It's a little like being astonished that a microbe could be identified so quickly in Boston or Atlanta.
It's a little like being astonished that a microbe could be identified so quickly in Boston or Atlanta.
Accidental releases almost always involve people with direct links to the lab in question first. That's a really obvious epidemiological link.
"A coronavirus emerged in China and got detected quickly because of solid medical infrastructure" is a way more parsimonious explanation than "Accidental release from a BSL-4 lab."
From what I've read, "solid medical infrastructure" doesn't exist in Wuhan.
For emerging infectious diseases, Wuhan is perfectly functional, and the Chinese have the necessary resources. Motorbikes with samples aren't getting stuck as roads turn into mud during the rainy season.
I'm currently an Assistant Professor of Computational Epidemiology, and my research is on healthcare-associated infections and emerging pathogens.
I dunno what are the odds, but do you know what are the odds? If you don't, then you have no base for suspicious.
So which side of the argument should provide evidence? Why is the parents suspicion any less valid than your lack of suspicion? These kind of questions are particularly difficult when secretive government institutions are involved.
Doesn't every major city the world have some lab testing some kind of virus nearby?
Both Atlanta and Boston have BSL-4 labs.