on to make. Not only was skepticism warranted toward the lab leak hypothesis (and it continues to be), but going on to speculate that this "regularly" happened is a bit rich.