The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
The Case Against the Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory
https://newrepublic.com/article/162689/bats-covid-19-lab-leak-theory
211 comments
The article covered this.
When collecting samples from the wild they aren't collecting viable virus, they're collecting samples which have mRNA in them. Those samples just won't infect anyone at all.
While collecting the samples they're of course exposed to the environment and could have gotten sick, but they have dramatically less exposure to the environment that the workers who collect bat guano for fertilizer in China, or the people who clean the cages in the wet markets. It would be highly unlikely that one of them was naturally patient zero when there's a million times more human exposure going on in China. And hopefully they were wearing respirators in the caves and mines since they know the risks.
When it comes to the live virus the problem is that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't look like any other known virus. The difference between it and RaTG13 is still 4% which is like the difference between us and gorillas. It is a few decades of viral evolution and serial passage through many millions of hosts away. So for a lab that was all about finding new sequences and publishing them they would have had to keep this new viral backbone perfectly secret, they would have had to keep this new ACE2-infecting spike protein perfectly secret. Then there would have had to be some novel lab accident since SARS-CoV-2 requires aerosolized particles to be breathed in, you don't get it off surface transmission so the petri dish binding studies don't produce an environment where a lab accident is very possible.
When collecting samples from the wild they aren't collecting viable virus, they're collecting samples which have mRNA in them. Those samples just won't infect anyone at all.
While collecting the samples they're of course exposed to the environment and could have gotten sick, but they have dramatically less exposure to the environment that the workers who collect bat guano for fertilizer in China, or the people who clean the cages in the wet markets. It would be highly unlikely that one of them was naturally patient zero when there's a million times more human exposure going on in China. And hopefully they were wearing respirators in the caves and mines since they know the risks.
When it comes to the live virus the problem is that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't look like any other known virus. The difference between it and RaTG13 is still 4% which is like the difference between us and gorillas. It is a few decades of viral evolution and serial passage through many millions of hosts away. So for a lab that was all about finding new sequences and publishing them they would have had to keep this new viral backbone perfectly secret, they would have had to keep this new ACE2-infecting spike protein perfectly secret. Then there would have had to be some novel lab accident since SARS-CoV-2 requires aerosolized particles to be breathed in, you don't get it off surface transmission so the petri dish binding studies don't produce an environment where a lab accident is very possible.
"When collecting samples from the wild they aren't collecting viable virus, they're collecting samples which have mRNA in them. Those samples just won't infect anyone at all."
None of this is right. RNA (of which mRNA is just a subtype) is extremely unstable and degrades almost immediately unless carefully protected, which is why viruses need a capsid and why mRNA vaccines need cold chains. You can't just touch some animal and collect raw RNA. Also the only type of thing a virologist could recover from a bat of any interest to them is viable virus because their whole goal is to study actual viruses.
"Then there would have had to be some novel lab accident since SARS-CoV-2 requires aerosolized particles to be breathed in"
There's nothing unexpected about that. These supposedly novel lab accidents happen all the time. Viruses constantly escape from labs. SARS1 has escaped in China many times, and the last foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK came from a lab that had captured samples from the previous outbreak and kept them replicating.
"petri dish binding studies don't produce an environment where a lab accident is very possible"
Virologists don't only try to grow viruses in petri dishes. Look up serial passage. Animals are frequently used for that purpose. The WIV has been found to have been developing and buying bat cages. It's not really disputed that they were infecting live animals with viruses.
None of this is right. RNA (of which mRNA is just a subtype) is extremely unstable and degrades almost immediately unless carefully protected, which is why viruses need a capsid and why mRNA vaccines need cold chains. You can't just touch some animal and collect raw RNA. Also the only type of thing a virologist could recover from a bat of any interest to them is viable virus because their whole goal is to study actual viruses.
"Then there would have had to be some novel lab accident since SARS-CoV-2 requires aerosolized particles to be breathed in"
There's nothing unexpected about that. These supposedly novel lab accidents happen all the time. Viruses constantly escape from labs. SARS1 has escaped in China many times, and the last foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK came from a lab that had captured samples from the previous outbreak and kept them replicating.
"petri dish binding studies don't produce an environment where a lab accident is very possible"
Virologists don't only try to grow viruses in petri dishes. Look up serial passage. Animals are frequently used for that purpose. The WIV has been found to have been developing and buying bat cages. It's not really disputed that they were infecting live animals with viruses.
Yeah I meant RNA but it was early in the morning and my fingers autocorrected to mRNA.
And many samples ARE degraded and only partial reads can be recovered.
> “These samples are not like huge vials of blood,” Rasmussen said. “It’s not like a big Erlenmeyer flask of green liquid.” Researchers would have to grow the virus in cells in order to stand a real chance of infecting people, she added, and it’s difficult to grow viruses from these swabbed samples even if you try to. There’s not much virus in them, and what you get tends to be contaminated with virus-killing detritus. “Technically it’s very challenging to directly isolate virus from field samples from wild animals. So that makes it unlikely that just handling those samples would result in some kind of infection.” Finally, Rasmussen added, the chemical solution that’s used to stabilize the viral RNA for sequencing is a very potent disinfectant its own right.
(from the title article)
PCR amplification means that you can find the needle in the haystack and find enough RNA to construct aa genome out of it. A lot of the time you only get partial reads or don't get the whole genome. There isn't enough viable virus there in order to infect anyone.
And many samples ARE degraded and only partial reads can be recovered.
> “These samples are not like huge vials of blood,” Rasmussen said. “It’s not like a big Erlenmeyer flask of green liquid.” Researchers would have to grow the virus in cells in order to stand a real chance of infecting people, she added, and it’s difficult to grow viruses from these swabbed samples even if you try to. There’s not much virus in them, and what you get tends to be contaminated with virus-killing detritus. “Technically it’s very challenging to directly isolate virus from field samples from wild animals. So that makes it unlikely that just handling those samples would result in some kind of infection.” Finally, Rasmussen added, the chemical solution that’s used to stabilize the viral RNA for sequencing is a very potent disinfectant its own right.
(from the title article)
PCR amplification means that you can find the needle in the haystack and find enough RNA to construct aa genome out of it. A lot of the time you only get partial reads or don't get the whole genome. There isn't enough viable virus there in order to infect anyone.
You skipped over the second part of my response. I'll point it out again:
"Researchers would have to grow the virus in cells in order to stand a real chance of infecting people"
They were filing patents on designs for bat cages. Videos from inside the WIV before COVID showed live bats. They were doing far more than growing virus in cells, they were growing them in live animals, as virologists typically do.
"PCR amplification means that you can find the needle in the haystack and find enough RNA to construct aa genome out of it"
This would be relevant if virologists were mere lab technicians running PCR tests, but they aren't.
"Researchers would have to grow the virus in cells in order to stand a real chance of infecting people"
They were filing patents on designs for bat cages. Videos from inside the WIV before COVID showed live bats. They were doing far more than growing virus in cells, they were growing them in live animals, as virologists typically do.
"PCR amplification means that you can find the needle in the haystack and find enough RNA to construct aa genome out of it"
This would be relevant if virologists were mere lab technicians running PCR tests, but they aren't.
The difference between us and gorillas is best understood as the number of genes, not the % of nucleotides. Virus genomes are much, much smaller.
Since viruses can multiply so quickly, when grown in large numbers of lab mice they can mutate relatively quickly into something with a "desirable" trait.
In fact if as you say the virus has passed through millions of wild hosts on its way to being perfectly adapted to infecting human lungs, why has no one found even one of those millions of hosts?
Since viruses can multiply so quickly, when grown in large numbers of lab mice they can mutate relatively quickly into something with a "desirable" trait.
In fact if as you say the virus has passed through millions of wild hosts on its way to being perfectly adapted to infecting human lungs, why has no one found even one of those millions of hosts?
They're still several decades of evolution away, given how fast viruses mutate in the wild.
> We confirm that a direct proximal ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 is yet to be sampled, since the closest relative shared a common ancestor with SARS-CoV-2 approximately 40 years ago
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427830v3
And do you have any idea how many animals there are in China? There's 1.4 billion people to start with. There's 100 to 100,000 more vertebrates than people in the world. Take even 50,000 samples and you're still barely scraping the surface.
> We confirm that a direct proximal ancestor to SARS-CoV-2 is yet to be sampled, since the closest relative shared a common ancestor with SARS-CoV-2 approximately 40 years ago
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.22.427830v3
And do you have any idea how many animals there are in China? There's 1.4 billion people to start with. There's 100 to 100,000 more vertebrates than people in the world. Take even 50,000 samples and you're still barely scraping the surface.
Didn't the article cover the scenarios you mentioned? The article said that the lab's normal job was to look for new bat viruses, and that it's pretty hard to get infected from a qtip swabbed over a bats anus stored in a stabilizing solution. The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin, and it's not unusual for it to take many years to figure these things out.
> The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin
Keep in mind that circumstantial evidence is also evidence: such as the earliest cases happening in a single-digit mile radius from one of the worlds few labs studying gain-of-function in coronaviruses, while bats are hibernating, a thousand miles from the nearest bat colony, and the extraordinary response and threats re calls for investigation from officials.
To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth.
Keep in mind that circumstantial evidence is also evidence: such as the earliest cases happening in a single-digit mile radius from one of the worlds few labs studying gain-of-function in coronaviruses, while bats are hibernating, a thousand miles from the nearest bat colony, and the extraordinary response and threats re calls for investigation from officials.
To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth.
I'm not sure about your statement saying the earliest cases were near the wuhan lab. Do you have a source for that? I've seen the opposite, that there is genetic evidence that the virus originated 600 miles south of Wuhan, where there are bats:
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types. [0].
The above would imply that the markets in Wuhan were a super-spreader site for covid-19, but not the origin.
Coronaviruses in bats and jumping from bats to humans is incredibly common, with 3% of people they randomly tested in bat cave areas with bat coronavirus antibodies [1], which this source extrapolated to mean that 1-7 million people a year are infected by various bat viruses.
I agree with you that genetic evidence is the strongest evidence we have at this point.
> To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth
Would be interesting if some lab tried to duplicate some of this theorized tricky editing, to prove it could be done.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types. [0].
The above would imply that the markets in Wuhan were a super-spreader site for covid-19, but not the origin.
Coronaviruses in bats and jumping from bats to humans is incredibly common, with 3% of people they randomly tested in bat cave areas with bat coronavirus antibodies [1], which this source extrapolated to mean that 1-7 million people a year are infected by various bat viruses.
I agree with you that genetic evidence is the strongest evidence we have at this point.
