Just out of curiosity: once "they" come up with a Vaccine with maybe a 25% protection, but not really sure of the long term side affects other than defying death, are you going to be at the front of the line?

And, AND those who do not get in line for a year? Are they going to be labeled "anti vaxer"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't think exercising caution with an untested treatment (as you've described it) is equivalent to idiotic claims that the measles vaccine causes autism.

My Indian said tagging people who have had the virus and is 'immune' is really close to dividing our society even further. I asked what makes him think that way and I got an eye roll from him when I had to be reminded of the Jewish tattooing of numbers.

I'm actually grateful that this next generation of leaders have not forgotten the past. :sparkle: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Flagging Jews for extermination isn't a good analogy to identifying those who no longer pose a threat of infecting others. We do it already anyway. If you don't get certain vaccines, you're identified and kept from getting a public education. I don't believe in anyone's right to infect others.

I don't believe in anyone's right to infect others. — Hanover

That walks a fine line with this virus as antibody testing is inconclusive at best. Mutations happen and we could have a new virus before we have an antibody test sensitive enough to pick it up.

In the last two months Nick was tested multiple times for active COVID 19, with results available in minutes of the test being performed, negative each time.

However two antibody tests run on my Indian came back negative with a qualifier that it could be inaccurate. Suggestion from the Doctor is to try another lab in a month as the tests are constantly evolving.

Forgive me but I will let you go first in getting the vaccines?

However two antibody tests run on my Indian came back negative with a qualifier that it could be inaccurate. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

These inaccuracies aren't limited to coranavirus, so why take such a hard line on coronavirus specifically. Are you generally opposed to medical science?

Anyway, you've not pointed out a danger to the vaccine, but only suggested it might not work.

The treasury department sent $1.4 billion worth of stimulus payments to dead people. The direct payments, which were approved as part of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill, were sent to more than 1 million Americans who had already died, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report. - guardian — Benkei

The dead people ought to get the relief, especially those who died of covid. They'll probably get to vote too.

Mutations happen — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Viruses mutate regularly -- true. Generally these mutations are very minor and do not prevent a given test from recognizing the virus. Why? Because the surface proteins on the virus would have to mutate quite a bit before a typical test would fail to recognize it.

HIV mutates all the time, but the HIV tests still detect it.

Is your son at particular risk of contracting Covid19? Has he been symptomatic? Is he taking the recommended mask-wearing and physical distancing advice?

Just out of curiosity: once "they" come up with a Vaccine with maybe a 25% protection, but not really sure of the long term side affects other than defying death, are you going to be at the front of the line?

And, AND those who do not get in line for a year? Are they going to be labeled "anti vaxer"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

They'll be labeled antivaxxers IF they practice non-vaccination for reliably preventable and serious infectious diseases, like measles, polio, influenza, and so on.

Whether to take a Covid19 vaccine involves a very standard risk calculation: is the expected risk of the vaccine greater than the risk of serious infection (and illness) by Covid19? People make these risk calculations all the time: Is the risk of an auto accident driving 300 miles worth the pleasure of seeing a ball game? Is the risk of sexually transmitted infections worth the satisfactions of unprotected sex? Is the enhanced flavor of unpasteurized goat cheese worth the risk of a very unpleasant gastrointestinal infection?

I had influenza in 1968--a particularly bad strain; it made me very sick. I've had pneumonia, and that was pretty bad. So, I consider the risk of a vaccine less than the risk of a combo Covid19 / pneumonia infection, plus the additional adverse consequences of the infection.

A younger person in robust health MIGHT conclude that the disease isn't worth the risk of a vaccine. Of course, the person in robust health and youth might end up being an exquisite corpse.

These inaccuracies aren't limited to coranavirus, so why take such a hard line on coronavirus specifically. Are you generally opposed to medical science? — Hanover

What I am trying to show is that there ARE accurate live COVID 19 tests that are capable of giving scientific results within minutes in the medical system but is not yet available to the general public.

Why do you think that is? Is a 24 to 48 hr turn around time for such results sufficient to help Jane public help herself and by doing so help others?

Anyway, you've not pointed out a danger to the vaccine, but only suggested it might not work. — Hanover

The danger I was referring to (which may have never happened with any vaccines, I truly don't know) is any long term negative health affects.

