> You are missing the important bit: The lab leak would have to be covered up by the Chinese authorities and the WHO would some how have had to be in on it.

Is that so inconceivable? The Chinese government has historically obfuscated facts and runs one of the largest media control operations in modern history. The WHO is also an organization of questionable trustworthiness and with suspicious subservience to China[1]. But the WHO wouldn't necessarily had to have been complicit. This could've easily been covered up by Chinese authorities during the many months of blocking external researchers into the country[2]. The research in the report you linked to started in January 2021.

As for the report itself, I skimmed a few pages and noticed some issues. My understanding is limited in this area, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

0. First of all, the conflict of interest of it being reported by WHO and Chinese researchers should be a factor in judging the validity of any of its claims.

1. From the arguments in favour of the intermediate host scenario (p. 115):

> Although the closest related viruses have been found in bats, the
> evolutionary distance between these bat viruses and SARS-CoV-2 is estimated
> to be several decades, suggesting a missing link (either a missing progenitor
> virus, or evolution of a progenitor virus in an intermediate host).

Why would this suggest a missing link? Couldn't gain of function research accelerate the mutations of the virus to make it seem far distant genetically from the ones found in bats?

2. From the arguments against the intermediate host scenario (p. 116):

> There was no genetic or serological evidence for SARS-CoV-2 in a wide
> range of domestic and wild animals tested to date.

And immediately after:

> Screening of farmed wildlife was limited but did not provide conclusive
> evidence for the existence of circulation.

So only major livestock species were screened, and wildlife screening was "limited", yet it concludes that there was no evidence. This scenario is "likely to very likely" based on a faulty missing link argument and dismissing the point that the research was limited.

3. From the arguments against the laboratory incident scenario (p. 119):

> There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any
> laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could
> provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome.

"There is no record" doesn't exclude the possibility of records being deleted before January 2021.

The rest of the arguments that all labs complied with high safety standards, with no reports of illnesses or disruption are also coming from Chinese authorities, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Yet this is enough to consider this scenario "extremely unlikely".

4. China is praised multiple times for its "near-elimination of SARS-CoV-2", but the official data is comically suspicious[3]. A total of 4,851 deaths in a country of 1.4 billion people. That week of April 13, 2020 was rough.

Apologies if I sound inflammatory and conspiratorial, my disinformation senses are tingling.

Ugh and apologies for the formatting. HN please adopt Markdown.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM

[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/05/china/china-blocks-who-te...

[3]: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn