I think it cut the risk by 40-50%. Which would make me feel pretty good if the risk was 10% but not great at 36%. There’s also some talk about long COVID resolving within a year for most people, if that turns out to be true that’d be huge for me feeling safe to come out from behind the mask. The combination of it being towards the low end, a 50% cut in that, and a 1 year cap on most long COVID cases would mean something like a 5% risk per year of long COVID lasting a year.
the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research
Nate’s tweet here is really incredible, like one government agency (out of many) is like “we think this with low confidence” and Nate’s like “oh no, what a huge embarrassing burn for all the scientists on the other side”, dude has a lot of Bari Weiss in him
Proponents of the lab leak theory typically omit to mention that most large Chinese cities have coronavirus research laboratories.
Talking about the Wuhan lab, people are like “what are the odds that COVID started in the city with China’s only super-duper virus lab?” But that’s very much a red herring - the super-duper labs are super-duper because they study shit that is more fatal than COVID, like ebola-type stuff:
Labs studying coronaviruses are a lot more common and not unique to Wuhan. People saying that are amplifying an irrelevant fact about the lab to make the theory sound scarier.
Holy shit buried in the WSJ article is the line that the overall consensus from the government is that it was a natural crossover, but they chose to frame it as the DOE only. Fucking hacks.