The Origin Question: Markets Give 27% Odds COVID Came from a Lab

More than five years after COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, the question of its origins remains unresolved. On prediction markets, with over 2,000 forecasters participating, the probability of laboratory origin stands at 27%. This represents neither confident assertion of natural spillover nor acceptance of the lab leak hypothesis—but genuine uncertainty that reflects the available evidence.

The 27% Figure

At 27%, forecasters see lab origin as a meaningful possibility but not the most likely explanation. This probability has shifted over time:

• Early pandemic: Lab leak was dismissed by many experts and media
• 2021-2022: Evidence emerged supporting the possibility; probability rose
• 2023-2025: Investigations produced mixed findings; probability stabilized

The current 27% reflects a mature assessment: lab origin is possible, natural spillover remains more likely, and definitive proof may never emerge.

The Evidence Landscape

Arguments for natural spillover (the ~73% case):

• Most pandemics historically have zoonotic origins
• SARS-CoV-2's closest relatives are found in bats
• Wuhan's wet market was an early transmission site
• No definitive evidence of lab manipulation has been found

Arguments for lab origin (the ~27% case):

• Wuhan hosts a major coronavirus research lab
• No intermediate animal host has been identified
• The virus was unusually well-adapted to humans upon emergence
• China has blocked transparent investigation
• Some U.S. intelligence agencies favor lab leak hypothesis

The Proof Problem

A telling secondary market: just 1.2% probability that lab leak will be "proven" by 2027. Even those who believe lab origin is possible recognize that definitive proof faces enormous obstacles:

• China controls the relevant evidence
• Direct witnesses may face pressure to remain silent
• Physical evidence may no longer exist
• "Proof" to scientific consensus standards is extremely high

The gap between "probably happened" (27%) and "will be proven" (1.2%) illustrates how geopolitics constrains investigation.

Why It Matters

The origins question isn't merely historical curiosity:

Biosecurity policy: If lab leak occurred, it strengthens the case for stricter biosafety regulations on gain-of-function research.

International relations: Lab origin, especially if covered up, would fundamentally affect U.S.-China relations.

Future pandemic prevention: Understanding how COVID emerged helps prevent the next pandemic.

Accountability: Millions died. If human error caused this pandemic, that has moral and potentially legal implications.

The Political Dimension

COVID origins became intensely politicized. Lab leak was initially associated with Trump administration rhetoric and dismissed by many as conspiracy theory. The subsequent rehabilitation of the hypothesis as legitimate scientific question illustrates how politics distorted the discussion.

Markets, with financial stakes, arguably provided more accurate probability estimates than politically charged expert commentary throughout.

What 27% Means

Neither lab leak believers nor natural spillover proponents should feel vindicated by 27%:

• It's too high to dismiss lab leak as conspiracy theory
• It's too low to assert lab leak as established fact
• It reflects genuine uncertainty that may never resolve
• It suggests appropriate epistemic humility about a complex question

Conclusion

COVID-19's origins may remain uncertain indefinitely. At 27%, forecasters see meaningful probability of laboratory involvement but not enough evidence to override the prior that pandemics typically have natural origins. The question illuminates both the limits of scientific investigation when geopolitics intervene and the value of prediction markets in quantifying contested uncertainties.

---

Analysis informed by aggregated forecaster data from Manifold Markets as of January 20, 2026.