Is there an inherent risk in letting people receive a COVID 19 vaccine that implies? Suggests? Promises? that they are immune against COVID 19 and it turns out to only cover 25% of the population? Would you have a family member over the age of 70 get the first version?
What about those who have comorbodites?

The treasury department sent $1.4 billion worth of stimulus payments to dead people. The direct payments, which were approved as part of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief bill — Benkei

A little number literacy: $1.4B is a lot of money. But it's also .07% of $2T. Seven hundredths of a percent, or seven ten-thousandths. Wa-ay better than one percent. And for most applications waay better than close enough for government work.

Likely much of it will be returned, and of the rest, likely it will serve the intended purpose. Not a bad result! Maybe critics or nay-sayers should take a look at military budgets and cost overruns. $1.4B maybe buys a plane or two?

I guess it's nothing new, but see for yourself:
• Visual evidence of how face masks work
• Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering

Or, in a single exercise by the government, they lost 1.4 billion USD.

I'm doubtful the underfunded IRS could've reasonably be expected to do better but even so.

So from the links we can learn one concrete thing: stay away from lasers!!! :mask:

:D
Seems Trump both "kills the messenger" and "sticks his head in the sand"?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/jair-bolsonaro-coronavirus-positive-test-brazil-president

I legitimately hope this son of a bitch drops dead.

Barring that, if someone could stab him in the stomach again, this time with a bigger and more serrated knife, that would be fine too.

He'll be barely affected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden-economy-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I think we can conclude now that Sweden's policy was a failure. Sweden isn't anywhere close of herd immunity. Yet it should be noted that one third of the people voluntarily self-isolated, which did have a big effect. Let's remember that Italy, Spain, Belgium and the UK have higher per capita death rates than Sweden.

"The danger is not over," Health Minister Lena Hallengren told a press conference, as she announced plans for how Sweden should act quickly in case there is a renewed rise in serious infections later this year.

The government on Monday ordered four government authorities – the Public Health Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Medical Products Agency and the Civil Contingencies Agency – as well as the country's county administrative boards to start drawing up plans for how to tackle such a second wave.

All things considered the Swedes aren't doing too bad considering they haven't had a lock down at all. The healthcare system hasn't been overwhelmed and that's the main thing. Supply lines haven't been disrupted either.

I'm totally surprised though that their economy took the same hit as the other countries in Europe already.

I'm totally surprised though that their economy took the same hit as the other countries in Europe already. — Benkei

I'm not.

Remember that they still are a rather small export oriented country and all it takes is the global economy to get a mild flew and Sweden (just like us here) is down and out for the count. And if one third of the population voluntarily self isolated themselves, that in itself has a devastating effects on any economy. Remember that there isn't much leeway in the modern economic machine of our time, so even a minor hickup will have large consequences. Now you are looking at an economic abyss in Europe, so it's a major hickup, not a minor one.

Well, preliminary research from the UK is that you'll be resistant against the coronavirus for about 6 months. Thank you PRC government.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but has anyone discussed the possibility that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab? That could be either from a mutation that happened in the lab (naturally), a mutation that happened from a human host who got it in the lab (naturally) or from "gain of function" research (done purposefully to enhance the transmissability of the virus for research purposes).

That's been dismissed as a hoax.

Just wondering, how so? Why? I know I've seen that in reports, but even if it was a natural adaptation in lab, why wouldn't one look at the possibility that it may have escaped from a lab that was actually studying the disease located in the city of its origin? That seems suspect. These type of lab leaks happen more than people think. Its just never been this worldwide a consequence.

Here's a decent article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z

Now, again, speculative, but if the main way this virus transmits so easily is the furin cleavage site, that could be one of two things.
1) It is known in nature as a way a virus can spread more easily as an adaptation.
2) If it has been known in nature to spread the virus more easily, it would also be something that can be manipulated to make the virus transmit more easily in humans for gain of function research.

I don't see how 1 would necessarily prevent 2's possibility. In fact, it might even make more sense for 2. Sure, 1 can imply that this happens in nature. But to then say, "So this rules out a lab" would be false logic. And in fact, can be countered as a reason, the lab would favor this mutation.

Also, it is still very suspect that the origin seems to be in a city with a P4 laboratory that itself studies coronaviruses. Why should that be taken as "just" a coincidence? Odd.