> To me, that far outweighs the idea that some - NOT ALL - researchers have agreed that if there was editing done it was very smooth
Would be interesting if some lab tried to duplicate some of this theorized tricky editing, to prove it could be done.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
>The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin..
Some scientists think otherwise, quite strongly in the opposite direction, it seems..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbbJaaMG7Bs
Some scientists think otherwise, quite strongly in the opposite direction, it seems..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeW5sI-R1Qg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbbJaaMG7Bs
I found this link [0] that seems to debunk, in a lot of detail, the congressional testimony of these two physicists on the specifics of their claims for evidence of gain of function manipulation in the gentic sequence of covid-19.
That jives with another source [1] that explained, amongst other things, that there's genetic evidence covid-19 evolved in animals with intact immune systems, not in a lab.
[0] https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
That jives with another source [1] that explained, amongst other things, that there's genetic evidence covid-19 evolved in animals with intact immune systems, not in a lab.
[0] https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
Well, if the authors of these posts disagree, they should contact the government and offer their testimony as well, then we can consider their argument to hold similar weight.
Congressional testimony tends to be more political than scientific, don't you think? Facts about DNA are still facts, regardless of who congress invites to speak before them. I never considered Congress to be gatekeepers of science.
I’ve never seen someone say “their argument wasn’t made in front of congress, so it doesn’t hold the same weight”
Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.
Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.
>Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.
As layman, I am powerless to do so.
So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.
As layman, I am powerless to do so.
So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.
I agree that it is tough that there are so many unfiltered voices on this. I've been giving the most weight to dna-based evidence, and explanations from virologists, and critiques from other virologists. It is understandable that others look for different sources of truth as they see fit.
The sad fact of the situation that argument by some proxy does not really work.
A person goes like "Here is what my scientist say!" and the others are like "No, you are wrong! Here is what my scientist say".
It is quite funny thing.
But in the link you posted
>https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest...
I often found that site to be less trustworthy because of a large part of the beginning of the article dedicated to Ad hominm attack. The most insulting is that they condemn admonim attackes, as and attemt to some kind of virtue signalling, and proceed to do it anyway. This can be consistently observed in articles of similar nature in that site.
Again, since I am not able to judge the article technically, I take this as an indication that the author is extremely biased and is trying to mislead readers.
A person goes like "Here is what my scientist say!" and the others are like "No, you are wrong! Here is what my scientist say".
It is quite funny thing.
But in the link you posted
>https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest...
I often found that site to be less trustworthy because of a large part of the beginning of the article dedicated to Ad hominm attack. The most insulting is that they condemn admonim attackes, as and attemt to some kind of virtue signalling, and proceed to do it anyway. This can be consistently observed in articles of similar nature in that site.
Again, since I am not able to judge the article technically, I take this as an indication that the author is extremely biased and is trying to mislead readers.
I didn't like the beginning of that article either. I ran with it at that moment because it can take a while to dig up references and I really liked the DNA-level explanations in that one, which I've been following as much as I can and have grown to prefer. I feel like I've been able to cut through a lot of noise that way, and I'm learning a lot.
The virologists describing things at the that level seem to have converged on similar set of possibilities, and the need for additional data to be certain of anything. It's my understanding that they've been saying "man-made impractical if not impossible, probably natural spillover which happens all the time, lab leak is not impossible, need more data" since last spring.
It could be that non-virologists argue about this more than virologists... lol
The virologists describing things at the that level seem to have converged on similar set of possibilities, and the need for additional data to be certain of anything. It's my understanding that they've been saying "man-made impractical if not impossible, probably natural spillover which happens all the time, lab leak is not impossible, need more data" since last spring.
It could be that non-virologists argue about this more than virologists... lol
> there's genetic evidence covid-19 evolved in animals with intact immune systems, not in a lab
They had live animals in the lab.
They had live animals in the lab.
Here's a question:
How many times did classic SARS escape from a lab?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346413716_A_review_...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346413716_A_review_...
So that is the basis for what? Is that a fact that changed your mind about the origins of covid?
We know that lab leaks happen. Scary stuff. Even how many lab leaks there are here in the U.S. The paper you link to describes several lab leaks during a period of time while SARS was being widely studied.
Its quite a leap from knowing there are lab leaks to implying that covid, or any other virus, leaked from a lab. There's relevant genetic evidence indicating that the earliest covid-19 cases were 600 miles south of Wuhan [0]. Also it is estimated, based on antibody testing, that there are millions of people every year who get infected with various bat coronaviruses [1].
More/better evidence is needed to prove a lab leak, given that nature does things like this all the time.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
We know that lab leaks happen. Scary stuff. Even how many lab leaks there are here in the U.S. The paper you link to describes several lab leaks during a period of time while SARS was being widely studied.
Its quite a leap from knowing there are lab leaks to implying that covid, or any other virus, leaked from a lab. There's relevant genetic evidence indicating that the earliest covid-19 cases were 600 miles south of Wuhan [0]. Also it is estimated, based on antibody testing, that there are millions of people every year who get infected with various bat coronaviruses [1].
More/better evidence is needed to prove a lab leak, given that nature does things like this all the time.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
> earliest covid-19 cases were 600 miles south of Wuhan
Nothing conclusive of that sort in that article.
>All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
Nothing conclusive of that sort in that article.
>All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
>The bottom line is that the evidence we have at this time points to nature as the most probable origin,
Highly tendentious claim...
>and it's not unusual for it to take many years to figure these things out.
Is that the case? Are you well-versed in this field? It is my understanding that previous epidemics of this sort in Asia in recent decades a host animal was identified in a matter of months. Are you privy to some valuable knowledge that is not widely dispersed in the literature? Because what you’re saying would seem to contradict it.
Highly tendentious claim...
>and it's not unusual for it to take many years to figure these things out.
Is that the case? Are you well-versed in this field? It is my understanding that previous epidemics of this sort in Asia in recent decades a host animal was identified in a matter of months. Are you privy to some valuable knowledge that is not widely dispersed in the literature? Because what you’re saying would seem to contradict it.
So you think that it's less than 51% probable that this virus jumped from nature (from animals) into people, like every other virus we know about?
There's a lot of good sources saying otherwise, not just this article.
EDIT: My primary sources in this matter have been this reddit post from a virologist [0] (available as a 30+ page pdf), and the strongest (but not the only) genetic evidence he references points to covid originating 600 miles south of wuhan [1], which was also discussed in this writeup by another virologist [2] who also got into detail on the genetic evidence that we do have. Here's another article on how common it is for humans to be infected by bat viruses [3], here's the infectious disease expert from Biden's treansition team saying covid likely jumped from animals to humans [4]. The original article detailed how it took 15 years to find the origin of SARS, and China was secretive with that, too.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[2] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
[3] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
[4] https://text.npr.org/1000780650
There's a lot of good sources saying otherwise, not just this article.
EDIT: My primary sources in this matter have been this reddit post from a virologist [0] (available as a 30+ page pdf), and the strongest (but not the only) genetic evidence he references points to covid originating 600 miles south of wuhan [1], which was also discussed in this writeup by another virologist [2] who also got into detail on the genetic evidence that we do have. Here's another article on how common it is for humans to be infected by bat viruses [3], here's the infectious disease expert from Biden's treansition team saying covid likely jumped from animals to humans [4]. The original article detailed how it took 15 years to find the origin of SARS, and China was secretive with that, too.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[2] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
[3] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
[4] https://text.npr.org/1000780650
Yes, similar viruses are known far outside Wuhan. In this case, with the first known infections occurring in Wuhan and no known bat coronavirus source anywhere near Wuhan, other than the Wuhan Institute of Virology..., lends credibility to the lab theory, does it not?
Infections from nature aren’t rare, unfortunately neither are infections from labs. In fact, if you compare the relative few places on earth where this type of viral and pathogen research occurs to all the places humans interact with the natural world, I.e. the whole world, you could say infections coming from labs are actually are far more common occurrence proportionally adjusted. There is even a paper trail of government officials expressing concern about lax safety measures at this particular lab. Well before the world heard of coronavirus.
If it is common for humans to be infected by bat viruses, I don’t see that as a point against the theory that one or more humans working at a lab that analyzes and manipulates bat viruses were infected with a bat virus that then led to a larger spread of the infection outside the lab.
Infections from nature aren’t rare, unfortunately neither are infections from labs. In fact, if you compare the relative few places on earth where this type of viral and pathogen research occurs to all the places humans interact with the natural world, I.e. the whole world, you could say infections coming from labs are actually are far more common occurrence proportionally adjusted. There is even a paper trail of government officials expressing concern about lax safety measures at this particular lab. Well before the world heard of coronavirus.
If it is common for humans to be infected by bat viruses, I don’t see that as a point against the theory that one or more humans working at a lab that analyzes and manipulates bat viruses were infected with a bat virus that then led to a larger spread of the infection outside the lab.
I understand that there are a shocking amount of lab leaks in the world. Hundreds in the U.S. in the last decade, for example. Scary stuff.
> In this case, with the first known infections occurring in Wuhan
Do you have a source for that? I was seeing sources stating the opposite, based on genetic sequencing of collected samples, like this [0]:
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
And this [1]:
> Upon further investigation, the first case detected from December 1st was found to have no connection to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Also, that patient was never linked to any future cases of COVID19. A third of the first 41 cases had no connection to the market, including 3 of the first 4 cases reported. Given this data, we have a new hypothesis: The first human cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection must have happened before December 2019 and likely did not originate at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
I'm not sure of your sources. I went back and re-read your original reply. You stated that "previous epidemics of this sort in Asia in recent decades a host animal was identified in a matter of months". Did you know that it took 15 years to identify the source of SARS, from 2002 until 2017? [2]
I don't know if any of that might change your thinking on this. I've paid the most attention to genetic evidence like the above. Ultimately I think that's what will lead to a definitive answer.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9
> In this case, with the first known infections occurring in Wuhan
Do you have a source for that? I was seeing sources stating the opposite, based on genetic sequencing of collected samples, like this [0]:
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
And this [1]:
> Upon further investigation, the first case detected from December 1st was found to have no connection to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Also, that patient was never linked to any future cases of COVID19. A third of the first 41 cases had no connection to the market, including 3 of the first 4 cases reported. Given this data, we have a new hypothesis: The first human cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection must have happened before December 2019 and likely did not originate at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
I'm not sure of your sources. I went back and re-read your original reply. You stated that "previous epidemics of this sort in Asia in recent decades a host animal was identified in a matter of months". Did you know that it took 15 years to identify the source of SARS, from 2002 until 2017? [2]
I don't know if any of that might change your thinking on this. I've paid the most attention to genetic evidence like the above. Ultimately I think that's what will lead to a definitive answer.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9
"The original article detailed how it took 15 years to find the origin of SARS, and China was secretive with that, too". Wrt SARS, other animals in the wild were identified as mostly asymptomatic carriers long before scientists found that bat cave. Not so with COVID
[deleted]
[deleted]
The article addresses this very point. I have 0 trust in the CCP to do or say anything not in it's own interest, but on the whole the "They found a novel virus in the wild, sampled it, and then it escaped their lab" seems a lot less likely than "Some random person ran across a novel virus in the wild, and got sick".
