In many ways the more people try to make arguments for natural spillover the less likely it seems.<p>The theory, which the scientists pushing natural spillover argue is the best evidence, say:
1) no scientists think the bat would have come from near Wuhan
2) there were raccoons and civets and the wet market - though no bats<p>The amount of steps needed for it to appear in Wuhan, before any of the dozens of large cities with wet markets closer to the bat population, is a lot.<p>The number of steps needed for a lab researcher to get it while dissecting a bat or bat excrement is small.<p>The final quote seems to cover this:<p>>But Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and a persistent critic of attempts to diminish the likelihood of a laboratory leak, said that this was a straw-man argument.<p>Dr. Ebright said it was possible that a W.I.V. lab worker might have contracted the coronavirus on a field expedition to study bats or while processing a virus at the lab. The new paper, he argued, failed to address such possibilities.<p>“The review does not advance the discussion,” Dr. Ebright said.