The Office of the Director of National Intelligence unveiled details about scientists at Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in 2019 before the first documented Covid infections, as well as coronavirus research conducted at the lab by the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. However, none of the released intelligence definitively pointed to lab-related work as the cause of the pandemic, which has caused nearly 7 million deaths.

The report comes months after President Joe Biden signed a bill into law requiring declassification of intelligence related to the pandemics potential links to the lab. It will do little to settle the hotly contested debate over how Covid-19 started, already the source of partisan clashes and probes.

Its also far from the final word on how the pandemic got its start. Intelligence officials have said theyre still seeking key information from China.

When President Biden signed the Covid-19 Origin Act, he directed the intelligence community to use every tool at its disposal to investigate the origin of Covid-19, White House National Security Council spokesperson Adam Hodge said in an emailed statement. The release of this report reflects that commitment to declassify and share as much information as possible related to the origins of Covid-19, while protecting sources and methods.

The US had issued similar reports previously, and origins-tracing of Covid-19 is about science and should not be politicized, said Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington.

The US should stop rehashing the lab leak narrative, stop smearing China and stop politicizing origins-tracing issue, Liu said in a statement. Experts of the World Health Organization-China joint mission had authoritatively concluded a lab origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely, he said.

Missed Deadline

The Biden administration missed the June 18 deadline to release the declassified intelligence. It coincided with US Secretary of State Antony Blinkens long-awaited trip to Beijing, where he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in an effort to restore communications between senior leadership and the countries militaries. 

The trip, initially set to take place in February, was pushed back in the wake of furor over an alleged Chinese spy balloon spotted over US territory. Biden signed the law requiring that Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines release the declassified information in March. 

The new report builds on prior findings, including a State Department report from January 2021 that suggested that the US government had reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan lab became sick in 2019, before the first identified case of the Covid-19 outbreak, with symptoms consistent with the virus and common seasonal illnesses. 

The ODNI report stated that there is no indication the researchers were hospitalized due to Covid, and that the intelligence community couldnt confirm if any of the researchers had handled live viruses before falling ill. 

The report acknowledged that Wuhan researchers have collaborated with the Peoples Liberation Army on public-health research that included coronaviruses, and vaccines and treatments for such viruses, though no known research that could have led to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. 

Some scientists at the Wuhan institute have genetically engineered coronaviruses using common lab practices, the report said, adding that its not aware of manipulations of viruses that could have been the source of SARS-CoV-2. 

The report also identified safety and security issues at the institute that could have increased the risk of accidental exposure to viruses. The intelligence community said its not aware of a specific biosafety incident that may have spurred the pandemic.

Lab-Leak Hypothesis 

To date, the US intelligence community has shared few details about the information its gathered since the outset of the pandemic. 

Last year, the agencies concluded two causes were plausible: The virus emerged in animals and spread to humans, or that it sprang from an incident at a lab in Wuhan. Despite disagreement among the agencies about which hypothesis was more likely, the intelligence community concurred that Covid-19 wasnt developed intentionally as a biological weapon.

The FBI and the Department of Energy have both said, with low-to-moderate confidence, the lab-leak theory is possible. Thats remained a minority view, and most other groups consider human exposure to an infected animal more likely.

The report also said most, but not all, of the intelligence agencies ruled out that Covid-19 was genetically engineered or lab adapted.

With assistance by Madison Muller

The first round of the NBA draft averaged a record 4,928,000 viewers on ESPN and ABC according to Nielsen. This is the third year that the first round has been on both networks.

It was also the most-viewed program across television for the night.

The audience peaked at 6,085,000 during the first 15 minutes (8-8:15 p.m. ET) when the French phenom was drafted. The first round was also 33% higher compared to 2003, when LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Carmelo Anthony were selected. That was also the first year that ESPN began carrying the draft after it had aired on Turner Sports from 1985 through 2002.

Overall, draft coverage for both rounds on ESPN averaged 3,743,000 viewers, a 23% increase over last year.

As a researcher who studies hospitality and tourism management, I pay attention to the trends in tourism and study ways in which organizations like theme parks and resorts operate and change over time.

Tourists are generally seeking more authentic experiences that occur without prescribed paths or known endpoints. Technology can often make the extreme environments of adventure tourism more safe, but at the bottom of the ocean, the vacuum of space or the cold of a mountain summit the consequences of failure can be high.

Adventure tourism as authentic tourism

In recent years, there has been a trend in the tourism industry toward authentic experiences. More and more, people want to experience something unique and not in a preprogrammed or controlled setting.

An example of the difference between authentic and inauthentic tourism is the difference between a zoo and a safari. Zoos are built to allow large crowds of people to easily view unique and often dangerous animals. Zoos are typically a spectator experience and are very safe, but they offer little opportunity for visitors to interact with the animals.