> "Some random person ran across a novel virus in the wild, and got sick".
More like, "some random person ran across a novel virus in the wild, a thousand miles from the nearest bat population, while they were hibernating; and this all just happened to be within a few miles of a laboratory with sketchy safety history that literally studies coronaviruses, and didn't let independent examiners in for a year, even then limiting their time and access severely."
More like, "some random person ran across a novel virus in the wild, a thousand miles from the nearest bat population, while they were hibernating; and this all just happened to be within a few miles of a laboratory with sketchy safety history that literally studies coronaviruses, and didn't let independent examiners in for a year, even then limiting their time and access severely."
There's evidence pointing to an origin 600 miles south of Wuhan [0], based on sampled early cases and genetic sequencing.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
That research presupposes that the virus came from bats to uses this to draw the conclusion that a more bat like variant found elsewhere is the origin point - however researchers know that COVID binds more tightly to human cells that both bat and pangolin, and more strongly to pangolin than bat.
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-find-covid-19-virus-was...
“The computer modelling found the virus’s ability to bind to the bat ACE2 protein was poor relative to its ability to bind human cells. This argues against the virus being transmitted directly from bats to humans. Hence, if the virus has a natural source, it could only have come to humans via an intermediary species which has yet to be found,”
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-find-covid-19-virus-was...
“The computer modelling found the virus’s ability to bind to the bat ACE2 protein was poor relative to its ability to bind human cells. This argues against the virus being transmitted directly from bats to humans. Hence, if the virus has a natural source, it could only have come to humans via an intermediary species which has yet to be found,”
I don't think that the source I quoted was saying that the virus jumped directly from bats to humans. I believe they were attempting to track mutations from the closest currently known/sequenced genetic relative, which happened to be that bat virus.
I don't think that changes my point in bringing this up, that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first human infections, that in fact there is some genetic evidence pointing in other directions.
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
Full disclosure: I've be made aware of papers pointing out that Forster's methodologies may be unreliable, that the gap between bat and human viruses are too large to say definitively which varient of the human virus is older. But I don't think this materially changes the fact that his paper casts a good bit of doubt on Wuhan being the location of the first human infections, showing that there may be evidence to the contrary in his collected and sequenced genetic samples. He admits that himself in the same article:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]
The source you quote jives with what I have read in other places, that there are still missing pieces to this puzzle.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
I don't think that changes my point in bringing this up, that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first human infections, that in fact there is some genetic evidence pointing in other directions.
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
Full disclosure: I've be made aware of papers pointing out that Forster's methodologies may be unreliable, that the gap between bat and human viruses are too large to say definitively which varient of the human virus is older. But I don't think this materially changes the fact that his paper casts a good bit of doubt on Wuhan being the location of the first human infections, showing that there may be evidence to the contrary in his collected and sequenced genetic samples. He admits that himself in the same article:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]
The source you quote jives with what I have read in other places, that there are still missing pieces to this puzzle.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
>and this all just happened to be within a few miles of a laboratory with sketchy safety history that literally studies coronaviruses
If the argument is:
1) a lab was built in Wuhan that studied coronaviruses, then a global coronavirus pandemic originated in Wuhan
2) Therefore the lab caused the global pandemic
then it is a fallacious argument.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
If the argument is:
1) a lab was built in Wuhan that studied coronaviruses, then a global coronavirus pandemic originated in Wuhan
2) Therefore the lab caused the global pandemic
then it is a fallacious argument.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
That's not the argument. Nobody's pretending that propositional logic can decide this. It's a question of how to weight empirical evidence. Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses, especially since concerns had been raised about unsafe conditions there.
[deleted]
But there's evidence that it emerged 600 miles south of Wuhan [0], based on genetic sequencing of collected samples from infected people:
> In a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Forster reported he found three main strains of the virus that he labeled A, B and C.
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
It doesn't seem fair to assume this originated in Wuhan. Instead the Wuhan markets may have been the first super-spreader site.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
> In a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Forster reported he found three main strains of the virus that he labeled A, B and C.
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
It doesn't seem fair to assume this originated in Wuhan. Instead the Wuhan markets may have been the first super-spreader site.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
>But there's evidence that it emerged 600 miles south of Wuh..
I see you repeat this all around this thread. Can you show me where it says evidence is for emergence?
I see you repeat this all around this thread. Can you show me where it says evidence is for emergence?
I was replying to a post that said "Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses".
There's that word "emerged" (in reference to Wuhan) that you pointed out that I also used in my post. I was replying, with a supporting source, that this is not a certainty.
From the source I quoted earlier [0]:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin."
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
There's that word "emerged" (in reference to Wuhan) that you pointed out that I also used in my post. I was replying, with a supporting source, that this is not a certainty.
From the source I quoted earlier [0]:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin."
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
Hmm, I’m looking at the Forster paper and I don’t see where they wrote that the origin might not be Wuhan.
Unless it’s peer-reviewed and published, I’m not going to count it as evidence. As far as I can see, you’re citing one dude’s speculations. Unless somebody’s followed up on those speculations in the past year, I’m not sure there’s a case here.
Unless it’s peer-reviewed and published, I’m not going to count it as evidence. As far as I can see, you’re citing one dude’s speculations. Unless somebody’s followed up on those speculations in the past year, I’m not sure there’s a case here.
I wasn't just citing one dude's speculation, I was attempting to refute some other dude's speculation, the following statement from the original parent post I was replying to:
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
I don't know thing the above statement has been proven yet, and there are competing theories.
I wasn't trying to prove that the virus came from somewhere else, I was simply casting doubt on the statement that the virus came from Wuhan.
Because nobody knows for sure. Right?
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
I don't know thing the above statement has been proven yet, and there are competing theories.
I wasn't trying to prove that the virus came from somewhere else, I was simply casting doubt on the statement that the virus came from Wuhan.
Because nobody knows for sure. Right?
>I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary.
To be frank, that article is speculation, because they assume a certain variant to be the "founding variant" because of its similarity to existing/known virus. It looks like a bit of circular reasoning to me.
To be frank, that article is speculation, because they assume a certain variant to be the "founding variant" because of its similarity to existing/known virus. It looks like a bit of circular reasoning to me.
So how come you didn't reply to the original parent's statement that:
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
There's no definitive proof of this, either!
Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that the main objection is that there were probably intermediary hosts, and that evolutionary mutations and geography don't always line up.
So does that mean it's 50/50 at this point, he may be wrong, but he may be right?
It's enough for me to question Wuhan as the site of the first human infections. It might be. It might not. I think that's the general scientific consensus at this point. We don't know for certain yet, right? That was my point. Perhaps I could have stated it better.
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
There's no definitive proof of this, either!
Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that the main objection is that there were probably intermediary hosts, and that evolutionary mutations and geography don't always line up.
So does that mean it's 50/50 at this point, he may be wrong, but he may be right?
It's enough for me to question Wuhan as the site of the first human infections. It might be. It might not. I think that's the general scientific consensus at this point. We don't know for certain yet, right? That was my point. Perhaps I could have stated it better.
>There's no definitive proof of this, either!
I really don't understand what you are saying. Weren't all the first cases identified around Wuhan?
Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.
I really don't understand what you are saying. Weren't all the first cases identified around Wuhan?
Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.
> Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.
That's the thing, the early variants Forster identified could have migrated in either direction. Nobody is questioning the differences between his identified A and B variants, just the directionality. The expert consensus seems to be "too early to know for sure".
That's what I'm saying. Forster might be right, and this came from south of Wuhan. Even his critics say that he may not be right, they don't say he's wrong. We don't know for sure.
Can you appreciate the difference? You seem to be saying "this definitely started in Wuhan" when it appears that is not certain.
That's the thing, the early variants Forster identified could have migrated in either direction. Nobody is questioning the differences between his identified A and B variants, just the directionality. The expert consensus seems to be "too early to know for sure".
That's what I'm saying. Forster might be right, and this came from south of Wuhan. Even his critics say that he may not be right, they don't say he's wrong. We don't know for sure.
Can you appreciate the difference? You seem to be saying "this definitely started in Wuhan" when it appears that is not certain.
There is a wide literature on this at this point. Please don’t make conclusive statements that also indicate you don’t have the faintest bit of background in what you are talking about.
At this point, this is not a complete black box, “novel virus.” There is a scientific understanding of the virus. There are known related viruses in the wild, just not anywhere near Wuhan. There are multi-pathway paper trails linking this class of viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the people working there.
I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
At this point, this is not a complete black box, “novel virus.” There is a scientific understanding of the virus. There are known related viruses in the wild, just not anywhere near Wuhan. There are multi-pathway paper trails linking this class of viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the people working there.
I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
Please don't cross into personal swipes and flamewar in HN threads. It leads to hell and discredits the position you're arguing for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> At this point, this is not a complete black box, “novel virus.”
Not sure why you insist on being pedantic on word choice here. It obviously isn't a novel virus at this point; but it was in 2019 -- or whenever WIV would have found it.
I'd also bet dollars to donuts you have no experience in virology apart from participating in online forums. Which I don't think is any kind of point against you; but it makes it weird when you come out swinging with "you don’t have the faintest bit of background in what you are talking about."
> I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
I laughed out loud at this. If this is satire it was really well done.
Not sure why you insist on being pedantic on word choice here. It obviously isn't a novel virus at this point; but it was in 2019 -- or whenever WIV would have found it.
I'd also bet dollars to donuts you have no experience in virology apart from participating in online forums. Which I don't think is any kind of point against you; but it makes it weird when you come out swinging with "you don’t have the faintest bit of background in what you are talking about."
> I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
I laughed out loud at this. If this is satire it was really well done.
Please don't respond to a bad comment, or a provocation in a comment, by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only takes us deeper into hell. We're trying to avoid that here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Quote marks can be easily misinterpreted, I was just using the phrase you used, my bad.
“Faintest bit of background” Meaning, your two competing hypotheses leave out pretty much everything that is known at this point, not an academic credential or such, just a basic reading on the known facts at this point.
