On the lab leak theory

[Alfred001]

Is it true that the lab in Wuhan is one of only three labs in the world that do gain of function research?

If this is true, I don't understand how this could NOT be a lab leak (and please fact check me on these points, perhaps I got something wrong):

- COVID is a new variant of a previous virus

- the previous virus had only the capacity to infected bats/animals, no bat->human transmission

- gain of function modification can give a virus the ability to infect humans when it previously couldn't

- only three labs in the world do this kind of modification

- there are wet markets in Wuhan where such a virus could have originated, but presumably they exist all over China, why would it originate in the ONE place where this lab also happens to be located

With all this in mind (if all this is correct), the idea that the virus did not leak from the lab just seems preposterous. The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd. The odds of that coincidence are astronomical.

Or did I get some of my facts wrong?

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

If this is true, I don't understand how this could NOT be a lab leak (and please fact check me on these points, perhaps I got something wrong):

How does research in a lab preclude transmission in nature?

[Sensei]

The chance of winning the lottery is one in several million to hundreds of millions. Every day around the world someone wins the lottery..

 

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

- only three labs in the world do this kind of modification

Not really..

 

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

Is it true that the lab in Wuhan is one of only three labs in the world that do gain of function research?

No. You could make your own in your basement..

 

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

With all this in mind (if all this is correct), the idea that the virus did not leak from the lab just seems preposterous.

Casinos don't have to cheat to win a game when roulette is spinning..

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

The odds of that coincidence are astronomical.

Someone went to work on a farm and was hit by a rocket:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/15/europe/poland-missile-rocket-nato-przewodow-ukraine-intl/index.html

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd.

It seems you've come up with a foolproof way to prevent these types of viruses from occurring naturally. Simply build labs next to every wet market.

[CharonY]

As others mentioned, the conclusions are not logical. For example the incredulity that SARS-CoV-2 originated at one and not many wet markets rather makes sense. Jumping species is a fairly rare event so you would not expect it to happen frequently. If it did, tracing the origin would be rather impossible. To take an earlier pandemic as example, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic ("swine flu) were associated with a reassortment of viruses circulating in Eurasian and North American pigs. Genetic tracing indicates that the pandemic hat its origin in North America in swine herds. Pigs are bred everywhere, but obviously the pandemic started most likely with this event.

There are also more epidemiological work on the Wuhan market that has been the epicenter of the largest (known) outbreak. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337 

But what is perhaps more important is that OP still seems to think that genetic re-assortment, and associated development of new diseases requires some artificial intervention. In reality this is not so. There are many points of likely zoonotic spillover, which also includes our agricultural practices. There is a reason why we frequently hear of culls of thousands or even millions of livestock due to disease outbreaks. Due to immunization, treatment options and generally good access to healthcare, many countries are under the illusion that new diseases will only occur in exotic locations or, simply put, elsewhere. This, obviously a misconception. 

While we often have been lucky that many viruses e.g. in livestock do not simply jump to humans, the 2009 pandemic showed us that it does in fact happen. What we have is really a lottery and it can happen everywhere. Even if every single wet market is banned, there will be other sources. And since we are encroaching on natural habitats everywhere, we might increase the likelihood of genetic re-assortment of various as well as bacterial pathogens. 

While there are some legitimate concerns regarding pathogens escaping labs, I feel that the real issue why folks are so hung up on it, it because it seems like a much easier problem to address as the real one that were facing.

These include zoonotic diseases, accelerated by habitat loss, but also the rise of antimicrobial resistances. Often times, the big challenges (not unlike global warming) just seem too big to tackle and instead we focus on the small stuff to make us feel that we are in charge. Then we get several warning shots (e.g. SARS, MERS, swine flu, etc) and even if something big happens that forces us to face it (COVID-19) we almost immediately go back into denial. I fear that the next pandemic will come as an utter surprise as all the ones before it.

[Alfred001]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

How does research in a lab preclude transmission in nature?

So 3 such labs in the world (again, perhaps that isn't true, but you haven't contested that premise) and the virus just happens to naturally occur in one of those 3 places, you think that's reasonably likely?

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

The chance of winning the lottery is one in several million to hundreds of millions. Every day around the world someone wins the lottery..

Not analogous. Someone will necessarily win the lottery a virus isn't necessarily going to gain the ability to infect humans. Even if it did it wouldn't be analogous, because in the lottery all you're asking for is someone to win, here you're asking for an unlikely event to occur AT A PARTICULAR PLACE, when there are only 3 such places in the world.

