Thread by @Ayjchan

Natural origin proponents and agnostic/lab leak proponents keep talking past each other because there are some fundamental differences in how we interpret the state of knowledge and novel findings relating to #OriginsOfCovid

Close relatives to SARS2 have been found in bats.

Natural origin proponents: we will find the intermediate host of SARS2 soon.

Agnostic/lab origin proponents: we still don’t know how the virus got from bats to humans.

On precedents.

Natural origin proponents: this new pandemic is most likely history repeating itself.

Agnostic/lab origin proponents: viruses, including coronavirus and the first SARS virus, have leaked from labs too.

SARS2 genome could be natural or could have been modified.

Natural origin proponents: no one would’ve designed a virus this way.

Agnostic/lab origin proponents: we don't know because we have no access to virus databases and the literature does not reflect the most recent work.

Funding of more virus hunting.

Natural origin proponents: we need more of this to develop pan-virus therapies and vaccines.

Agnostic/lab origin proponents: we need to stop this until we figure out a safer, more transparent approach otherwise we risk a future lab-based outbreak.

A leaked 2018 EcoHealth x WIV x UNC proposal, later authenticated, reveals a research roadmap to insert cleavage sites into novel SARS-like viruses.

Natural origin proponents: it was just a plan.

Agnostic/lab origin proponents: what are the odds?

Generally, those agnostic/pro-lab leak are more open to the (likely) possibility that there is important information withheld/not known to the public yet.

This suggests we should exercise caution before making overly confident assertions and going 1000% on more virus hunting.