“Natural origin” was the leading hypothesis from the start more than a year ago. At this point, there is no evidence for it, there is substantial evidence against it, and the pile of circumstantial evidence for the Wuhan lab being the source is a mile high.
“Faintest bit of background” Meaning, your two competing hypotheses leave out pretty much everything that is known at this point, not an academic credential or such, just a basic reading on the known facts at this point.
“Natural origin” was the leading hypothesis from the start more than a year ago. At this point, there is no evidence for it, there is substantial evidence against it, and the pile of circumstantial evidence for the Wuhan lab being the source is a mile high.
> Either way it's clear China reacted as-if this was the end of days.
There's a case to be made that "China acted as-if this was the end of days," and western media went along with the narrative. For example, people were not falling dead in the streets from cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan China. Those were staged.
Example of the Propaganda in the UK: "CORONAVIRUS IS CAUSING PEOPLE TO DROP TO THE FLOOR IN THE STREET" (subtitle on video, article published January 24 2020), https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/infected-people-see...
I think it likely that SARS-CoV-2 was spreading much earlier than the official narrative allows. Competitors in the Wuhan Military Olympics seem to have caught #EarlyCovid (COVID-19 before it had a name):
"Congress is investigating whether the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan was a covid-19 superspreader event" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/congress-...
"During the two-week event, however, many of the international athletes noticed that something was amiss in the city of Wuhan. Some later described it as a “ghost town.” As the covid-19 pandemic took hold worldwide in early 2020, athletes from several countries — including France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg — claimed publicly they had contracted what they believed to be covid-19 at the games in Wuhan, based on their symptoms and how their illnesses spread to their loved ones." (emphasis added)
Australia probably had #EarlyCovid: https://twitter.com/TaxiCabJesus/status/1407130748373504002
cui bono - "who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?"
While China is certainly a beneficiary of their theatrics, why do the power structures in the rest of the world go along with the con job?
I got the blood test for SARS-CoV-2 immunity last week. If it's positive I would take this as confirming that I did actually have #EarlyCovid (COVID-19 before the lab test was available). I remember an odd headache in the December 2019/January 2020 period. This won't prove I had #EarlyCovid, but it's DATA AND SCIENCE to back up my inconsequential mussing about the Long Con [0] of our era.
@MichaelPSenger stands on his little twitter platform trying to point out the Long Covid Con. For example: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/134832483816790835...
There's a lot of servings of crow [1] to go around, but no one in power will call out those most deserving.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
[1] https://grammarist.com/idiom/eat-crow/
There's a case to be made that "China acted as-if this was the end of days," and western media went along with the narrative. For example, people were not falling dead in the streets from cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan China. Those were staged.
Example of the Propaganda in the UK: "CORONAVIRUS IS CAUSING PEOPLE TO DROP TO THE FLOOR IN THE STREET" (subtitle on video, article published January 24 2020), https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/infected-people-see...
I think it likely that SARS-CoV-2 was spreading much earlier than the official narrative allows. Competitors in the Wuhan Military Olympics seem to have caught #EarlyCovid (COVID-19 before it had a name):
"Congress is investigating whether the 2019 Military World Games in Wuhan was a covid-19 superspreader event" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/congress-...
"During the two-week event, however, many of the international athletes noticed that something was amiss in the city of Wuhan. Some later described it as a “ghost town.” As the covid-19 pandemic took hold worldwide in early 2020, athletes from several countries — including France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg — claimed publicly they had contracted what they believed to be covid-19 at the games in Wuhan, based on their symptoms and how their illnesses spread to their loved ones." (emphasis added)
Australia probably had #EarlyCovid: https://twitter.com/TaxiCabJesus/status/1407130748373504002
cui bono - "who stands, or stood, to gain (from a crime, and so might have been responsible for it)?"
While China is certainly a beneficiary of their theatrics, why do the power structures in the rest of the world go along with the con job?
I got the blood test for SARS-CoV-2 immunity last week. If it's positive I would take this as confirming that I did actually have #EarlyCovid (COVID-19 before the lab test was available). I remember an odd headache in the December 2019/January 2020 period. This won't prove I had #EarlyCovid, but it's DATA AND SCIENCE to back up my inconsequential mussing about the Long Con [0] of our era.
@MichaelPSenger stands on his little twitter platform trying to point out the Long Covid Con. For example: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/134832483816790835...
There's a lot of servings of crow [1] to go around, but no one in power will call out those most deserving.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
[1] https://grammarist.com/idiom/eat-crow/
I also was quite sick with covid like symptoms in Europe a month before first official case was announced. Coincidentally I was traveling at a conference a week before getting sick.
The minute the PRC government destroyed the evidence, they lost the presumption of innocence. Let's also remember - we're dealing with very smart people who very well knew the price they were paying by not cooperating with the international community, and yet that path seemed more attractive than just "coming clean."
I wonder what the judicial system would have to say if a murder was committed in my house, and there was evidence that I destroyed the evidence. Also, I don't have an alibi, and have multiple prior felonies. Would that be enough to put me in jail again?
I wonder what the judicial system would have to say if a murder was committed in my house, and there was evidence that I destroyed the evidence. Also, I don't have an alibi, and have multiple prior felonies. Would that be enough to put me in jail again?
Yes, the cover up and hostility towards the lab leak hypothesis may actually be the strongest evidence for it.
Which is to say, not much. But we have no evidence for the natural origin story, and it's a somewhat strange coincidence that the initial outbreak was near a lab studying these very same kinds of viruses. Granted you might put such a lab in places where there are lots of bat viruses to be found, but that's still a much, much larger area than the city of Wuhan. The closest known wild virus came from a source 800 miles away. Draw a circle over a map of China including both Wuhan and that bat cave and you can see that quite clearly.
Combine that with the fact that Sars cov1 escaped labs in China to infect researchers not once, but at least twice, and the Bayesian calculation swings heavily to the lab leak hypothesis.
Which is to say, not much. But we have no evidence for the natural origin story, and it's a somewhat strange coincidence that the initial outbreak was near a lab studying these very same kinds of viruses. Granted you might put such a lab in places where there are lots of bat viruses to be found, but that's still a much, much larger area than the city of Wuhan. The closest known wild virus came from a source 800 miles away. Draw a circle over a map of China including both Wuhan and that bat cave and you can see that quite clearly.
Combine that with the fact that Sars cov1 escaped labs in China to infect researchers not once, but at least twice, and the Bayesian calculation swings heavily to the lab leak hypothesis.
Combine that with the sick lab researchers, with the work performed at BSL-2 instead of BSL-4, with the main researcher being a world leading expert on gain of function research, with a WIV database of genomes surprisingly taken offline, with inconsistent sequencing dates reported by WIV researchers, with huge conflicts of interest from several of the main researchers supporting the natural origin theory (Daszak), etc, etc, etc.
I'm about 80/20 on a lab leak.
I'm about 80/20 on a lab leak.
Combine that with reports that WIV worked with live bats, not just samples:
https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studie...
https://news.yahoo.com/news/evidence-mounts-wuhan-lab-studie...
> may actually be the strongest evidence for it.
That, plus the fact that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a facility...that studied novel bat coronaviruses.
How much of a coincidence is even possible?
Humor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
That, plus the fact that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a facility...that studied novel bat coronaviruses.
How much of a coincidence is even possible?
Humor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
Did you know that there's been evidence pointing to an origin 600 miles south of Wuhan [0], based on sampled early cases and genetic sequencing?
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
It's worth noting that the paper this article is based on is somewhat contested. For example
"There are several serious flaws with their findings and interpretation." [1]
"The authors’ misinterpretation of MJNs fosters misconceptions, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fundamental phylogenetic principles."[2]
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522
[2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518
"There are several serious flaws with their findings and interpretation." [1]
"The authors’ misinterpretation of MJNs fosters misconceptions, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fundamental phylogenetic principles."[2]
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12522
[2] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/23/12518
Thank you for those links. I appreciate the new inputs. ("Sampling bias and incorrect rooting make phylogenetic network tracing of SARS-COV-2 infections unreliable" and "Median-joining network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes is neither phylogenetic nor evolutionary")
Do you think that these conflict with the statement Forster made that "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]. They did have a variety of samples, enough to throw doubt on where the origin was, right?
I brought this up just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first covid-19 cases in humans. Do you think that is an incorrect statement?
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
Do you think that these conflict with the statement Forster made that "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]. They did have a variety of samples, enough to throw doubt on where the origin was, right?
I brought this up just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first covid-19 cases in humans. Do you think that is an incorrect statement?
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
I believe it's worth continued study, however my understanding is that the Chinese government has been somewhat reluctant to allow these sorts of studies to occur.
Personally I'm suspecting an accidental leak of non-engineered (eg, naturally occurring) virus is the most likely cause, if only due to the actions of the CCP. That said, I'm an engineer and have no training in virology or infectious disease studies, so my opinion is basically worthless.
Personally I'm suspecting an accidental leak of non-engineered (eg, naturally occurring) virus is the most likely cause, if only due to the actions of the CCP. That said, I'm an engineer and have no training in virology or infectious disease studies, so my opinion is basically worthless.
The original article pointed out that the Chinese were sercretive about SARS also, referncing this NYTimes article [0].
It seems like an interesting leap to assume the lab leak is the most likely cause, when there is so much precedent for natural spillover, even antibody sampling which seem to indicate that millions of people per year may be catching various coronaviruses from bats [1], let alone other mammals like civits, pangolins, etc.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discov...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
It seems like an interesting leap to assume the lab leak is the most likely cause, when there is so much precedent for natural spillover, even antibody sampling which seem to indicate that millions of people per year may be catching various coronaviruses from bats [1], let alone other mammals like civits, pangolins, etc.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/weekinreview/china-discov...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/23/21226484/wuhan-lab-coronavirus...
A totalitarian state acted like a totalitarian state by not addressing rumors and suppressing them, because it can.
You can't judge them like a Western Democracy with a free press and think that they'd just "come clean".
You can't judge them like a Western Democracy with a free press and think that they'd just "come clean".
It has nothing to do with ability (it can), and everything to do with reasoning and motive.
The government (and party) only acting in their self interest means they'd share and push any explanation that wasn't nefarious. No they don't have to do anything, but an innocent explanation is something they'd benefit from by disclosing.
The government (and party) only acting in their self interest means they'd share and push any explanation that wasn't nefarious. No they don't have to do anything, but an innocent explanation is something they'd benefit from by disclosing.