 

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Not really..

Any ball park figure of how many? Because if it's like a 1000 or 10 000, that's still an unbelievable coincidence.

 

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

No. You could make your own in your basement..

Well, but people DON'T do this in their basements, it's only done in labs, of which there is a, presumably, small number in the world, so the point still stands.

 

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Casinos don't have to cheat to win a game when roulette is spinning..

You can't be serious. Do you realize how different the odds are of someone winning on roulette and this scenario happening???

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Someone went to work on a farm and was hit by a rocket:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/15/europe/poland-missile-rocket-nato-przewodow-ukraine-intl/index.html

Well, yeah, they live next to a war zone. Improbable, but not even in the same universe of improbability as this.

 

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

It seems you've come up with a foolproof way to prevent these types of viruses from occurring naturally. Simply build labs next to every wet market.

lol, no, because then a virus occurring naturally in a place where there is also a lab doing gain of function research wouldn't be improbable.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

As others mentioned, the conclusions are not logical. For example the incredulity that SARS-CoV-2 originated at one and not many wet markets rather makes sense.

I never argued that it doesn't, of course if it originated in a wet market it would have started spreading from one. It's not part of my case that spreading from one rather than many doesn't make sense.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Jumping species is a fairly rare event so you would not expect it to happen frequently.

Exactly, that's part of my argument. The idea that this rare event would just have happened to occur naturally at one of only few places in the world where it could also have happened becuase someone MADE it happen (point being, much more likely to happen if someone is trying to make it happen than to just happen) is unbelievably improbable. I mean, it's so obviously improbable on the face of it, I find it hard to believe anyone takes the natural provenance theory seriously.

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

But what is perhaps more important is that OP still seems to think that genetic re-assortment, and associated development of new diseases requires some artificial intervention.

No! Another claim I just didn't make. OF COURSE I don't think that nor does my case hinge on that.

Quote

What we have is really a lottery and it can happen everywhere. Even if every single wet market is banned, there will be other sources.

You are arguing for my case here. If the virus could happen anywhere and not just at any wet market in China, that makes its emergence at a place where a lab is also located all the more improbable.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Alfred001

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

So 3 such labs in the world (again, perhaps that isn't true, but you haven't contested that premise) and the virus just happens to naturally occur in one of those 3 places, you think that's reasonably likely?

Likely isn’t the issue. Unlikely things happen all the time.

Saying that something couldn’t have happened because it wasn’t likely is an incredibly naïve argument.

[CharonY]

If unlikely is the same as impossible, we would neither have viruses nor organisms to carry them on Earth. I am also skeptical that there are only three labs doing gain-of-function type of research claim.

Gain-of-function programs have been under scrutiny, but there are quite a few virology labs do "regular" functional research. There is a point where these studies could lead to a gain of function (intentionally or not) but where this point is has been under discussion at least since 2011. These genetic studies are more common, but typically still require BSL3 conditions of which there are at least over a hundred in China (and over a thousand in the US). 

But again, the overall logic of the argument is faulty to begin with.

 

[zapatos]

15 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd.

The push back you are getting is because your wording implies the presence of a lab affects the probability of this event having occurred at the location it did.

You wouldn't be getting the same reaction if you had simply stated that the presence of the lab near the origin of the virus is suspicious and should be investigated.

[Alfred001]

On 11/30/2022 at 3:10 PM, swansont said:

Likely isn’t the issue. Unlikely things happen all the time.

Saying that something couldn’t have happened because it wasn’t likely is an incredibly naïve argument.

Quote

If unlikely is the same as impossible, we would neither have viruses nor organisms to carry them on Earth.

Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow?

If you have two explanations of an event and one involves an improbability that is so extreme it's hard even to intuitively conceptualize and the other doesn't, OBVIOUSLY the right explanation is the one that doesn't involve astronomical improbabilities.

On 11/30/2022 at 3:57 PM, CharonY said:

But again, the overall logic of the argument is faulty to begin with.

Which part?

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow?

Where did the lab get a virus?

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow?

If you have two explanations of an event and one involves an improbability that is so extreme it's hard even to intuitively conceptualize and the other doesn't, OBVIOUSLY the right explanation is the one that doesn't involve astronomical improbabilities.

Which part?

