Subject: Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?
My point was that those for you reputable sources in the first years were very quick and definite to deny that this option is "all-too-plausible", au contraire constantly repeating that it's extremely unlikely, this way creating a mainstream narrative and pushing that "all-too-plausible" option into the conspiracy theorist corner - - - and with it the few reputable Virologists daring to saying otherwise.

Not true. I disparaged the conspiracy theory that the disease was purposely created as a bioweapon in the Wuhan lab, which is what was being discussed. As mentioned, far too few people discussing the subject make the distinction between the two "lab leak" stories: bioweapon versus goof-up. (I am no more fond of the Chinese internet meme that it was created as a bioweapon in an American lab).

My comment about "all too plausible" is primarily an observation of the fact that most of the world's disease research labs are not nearly as good at rigorous biocontainment as they should be. Any story about a lab leak is a lot more plausible than it should be.

I'd grant that a boring *leak* from the lab is possible, if only for the simple reasoning that the lab had some bat viruses in it and lab leaks are depressingly common.* In my opinion this is not the likely story, but I wouldn't completely rule it out--certainty without evidence is not a good habit, and unfortunately the precise origin remains uncertain. As more study has been done, I gather it seems an even more remote possibility than it was. Simple infection from animal contact fits the bill pretty well: there are way too many species of bat out there to feel good about their numberless viruses : )

If the virus spent some time in an intermediate host, I imagine that would tend to point away from a lab leak. The most likely animal involved in a lab leak is a human.

Jim

* perhaps the most likely scenario of all is that there have indeed been leaks at that lab, but this particular infection wasn't one of them.