Comment by freehorse
4 hours ago
> 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".