Has self-proclaimed "no confidence" but argues passionately for one side more than the other. Makes sense.

They’re not saying much more:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf

For RT critics there is no difference between 9 critics scoring 100 and 1 scoring 49, and 9 critics scoring 51 with 1 scoring 49.

So fuck off. The system’s terrible.

Dude.

4 agencies claim low for natural. 1 agency claims low for lab leak, 1 moderate.

4 > 2

What's "Grade A" eggs? Eggs that comes from free range chickens or something else?

How does the historical average go up while the current is well below the average? That doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

I could give a crap about standing at an alter with matching suits. I just want the same protections and rights afforded by the government that heterosexual couples have. Call it whatever you want if that’s the stumbling block for the Christian right.

Well, I think you’re taking that a bit too extremely

[deleted]

Interesting, can you provide a link? I would like to read more in the source of that info

Just 1 cent above greatness. So close

• low confidence in natural
• low to moderate confidence in lab leak
• ‘low to moderate’ > ‘low’

[deleted]

No, that’s not how that works. But if you really want to do it the wrong way, it’s still +1 for natural.

Thanks! - Much better!

And that means intel agencies have more confidence in the lab leak so..

All the right can ever do is run rampant with their heads cut off believing conspiracy theories and scapegoating others. The instinct was right, but the practice was wrong. It’s not a cope to decry the situation.

[removed]

That ‘evidence’ is shoddy and outdated.

Besides, the government only just yesterday signed the declassification of origin information so we will have see for more.

Its a pretty good coincidence that "the Wuhan coronavirus institute" that has a ton of safety violations and bad practices wasn't involved in a worldwide pandemic involving a novel coronavirus

From Director of National Intelligence:

Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.

One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.

Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.

Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps.

That's the problem, isn't it? There are no citations for what happened inside of China during the early pandemic. From what we know about epidemiology and spillover events, there simply isn't much evidence to point to said spillover. In the absence of evidence, people will look toward other possibilities and assess the likelihood of those possibilities. In this case, given the lack of evidence, this does not look like a spillover, and the next likely option is a lab leak.

Lmao literally though. “Oh the pathogen wildly variant from any naturally occurring viruses just happened to naturally appear in the very area that was developing bio weapons using that exact virus”

I would call it copium but I want to give more credit and call it ignorance

The prevailing genetic evidence suggests natural. Timing suggests natural. You can’t just cherry pick your evidence.

4 intel agencies believe natural with low confidence. 2 intel agencies believe lab leak with low and moderate confidence.

You and me? We have zero confidence.

We expanded out the data here: https://imgur.com/a/df67eEd