Thank you very much for reading.
If you pose the question whether it is in theory possible to get the SARS-CoV-2 genome we have by a combination of genome engineering, serial passage selection and some unknown viral backbone, yes, we cannot say it is impossible. But a lot of low likelyhood assumptions would have to chain together perfectly to yield the genome we observe, way more than for example needed for some zoonotic jump in an intermediate animal population that we have not er discovered.
In any case, my trouble with lab leak is not the low probability, but rather the non-scientific noise around it, and suggestions made by popular non-expert thats there are 'smoking guns' or 'clear signs' of manipulation when there are none. [Baltimore later conceited that 'smoking gun' comments were wrong; https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-06-08/nobel-laureate-baltimore-smoking-gun-for-the-covid-lab-leak-theory) ].
I personally think lab leaks and bioengineering by maniacs are a potential source of future catastrophe, a real threat that needs to be acted upon, irrespective of whether SARS-CoV-2 was part of a leak or not. We need a reckoning on how to deal with future pandemics, because they will come, natural as well as artificial. In the current conspiracy environment, no matter which site one is one, we are loosing one part of the plot.
Let's say it was indeed an accidental lab leak of some research that was not well approved or regulated; maybe it would give us the impetus to do proper regulation, vetting and monitoring of dangerous scientific work. Great. But what the narrative really wants is to blame China or the scientists, as to deflect from the many political failing of leaders all around the world in dealing with a crisis. Preventing lab leaks will not prevent natural pandemics, and forgetting that will be very costly. Geopolitically, it might alienate China from the rest of the world and increase danger to other unforeseeable threats, including more unaccountable biotech or war.
Let's say the other 'narrative' wins, and it was proven to be 'natural', a zoonotic jump from an intermediate animal population we finally identified. Maybe we can then have a discussion about preventing dangerous human-animal interactions (like wet markets, encroaching on habitats, etc). Great. But what about the dangers of biotech? What about all the holes in transperancy and accountability of viral GoF research? Even if this pandemic was catastrophic 'naturally', the next biocatastrophe might not be. Politically, a 'proofed' natural origin might cause certain parts of the population to reject the consensus, cry foul and get even more alientated, living in a seperate conspiracy world instead of reality.
Having these one-sided (A or B) narrative always seem lose-lose to me. My point is; People using many weak arguments to bolster their 'side' of the narrative are missing important pieces of the plot; we should put all our attention and effort towards a shared narrative about the actions we need to take to prevent future pandemics, no matter their origin. How to prioritize what aspects to tackle first and in which order should be based on the best available scientific evidence for the likelyhood of certain scenarios, not on what is politically convenient or geopolitcally prudent.
People can handle the truth, and they can handle uncertainty; what they cannot handle is constant, easily disproven lies and weak arguments in their information sphere.
