[Maursault]

You are vastly understating the importance of this, that not just the first infection, all of the initial infections were in close proximity to the Wuhan Fish Market.[1] It's like no one wants to see what is right in front of their face, as though a conspiracy and unlikely leak from a lab is so much more attractive than boring old how-every-other-virus-ever originated.

[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497624990128087041.html

[LigmaYC]

I think you're conflating the location of origin with the actual development of the virus. A location is step 0 in understanding how the virus developed.

[Maursault]

Well, this is a new topic altogether, but I will try to respond to your straw man. The virus jumped species, possibly more than twice. It is possible the actual origin of the virus is in fact the Wuhan Fish Market, but it is just as likely the initial origin of SARS-CoV-2 could have been some in some bat in some cave in China hundreds of miles from Wuhan.

But it speaks volumes that the location of the origin of the global pandemic, not the virus itself, compelling appears to have been in an area within a few blocks surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market on all sides.

If the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was in fact the Wuhan lab, that someone at the lab got infected and walked out of that lab, then we should absolutely expect to see the vast majority of the initial infections around the area of the Wuhan lab, and not the Wuhan Fish Market. But the density of cases surrounding the lab looks no different from other areas of Wuhan not surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market.

So it seems pretty obvious, regardless of what was studied at the lab, even if they were studying SARS-CoV-2 itself, that something at the Wuhan Fish Market caused the pandemic. And that something is and has to be lots of wild animals in cages and people working there in unsanitary conditions. You see, there are standards and protocols in place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but there is nothing remotely resembling that at the fish market across the river. So it would be difficult to explain and highly unlikely, even if they had samples of SARS-CoV-2 at the lab, how it escaped and infected so many people initially around the market instead of the lab. The lab leak hypothesis does not explain nor even address this discrepancy, but the Wuhan Fish Market theory absolutely does.

[peyton]

I believe the lab leak hypothesis is that a lab was moved next door to the wet market about a week before the outbreak. It’s on page 119 of the WHO report: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

[Maursault]

And your belief is foolish, because the virus had already been circulating in the vicinity of the wet market months before Dec. 2019.

[landemva]

>>> someone at the lab got infected and walked out of that lab

I suspect non-China intelligence/spooks influenced or compelled a worker in the lab to release it. Would have made China look really bad, but it went too far.

Implausible? CIA asked Kennedy to approve a false flag, killing Americans, and blame it on Cuba. https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

[Maursault]

Sure. But aliens are more likely.

[LigmaYC]

> Well, this is a new topic altogether, but I will try to respond to your straw man

Not a strawman, my point was contained in the original comment you replied to. ("WHO is still investigating how it actually developed")

In regards to the rest of your comment and the discrepancy between the case density around the market location in comparison to the lab, I'm sure you can think of many reasons why this evidence isn't conclusive.