No. By addressing conspiracy theories in an Authoritarian system you give them credence through something more or less like the Streisand effect. If you have information control mechanism like the Great Firewall of China and you do not have a free press, then you can more effectively control your domestic population through information suppression. You don't have to explain anything if nobody talks about it in the first place.
You're applying the logic of a democracy with a free press, which assumes people will talk about it. You also probably think that China worries about what you think and that they would care to address your concerns, when the 1.4 Billion Chinese citizens is of much greater concerns to them.
This is the same delusion that Western intelligence agencies like the CIA had with Saddam Hussein. Everyone expected that his putting up a fight against the weapons inspectors was a very clear sign that he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide why not let them in. After the fact we found out he didn't actually have a functioning weapons program. His failure to be open to the weapons inspectors seems deeply weird and irrational from the perspective of a Western Democracy. But he was running a strong-arm totalitarian state. He needed to stand up to the US and the rest of the world for domestic political points.
China doesn't care what you think or what the US thinks. China cares what 1.4 billion Chinese think. China can better control what they think by flat-out suppression of information, because they've built those systems of control.
You're applying the logic of a democracy with a free press, which assumes people will talk about it. You also probably think that China worries about what you think and that they would care to address your concerns, when the 1.4 Billion Chinese citizens is of much greater concerns to them.
This is the same delusion that Western intelligence agencies like the CIA had with Saddam Hussein. Everyone expected that his putting up a fight against the weapons inspectors was a very clear sign that he had something to hide. If he had nothing to hide why not let them in. After the fact we found out he didn't actually have a functioning weapons program. His failure to be open to the weapons inspectors seems deeply weird and irrational from the perspective of a Western Democracy. But he was running a strong-arm totalitarian state. He needed to stand up to the US and the rest of the world for domestic political points.
China doesn't care what you think or what the US thinks. China cares what 1.4 billion Chinese think. China can better control what they think by flat-out suppression of information, because they've built those systems of control.
The article opens by pooh-poohing the idea that three WIV researchers with flu-like symptoms in November might have had Covid-19, then a couple of paragraphs later asserts that it's well-known that Covid-19 was already circulating in Wuhan in November. Isn't there a contradiction there?
How widely accepted is the notion that Ebola is a bat virus? The last I heard (which was a while ago) the leading theory was a simian reservoir.
> What we’re left with is this: If the WIV had a secret strain (or strains) at least 99 percent similar to Covid-19, it got that raw material from the wild. That would mean there’s at least one wild virus that’s at least 99 percent similar to Covid-19 somewhere in nature, where humans had contact with it at least once. So far, it hasn’t been found, but it’s got to be out there, whether Covid is 100 percent natural or human-tweaked. So, given that Covid (or its direct ancestor) must exist in nature, it’s more likely that it got out naturally (like SARS and MERS) than that it took an undetectable detour through a secure biolab.
Is this really true? Everyone acknowledges that WIV researchers (quite openly and properly) sought out new coronavirus strains, including expeditions into remote mountains etc. to look for bat caves and take samples from bats that would probably never have otherwise had contact with humans. Everyone acknowledges that WIV cultured cells from its samples and worked closely with them under what were, at least in retrospect, inadequate (BSL-2) safety precautions. For a virus that we're all agreed must originate with a bat in a remote cave somewhere to get to a human, yes this is a more complex route than one lost bat biting a farmer or something. But I'm not sure it's really so much less plausible that humans who deliberately collected, studied, and worked closely with this virus for many man-hours might have slipped up once.
(We will probably never know for sure what happened - another thing that everyone acknowledges is that the PRC government destroyed a lot of potentially relevant evidence. On balance I think a purely natural origin is probably most likely, but I do think that the people who dogmatically shouted down any lab leak theory come off a lot worse than those who kept, and keep, an open mind)
How widely accepted is the notion that Ebola is a bat virus? The last I heard (which was a while ago) the leading theory was a simian reservoir.
> What we’re left with is this: If the WIV had a secret strain (or strains) at least 99 percent similar to Covid-19, it got that raw material from the wild. That would mean there’s at least one wild virus that’s at least 99 percent similar to Covid-19 somewhere in nature, where humans had contact with it at least once. So far, it hasn’t been found, but it’s got to be out there, whether Covid is 100 percent natural or human-tweaked. So, given that Covid (or its direct ancestor) must exist in nature, it’s more likely that it got out naturally (like SARS and MERS) than that it took an undetectable detour through a secure biolab.
Is this really true? Everyone acknowledges that WIV researchers (quite openly and properly) sought out new coronavirus strains, including expeditions into remote mountains etc. to look for bat caves and take samples from bats that would probably never have otherwise had contact with humans. Everyone acknowledges that WIV cultured cells from its samples and worked closely with them under what were, at least in retrospect, inadequate (BSL-2) safety precautions. For a virus that we're all agreed must originate with a bat in a remote cave somewhere to get to a human, yes this is a more complex route than one lost bat biting a farmer or something. But I'm not sure it's really so much less plausible that humans who deliberately collected, studied, and worked closely with this virus for many man-hours might have slipped up once.
(We will probably never know for sure what happened - another thing that everyone acknowledges is that the PRC government destroyed a lot of potentially relevant evidence. On balance I think a purely natural origin is probably most likely, but I do think that the people who dogmatically shouted down any lab leak theory come off a lot worse than those who kept, and keep, an open mind)
On the first point, they're just saying that 3 people seeing a doctor about flu symptoms at that time of year is not unusual (most Chinese routinely go to hospitals for any medical treatment), and that even if they did have Covid instead of flu they might have got it outside the lab. There were people in Wuhan with Covid back then, but there were a lot more people with flu. The odds that any given three people with flu symptoms in Wuhan at that time actually had covid was still very small.
On the route into humans, I'm no expert but as I understand it while these viruses are found in bats the most likely route to humans is via another mammal intermediate such as a pangolin or cat. The reasons for this seems to be that bats are just too small and the virus load too thin to pose a threat to humans. So bat to human is very unlikely, but bat to cat is more plausible, and then cat (etc) to human also more plausible. I've no way to validate if that's accurate.
It really is all numbers games though. All we can say is what is more or less likely, and I think that's all the article is trying to explain.
On the route into humans, I'm no expert but as I understand it while these viruses are found in bats the most likely route to humans is via another mammal intermediate such as a pangolin or cat. The reasons for this seems to be that bats are just too small and the virus load too thin to pose a threat to humans. So bat to human is very unlikely, but bat to cat is more plausible, and then cat (etc) to human also more plausible. I've no way to validate if that's accurate.
It really is all numbers games though. All we can say is what is more or less likely, and I think that's all the article is trying to explain.
3 people who work on coronavirus research at a lab that is known for lax standards catch coronavirus, and you think it’s more plausible that they each caught it from outside?
There's no evidence they caught coronavirus
There's no evidence they were even sick
Nobody knows which workers they are or who their names are
The article in the WSJ that really ignited the story about the "three researchers at WIV" is the same guy that in 2002 co-authored the piece in the NYT with Judith Curry about Saddam Hussein's nuclear WMD program.
There's no evidence they were even sick
Nobody knows which workers they are or who their names are
The article in the WSJ that really ignited the story about the "three researchers at WIV" is the same guy that in 2002 co-authored the piece in the NYT with Judith Curry about Saddam Hussein's nuclear WMD program.
> The reasons for this seems to be that bats are just too small and the virus load too thin to pose a threat to humans. So bat to human is very unlikely, but bat to cat is more plausible, and then cat (etc) to human also more plausible.
Some bat species, e.g. flying foxes are not really small and can weigh about 1 kg. Also bats are very strange that they can tolerate high virus loads without getting ill. There is a report that one of the Chinese researcher got infected while collecting samples.
Some bat species, e.g. flying foxes are not really small and can weigh about 1 kg. Also bats are very strange that they can tolerate high virus loads without getting ill. There is a report that one of the Chinese researcher got infected while collecting samples.
According to the article these specific bats involved in the research are very small.
> they're just saying that 3 people seeing a doctor about flu symptoms at that time of year is not unusual (most Chinese routinely go to hospitals for any medical treatment)
But what evidence is there that this was the case, that they just had normal flu like symptoms, and it was not more serious? What information at all do we have about their cases, and how trustworthy is this information, and why does this have to come out through leaked intelligence reports if China is so sure they have nothing to hide?
But what evidence is there that this was the case, that they just had normal flu like symptoms, and it was not more serious? What information at all do we have about their cases, and how trustworthy is this information, and why does this have to come out through leaked intelligence reports if China is so sure they have nothing to hide?
Much more relevantly, what evidence is there that this wasn't flu? That is where you need to start. You can't assume your conclusion and demand everyone else disprove you.
I suppose it is possible you have noticed that a SARS pandemic started at around that same time and same place and spread over the whole damn world? The circumstantial evidence is wholly consistent with it not being flu.
We don't know, but there is no burden of proof on one side--even if you would like it to be the side you are not on.
We don't know, but there is no burden of proof on one side--even if you would like it to be the side you are not on.
What evidence do we have that it was anything other than normal flu?
"Ever since the SARS outbreak of 2002-03, after all, paper after paper and countless popular pieces have warned that, sooner or later, nature would produce the next big SARS."
In 1995 Laurie Garrett warned about how the world could be brought to its knees by another airborne flu-like illness in "The Coming Plague".[1]
The first SARS and avian flu and swine flu, and CJD and mad cow disease were just more warnings that humans were continuing to play russian roulette with the way they were living with an using animals. Virologists knew this and warned about this, but the rest of the world chose to ignore them.
As things return to "normal" for the parts of the world lucky enough to get vaccinated it's likely that we're going to return to sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this could never happen again, especially if we believe SARS 2 was created by humans instead of being just another natural disease... with probably a bunch more waiting in the wings.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Plague-Emerging-Diseases-Balan...
In 1995 Laurie Garrett warned about how the world could be brought to its knees by another airborne flu-like illness in "The Coming Plague".[1]
The first SARS and avian flu and swine flu, and CJD and mad cow disease were just more warnings that humans were continuing to play russian roulette with the way they were living with an using animals. Virologists knew this and warned about this, but the rest of the world chose to ignore them.
As things return to "normal" for the parts of the world lucky enough to get vaccinated it's likely that we're going to return to sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this could never happen again, especially if we believe SARS 2 was created by humans instead of being just another natural disease... with probably a bunch more waiting in the wings.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Plague-Emerging-Diseases-Balan...
> especially if we believe SARS 2 was created by humans instead of being just another natural disease
Here's the thing: if we knew the answer definitively to the lab-leak question, how would it change the pandemic response? The things we need to do to combat the virus remain the same.