But the zoonotic explanation of the origin of the virus is not "astronomically unlikely". We've seen it before on several occasions. Do you really think most of the world's virologists are fools, while you are the genius to spot the flaw in their thinking? Get real. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

Jesus, guys, OBVIOUSLY the argument isn't that unlikely things are impossible. It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus, there is also a perfectly ordinary explanation that doesn't involve any kind of astronomical unlikelihood - the virus leaked from the lab - follow?

Why is it astronomically (excuse me, ASTRONOMICALLY) unlikely? Where do you think other viruses came from before we had research labs?

 

1 hour ago, Alfred001 said:

If you have two explanations of an event and one involves an improbability that is so extreme it's hard even to intuitively conceptualize and the other doesn't, OBVIOUSLY the right explanation is the one that doesn't involve astronomical improbabilities.

Which part?

One issue here is your insistence that an event is unlikely, without any justification. Another is the line of reasoning that if you can’t wrap your head around something, it must be wrong. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus

When you don't understand it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions.

[CharonY]

I also think that OP severely misunderstands the lab leak hypothesis. The assumption is not that it was some gain-of-function study gone wild. While that thought circulated for a little bit, the utter lack of any evidence has pretty much discredited it. Lab leak actually refers to a scenario where workers in the lab unknowingly got infected by one of the viruses they have been sequencing from wildlife.

Leaks from such labs are not unheard of with examples throughout the world (including UK and US) so at least it is possible. The issue is that while it is possible to trace a leak back to a lab, it is quite harder to prove that it in fact did not happen, especially when China is involved and where political factors may play a role.

But again, OP is arguing quite a different scenario.

[Arete]

8 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

 It's that, along with the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely explanation of the origin of the virus

You haven't cited any recombination rates, so any likelihood of in natura recombination remains speculative (at least in the context of this thread). 

So let's cite some rates: The empirically measured recombination rates of various human associated Coronaviridae are around 1 x 10^-6. Which is actually pretty high in the grad scheme of recombination rates. So recombination is actually pretty frequent, disputing the claim that emergence of a recombinant, host switching strain is "ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely". 

Next, lets look at some calibrated phylogenetics: "Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades."

So, not only do we have high recombination rates in the virus, making the emergence of novel recombinant variants a regular occurrence in nature, we have empirical data which demonstrates that the emergence of SARS-COV-2 predates its subsequent spillover and discovery by decades. 

Pending extraordinary evidence to the contrary, this resoundingly debunks the so-called Lab Leak "theory". 

[Alfred001]

On 12/3/2022 at 3:06 PM, swansont said:

Why is it astronomically (excuse me, ASTRONOMICALLY) unlikely? Where do you think other viruses came from before we had research labs?

On 12/3/2022 at 10:20 PM, Arete said:

You haven't cited any recombination rates, so any likelihood of in natura recombination remains speculative (at least in the context of this thread). 

So let's cite some rates: The empirically measured recombination rates of various human associated Coronaviridae are around 1 x 10^-6. Which is actually pretty high in the grad scheme of recombination rates. So recombination is actually pretty frequent, disputing the claim that emergence of a recombinant, host switching strain is "ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely". 

Next, lets look at some calibrated phylogenetics: "Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades."

So, not only do we have high recombination rates in the virus, making the emergence of novel recombinant variants a regular occurrence in nature, we have empirical data which demonstrates that the emergence of SARS-COV-2 predates its subsequent spillover and discovery by decades. 

Pending extraordinary evidence to the contrary, this resoundingly debunks the so-called Lab Leak "theory". 

On 12/3/2022 at 1:36 PM, exchemist said:

But the zoonotic explanation of the origin of the virus is not "astronomically unlikely". We've seen it before on several occasions.

My argument is not that zoonotic origin of a virus is unlikely, my argument is that the location of the supposedly zoonotic origin coinciding with one of vanishingly small number of places on the Earth where there's also a lab that makes precisely such modifications artificially is an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

I've restated my position and corrected misapprehension of it so many times now. I don't understand why I have to reexplain it so many times, it's such a simple point.

On 12/3/2022 at 3:06 PM, swansont said:

One issue here is your insistence that an event is unlikely, without any justification.

This is amazing.

You don't think that a virus gaining ability to infect humans naturally at one of 3 places in the world where there's also a lab that does that artificially, rather than ANYWHERE ELSE on Earth, is an unlikely coincidence? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear your answer.