A safari in Africa, by comparison, provides a much more authentic experience by removing a lot of the safety barriers between you and the animals. Most safaris bring a limited number of tourists, with guides who can provide closer interaction with the animals in their real environment. This, of course, also increases the risk for tourists, as the barriers and safety features found in a zoo dont exist in the wild. The sense of danger that comes from authentic tourism often adds to the adventurous travelers experience.

The final appeal of adventure tourism is the status or prestige of a dangerous, expensive trip. Almost everyone can afford to visit a local zoo, whereas an African safari requires a level of spending that is a display of your status and income.

The same authenticity, danger and prestige apply to many types of adventure tourism, whether it is mountaineering, space tourism or trips to the bottom of the ocean.

Technology doesnt always mean safety

As technologies have improved, companies and tourists have been able to push the limits of safety for many activities. For example, over the past 30 years, roller coasters have gotten progressively taller, faster and more extreme to capture the attention of thrill-seekers. These rides are able to maintain high levels of safety thanks to better engineering and technology.

The narrative that advanced technology provides safety in extreme situations typically helps to reassure tourists the activity they choose to engage in is safe. The reality is that any activity whether its crossing the street or visiting the wreck of the Titanic will always carry some level of risk. The problem is that many of these extreme activities take place in very dangerous environments and have incredibly small margins for error. When something does go wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic or, as with the case of the Titan submarine, fatal.

Prevalence and legal limits

It is hard to get exact numbers on extreme tourism deaths per year, but when these sad events do occur, they typically receive a lot of attention from the press. As a tourism researcher, I follow these types of stories and feel comfortable saying that very few occur in the U.S.

In the U.S., there are federal, state and local tourism boards and agencies. More often than not, specialized agencies regulate activities most relevant to their areas of expertise for example, the Federal Aviation Administration regulates space tourism, and national park and state park agencies permit mountaineering in many places. These organizations generally promote tourism and safe practices, but no amount of regulation and oversight can absolutely guarantee anyones safety. And for many activities, like deep-water tours, there is no mandatory certification process.

Perhaps the best advice for people seeking authentic, thrilling experiences would be to use the idea of buyer beware. If you are choosing to engage in extreme tourism, ask questions about what safety procedures are in place for whatever activity you are choosing to do. And if you are not comfortable with the answers you get, move on to another company or activity.

Scott Smith is Associate Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With new construction activity at the highest level in more than a year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlantas GDPNow tracker is projecting residential investment added 0.1% to growth in gross domestic product in the second quarter. Though it may not sound like much, that would mark the first positive contribution since early 2021.

The new-home market has been slowly coming out of the woods as falling materials costs and vanishing logistics constraints have allowed builders to work their way through pandemic-era backlogs. Limited availability in the resale market is also pushing many prospective buyers toward new construction, helping support demand even as mortgage rates remain elevated.

Construction was at the center of the storm for the surge in inflation and the supply-chain turmoil of 2021 and 2022, said Bill Adams, chief economist at Comerica Bank. The recent good news for construction makes it easier to imagine a soft or at least soft-ish landing for the economy.

Government data out earlier this week showed new construction surged in May by the most since 2016, and applications for permits to build a proxy of future activity also rose. The unexpected increase sent homebuilding stocks rallying to a fresh all-time high and helped explain why builder sentiment is the most upbeat in almost a year.

A growing number of prospective buyers are opting for new homes amid limited availability in the resale market, where high mortgage rates have had a big impact. Before the pandemic, existing properties made up about 90% of all homes for sale a number that as of April was closer to 70%.

Monetary Policy

Much continues to hinge on the outlook for monetary policy. The Fed has already raised its benchmark interest rate by five percentage points in a little over a year, and further increases could start to weigh on new-home construction again, said Priscilla Thiagamoorthy, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Now that the Fed has continued to signal that rate hikes are still at play, we wont see further improvement from here, Thiagamoorthy said. If rates continue to rise more than one more time, that does risk the chance of a harder landing.

Another risk is that the number of homes under construction could fall as backlogs ease and applications for permits lag the pace of housing starts. Elevated inventories of new homes could also make builders hesitant to boost output, which risks limiting upside momentum in residential investment.

Still, after subtracting from growth for the longest stretch since 2005-2009, home construction is finally poised to offer the economy some breathing room at a time when other sectors are starting to cool.  

Ahead of this weeks slew of housing data, Wells Fargo & Co. economists were anticipating residential investment to be a drag on GDP growth for the remainder of the year.

Now, I would say some of the stronger-than-expected housing data means that theres some upside risk to that forecast, said Charles Dougherty, a senior economist at Wells Fargo. Were not looking for a massive run-up in new construction, but some modest pace seems very likely.