Just because there is no direct letter from someone from the lab, or whatnot also does not rule out that it didn't come from the lab. Direct evidence from actual lab members can be suppressed or any direct evidence hidden. It is especially interesting that China does not want inspectors in the lab. But I don't think it is unusual, even in Western countries to get nervous about questions related to highly infectious deadly viruses. These labs are in many countries, with many types of similar research. But, certainly politically, economically, etc. there would be incentive to suppress this. However, China itself would be able to more than other countries, suppress the press, investigations, and evidence in this case. So there is even more ability to hide I would think in a country with so little transparency anyways. However, my point is that you can even take China's specific ability to hide information more easily out of the equation, and there would still be obvious reasons to suppress this that any country might take to not inform the public perhaps.

Now, it may be there was no gain of function research. Perhaps the virus naturally adapted in the lab. That can happen, even while studying it. Or it could have infected a host from the lab and evolved in that host and spread.

I'm just saying because there's not something like a lab worker's suicide note that he mistakenly let out a virus or something, does not mean that this discredits the theory. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that indeed can point to a lab leak.

I'm also not saying that it cannot be a natural occurrence, but certainly I don't think evidence has ruled out the idea of a lab, actually studying similar viruses could be the origin of this particular one.

I added a bit more there.

That's been dismissed as a hoax. — Benkei

What has been largely dismissed is various claims of genetic "proof" that the virus was engineered by gene splicing. I believe there was some Indian studies, or just one study, that sparked off these claims.

More famously, there's a French researcher, Luc Montagnier, accredited with discovering HIV causing AIDS, who claims the corona virus is for certain has a genetic splice of HIV, that it can't be natural. In the same interview, he makes the bizarre followup claims, to paraphrase, "that because it's unnatural, it is not in harmony with nature and thus will evolve away and be gone [by about nowish]" as well as an unrelated claim about his current research into the potential for electromagnetic waves to cure viral diseases. The interview is available here; this was right-wing super-juice as it both simultaneously supports the Wuhan lab origin hypothesis, China's attacked the US if you want to spin things that way, and supports the notion that the threat of the virus is completely overblown as it's not "natural" (supporting, as a subpoint, that the hubris of such scientists is ultimately futile against the power of God's maintained natural balance which is also why climate change isn't a threat) and so is already gone by nowish, and it's clams by a Nobel prize winner so "lefty-facty" people are hypocrites for not believing it wholesale. Unfortunately, the liberal media is so science illiterate and simply corrupt that this sort of highly dubious claims from someone already approved by the establishment cannot be dealt with.

Picking apart the claims is a pretty simple task.

Luc Montagnier supports the HIV engineered hypothesis based on the mathematical permutations required to create the same gene. Even assuming the gene is the same as HIV and a the mathematical permutations requires astronomical (i.e. even if the premises are correct, which I'm not sure about but don't need to bother to even check) the conclusions doesn't follow since viruses do not all evolve independently but share genetic information between them all the time. Someone infected with HIV, or an animal with a related virus, then infected with the coronavirus could pass the HIV gene to coronavius. Indeed, if the gene in question is what makes coronavirus so effective (the motivation for engineering into the virus in the first place) then it also has an advantage in transferring around in natural hosts as it provides the new virus with an immense advantage.

In other words, this "Nobel Prize" winner doesn't understand the basics of his own domain of expertise.

The even more bizarre claim that the virus is "non-harmonious" and therefore will just go away, doesn't even have a plausible mechanism, as the viral replication lines (chains of replication from one cell to another, one host to another) are happening all over the globe and at very different rates or replication, and there is simply no mechanism available to coordinate all these viral lineages to somehow peter-out.

His current research on radiation curing viral diseases is far fetched enough that a credible person realizes some basic proof of concept is required to entertain the idea; such as breaking apart suspended virus particles with EM frequencies (at energy levels well below what would just ionize or then cook the whole body). I.e. a credible person would preamble with such research, or then focus on these steps of proof of concept that could eventually lead to therapeutic application down the road. Presented as he does, it simply sounds completely delusional, and that he is engaged in some macabre program of trial and error of microwaving lot's of mice (and to the small mind of the bureaucrat, if a Nobel Prize winner wants to microwave some mice, it's not like anyone's proved otherwise; if we can broadcast television, why not health?).