Here's the thing: if we knew the answer definitively to the lab-leak question, how would it change the pandemic response? The things we need to do to combat the virus remain the same.
For the current pandemic yes, but we could start banning all gain of function research to make another one less likely. And increase lab safety measures.
That's not necessarily the best response even in that case. We know for a fact that animal to human transmission happens, and that it will happen again. I don't know the ins and outs but it's possible that gain of function research could be crucial in preventing or fighting future natural outbreaks. That's a judgement that we should consider carefully.
If you're fighting a shooting war and you have an explosion in a munitions factory, you don't necessarily decide to stop making munitions, or perhaps even that type of munition because it's too dangerous. You make a judgement that balances the risks.
If you're fighting a shooting war and you have an explosion in a munitions factory, you don't necessarily decide to stop making munitions, or perhaps even that type of munition because it's too dangerous. You make a judgement that balances the risks.
Except the gain-of-function research specifically targeting covid-like viruses did not help us prepare or respond to the current pandemic one bit. On that basis alone we should suspend this research. It's not worth the risk.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of gain-of-function research, but on its face this comment sounds a lot like "we haven't developed a vaccine for COVID yet, so we should ban trying to develop a vaccine" would've sounded a few months before the vaccines came out.
In scientific research particularly, not having seen results yet doesn't mean we should abandon the research. If gain-of-function research is supposed to help us gain a better understanding of viruses and we're likely to see more pandemic-worthy viruses like SARS and SARS-CoV-2 arise naturally, I think any ban should be considered very carefully.
In scientific research particularly, not having seen results yet doesn't mean we should abandon the research. If gain-of-function research is supposed to help us gain a better understanding of viruses and we're likely to see more pandemic-worthy viruses like SARS and SARS-CoV-2 arise naturally, I think any ban should be considered very carefully.
Except creating vaccines does not have the risk of producing a novel extremely dangerous virus that could kill millions worldwide
I 100% disagree, GoF research produces viruses as natural as selective breeding. The conditions that researchers expose various animals and humanized mice to infect each other would never happen in nature. This type of research only produces did not help predict the current pandemic, nor did it help with the fight against it, but it may have caused it!
Virologists competing with each other on who can produce the most infectious virus does not make us safer. Pursing research to prove that small pox can indeed mutate to be infectious via airborne aerosols is reckless, it creates a super charged version of a virus that never evolved naturally despite being a common disease for millennia.
Virologists competing with each other on who can produce the most infectious virus does not make us safer. Pursing research to prove that small pox can indeed mutate to be infectious via airborne aerosols is reckless, it creates a super charged version of a virus that never evolved naturally despite being a common disease for millennia.
>If you're fighting a shooting war and you have an explosion in a munitions factory, you don't necessarily decide to stop making munitions
What an apt analogy!
What an apt analogy!
Except that munitions don’t self replicate. It’s more like deciding to do munitions research specifically in enemy territory where the research could be taken an used against you on any security breach.
Since virtually every disease comes from nature and not from labs, the thing that would really make a big difference is stopping encroaching on animal habitats and distancing ourselves from animals (including stopping the eating of animals).. not to mention massive increases in funding to virology and way better pandemic planning.
> The first SARS and avian flu and swine flu, and CJD and mad cow disease were just more warnings that humans were continuing to play russian roulette with the way they were living with an using animals.
How do we live with and use bats that makes viruses crossing over more likely, though?
How do we live with and use bats that makes viruses crossing over more likely, though?
Both the Ebola and Marburg viruses both seem to live in bats in Africa and periodically transfer to humans - given it's happening in one place means it's not surprising it happens elsewhere
Sure, but does it happen right next to a world renowned Ebola virus research center?
There's genetic evidence that the first cases were not from Wuhan [0]:
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
You mean like this one?
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/researching-eb...
Where else would you research ebola?
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/researching-eb...
Where else would you research ebola?
Ebola has in the past escaped from labs.
https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/marburg/index.html
(Marburg virus is a variant of Ebola)
https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/marburg/index.html
(Marburg virus is a variant of Ebola)
I would be willing to bet that if Ebola were a frequent issue in a country that had the ability to construct a world-class virus research center, there would be a research center very close to the locations where Ebola had a natural reservoir.
No matter how hard you yell it, correlation is not causation (and even when there is causation, the direction of the causation isn't always obvious).
No matter how hard you yell it, correlation is not causation (and even when there is causation, the direction of the causation isn't always obvious).
Wuhan Virology Institute is not located near a natural reservoir.
Directly via bat guano farming and direct human/bat contact (plus some presence of live bats in wet markets and the workers that need to clean those).
Indirectly via animals like minks/civits being farmed. The bats can occasionally infect those animals, when those zoonotic jumps happen there's then a large bioractor of animals in close contact, resulting in a "serial gain of function" experiment to produce a virus which is adapted to those animals and can spread.
Every factory farm is a stochastic virus research laboratory that isn't even BSL-1 trained.
Indirectly via animals like minks/civits being farmed. The bats can occasionally infect those animals, when those zoonotic jumps happen there's then a large bioractor of animals in close contact, resulting in a "serial gain of function" experiment to produce a virus which is adapted to those animals and can spread.
Every factory farm is a stochastic virus research laboratory that isn't even BSL-1 trained.
By increasingly moving into their territory and disturbing populations of animals with which we were hitherto not in contact.
Wuhan is a very old city. Settled in 1500 BC.
The point is not where the city is, but where its inhabitants (or visiting traders) go in search of natural resources.
I does not have to be an immediate infection from bats to humans. With both SARS and MERS an intermediate host transmitted it to humans.
It might have been bats this time, next time it might be chickens.
Governments really need to start getting their shit together and stop blaming each other for their own mishandling (this will never happen I know). There is no point in trying to blame each other or cook up new regulations (enforcing regulation, particularly international regulation is just never going to happen). Quite frankly,most governments should seriously start considering how they will defend their citizens against biological threats. This means governments should do the following:
1. Build vaccine manufacturing capabilities. These are as important as other aspects of physical armed force defense. Every country should try to have their own facility given how vaccine supplies are being weaponised by certain powers.
2. Build up hospital capacity and make healthcare affordable. Train more doctors and nurses. In particular nurses are very important and generally require less training, so I would focus on building up a reserve of nurses. Pandemics will only get worse with our aging population. Our beds:human ratio is terrible even in the most advanced countries.
3. Invest in R&D towards breakthrough technologies in testing. There are currently tests like Breathonix's breathe based test that can detect a covid infection in 2 minutes with pretty decent sensitivity.
4. Build a medical reserves corps. This would be a group of citizens who voluntarily are trained in basic first aid.
5. Build more oxygen plants/equip hospitals and ambulances with oxygen concentrators.
6. Conduct drills like the Army does that simulate such an emergency. Practice emergency buying. Keep your medical corps on their toes.
7. Make sure every god damn citizen has a bank account so you can transfer emergency funds into the account in the event of a major economic disruption.
8. Estimate the financial impact and provide backup options for people who work in the service industry. If you were an air hostess for instance, you would have some basic training in medical emergency handling. In the event of a pandemic, your income source will be hurt. However, the government would definitely be scrambling for nurses and contact tracers. These are jobs that could be taken up temporarily during the duration of the pandemic.
9. Work on technolgies and training for deployment of field hospitals.
None of these actions should change irregardless of whether the vaccine is a lab leak or not a lab leak.
1. Build vaccine manufacturing capabilities. These are as important as other aspects of physical armed force defense. Every country should try to have their own facility given how vaccine supplies are being weaponised by certain powers.
2. Build up hospital capacity and make healthcare affordable. Train more doctors and nurses. In particular nurses are very important and generally require less training, so I would focus on building up a reserve of nurses. Pandemics will only get worse with our aging population. Our beds:human ratio is terrible even in the most advanced countries.
3. Invest in R&D towards breakthrough technologies in testing. There are currently tests like Breathonix's breathe based test that can detect a covid infection in 2 minutes with pretty decent sensitivity.
4. Build a medical reserves corps. This would be a group of citizens who voluntarily are trained in basic first aid.
5. Build more oxygen plants/equip hospitals and ambulances with oxygen concentrators.
6. Conduct drills like the Army does that simulate such an emergency. Practice emergency buying. Keep your medical corps on their toes.
7. Make sure every god damn citizen has a bank account so you can transfer emergency funds into the account in the event of a major economic disruption.
8. Estimate the financial impact and provide backup options for people who work in the service industry. If you were an air hostess for instance, you would have some basic training in medical emergency handling. In the event of a pandemic, your income source will be hurt. However, the government would definitely be scrambling for nurses and contact tracers. These are jobs that could be taken up temporarily during the duration of the pandemic.
9. Work on technolgies and training for deployment of field hospitals.
None of these actions should change irregardless of whether the vaccine is a lab leak or not a lab leak.
The biggest thing that made the pandemic so bad outside of china was large fractions of the population not taking it seriously. That said this pandemic was objectively not that bad by historical standards.
The US was a major source of anti vaccination FUD. And while in the US vaccination is stalling because of "muh freedom" EU governments developed an app that stops unvaccinated people from entering restaurants and airplanes. The latest 3D chess move was letting children get the jab without their parents permission.
I was seriously worried about our civilization for a moment but sanity prevailed. We will be at 90% soon.
What is this app you're talking about that won't let me visit restaurants or fly in EU? Either you're on purpose spreading misinformation or think whatever happens in your geographic location x is what is happening everywhere aka you're narrow minded.
Edit: ok, you're an arrogant yank, which explains it. Whatever you read about the mystical EU on reddit is 9 times out of 10 total bs.
Edit: ok, you're an arrogant yank, which explains it. Whatever you read about the mystical EU on reddit is 9 times out of 10 total bs.
> "muh freedom"
Freedom is costly. A lot of people died, and I mean, really, "A LOT", and I am talking people at the prime of their lives, for freedoms that we enjoy all over the world.
"muh freedom" indeed.
Freedom is costly. A lot of people died, and I mean, really, "A LOT", and I am talking people at the prime of their lives, for freedoms that we enjoy all over the world.
"muh freedom" indeed.
