Submitted by Square_Tea4916 t3_11sthk3 in dataisbeautiful
SeaworthinessOk620 t1_jcfjrl5 wrote
Reply to comment by Fluorescent_Tip in [OC] More Americans are believing COVID-19 originated from a lab in China. However, there is still no conclusive evidence to support one theory over another. The topic is highly politicizing both internally (US Political Parties) and externally (US-China relations). by Square_Tea4916
What institutions support the natural idea?
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcflc9y wrote
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.
SeaworthinessOk620 t1_jcfmwcu wrote
Interesting, can you provide a link? I would like to read more in the source of that info
Fluorescent_Tip t1_jcfnms1 wrote
They’re not saying much more:
[deleted] t1_jcgsv6d wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments