Thread by @Ayjchan

2 years post-pandemic I think we can largely agree on the following regarding #OriginOfCovid:

1. No direct evidence for or against any particular origin hypothesis has been found.

2. Likely or not, lab origin is plausible & should be investigated, not ruled out prematurely.

And hopefully also:

3. Regardless of whether #OriginOfCovid was natural or lab-related, we need to immediately develop and enforce new regulation, with measurable and publicly reported outcomes, to make risky virus research way more transparent and safer.

Scientists arguing over whether it's a 5% or 50% chance that Covid-19 came from a lab, instead of calling for an investigation + new regulation, are missing the point that the scientific community should already be acting to reduce that % chance of a lab-based pandemic down to 0.

Otherwise, are they saying there is some threshold, eg that if a lab #OriginOfCovid falls below 1% chance, then we don't need to investigate or take any meaningful action to prevent against lab-based pandemics?

That it's ok to wait for a lab-based pandemic because it's unlikely?

I'm happy to debate other experts on the likelihood of a natural vs lab #OriginOfCovid - we could spend days discussing the circumstantial evidence - but I think the above 3 points are non-negotiable for any person who has paid attention to this issue and is capable of reasoning.

Is there any credible expert left who thinks

(1) There is direct evidence of any origin hypothesis,

(2) A lab origin can be ruled out as not plausible and not necessary to investigate, or

(3) Nothing needs to be done about de-risking dangerous virus research?