However, as , points out, there's no way to rule out a lab origin, either by accident or on purpose, and any credible analysis must admit that if the premises are true, the conclusion still maybe true; and even if the conclusion isn't true, it doesn't rule out other bio-engineering techniques; therefore, it's better to ignore the issue altogether, and fuel claims of a conspiracy to suppress these sorts of claims (which, to be clear, there is a conspiracy between corporate media owners and executives to shape public discourse, and spinning a lack of evidence of one claim as positive proof of the opposing claim, that also lacks evidence, is a manifestation of this conspiracy to shape public discourse; there is only, ironically, a much stronger conspiracy in right wing media to shape right-wing discourse to be so far removed from reality, for instance repeating the idea that they are the real intellectuals and the more liberal media the real conspiracy funded by Soros and run by cultural Marxists et. al., that public discourse more generally is not even possible).

That's been dismissed as a hoax. — Benkei

That's the first knee-jerk response I had too, but as from some of the comments above, I wouldn't put this in the folder of "Pizzagate level conspiracies" yet. Schopenhauer 1 makes a point with the fact that coronavirus was indeed researched at the Wuhan lab, so I wouldn't erase the possibility yet:

One of their research teams, led by Professor Shi Zhengli, has been researching bat coronaviruses since 2004 and focused on the “source tracing of SARS,” the strain behind another virus outbreak nearly two decades ago. “We know that the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 is only 80 percent similar to that of SARS. It’s an obvious difference,” she said. “So, in Professor Shi’s past research, they didn’t pay attention to such viruses which are less similar to the SARS virus.” - In an interview with Scientific American, Shi said the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence did not match any of the bat coronaviruses her laboratory had previously collected and studied.

See article Wuhan lab had three live bat coronaviruses, but none matched COVID-19

But naturally it doesn't matter, except that Trump gets a talking point. What is done now is the issue what really matters.

The real issue is that we may have this pandemic going on for far longer than we anticipated. And now with for example California closing up again, it's quite obvious we aren't heading for any kind of economic recovery. And where the US goes, goes the the World Economy. Even if other countries may have tackled the worst of the pandemic for now.

The World Health Organization warned Monday that there could be no return to normality any time soon as too many countries were bungling their response to the coronavirus pandemic. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that if public health guidelines are not followed, the crisis will get "worse and worse and worse."

What has been largely dismissed is various claims of genetic "proof" that the virus was engineered by gene splicing. I believe there was some Indian studies, or just one study, that sparked off these claims.

More famously, there's a French researcher, Luc Montagnier, accredited with discovering HIV causing AIDS, who claims the corona virus is for certain has a genetic splice of HIV, that it can't be natural. In the same interview, he makes the bizarre followup claims, to paraphrase, "that because it's unnatural, it is not in harmony with nature and thus will evolve away and be gone [by about nowish]" as well as an unrelated claim about his current research into the potential for electromagnetic waves to cure viral diseases. The interview is available here; this was right-wing super-juice as it both simultaneously supports the Wuhan lab origin hypothesis, China's attacked the US if you want to spin things that way, and supports the notion that the threat of the virus is completely overblown as it's not "natural" (supporting, as a subpoint, that the hubris of such scientists is ultimately futile against the power of God's maintained natural balance which is also why climate change isn't a threat) and so is already gone by nowish, and it's clams by a Nobel prize winner so "lefty-facty" people are hypocrites for not believing it wholesale. Unfortunately, the liberal media is so science illiterate and simply corrupt that this sort of highly dubious claims from someone already approved by the establishment cannot be dealt with.

Picking apart the claims is a pretty simple task.

Luc Montagnier supports the HIV engineered hypothesis based on the mathematical permutations required to create the same gene. Even assuming the gene is the same as HIV and a the mathematical permutations requires astronomical (i.e. even if the premises are correct, which I'm not sure about but don't need to bother to even check) the conclusions doesn't follow since viruses do not all evolve independently but share genetic information between them all the time. Someone infected with HIV, or an animal with a related virus, then infected with the coronavirus could pass the HIV gene to coronavius. Indeed, if the gene in question is what makes coronavirus so effective (the motivation for engineering into the virus in the first place) then it also has an advantage in transferring around in natural hosts as it provides the new virus with an immense advantage.

