Why is that the case? I thought we don’t actually have any real good evidence either way.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence.
Yeah. It doesn't sit right with me that Peter Daszak, who has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was the driving force behind the February 2020 Lancet letter of scientists "strongly condemning conspiracy theories" like the lab-leak theory – all without disclosing that conflict of interest.
Daszak should testify before congress.
That biolab specializes in coronaviruses.
That biolab was funded, in part, by the US NIH to conduct gain of function (a rose by any other name...) on coronaviruses.
SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak was first observed in Wuhan.
It's such a logical chain of circumstantial evidence, and They expected everyone to believe that it came from a fucking pangolin?
It seems to me like people are talking about some Boogeyman here. I need specifics on this "they" because otherwise it just comes across as rhetoric
China (and everyone else) doesn't get to have their cake an eat it too. They want to be opaque as national policy, that's their prerogative, but they don't get to do so and expect positive inference regarding what is behind the curtain.
In other words, assuming the worst plausible scenario is the only, or at least a, rational interpretation of possibilities against a policy of intentional opacity.
Can you see how a government might be concerned about keeping an adversary do that because of the sovereignty violation it brings up as well as concerns about spies being part of that group (eg how the CIA used a vaccination program as cover to find Bin Laden in Pakistan)?
It’s not the only rational explanation. It’s just the one you choose to prefer (and it might perhaps be the most plausible given how the Chinese government appears to operate, but it’s not beyond reasonable doubt). Heck, this was the theory behind invading Iraq and looks like the US never did find those WMDs.