Great Q&A with Peter Ben Embarek on the COVID-19 emergence @WHO mission.

He explains why they conclude it was "extremely unlikely" SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab - the same conclusion we reached in our 2020 Proximal Origin paper (not "plausible"). https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/politics-was-always-room-who-mission-chief-reflects-china-trip-seeking-covid-19-s

All the lab origin 'theories' come down to a single fact - the pandemic was detected in Wuhan. That's it - there's nothing more to it.

*Any* type of lab origin would have to involve a massive conspiracy of scientists, doctors, and public health responders. A year+ in? Nothing.

Does that mean we have absolute proof SARS-CoV-2 didn't leak from a lab? No - that's not how science works. But we can conclude it's "extremely unlikely" or as we conclude "we do not believe that any type of laboratory based scenario is plausible". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

I applaud the @WHO and the participating scientists for the mission. Does that mean we now know everything? No, not by a long shot - and it is critical that we better understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2, while separating science and politics. Let's focus on 'plausible'.

A lot of people, incl. scientist, have come out critical of the mission or conclusions. Which is great - that's how it should be. However, consider this - are you able to understand the nuances, whether scientific, political, or practical? Do you have direct firsthand experience?