[jacquesm]

A priori the evidence is squarely in the 'zoonosis' favor, because that's how viruses spread before we ever had labs and there are thousands of examples for such spreading and very scant evidence for lab leaks.

But: this doesn't prove or disprove either and just like in the discussion about that superconductor, there is absolutely no need to commit to either hypothesis even if there is a historical pile of evidence, because that's not proof that this case is the same.

So I would advice anybody that really wants to jump to a conclusion to do so with the historical data in mind and for everybody else to just wait until there is conclusive evidence with the caution that such evidence may never be found. Ironically, the Chinese moved with such speed against the market that they may very well have destroyed the evidence that would have proven that they weren't directly involved. At the same time there is some support for the theory that the market itself wasn't the place where 'patient zero' got infected, and that still doesn't prove or disprove a lab leak.

People love to have someone or something to blame when there is a big problem, and with natural disasters we sometimes are in fact able to show how humans are a direct or proximate cause. But biology is super messy and even if there is a human cause at work here we may never know it, likewise we may never know for sure that it was a zoonosis.

If I had to bet I would bet zoonosis because the stats are in favor. But I don't have to bet so I'll just wait. I do hope that anybody that favors one theory over another will come forward to admit that they were wrong to jump to conclusions if there ever is a resolution, and that they will learn something from that. But they won't be much more or less wrong than those that backed the other side. Finally: there are some viruses that are known to have jumped from the animal kingdom to people many times in the past and in spite of hunting them for decades we still haven't found the reservoir. It could happen again tomorrow and there might be a breakthrough, but so far there is nothing. So absence of evidence doesn't prove a thing.

[metalspot]

> nybody that favors one theory over another will come forward to admit that they were wrong to jump to conclusions

a probability statement is not wrong just because the less probable thing turns out to happen. lab leak of a non-natural virus that was created through purposeful gain-of-function using transmission is currently the most likely scenario based on all available evidence. even if natural origin is proven, my probability statement will still be correct. i dont discount the probability of natural origin. it is just very unlikely now.