Three researchers at this virology institute in Wuhan were sick enough to require hospitalization in November, prior to the outbreak. I’m not convinced this was a lab leak, but I wouldn’t doubt it at all at this point.
There’s an extensive article in WaPo today.
While two elements of the community lean toward the likelihood that the virus emerged from human contact with an infected animal, one leans toward the possibility of a laboratory accident. Their assessments are made “with low or moderate confidence.” and the majority of members of the intelligence community "do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other.”
The Biden administration is looking into it, as they should, based on intelligence reports that lab members became sick back in November 2019.
The Post article doesn’t make any conclusions.
For those who can’t see it…
As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab’s activities before the coronavirus emerged.
And then it gives a timeline…
Matt Yglesias wrote a post about how the lab leak hypothesis got discredited as “racist” based on conflating it with actually wild conspiracies.
I dislike the Post’s headline here. The lab leak hypothesis was always credible.
The problems were
(1) The fact that despicable people like Cotton are talking about something has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. It’s stupid to accept their claims at face value, but it’s equally stupid to dismiss things just because you don’t like the people who might want them to be true.
(2) This is constantly presented as “lab leak” vs “natural zoonotic event”, which is quite misleading. The proximity of the outbreak to the lab may be explained by many possible causal connections to the lab, not just the ridiculous conspiracy theory end of the spectrum. When the hypothesis is described as “lab leak”, it has been dismissed by strawmanning that this must mean some outrageous evil conspiracy to develop a bioweapon; whereas in fact lab involvement includes perfectly plausible mundane scenarios like a worker associated with the Wuhan lab becoming accidentally infected with a sample of natural origin.
Disagree. This is actually a very accurate description of the two leading hypotheses. Not misleading at all.
The problem is that people, many of them residents of the Dope, seem to consistently and self-servingly misinterpret “lab leak” as “human created bioweapon unleashed by China intentionally”. We’ve had a few threads on this and the amount of vitriol that gets spewed at anyone who questioned the zoonotic explanation was pretty shocking. Saying that there might be other explanations got you branded as a Trumper and a racist (usually staying just inside the rules of the Dope, but not always). Of course Trump and his cronies poisoned the debate, but the linked NYT article accurately describes the anti-Trump groupthink that led to the quick dismissal of the idea.
Then say something to rebut what I’ve pointed out, rather than just saying “disagree”. The specific points I have made are that:
(a) “Lab leak” and “natural zoonotic event” are not mutually exclusive alternatives, not remotely so. The origin of the virus may have been zoonotic, a completely natural event. But since this lab is in the business of researching coronavirus, it’s obviously likely that a sample of any coronavirus that arose completely naturally might have been brought to the lab.
(b) The proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan lab may be explained by scenarios that causally connect the lab to the outbreak, without it being a “leak”. A lab worker may have become infected while collecting samples in the field, perhaps unknowingly. This is particularly plausible since we know infection is often asymptomatic. This infected worker then returned to where he lives in Wuhan and started the outbreak, without any leak from the lab having occurred.
The point is that there are many scenarios where the lab is somehow causally implicated, that explain the proximity of the outbreak to the lab, without there being anything untoward or remarkable going on, and without any nefarious coverup or conspiracy. Such a causal link may exist without anyone knowing exactly what happened.
There’s a whole bunch of text you decided to ignore. I guess you’d rather play a game of lawyering here. Nothing you said makes the “lab leak” descriptor in any way inaccurate. As I said, the problem isn’t the label, it’s the biased way people are interpreting it.
And yet you’ve still failed to address the substantial points I’ve made where I’ve clearly explained why presenting “lab leak” and “natural origin” as mutually exclusive alternative hypotheses is wrong.
Saw your pre-edit text, I didn’t rebut them because as you noted we agree.
I’m simply pointing out that you’re probably misapplying the criticism of the “lab leak” moniker.
Edit: I’m not implying that the two statements are mutually exclusive. But lab leak is an accurate descriptor of the various competing theories, whether it has zoonotic aspects or man made aspects. The label is accurate to both.
Ultimately, yes I think we are in strenuous agreement. I’m just mystified why you fail to get the point I’m making.
Presenting these as mutually exclusive alternatives is precisely what leads to the strawmanning dismissal that “lab leak” must mean a ridiculous conspracy theory, some kind of evil bioweapon. “Lab leak” and “natural event” are not alternate hypotheses.
I think you’re conducting a bit of strawmanning yourself here.
I never said they were mutually exclusive. I didn’t imply it. Frankly, I think it’s a bit absurd to say that that label is causing the biased/politicized way the debate got misconstrued. That happened because a bunch of assholes intentionally misconstrued it for self-serving reasons.
Lab leak is an accurate term because it conveys 2 things. Community spread originated in Wuhan as a result of the lab being there, and that someone in China probably screwed up. This didn’t climb out of the the jungle or a cave and migrate to Wuhan through a wet market or some as yet unidentified community spread in the areas close to the caves.
Yes, you did. And a lot of news articles do so too.
[my bold]
That very strongly implies that these are alternative hypotheses. No other interpretation makes sense.
You are really straining to parse that with a lot more nuance than I intended.
You made the claim that “lab leak” was a poorly chosen term and I’ve yet to see a better alternative term offered or any specific reasons why that term doesn’t apply to the hypotheticals you offered. I think the burden is on you to support your claim.
I’m really not. When someone talks about “the two leading hypotheses” nobody would construe that to mean these are two things that both may be true. The plain meaning is that these are two alternative explanations.
Most lay people would consider these different, mutually exclusive things.
I think people could reasonably consider this a “lab leak” and not a “natural zoonotic event”. Certainly there are subjective elements here, but it’s not bizarre to believe that “lab” is a concept broader then a single building. A lab is a collection of scientists doing research in the laboratory and in the field. We trust that they are smart enough and careful enough to prevent this type of spread. Had that lab NOT been in Wuhan, or not been in operation at all, the spread would not have happened when it did…thus it’s directly linked to the lab’s activity. Calling it a “lab leak” is accurate in that it leaked from field work which originated from the lab.
If it’s directly linked to the action of a scientist few people are going to shrug and say “totally natural occurrence!”
“Lab leak” as shorthand for “a scientist fucked up” is not what I’d call a heavily biased turn of phrase.
No. When people talk about a non-natural origin for the virus, they mean that the virus is the result of laboratory experimentation, either deliberate manipulation or accidental mutation/recombination that took place in the lab. Non-natural means that key changes in the virus took place in the lab.
That’s why presenting this as a dichotomy between “lab leak” and “natural” is false and misleading.
A virus with a natural origin (no change in the virus took place in the lab) could nevertheless have been leaked from the lab, or infected a lab worker in the field.
ETA: And I think you’re the one straining to parse meaning if you think a lab worker unknowingly infected in the field with a virus that was never brought to the lab as a sample could sensibly be described as a “lab leak”. But this is hardly the main point. My principal point is that accepting that a lab leak may have occurred does not entail rejecting a natural origin for the virus, it does not imply that laboratory manipulation or experimentation took place.
You’re projecting that. “Lab leak” is what it says on the tin. It only carries that “manufactured” implication if it suits the person saying its world view. In this case that appears to be what you are doing. You’re going out of your way to make what is a generally pretty neutral and inclusive term into something loaded. Others have done it too.
“Leak” by itself pretty strongly implies accident. Which is why it feels perfectly appropriate for most of the non-crazy suggestions about what happened here other than it crawling out of a cave.
I’m doing the exact opposite of that, in pointing out that a lab leak does not necessarily entail dangerous manipulation or experimentation, that it may simply be a sample of a virus of natural origin that was at the lab.