Comment by freehorse
15 hours ago
> when two extraordinarily improbably events occur together, there is probably a connection
If the alternative hypothesis is that the events are independent, yes. But it is somewhat more common to have labs studying viruses in regions where there are virus reservoirs. So the events "lab studying viruses" and "virus outbreak in local area" are not independent, as both are more likely in regions with viral reservoirs, and in particular, in dense urban areas thereof. A coincidence is not as extraordinary as it may seem.
Thing is, it is not possible to know at this point, as long as the virus does not seem to be bioengineered, whether it was a lab accident while studying animal samples or an outbreak starting in the market.
Nobody expected natural zoonotic spillover near Wuhan, and Dr. Shi's lab was not situated with that in mind. In her own words:
> We have done bat virus surveillance in Hubei Province for many years, but have not found that bats in Wuhan or even the wider Hubei Province carry any coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2. I don't think the spillover from bats to humans occurred in Wuhan or in Hubei Province.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210727042832/https://www.scien...
The virus doesn't seem to have been engineered from any previously known sarbecovirus, but the WIV had the largest collection of novel sarbecoviruses collected from nature in the world, and had proposed in DEFUSE to engineer them in collaboration with Dr. Baric at UNC. DARPA rejected that proposal, in part for safety reasons, but the WIV was technically capable of doing the work alone.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
> Dr. Shi's lab was not situated with that in mind
Never said that, labs are close to places with high viral reservoirs because it is easier to get animal samples to study, obviously, not to guard against outbreaks. Neither one "expects" such an outbreak, obviously. The fact that it is a tail event does not mean it is arbitrary, though, ie that it can just happen anywhere with equal chance.
The other arguments have been answered 1 million times and they are not worth even discussing about anymore. They only exist as justification for somebody really wanting certain conspiracy theories to be true.
> Never said that, labs are close to places with high viral reservoirs because it is easier to get animal samples to study, obviously,
You are continuing to imply that Dr. Shi's lab was "close to places with high viral reservoirs", but nobody--lab leak advocate, zoonosis advocate, or otherwise--thinks that's true. She collected "animal samples to study" from Yunnan and surrounding areas, >1000 km from Wuhan. For example, RaTG13 came from Tongguan (thus TG), in Mojiang County. The location of her lab did not make those samples "easier to get".
There are probably lots of other labs that are deliberately placed near natural reservoirs of the organisms that they study, but Dr. Shi's was not. If anything, she thought those sarbecoviruses were less abundant near Wuhan than in some random location in China, not more.
She could be wrong, but no evidence has yet emerged that she was. Even among advocates for theories of natural zoonosis, the pathway is usually proposed to be smuggling of an unknown intermediate host rather than any natural reservoir in Wuhan, thus the attention on the wet market (since a similar pathway probably did explain SARS-1).
As to the rest, what evidence do you think could distinguish one natural novel virus from a laboratory chimera of two novel viruses? I think it would be more helpful to explain the basis for your belief than to smear mine as a "conspiracy theory".