atyy said:
Lipsitch's letter could have a basis only either in ignorance or unsubstantiated accusations that Shi Zhengli of the WIV was lying. Lipsitch's letter helped to feed conspiracy theories (and was in fact co-authored with conspiracy theorist
Alina Chan, among others). It is not scientifically correct to pretend that the zoonotic and the lab leak theories are almost equally likely - although that may seem to be unbiased - it is biased in the face of evidence, and is tantamount to hyping the lab leak theory. The only way the lab leak theory can still be given almost equal weight as the zoonotic theory is to accuse Shi Zhengli of lying.
I don't see Lipsitch et al inferring that Zhengli or others at Wuhan Inst. of Virology are lying, and I don't see Alina Chan as being a conspiracy theorist, nor even entertaining a conspiracy regarding WIV and SARS-Cov-2. I do read a call for further investigation, rather than what appears to be a dismissal of the potential for release of SARS-Cov-2 from WIV, or some other association.
The letter states, "Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(
4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (
4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (
5)."
It appears that the authors of the letter are concerned that WHO determined "a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely”", in the absence of evidence. It would be more appropriate to say that it is indeterminate. The authors are not calling for an "equal weight" to the laboratory leak theory.
In theory, contact tracing would have indicated potential pathways from the earliest cases, but if some were asymptomatic, perhaps some pathways cannot be traced.
If all identified cases cannot be traced to the food market (and there could be missing links), where did the other cases originate ostensibly independently of the market.
The current position of the US government is "For more than a year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic’s origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation."
https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html
Furthermore, "The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
The virus could have emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals, spreading in a pattern consistent with a natural epidemic. Alternatively, a laboratory accident could resemble a natural outbreak if the initial exposure included only a few individuals and was compounded by asymptomatic infection. Scientists in China have researched animal-derived coronaviruses under conditions that increased the risk for accidental and potentially unwitting exposure."
It seems a more in depth investigation is needed.
On the other hand, Global Times publishes a refutation of a laboratory origin on May 24, 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224362.shtml
Researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences published a report that further refutes the highly hyped theory that the virus came from the laboratory. They identified a new SARS-CoV-2-related virus lineage from bats discovered in 2015 in Mojiang county, Southwest China's Yunnan Province.
