|
|
|
|
|
by haihaibye
1384 days ago
|
|
Confirming zooinosis outside of the lab (eg outside Wuhan) would disprove lab leak Finding the animal reservoir, would disprove it was modified in the lab. I guess it would also lower the chance of a lab leak (though I could still be natural) China allowing a proper investigation would reduce the odds (though how to prove they haven't tampered with evidence in the years since) I think every day the natural source isn't found should increase the odds of an unnatural one |
|
Might someone still claim — transferred without infection beyond the lab?
Given the available evidence how would "Confirming zooinosis outside of the lab" be done?
> Finding the animal reservoir…
In bats? In intermediary animals?
Apparently "No reports are known to be available for SARS-CoV-2 test results from these mammals at the Huanan market" and "we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species" and "The animals on these farms (nearly 1 million) were rapidly released, sold, or killed in early 2020 … apparently without testing for SARS-CoV-2 … Live animals sold at the market … were apparently not sampled either."
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
> … how to prove they haven't tampered…
So even "a proper investigation" will be insufficient.
> … every day the natural source isn't found should increase the odds…
Hardly. Let's make a wild ass guess that vastly more resources are being focused on the next Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL game, than on finding "the natural source".
What if "the natural source" was destroyed as part of the tear-down of that particular live animal trade?