[317070]

Well, the conclusion of this paper is that the odds of this virus coming to be naturally are very small. Which is a very scientific way of saying "we think this was man-made".

But, that is what the paper is saying. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is what I think. I feel the evidence here is quite small, but I'm not a bio-data-scientist.

[ericb]

Is it an extraordinary claim? The sequence matching should be easy to verify as the genome has been published. If the sequences are short or common enough maybe it would be a more likely coincidence.

That said: What are the priors on a "natural" virus erupting in the only city in China with a level 4 biohazard facility?

Source: http://english.www.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2018/01/0...

[SketchySeaBeast]

So if it's not extraordinary it's still going to require evidence, which without peer review we still pretty much have none.

[gamegod]

This is evidence, but it requires corroboration from other evidence. Peer review doesn't provide additional evidence - it's just a sober second opinion that lends credence (or not) to the proposed evidence and interpretation.

Just wanted to clarify the language here.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Totally right - and thank you for the clarification in language.

[MockObject]

Indeed, the paper seems to suggest that the natural occurrence of this virus is the extraordinary claim.