In other words, this "Nobel Prize" winner doesn't understand the basics of his own domain of expertise.

The even more bizarre claim that the virus is "non-harmonious" and therefore will just go away, doesn't even have a plausible mechanism, as the viral replication lines (chains of replication from one cell to another, one host to another) are happening all over the globe and at very different rates or replication, and there is simply no mechanism available to coordinate all these viral lineages to somehow peter-out.

His current research on radiation curing viral diseases is far fetched enough that a credible person realizes some basic proof of concept is required to entertain the idea; such as breaking apart suspended virus particles with EM frequencies (at energy levels well below what would just ionize or then cook the whole body). I.e. a credible person would preamble with such research, or then focus on these steps of proof of concept that could eventually lead to therapeutic application down the road. Presented as he does, it simply sounds completely delusional, and that he is engaged in some macabre program of trial and error of microwaving lot's of mice (and to the small mind of the bureaucrat, if a Nobel Prize winner wants to microwave some mice, it's not like anyone's proved otherwise; if we can broadcast television, why not health?). — boethius

Yes all this stuff you mention sounds like bullshit, and I was not referring to this, or any similar-dubious claim, so this is kind of a non-sequitor to my claim, though interesting to learn the nutty theories out there. What this does prove is that, the nutty theories will detract from legitimate, more logical straightforward ones surrounding lab leaks and at least a likelihood of it given the evidence (location of origin, P4 lab, gain of function research being a real thing, governments being embarrassed or hurt by something like this, etc.).

However, as ↪schopenhauer1, points out, there's no way to rule out a lab origin, either by accident or on purpose, and any credible analysis must admit that if the premises are true, the conclusion still maybe true; and even if the conclusion isn't true, it doesn't rule out other bio-engineering techniques; therefore, it's better to ignore the issue altogether, and fuel claims of a conspiracy to suppress these sorts of claims (which, to be clear, there is a conspiracy between corporate media owners and executives to shape public discourse, and spinning a lack of evidence of one claim as positive proof of the opposing claim, that also lacks evidence, is a manifestation of this conspiracy to shape public discourse; there is only, ironically, a much stronger conspiracy in right wing media to shape right-wing discourse to be so far removed from reality, for instance repeating the idea that they are the real intellectuals and the more liberal media the real conspiracy funded by Soros and run by cultural Marxists et. al., that public discourse more generally is not even possible). — boethius

Yes, this is what I was getting at above to your other section.. The discourse has drowned out sound evidence.. Because of nutballs on the right creating a political spin, it is "right-wing". And then left-wing amplifies this notion making it moot when in fact, it has more than enough circumstantial evidence to be a real possibility. It needs to be divorced from the political discourse though, especially about "nefarious" intentions, bioweapons, etc. Rather, this looks like a case of what is more common- a lab leak. It is also probably a real possibility it was known and is (or trying to be) covered up due to various political, economic, scientific embarrassment, fallout, etc..

See article Wuhan lab had three live bat coronaviruses, but none matched COVID-19 — ssu

SSU, c'mon though.. So one quote from someone at the lab saying "“In fact, like everyone else, we didn’t even know the virus existed,” she said. “How could it have leaked from our lab when we never had it?” Magically puts the issue at rest? Case over.. One research lead strenuously denies ever working with the virus and that puts the issue to rest?

Also, as I stated, it may have been a virus that evolved at the lab (not intentional), and got out. Though that might be harder to prove. Also, what animals are they working with in the lab? Will investigators get to see this? What things might be missing to indicate any connection?

Yes all this stuff you mention sounds like bullshit, and I was not referring to this, or any similar-dubious claim, so this is kind of a non-sequitor to my claim, though interesting to learn the nutty theories out there. — schopenhauer1

Your first question is has this been talked about. These theories, which we agree are bullshit, have been talked about the most, as far as I have been able to see.

Because of the nutty arguments supporting a lab origin, the liberal media has avoided the subject; usually choosing to imply that the debunking of nutty theories means that the basic idea has also been debunked.

I am simply providing context for your observation that this subject hasn't been talked about a lot.

