[pjc50]

The lab leak theory is weird to me. Absent some remarkable discovery and a few defectors, even if it had happened, we're unlikely to find conclusive proof now. The virus has been studied enough to know that there are no "biomarkers". And if it was true .. then so what? What follows from that belief?

It's also politically linked to an odd set of other beliefs - covid denial/minimization and anti-lockdown/anti-maskers. Are we supposed to believe "COVID was a Chinese bioweapon and therefore we should have done nothing about it"?

[ben_w]

> What follows from that belief?

I think what follows is "we need more resilient anti-leak protocols in the laboratories".

The alternative origin hypothesis gives us "we need to change how wet markets work".

I'd say "improve both" — but not with the expectation of placating anyone who fell into any of the conspiracy theories, nor anyone who just wants an excuse to blame China.

[baja_blast]

The "biomarkers" bit is disinformation, for a decade we have had technology to allow for seamless edits to viral backbones that leave no trace behind. The only way anyone can tell the difference between a natural and modified virus is if they know the backbone. But there is a reason the scientists who wrote proximal origin paper were so focused on the furin cleavage site and their suspicions it was engineered and that is because these types of things are common practice.

Here is the patent for the “No See'm” approach https://patents.google.com/patent/US7618802B2/en?q=(seamless...