As a blame-free explanation of why SARS-CoV-2 become so widespread, I think the parent comment is basically correct. From [0], "SARS, caused by a respiratory-tract virus, also failed [to become a pandemic], although it came close to causing a pandemic after its emergence in late 2002. It killed almost 800 people worldwide, but was rapidly stopped mainly because infected people developed symptoms quickly." In contrast, Covid-19 spreads pre-symptomatically, and infections are frequently mild or asymptomatic. The test-trace-isolate containment strategy, such that it was, relied on people acting in response to symptoms. People without symptoms can't do that, and if someone has what feels like a normal cold they're just not very likely to take special precautions, at least early on when the disease is rare and there's still a chance of containment. The pandemic response we prepare for next time needs to compensate for this, such as by adopting proactive disease surveillance or increasing efforts in other areas.
As for the pandemic not being that bad, we did get lucky in a couple ways: it was possible to rapidly develop many vaccines, and the mortality rate was relatively low. Covid, disturbingly, was sort of the least bad version of a global pandemic, at least compared to the alternative scenarios outlined in warnings (e.g., [0]) over the past several decades.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002527/
As for the pandemic not being that bad, we did get lucky in a couple ways: it was possible to rapidly develop many vaccines, and the mortality rate was relatively low. Covid, disturbingly, was sort of the least bad version of a global pandemic, at least compared to the alternative scenarios outlined in warnings (e.g., [0]) over the past several decades.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002527/
Actually, I would see this as a shifting of blame from the government's perspective. Anyone who runs a government should know that legislation will be broken. People will not comply with orders. Thus the government should implement extremely simple and transparent legislation - something that most governments tend not to do. This legislation should be possible to enforce. One of the best ways to gain empathy is to involve citizens in the process. Rather than blame the citizens, start by thanking those who do follow orders. Involve citizens in the process. I'm sure we could have used a lot more contact tracers and swabbers during the pandemic, how about training unemployed citizens and using them for this task?
I live in Singapore where due to our size and wealth we have been able to manage the pandemic, arguably better than most countries. Its not only the fact that Singapore enforces legislation that helped us. There are many instances where legislation has been broken, and not all cases will be prosecuted. But one thing that worked well is the government treated us well. The moment they announced a "circuit breaker" (not lockdown cause that sounds scary) the government accompanied that with multiple payouts through the year to ensure people have basic sustenance. Further, the prime minister thanked us for complying with orders rather than picking on the few that did not comply with orders. Also we lived though SARS, and every now and then get scares from the Avian Flu so pandemic response is something we have lready been conditioned bu.
I live in Singapore where due to our size and wealth we have been able to manage the pandemic, arguably better than most countries. Its not only the fact that Singapore enforces legislation that helped us. There are many instances where legislation has been broken, and not all cases will be prosecuted. But one thing that worked well is the government treated us well. The moment they announced a "circuit breaker" (not lockdown cause that sounds scary) the government accompanied that with multiple payouts through the year to ensure people have basic sustenance. Further, the prime minister thanked us for complying with orders rather than picking on the few that did not comply with orders. Also we lived though SARS, and every now and then get scares from the Avian Flu so pandemic response is something we have lready been conditioned bu.
My point was not to assign blame but rather observe that the difference in the way the popuations reacted. Western populations likely did not take the pandemic as seriously as say China or Japan because of mixed messages from government, conspiratorial thinking, and exceptionalism.
For conspiratorial thinking have a look at godlikeproductions.com
countless threads about virus fake, virus harmless, masks don't work, vaccines kill. I am confident that godlikeproductions.com has killed far more people via covid than gab or parler did through "insurrection" or racism. And yet cloudflare continues to provide services to godlikeproductions.com It is almost as if they don't care as long as those dying are not san francisco elites.
For conspiratorial thinking have a look at godlikeproductions.com
countless threads about virus fake, virus harmless, masks don't work, vaccines kill. I am confident that godlikeproductions.com has killed far more people via covid than gab or parler did through "insurrection" or racism. And yet cloudflare continues to provide services to godlikeproductions.com It is almost as if they don't care as long as those dying are not san francisco elites.
True. But I don't think its only the populations. We have had a few clowns in Singapore who have expressed similar opinions. Yes, many of them have been prosecuted and charged for not complying, but I'm sure there are some who still have weird ideas about covid being a hoax or the vaccines being untrustworthy. (In fact we have had a lot of trouble convincing the older population to vaccinate some of them think the government approved American vaccines are too experimental)
Japan honestly has done a terrible job managing the epidemic if compared with the rest of East Asia. It cannot be clubbed with China. In China we do not actually know the amount of compliance as that data is not available to us. I know of at least one protest held in Wuhan during the lockdown. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-10/wuhan-ren...
Japan honestly has done a terrible job managing the epidemic if compared with the rest of East Asia. It cannot be clubbed with China. In China we do not actually know the amount of compliance as that data is not available to us. I know of at least one protest held in Wuhan during the lockdown. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-10/wuhan-ren...
I want to believe this. With how varied the level of reaction was in the states, coupled with how spread the impact was, I'm not sure we can say just yet.
Even the places that were heralded as amazing are starting to fall. I see Vietnam is on a rise now. Thailand? Who is left?
Even the places that were heralded as amazing are starting to fall. I see Vietnam is on a rise now. Thailand? Who is left?
As someone who is out of the loop on this and only a basic understanding, it seems very peculiar that scientists were so quickly to just jump on the "it must be bats and a wet market" thing so early on despite the Wuhan lab being right there.
It's like when some out-of-control company creates a superfund site through gross negligence of industrial byproduct handling and then goes "idk cancer gonna cancer. you can't link that to us!".
It's like when some out-of-control company creates a superfund site through gross negligence of industrial byproduct handling and then goes "idk cancer gonna cancer. you can't link that to us!".
“When HIV/AIDS emerged in the 1980s, it was alleged, with a little Soviet help, that the virus had been developed in an American lab. Between Washington’s inaction on the epidemic and its sordid past of shady experiments, proponents said the theory couldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
After many early cases of tick-borne Lyme disease were first identified around Long Island Sound, it was deemed too much of a coincidence that the U.S. military’s Plum Island animal research lab sat on an island in the sound itself.
When SARS emerged in 2003, so did fears of the severe acute respiratory syndrome’s unnatural origin. “It’s a very unusual outbreak,” bioweapons expert Ken Alibek told the New York Times at the time. “It’s hard to say whether it’s deliberate or natural.” One Russian scientist posited that “the propagation of the atypical pneumonia may well be caused by a leak of a combat virus grown in Asian bacteriological weapons labs.”
And in recent years, efforts to eradicate Ebola have been hobbled by attacks on health care workers motivated, at least in part, by a belief that the virus is man-made.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/15/lab-leak-theory-doesnt-...
This literally happens every goddamn time. Natural explanation is simpler.
After many early cases of tick-borne Lyme disease were first identified around Long Island Sound, it was deemed too much of a coincidence that the U.S. military’s Plum Island animal research lab sat on an island in the sound itself.
When SARS emerged in 2003, so did fears of the severe acute respiratory syndrome’s unnatural origin. “It’s a very unusual outbreak,” bioweapons expert Ken Alibek told the New York Times at the time. “It’s hard to say whether it’s deliberate or natural.” One Russian scientist posited that “the propagation of the atypical pneumonia may well be caused by a leak of a combat virus grown in Asian bacteriological weapons labs.”
And in recent years, efforts to eradicate Ebola have been hobbled by attacks on health care workers motivated, at least in part, by a belief that the virus is man-made.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/15/lab-leak-theory-doesnt-...
This literally happens every goddamn time. Natural explanation is simpler.
> This literally happens every goddamn time. Natural explanation is simpler.
NO it doesn't. Just because some theories LATER turned out to be wrong does not mean that we automatically dismissing this or that theory. It really doesn't matter if the "lab leak theory" is later on definitively discredited. To me thats not the point. The point is whether or not there was any justification for not only ignoring but actively removing it from discourse urgently as was done at a time when no one knew anything for certain.
NO it doesn't. Just because some theories LATER turned out to be wrong does not mean that we automatically dismissing this or that theory. It really doesn't matter if the "lab leak theory" is later on definitively discredited. To me thats not the point. The point is whether or not there was any justification for not only ignoring but actively removing it from discourse urgently as was done at a time when no one knew anything for certain.
Agreed - dismissing the lab-leak theory early on without conclusive evidence either way was certainly suspicious.
Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't dismiss any theory outright without having hard data to back it up.
Any scientist worth his/her salt shouldn't dismiss any theory outright without having hard data to back it up.
There are two things going on here:
- There's strong evidence that it's not bioengineered; scientists used very strong and convincing language here.
- There was initially hope of finding the zoonotic reservoir; scientists used couched language here to subtly detangle a natural virus vs. a natural virus that had adapted to passage in cell culture in a lab, and had priors assuming a zoonotic source would be found.
Guess which language journalists glommed onto.
- There's strong evidence that it's not bioengineered; scientists used very strong and convincing language here.
- There was initially hope of finding the zoonotic reservoir; scientists used couched language here to subtly detangle a natural virus vs. a natural virus that had adapted to passage in cell culture in a lab, and had priors assuming a zoonotic source would be found.
Guess which language journalists glommed onto.
Virologists have a bias against the lab leak theory because if true it would threaten their careers. If it's natural on the other hand they get a boost in funding.
It makes sense they are so against the idea, no one wants to be associated with/partially responsible for the death of 4 million + people worldwide, nor do they want to have their careers ruined.
It makes sense they are so against the idea, no one wants to be associated with/partially responsible for the death of 4 million + people worldwide, nor do they want to have their careers ruined.
It is not that lab leaks in general are unheard of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
So, in those cases I would say even though they are conspiratorial, I'd hope someone would be looking into those possibilities at least to some extent if they're even marginally possible. The nature of these things is when conspiracies are real, they're often made to look like something else, and to make people who see them look crazy.
The other thing is that this case seems different? It's not some vague accusation based on some xenophobic idea of "The Other" or a geopolitical adversary, or a threatening location -- for instance, a US military rival, or a military base -- but rather a large lab specifically focused on experimental virology research. Even more specifically, it's a lab that has been involved in genetically manipulating closely related viruses to be more virulent. There's been suspicious coverup activity by multiple parties, which in itself is not evidence, but I think raises some "worthy of investigation" rationale, and also has been a serious ethical problem in itself regardless of the actual SARS-CoV-2 origin.
I guess in short, yes, there's always conspiracy theories. But this time is different. I don't really see this situation as comparable to other situations, because the evidence justifying serious consideration is so specific.
Personally, I think the train has left the station on ever figuring out what really was the source. This delay in itself seems suspicious to me but I don't know that I'll ever really feel confident about any particular explanation.
As for "simpler", I think that depends on your subjective opinion. I personally think that the perspective that the "natural explanation" is simpler is naive, and underestimates human behavior, especially in our time.
