[mikem170]

So how come you didn't reply to the original parent's statement that:

> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses

There's no definitive proof of this, either!

Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that the main objection is that there were probably intermediary hosts, and that evolutionary mutations and geography don't always line up.

So does that mean it's 50/50 at this point, he may be wrong, but he may be right?

It's enough for me to question Wuhan as the site of the first human infections. It might be. It might not. I think that's the general scientific consensus at this point. We don't know for certain yet, right? That was my point. Perhaps I could have stated it better.

[forcry]

>There's no definitive proof of this, either!

I really don't understand what you are saying. Weren't all the first cases identified around Wuhan?

Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.

[mikem170]

> Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.

That's the thing, the early variants Forster identified could have migrated in either direction. Nobody is questioning the differences between his identified A and B variants, just the directionality. The expert consensus seems to be "too early to know for sure".

That's what I'm saying. Forster might be right, and this came from south of Wuhan. Even his critics say that he may not be right, they don't say he's wrong. We don't know for sure.

Can you appreciate the difference? You seem to be saying "this definitely started in Wuhan" when it appears that is not certain.