[zpeti]

Why does either option not require hard evidence? I don’t understand your distinction. Something that happens 60% of the time is almost a hard guarantee that’s that what happened now? Really?

You also ignore all circumstantial human behaviour around this, like China being completely unwilling to cooperate in any way in the investigation. Why? Surely if it was definitely a spillover they would cooperate because it’s not exactly their fault?

[jacquesm]

That is a gross misreading of what I wrote. 60% is the pathogens for which we can even after a very long time trace their origin to a spillover, but the numbers are far higher than that, we just don't have the proof.

Hard evidence is required for exceptional cases, especially when culpability is involved. Whereas the 'natural' way may simply not have left enough evidence at all to be able to trace it.