Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfihgt wrote

Reply to comment by SafeExpress3210 in [OC] More Americans are believing COVID-19 originated from a lab in China. However, there is still no conclusive evidence to support one theory over another. The topic is highly politicizing both internally (US Political Parties) and externally (US-China relations). by Square_Tea4916

That’s not true. Just as many institutions believe it was natural, and none of them are especially confident in there conclusions. The more scientific leaning seem to think natural, whereas intel believes lab leak - not sure what is more prestigious.

13

AdventureBum t1_jd8yca4 wrote

What if it was a natural virus they were studying in a lab that accidentally got out?

1

SeaworthinessOk620 t1_jcfjrl5 wrote

What institutions support the natural idea?

−1

Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcflc9y wrote

From Director of National Intelligence:

Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.

One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.

Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.

Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps.

13