The nuanced finding suggests the agency believes the totality of evidence makes a lab origin more likely than a natural origin. But the agency’s assessment assigns a low degree of confidence to this conclusion, suggesting the evidence is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory.
It’s quite funny how the virus originated in a city with a lab studying precisely that kind of virus, yet judging by the comments, it’s considered outrageous to even suggest the possibility that it might have escaped from that lab.
Nobody is claiming with absolute certainty that it did, but it seems strange to completely dismiss the idea.
Are you kidding? Of course they are
Who?
You are mistaking dismissal with lack of acceptance. They are different.
The first is “I don’t accept this.” The second is “I need more to be convinced of it.”