[_cs2017_]

Much as I like TWiV, they often present incorrect viewpoints.

What you describe is one such example. TWiV suggests that anything short of convincing proof should be ignored. However, every bit of evidence updates our individual confidence to some extent. It's quite silly to draw an arbitrary line at a certain "quality" of evidence, and treat anything below that line as useless.

I suspect that in an effort to debunk unreasonable and sensational stories in the media, TWiV got carried away, and started to sweep the subtleties under the carpet.

It seems these days, it's really hard to find highly nuanced, carefully balanced, sources of information.

[SomeoneFromCA]

They are doing this not the first time. They are extremely aggressive against any hypothesis about the lab origin of the pandemic - and yet it is increasingly becomes acceptable by the mainstream media (BBC News tried independently verify some claims, but had literaly obstacles (physical) on their way,set by Chinese government). Racaniello (?) was big defender of GoF experimentaion on flu during 2012-2015 moratorium on this research; Osterholm AFAIR was against. TWIV are strange people, it turns out. UCSF podcasts are way more professional.