On 12/3/2022 at 3:06 PM, swansont said:

Another is the line of reasoning that if you can’t wrap your head around something, it must be wrong. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

🤦‍♂️ That was a way of expressing how improbable the coincidence is, OBVIOUSLY.

On 12/3/2022 at 9:16 PM, CharonY said:

I also think that OP severely misunderstands the lab leak hypothesis. The assumption is not that it was some gain-of-function study gone wild. While that thought circulated for a little bit, the utter lack of any evidence has pretty much discredited it.

The improbability of the coincidence is the evidence, obviously.

What kind of evidence was looked for and not found which was the basis of the dismissal of the theory? What was the evidence that, if found, would have proved the theory or gone to its favor?

On 12/3/2022 at 9:16 PM, CharonY said:

Lab leak actually refers to a scenario where workers in the lab unknowingly got infected by one of the viruses they have been sequencing from wildlife.

If they had been sequencing it from wildlife, how is the origin a lab leak, rather than wildlife where they sequenced the virus from to begin with? Because it was wildlife from unpopulated areas?

Edited December 25, 2022 by Alfred001

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

My argument is not that zoonotic origin of a virus is unlikely, my argument is that the location of the supposedly zoonotic origin coinciding with one of vanishingly small number of places on the Earth where there's also a lab that makes precisely such modifications artificially is an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

I don’t see where you’ve calculated any probabilities. How do you conclude that this is astronomically unlikely? Just how small is such a probability?

Isn’t a zoonotic origin more likely in a large population center where there are wet markets? How many of them are there?

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

my argument is that the location of the supposedly zoonotic origin coinciding with one of vanishingly small number of places on the Earth where there's also a lab that makes precisely such modifications artificially is an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

Well, that is your argument NOW. After your original argument...

Quote

The idea that this virus would just happen to emerge naturally in one of only three places on Earth where it also could have emerged artificially is absurd.

...was shown to be ridiculous.

It is easy to present yourself as being 'right and reasonable' if you move the goalposts at a later date.

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

My argument is not that zoonotic origin of a virus is unlikely, my argument is that the location of the supposedly zoonotic origin coinciding with one of vanishingly small number of places on the Earth where there's also a lab that makes precisely such modifications artificially is an astronomically unlikely coincidence.

I've restated my position and corrected misapprehension of it so many times now. I don't understand why I have to reexplain it so many times, it's such a simple point.

This is amazing.

You don't think that a virus gaining ability to infect humans naturally at one of 3 places in the world where there's also a lab that does that artificially, rather than ANYWHERE ELSE on Earth, is an unlikely coincidence? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear your answer.

🤦‍♂️ That was a way of expressing how improbable the coincidence is, OBVIOUSLY.

The improbability of the coincidence is the evidence, obviously.

What kind of evidence was looked for and not found which was the basis of the dismissal of the theory? What was the evidence that, if found, would have proved the theory or gone to its favor?

If they had been sequencing it from wildlife, how is the origin a lab leak, rather than wildlife where they sequenced the virus from to begin with? Because it was wildlife from unpopulated areas?

You are making a mistake regarding probability. If there is a one in 1000 probability of you stubbing your toe on any given day, then doing so on the first Sunday of the year when there is a full moon does not make that probability lower. It is still 1 in 1000. 

So if there is a certain probability of the virus being zoonotic in origin, based on previous experiences of zoonotic viruses of this type, that is not reduced by the virus being found at a place where there is a virus lab.  

Edited December 25, 2022 by exchemist

[Arete]

8 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

I've restated my position and corrected misapprehension of it so many times now. I don't understand why I have to reexplain it so many times, it's such a simple point.

Phylogenetic analysis demonstrates that the evolutionary origin of SARS COV 2 significantly predates the existence of the Wuhan lab. Your simple point is at odds with the data, and repetition of conjecture which ignores said data remains uncompelling. 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Arete

[swansont]

“Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories.”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119

 

That would change the alleged odds. Quite dramatically, I would say. If, say, half of the major cities had such labs, and that’s where such an outbreak would be expected…

50% doesn’t seem astronomically small, but that’s just me.

[Alfred001]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t see where you’ve calculated any probabilities. How do you conclude that this is astronomically unlikely? Just how small is such a probability?

Isn’t a zoonotic origin more likely in a large population center where there are wet markets? How many of them are there?

All over China is my understanding.

