Coronavirus: Lab Leak Part 2

There are various possibilities for how SARS-CoV-2 came about to infect the world. Is it just me or does it seem like the probability for a lab leak from the Wuhan  Institute of Virology causing the pandemic is increasing from say "doubtful" to "plausible?"  

At the start of 2021, the New Yorker looked into the idea. Then in February, the Washington Post decided to explore the possibility. Yet, this is the same Washington Post which back on May 2020 had this headline: Was the new coronavirus accidentally released from a Wuhan lab? It’s doubtful.

Fast forward to February 2021 and the Washington Post is listing it as plausible.

Both address similar topics, but come up with far different conclusions.

Wuhan Institute of Virology

 
May 2020: In Wuhan, at least two labs study coronaviruses that originate in bats — the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (WHCDC). 

Feb 2021: Wuhan, with a population of 11 million, is a major transportation hub and a center of virus studies in China, with at least six facilities with BSL-3 laboratories for handling infectious agents.

Dr. Shi was Worried It Leaked from Her Lab

May 2020: In March, Shi told the Scientific American that in the early days of the outbreak . . . “Could they have come from our lab?” 

Feb 2021: Dr. Shi said that when news of the outbreak first became known, she checked her laboratory records to see whether there had been any mishandling of experimental materials.

Gain of Function

May 2020: A 2015 paper cautioned against the “gain of function” experiments with which Shi’s team was involved.

Feb 2021: It is known from public documents that Dr. Shi was conducting “gain of function” research on bat coronaviruses, which involves modifying their genomes to give the viruses new properties, such as the ability to infect a new host species or transmit from one host to another more easily.

Bat Caves

May 2020: Holmes noted another virus that — like RaTG13 — was sampled 1,000 miles from Wuhan in a cave in Yunnan is a closer relative to the new virus, but “not close enough to be the direct ancestor.”

Feb 2021: The WIV also collected thousands of samples from bat caves in China.

Same facts, totally different probabilities being assigned. When one says "doubtful," I would suspect that has a probability of less than 10%. If one says "plausible," I'd say the probability on that is at least 40%. There are a couple additional facts in the Feb 2021 article. One is that a Chinese database was blocked on Sep 12, 2019 and another went offline at an unknown date. Yet that would have likely been known when the May 2020 article was written. A second is that then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed on January 15th that there were illnesses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in autumn 2019. Would that really shift opinions at the Washington Times that much?

I think one major reason why there is a shift in their position is that the May 2020 article was based off of a comment made by President Trump: “I will tell you, more and more, we’re hearing the story [that the new coronavirus emerged from a Wuhan lab].” — President Trump, in a news conference, April 15, 2020. A bit of automatic bias against what Trump has to say -- similar to how no one seemed to believe that a vaccine could be approved before 2021.

And a conspiracy theory: Is the Joe Biden Administration telling reporters off the record that they think President Trump was right?