zlacker

> So are we to believe that, out of 200 million square miles on this planet, this novel bat-related coronavirus just naturally emerged within 8 miles of a facility that specializes in novel bat related coronaviruses?

No, of course we are not "to believe" that. What we are to do is to consider it is a possibility. Or are we to believe that SARS-CoV-2 could only have emerged as a lab leak? Both the natural and the lab-leak hypotheses are feasible, but treating either of them with near certainty or as impossible is not justifiable with the current evidence.

Imagine an alternate universe where all events played out the same as in our own, with the exception that the Wuhan laboratory's existence was a perfectly kept secret by the PRC. In that case, would the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan lead to the certainty that there must be a secret facility nearby that specializes in novel bat-related coronaviruses?

>>Mordis+(OP)
We’ve been searching for intermediate animal species for 15 months and none have been found (SARS and MERS were found quickly), SARS-Cov-2 is actually quite bad at infecting bats, and the key thing: arginine-based (i.e DNA amino acid, not RNA) furin cleavage site on the spike protein (widely regarded in the GoF research as a great way to increase human infectivity).

To say nothing of the incredible coincidence of the WIV.

>>Mordis+(OP)
>Imagine an alternate universe where all events played out the same as in our own, with the exception that the Wuhan laboratory's existence was a perfectly kept secret by the PRC. In that case, would the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan lead to the certainty that there must be a secret facility nearby that specializes in novel bat-related coronaviruses?

The natural emergence of a virus from an animal is much more likely than the existence of a secret, unknown research facility, but much less likely than a lab leak (particularly in the circumstances surrounding COVID19).

All these mistakes in reasoning that I keep seeing in these discussions is making me truly understand the definition of "gaslighting".

>>ddxxdd+P5
Well hey now, I think people are too quick to call gas light these days, such that the term is losing some of its meaning, seriousness, or utility. The people you're talking to (at least in this thread) are stating their own beliefs with their own evidence. No one (that I can see) has directly attacked your self confidence (unless you're extremely sensitive) or attempted to convince you that you're in a different reality to exert control over your personal self expression, esteem, or confidence. Gas lighting implies direct personal attacks and what I see here is thoughtful interesting, but serious debate. I would say that you saying you're being gas lit here is strong indication you truly do not understand what that term is.