Another significant question is how many novel virus outbreaks have there been in China and how many in the world over, say, the last 50 years. If they happen very frequently, that increases the odds of a coincidence happening and the odds would perhaps not be as minuscule as I'd initially thought them to be.  Anyone know the answer?

Did avian and swine flu both come from Chinese wet markets?

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Well, that is your argument NOW. After your original argument...

...was shown to be ridiculous.

It is easy to present yourself as being 'right and reasonable' if you move the goalposts at a later date.

??? The two bits you quoted are the exact same argument.

17 hours ago, exchemist said:

You are making a mistake regarding probability. If there is a one in 1000 probability of you stubbing your toe on any given day, then doing so on the first Sunday of the year when there is a full moon does not make that probability lower. It is still 1 in 1000. 

So if there is a certain probability of the virus being zoonotic in origin, based on previous experiences of zoonotic viruses of this type, that is not reduced by the virus being found at a place where there is a virus lab.  

That's like saying that if you give a monkey a typewriter, the odds of him typing out antidisestablishmentarianism by banging the keys is equal to any equally long string of gibberish. How does it affect the probability of him hitting that sequence of keys that it happens to mean something in English? From the standpoint of banging the keys randomly, it's just a sequence of letters of a particular length and equally likely to get hit as any other random sequence of letters of equal length.

Furthermore, in your scenario, there isn't an alternative explanation to chance to why you stubbed your toe on that day. Here we have two explanations of an event:

1. random evolution that happens to coincide with one of 3 places where the "evolution" could have not been random (again the 3 places premise may be faulty, but that was the original premise and we're debating probability now)
2. this is a place where such alterations are done on purpose, not randomly, and there happened to be a lapse in security measures

16 hours ago, Arete said:

Phylogenetic analysis demonstrates that the evolutionary origin of SARS COV 2 significantly predates the existence of the Wuhan lab. Your simple point is at odds with the data, and repetition of conjecture which ignores said data remains uncompelling. 

Can you give a source on that? Not that I think you're making ti up, I'd just like to read it.

Also, has it demonstrated that specifically the original variant with ability to infect humans predates the lab? Because, from what I understand, this is a virus that's been around a long time, but only recently gained the ability to infect humans.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

“Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories.”

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214427119

 

That would change the alleged odds. Quite dramatically, I would say. If, say, half of the major cities had such labs, and that’s where such an outbreak would be expected…

50% doesn’t seem astronomically small, but that’s just me.

But do all those labs do gain of function research? If they do, that would indeed refute the premise my position hinges on.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

All over China is my understanding.

Another significant question is how many novel virus outbreaks have there been in China and how many in the world over, say, the last 50 years. If they happen very frequently, that increases the odds of a coincidence happening and the odds would perhaps not be as minuscule as I'd initially thought them to be.  Anyone know the answer?

Did avian and swine flu both come from Chinese wet markets?

??? The two bits you quoted are the exact same argument.

That's like saying that if you give a monkey a typewriter, the odds of him typing out antidisestablishmentarianism by banging the keys is equal to any equally long string of gibberish. How does it affect the probability of him hitting that sequence of keys that it happens to mean something in English? From the standpoint of banging the keys randomly, it's just a sequence of letters of a particular length and equally likely to get hit as any other random sequence of letters of equal length.

Furthermore, in your scenario, there isn't an alternative explanation to chance to why you stubbed your toe on that day. Here we have two explanations of an event:

1. random evolution that happens to coincide with one of 3 places where the "evolution" could have not been random (again the 3 places premise may be faulty, but that was the original premise and we're debating probability now)
2. this is a place where such alterations are done on purpose, not randomly, and there happened to be a lapse in security measures

Can you give a source on that? Not that I think you're making ti up, I'd just like to read it.

Also, has it demonstrated that specifically the original variant with ability to infect humans predates the lab? Because, from what I understand, this is a virus that's been around a long time, but only recently gained the ability to infect humans.

But do all those labs do gain of function research? If they do, that would indeed refute the premise my position hinges on.

No it isn’t.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

??? The two bits you quoted are the exact same argument.

That may be the issue we are having here. They are not the same at all.

The first point of yours I mentioned basically says it is unlikely to occur ("unlikely coincidence"). It is also unlikely I'll win the lottery. It's a one in a million chance.

The second point of yours I mentioned basically says it didn't occur ("the idea is absurd"). The idea that I am the person who won the lottery is not absurd at all. People just like me win the lottery all the time.