[whitepaint]

What were the arguments that support the hypothesis of it being a natural occurrence? That there was a seafood market nearby? Ok. There was also a lab nearby that did experiments with corona-viruses. Which theory is more likely? I don't know, do you? My question is: why is one theory more likely than another? Why was the lab leak theory completely rejected and people who played with it were called nuts?

[ModernMech]

The argument that supported natural occurrence was to point to past global pandemics as having been of natural origin. Laboratory research of viruses is a relatively new thing, while pandemics have been happening for a very long time throughout the history of civilization. So in the case where no other evidence is readily available, I'm going to go with natural origin just because that's been the most likely origin historically for pandemics.

[whitepaint]

I like your reasoning. My question is: do you think that is why the mainstream media completely rejected the idea of lab leaked virus?

[SiempreViernes]

No, the a argument in favour of the natural origin of SARS-COV-2 is that it's a novel virus. There are a lot more unknown viruses outside in nature than there are people working on making new ones.

Also, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is not exactly "nearby" the seafood market. It's 25 km away, well across the city and on its outskirts.