[keneda7]

I am assuming the 1 IC element in the link I reference below is the DOE. It claims

"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."

Based on the quote (if the one IC element is in fact the DOE) is seem they are basing it on the "inherently risky nature of the work on coronaviruses.

I do find it interesting this was given with moderate confidence but the natural occurring is only given low confidence. Any idea how the whole confidence level is determined?

See the second bullet point on key takeaways.

https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Document...

[lamontcg]

I can't explain that.

The DOE seems to have assigned "moderate" confidence to the idea of a lab leak on the basis of zero concrete evidence. Taking the assessment on the whole it seems obvious to me that the argument from them is weak, but the assessment can't come out and just state that in plain English.