[TTPrograms]

If the lab leak was real, covering it up to the extent they did requires a literal conspiracy (not to mention hypothetical function gain research). In the absence of concrete evidence, it is quite literally a conspiracy theory.

[legolas2412]

Hypothetical function gain research?

You mean the literal proposal to put furin cleavage sites on coronavirus collected in the wild, filed for a grant in 2018, which was rejected for being too dangerous. Also, SARS-Cov-2 is the only beta coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. And if you have ever been anywhere near academic grant process, you'll know that you use a previous grant to do the next grant work, as preliminary results.

So tell me it is just a coincidence that just after writing this grant proposal in 2018 to take coronavirus in the wild and putting furin cleavage sites on them, the first beta coronavirus with a furin cleavage site turns up in the same place right next to the lab, right after they moved their sister BSL-2 lab.

[epakai]

Furin cleavage sites aren't as exclusive as you are making them out to be. It has already been established that such sites occur in other corona viruses.

https://virological.org/t/tackling-rumors-of-a-suspicious-or...

[burnished]

I'm under the impression that the viral precursor they were expecting to find in animal populations has not been found (and that if it were a natural occurrence it would have been found) and that at least one researcher at the Wuhan lab had previously proposed gain of function research like this before. I'm sure stranger coincidences have happened but with that in mind I think its fair to elevate a lab leak theory from 'premature/purely political in intent' to 'reasonable'.

[varjag]

There is no evidence of animal host transmission either. Does it make it literally a conspiracy theory too?

[TTPrograms]

Do you believe animals literally conspired to transmit to humans?

I believe what you're describing is rather "the coordinated malevolent animal transmission theory".

[varjag]

What does it even supposed to mean? The lab theory is not that humans conspired to spread the virus, but it happened due to negligence. What's happening then is a cover-up, not a conspiracy.

Cover-up is the default mode of handling failure in an aspiring Communist state. When a major accident happens that can be covered up, it will be covered up.

The above mentioned Sverdlovsk outbreak was presented as natural as well: the official culprit was cough a wet market nearby cough. Took 13 years and the dissolution of USSR to admit the cover-up.

[thedorkknight]

I mean... if you think the animals actually maliciously conspired I suppose

[varjag]

Do you really suppose the lab theory is Wuhan virologists conspiring to spread the virus?

[thedorkknight]

The comment you replied to says "covering it up to the extent they did" which would indeed be a theory about a conspiracy, yes.

[__turbobrew__]

The Soviets successfully covered up a lab leak for multiple decades even after independent investigations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak

[UnFleshedOne]

There is nothing wrong with literally conspiracy theories when literal conspiracies are likely.

[TTPrograms]

The problem with literal conspiracies is that the probability of public disclosure increases exponentially with the number of people who are "in" on the conspiracy. This is why a priori one typically assigns low likelihood to them (especially if they require a large number of conspirators).

[himinlomax]

Watergate was an actual conspiracy, that consisted in trying to hide Nixon's shenanigans. Real conspiracies exist. Most of the time if not always, their aim is to hide something inconvenient, not to produce some dramatic evil result. The very plausible conspiracy here is that the Chinese government and some foreign individuals are trying to hide an accident. An entirely implausible conspiracy would be that the virus was deliberately leaked, which makes no sense however you slice it, based on both motive and technical aspects.