I make it very clear this is not in relation to your statements, just how about the public discourse (one side has talked about it a lot, advancing nutty theories about it as deflection of excuses for Trump, and the liberal media has largely taken the position that to entertain the lab origin hypothesis is to support Trump).

I make this clear by clearly stating:

However, as ↪schopenhauer1, points out, there's no way to rule out a lab origin, either by accident or on purpose — boethius

I agree it's completely possible that the virus has a lab origin; I have mentioned this possibility on this very forum months ago.

However, as far as I know there is no hard evidence that it is lab origin, only circumstantial evidence. The problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's difficult to calculate probabilities because it's difficult to identify independent variables, dependent variables, cause and effect (without which calculations are nonsensical).

For instance: is the proximity of the outbreak to the Wuhan lab, that studied coronaviruses, likely due to the Wuhan lab releasing the virus? Or, does the Wuhan lab study coronaviruses as they have access to the same viral reservoir from which a pandemic would also likely emerge? Or was the virus discovered near the Wuhan lab because the Wuhan lab is able to study these viruses, but the real original outbreak was elsewhere but ability to collect evidence decreases radically the further into the past and the further away from such labs (early transmission chains of novel viruses can meander a lot, due to the chaotic nature of statistics at small numbers but also because the virus may require an incubation period of, on average only ever so slightly greater than 1 replication rate, to build up mutations to arrive at higher replication rates to cause outbreaks). Or, is there enough bio-labs close to enough population centers that an outbreak at random weighted for how people happen to be distributed is simply likely to happen "suspiciously close" to a lab without any relation between the lab and the outbreak one way or another.

In terms of historical political circumstantial evidence, is the timing of the pandemic likely because "it was the right time to release a pandemic to implement further surveillance measures with contact tracing as an excuse, cause global chaos in which killing protests in Hong Kong is convenient and "maybe it's genocide" of Muslims forgotten, without much fear of losing relative power because the incompetence of Trump ensures the virus won't be managed well in the US and there's little risk of auto-inflicting a large comparative economic wound (such as in the scenario that all flights are stopped to China to contain the virus until China is virus free, that the West simply manages things well generally to prevent and control outbreaks (such as SARS 1)" or is it likely "the governing incompetence of Trump the cause of dismantling the global pandemic response system, international coordination to respond to crisis more generally, and that pandemic potential outbreaks are happening regularly (SARS, Ebola, MERS, Swineflu), that high volume plane travel has rendered this sort of situation explosive for a while, but risks have been mitigated "just ever so slightly competently enough" and getting rid of these suppression mechanisms was simply lifting the lid on the whole thing and a pandemic the expected result." Or, was this virus simply the "100 year" emergence of a "sweet spot virus" impossible to contain, and that such a virus emerging at any time will have always historical circumstances supporting one political narrative or another (political intrigue, great power rivalry, winners and losers in a globally disruptive event, being more or less constant explanatory elements).

So, it's difficult to come to definite conclusions based on circumstantial evidence, but we are in agreement that the possibilities are worth entertaining as simply "the state of knowledge at the moment is open on the issue" as well as for the fact evidence may accumulate in one direction or another over time.

There is no circumstantial evidence, only a hypothesis which is not supported by any type of evidence.

The virus was not engineered. This possibility was explicitly debunked by the science.

That certainly leaves the possibility it might have accidentally come from the lab but lets look at the possibilities here.

1. It escaped a lab that has at least some measures in place to avoid the escape and spread of a virus.
2. It spread at one of those live markets, which have been considered a brewery for new viruses for years, which markets have exactly 0 measures in place to avoid this.
3. The PRC did it on purpose for vague and uncertain politics goals in exchange for predictable economic damage.

I'll give 1 a .9% chance, 2 a 99% chance and the last .1%.

Also, as I stated, it may have been a virus that evolved at the lab (not intentional), and got out. Though that might be harder to prove. — schopenhauer1

I agree. And since no government in the World would be indifferent about the possibility that it really did get out of a laboratory by accident and just reply "Sorry about that!", it will be genuinely hard to prove this (or disprove). We may never know.

I'll give 1 a .9% chance, 2 a 99% chance and the last .1%. — Benkei

More like 1. a 0,999% and 3. a 0,001% as option 3 doesn't make any sense at all.
(If someone argues 1. is of 10%-20% chance, who knows.)