Stats say nothing of relative severity, why do you think they’re relevant in any way?

Edit: is your argument seriously “uhm actually, event X happens 0.054% of the time, so when you said {more rare version of X} doesn’t happen you’re wrong”

Um, those are the numbers for hospitalization. So yes, there’s information about severity there.

And yep, that’s my argument! The frequency of deadly viruses escaping from a bio lab is even lower, so if we’re going to eliminate possibilities based on percentages there are a few others that should get thrown out.

It’s a minor point but, as I said, it’s sloppy reasoning. If the anonymous researcher had said “low probability” I wouldn’t care. Instead, this reads like someone who’s willing to hand wave specifics for the sake of rhetoric.

Hospitalization doesn’t mean severity. It has more to do with your confidence in your immune system and health insurance than anything else, though the hospital’s extra capacity and desire to make a buck off you is up there too.

But if you’re here to be put off by the smallest use of rhetoric, sure pop off on that.

If I reversed it and said “this can’t be a lab leak because lab leaks never happen,” would that be okay? They’re certainly rarer than serious cases of flu among adults in the age range.

It’s a contentious, difficult debate. I do actually think it’s bad to dismiss arguments you disagree with with casual rhetoric.

If that rhetorical device led me to research and discover reputable data suggesting the frequency of such occurrences was indeed so minuscule as to be disregarded entirely, I’d welcome it upsetting my preconceived notions.