Originating from a lab doesn't necessarily mean it is a weapon. Only that they have poor sterilization or something.

yeah close proxmity changes everything, mistakes are not impossible. ..

Points one and two are originating in a lab as a general principle. Only point three is addressing the mutated version of this rumor, which is that it's a bioweapons lab.

Trivially easy to trace, sure. But the Chinese government bay be highly motivated to prevent disclosing or allowing discovery of that.

The ones that are too difficult to trace wouldn't, of course, be included among every lab exposure-related outbreak you've encountered.

There are very, very few outbreaks where we don't eventually figure out the source.

Like, can you spin the theory that we're missing them? Sure. But there's a pretty strong absence of evidence there, despite a field that's actively looking constantly (and where showing that would further the political and scientific careers of a number of people).

Yes - it's a good example of a survivorship bias.

>If this was a bioweapon, it sucks.

Bioweapons aren't all that effective in general for the reasons seen here: they're too slowly acting, to easy to treat, and not as lethal as, say, chemical weapons (which are also not that effective as weapons). Biological weapons are most dangerous as terror weapons.

I am not sure I agree completely. Yes, the panic they induce ( and that media happily augment ) is in itself dangerous, but.. well, weaponized ebola has apparently been in existence for a while. What makes you think progress was not made since then to.. add new traits to existing strains?

I hate to say anything more, because we would easily move into wild speculation territory.

Agreed. I worked on biodefense stuff for awhile, and my usual argument was that bioweapons are at best panic and disruption.

But this was mostly to address the terminal version of this particular rumor, which I've also encountered on social media.