You misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.
Which is funny because Delta's NS:S ratio is also very high. So by her own logic, the NS:S ratio -- what you called her "main" argument in the other thread -- has no predictive value whatsoever for the natural vs lab leak question.
The ratio is one of four "weirdnesses" laid out by the author, which a lab leak might parsimoniously explain, and which, so far, other hypotheses do not neatly or parsimoniously explain.
So for you to jump to "no predictive value" is a little odd.
Since you feel well-equipped to judge the validity of the various hypotheses for the origin of omicron, which hypothesis do you think explains the information and why?
