We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Baud_Olofsson
Reddit commenter on evidence for COVID-19 origins
1. Evidence for a natural origin at the wet market: all available epidemiological, virological and genetic research (at this point we're basically sure which market stalls it originated in). 2. Evidence for a lab leak: "Don't you think it's suspicious there was a lab in this giant city with 10 million people?". Yep, that is literally all the "evidence" there is for that hypothesis. If you think that 2) trumps 1), then no amount of science will ever convince you.AI Verified (Mar 10, 2026)
1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly about the statement’s core dispute: whether COVID-19 came from a natural wet-market/zoonotic origin or from a lab-related leak. In source context, the author explicitly presents epidemiological, virological, and genetic research as evidence for natural origin and says the lab-leak hypothesis lacks evidence, so a determinate stance on the complete statement is substantially more likely. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1rpkoz1/recent_pandemic_viruses_jumped_to_humans_without/o9ng8v2/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
He explicitly argues the opposite: he says there is "evidence for a natural origin at the wet market" from "all available epidemiological, virological and genetic research," while the lab-leak case is "literally all" just suspicion about a lab being in Wuhan; in context he also links studies supporting market/spillover origin. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1rpkoz1/recent_pandemic_viruses_jumped_to_humans_without/o9ng8v2/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
In context, the quote is a direct reply to a comment invoking 'Bayesian inference' about COVID-19 origins. The author argues the question should be settled by the strength of epidemiological, virological, and genetic evidence, and dismisses the rival 'lab nearby' reasoning as effectively non-evidentiary. That makes the quote on-topic for the statement and provides enough signal that the author's stance on that statement is determinable, even though the quote does not restate the full claim in abstract terms.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Unverifiable
In context, the parent comment explicitly invoked "Bayesian inference," but this author neither endorses nor rejects that framework; instead they say "all available epidemiological, virological and genetic research" supports a natural origin and that lab-leak "evidence" is basically just the lab's presence. That is a clear stance on the origins evidence, but not a clear stance that Bayesian analysis is or is not the right framework for settling the question. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1rpkoz1/recent_pandemic_viruses_jumped_to_humans_without/o9ng8v2/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Reddit’s own page and JSON for the linked comment show a comment by Baud_Olofsson at that URL/comment id (o9ng8v2), posted March 10, 2026 UTC, containing this wording. The quote is a verbatim excerpt; the source comment continues with one additional sentence after the quoted final line, but the quoted text itself matches. ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1rpkoz1/recent_pandemic_viruses_jumped_to_humans_without/o9ng8v2/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
replying to Baud_Olofsson