|
|
|
|
|
|
by acdha
1176 days ago
|
|
|
No – even that DOE report gave it a low probability ranking. It’s perfect for conspiracy mongers because you can’t completely rule out the possibility but the evidence has pretty consistently pointed at a non-lab jump, possibly in the wet market, and that’s not surprising since it’s a common scenario scientists have been warning about for decades. See for example this recent analysis: https://zenodo.org/record/7754299 |
|
|
Well, specifically, they assessed with "low confidence" that the "most likely" source was a lab leak. Meaning they think the wet market theory is less likely, though also with low confidence.
I do note in the analysis you linked that the authors admit to unusual circumstances around the data they used, and that the source of the data is the Chinese CDC. Given the obvious incentive on the part of the Chinese government to disclaim a lab leak, I'm hesitant to take this as conclusive evidence.