The Office of the Director of National Intelligence of the United States of America has, through the feedback of the Intelligence Community (IC) assessment, summarised that Covid-19 is not a biological weapon. However, the IC opines that it could have been caused by a natural occurrence or an accident at Wuhan lab.
Intriguingly, while the IC rues the fact that it lacks clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest Covid-19 cases, it has been concluded that it is not a bioweapon from China and that China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak emerged of Covid-19.
The Unclassified Summary of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure that occurred no later than November 2019 with the first known cluster of Covid-19 cases arising in Wuhan, China in December 2019.
“In addition, the IC was able to reach broad agreement on several other key issues. We judge the virus was not developed as a biological weapon. Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way. Finally, the IC assesses China’s officials did not have foreknowledge of the virus before the initial outbreak of Covid-19 emerged.” The summary further stated that the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of Covid-19.
All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99% similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favouring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications, and intelligence and scientific gaps.
Interestingly the IC judges were unable to provide a more definitive explanation for the origin of Covid-19 unless new information allows them to determine the specific pathway for initial natural contact with an animal or to determine that a laboratory in Wuhan was handling SARS- CoV-2 or a close progenitor virus before Covid-19 emerged.
The summary further states, “The IC—and the global scientific community—lack clinical samples or a complete understanding of epidemiological data from the earliest Covid-19 cases. If we obtain information on the earliest cases that identified a location of interest or occupational exposure, it may alter our evaluation of hypotheses.
China’s cooperation most likely would be needed to reach a conclusive assessment of the origins of Covid-19. Beijing, however, continues to hinder the global investigation, resist sharing information and blame other countries, including the United States. These actions reflect, in part, China’s government’s own uncertainty about where an investigation could lead as well as its frustration the international community is using the issue to exert political pressure on China.”