Take Ebola: is it really irrational for non-white, non-Euroamericans to be suspicious of health care workers given, for instance, what happened at Tuskegee and in the search for Osama Bin Laden? There's a reasonable argument that it is irrational, but also a reasonable argument it's not irrational. Turn it around. What's simpler?
The other thing is that this case seems different? It's not some vague accusation based on some xenophobic idea of "The Other" or a geopolitical adversary, or a threatening location -- for instance, a US military rival, or a military base -- but rather a large lab specifically focused on experimental virology research. Even more specifically, it's a lab that has been involved in genetically manipulating closely related viruses to be more virulent. There's been suspicious coverup activity by multiple parties, which in itself is not evidence, but I think raises some "worthy of investigation" rationale, and also has been a serious ethical problem in itself regardless of the actual SARS-CoV-2 origin.
I guess in short, yes, there's always conspiracy theories. But this time is different. I don't really see this situation as comparable to other situations, because the evidence justifying serious consideration is so specific.
Personally, I think the train has left the station on ever figuring out what really was the source. This delay in itself seems suspicious to me but I don't know that I'll ever really feel confident about any particular explanation.
As for "simpler", I think that depends on your subjective opinion. I personally think that the perspective that the "natural explanation" is simpler is naive, and underestimates human behavior, especially in our time.
Take Ebola: is it really irrational for non-white, non-Euroamericans to be suspicious of health care workers given, for instance, what happened at Tuskegee and in the search for Osama Bin Laden? There's a reasonable argument that it is irrational, but also a reasonable argument it's not irrational. Turn it around. What's simpler?
You want to use a razor to shave a bear. Simplicity is not enough to favor a belief model. Machine Learning has shown us that large complex models can perform much better at providing the ground truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor
Razor's aren't scientifically rigorous theorems. Feel free to use them but don't argue by them in a public forum, it's disingenuous to truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor
Razor's aren't scientifically rigorous theorems. Feel free to use them but don't argue by them in a public forum, it's disingenuous to truth.
Pretty good point. People resort to occams razor as if it is a fundamental constant of nature valid in all
cases. Occams razor has heuristic value not probitive value.
Because the scientists were too busy playing politics.
> "... it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory...
It never occurred to these people that claiming the virus came from bats because they eat bats there is the more "xenophobic" thing and not the possible lab leak caused due to poor handling.
The next time someone asks us to trust the science, our response should be "okay, but can I trust the scientists?" And if they can be so easily manipulated based on politics, what else are they and the dissenters being silenced on?
> "... it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins."
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory...
It never occurred to these people that claiming the virus came from bats because they eat bats there is the more "xenophobic" thing and not the possible lab leak caused due to poor handling.
The next time someone asks us to trust the science, our response should be "okay, but can I trust the scientists?" And if they can be so easily manipulated based on politics, what else are they and the dissenters being silenced on?
>The next time someone asks us to trust the science, our response should be "okay, but can I trust the scientists?"
Originally, trust in scientists was not required. Because anyone could have repeated the experiment and should see results consistent with what the scientists were saying.
This is where the credibility of science come from and it made people's trust in science grow to a kind of blind faith. But then some point, experiments became too large to be attempted by anyone. This along with entities like "consensus" and "reputation", that can reject any conflicting results, enabled entities that control all of these to have a veto power on scientific truth.
This is our current situation. And I am not sure people recognise the true danger of this situation. This is the kind of power that in holy men held in ancient times, where you could make people to do mass murders and other atrocities in the name of god. So I think it is very dangerous. It might not be that bad as of now, but we are in that path.
One solution to this problem is to recognise and reduce the trust in "science" that is a result such collaboration.
May be we can do it by using a measure of how easily verifiable a result is. For example, if something is verifiable by anyone in this planet, it should have a measure of 1. And if it is only verifiable by a single entity, then it should have a measure of zero. If it is verifiable by a few entities, then it should be somewhere between.
Originally, trust in scientists was not required. Because anyone could have repeated the experiment and should see results consistent with what the scientists were saying.
This is where the credibility of science come from and it made people's trust in science grow to a kind of blind faith. But then some point, experiments became too large to be attempted by anyone. This along with entities like "consensus" and "reputation", that can reject any conflicting results, enabled entities that control all of these to have a veto power on scientific truth.
This is our current situation. And I am not sure people recognise the true danger of this situation. This is the kind of power that in holy men held in ancient times, where you could make people to do mass murders and other atrocities in the name of god. So I think it is very dangerous. It might not be that bad as of now, but we are in that path.
One solution to this problem is to recognise and reduce the trust in "science" that is a result such collaboration.
May be we can do it by using a measure of how easily verifiable a result is. For example, if something is verifiable by anyone in this planet, it should have a measure of 1. And if it is only verifiable by a single entity, then it should have a measure of zero. If it is verifiable by a few entities, then it should be somewhere between.
That's a nice idea but there are a lot of problems with it.
1. Being able to replicate a study is necessary but not sufficient for the conclusions to be correct. Scientists pump out a lot of studies that are just doing stats on public data sets. These should be easily replicable, but the conclusions may still be nonsensical if the analysis isn't done right (and a lot aren't done right), or if the scientific work itself contains fraud or logic errors (and a lot do).
2. There are no incentives for scientists to make their work replicable. Their salary does not depend on it. Their salary isn't going to depend on it, because the scientific institutions are all basically dependent on funding by governments or rich benefactors who aren't paying attention - funding "science" is not a means to an end but the end in and of itself for these groups, and thus they aren't particularly motivated to double check the quality of what gets released.
Consider the above problem: scientists were deceiving people because they thought helping Trump is the same thing as helping "racists". Scott Alexander did a very thorough analysis of this where he pointed out that Trump is not, in fact, racist and a lot of the claims that his followers are don't make any sense [1]. If self-proclaimed scientists can't do even basic sanity checks on their own beliefs like that, you can imagine how much they struggle with more complicated claims.
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
1. Being able to replicate a study is necessary but not sufficient for the conclusions to be correct. Scientists pump out a lot of studies that are just doing stats on public data sets. These should be easily replicable, but the conclusions may still be nonsensical if the analysis isn't done right (and a lot aren't done right), or if the scientific work itself contains fraud or logic errors (and a lot do).
2. There are no incentives for scientists to make their work replicable. Their salary does not depend on it. Their salary isn't going to depend on it, because the scientific institutions are all basically dependent on funding by governments or rich benefactors who aren't paying attention - funding "science" is not a means to an end but the end in and of itself for these groups, and thus they aren't particularly motivated to double check the quality of what gets released.
Consider the above problem: scientists were deceiving people because they thought helping Trump is the same thing as helping "racists". Scott Alexander did a very thorough analysis of this where he pointed out that Trump is not, in fact, racist and a lot of the claims that his followers are don't make any sense [1]. If self-proclaimed scientists can't do even basic sanity checks on their own beliefs like that, you can imagine how much they struggle with more complicated claims.
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...
>Scientists pump out a lot of studies that are just doing stats on public data sets.
May be I didn't make myself clear. I only meant to include actual experiments, in the context. So it will only involve procedures that include collecting raw data from nature.
Mostly agree with the rest of your comment.
May be I didn't make myself clear. I only meant to include actual experiments, in the context. So it will only involve procedures that include collecting raw data from nature.
Mostly agree with the rest of your comment.
Yes, this gets into the (very important!) topic of what exactly the definition of science is.
Consider that the normal 'street' definition of people doing experiments on nature would mean the following fields aren't scientific:
1. Computer science
2. Economics
3. Climatology
I'd personally be fine with all three being considered un-scientific or even defunded, even though I quite enjoy reading computer science papers. It's more of an engineering discipline in my view and the attempts to make it seem scientific mostly just obfuscate things.
And most people would be fine with economics not being a science.
The live wire is of course climatology. These people don't do experiments, they just compile data and analyze it. Good luck convincing people that climatology isn't a science, even though you may be in the right about it!
Consider that the normal 'street' definition of people doing experiments on nature would mean the following fields aren't scientific:
1. Computer science
2. Economics
3. Climatology
I'd personally be fine with all three being considered un-scientific or even defunded, even though I quite enjoy reading computer science papers. It's more of an engineering discipline in my view and the attempts to make it seem scientific mostly just obfuscate things.
And most people would be fine with economics not being a science.
The live wire is of course climatology. These people don't do experiments, they just compile data and analyze it. Good luck convincing people that climatology isn't a science, even though you may be in the right about it!
Shouldn't the next step not be "I wonder what the scientists consider that my basic understanding doesn't cover", not "scientists are lying"?
Being a scientist myself, I did that. But it could simply not understand how - in early 2020! - "the scientist" could be so sure and demonized the lab leak theory so fervently.
And now in mid-2021, one of the few things that we know for sure is that some of the key scientists in the "It must be natural" camp have ties with the WIV and thus a strong conflict of interest that they did not disclose.
And then of course, there is the fact that China is blocking all research. Is that only China being China?
And now in mid-2021, one of the few things that we know for sure is that some of the key scientists in the "It must be natural" camp have ties with the WIV and thus a strong conflict of interest that they did not disclose.
And then of course, there is the fact that China is blocking all research. Is that only China being China?
What do you mean "did not disclose", most scientists that had connections with WIV were pretty open about it.
Unfortunately not. And Lancet and Nature admit it now. Here is the Lancet update from 2021:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
More info on the same topic: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
More info on the same topic: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...
Author of the Lancet paper did not disclose ties to WIV
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-...
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/under-fire-lancet-...
Not when scientists were constantly saying "there's so much we don't know" and citing a possible 3% mortality rate.
Watch Contagion (2011). COVID-19 has been predicted for nearly 20 years, including the origin story. When the most likely explanation was predicted based on understanding, why should the politically charged finger pointers be given credence? An investigation should happen, but the lab-leak proponents appear to have ulterior motives rather than to innocently seek the truth.
The real motive behind most of these kind of articles: "...loose talk about a lab leak elevates tensions between China and the United States, undermining the collaborative research we need to understand this pandemic and prevent the next one."
Translation: "please shut up about this, it doesn't matter now and we need to get China calmed down, and this talk is making them defensive and therefore uncooperative." The rest of the article is mostly just FUD to try to provide a plausible excuse for ignoring the obvious fact that China is covering up, so that raises the possibility that there is a mistake for them to cover up.
I would prefer the truth to be brought out. But, I have to admit, it may be that the "let's just pretend we don't realize they screwed up" policy is in fact the wiser one.
Translation: "please shut up about this, it doesn't matter now and we need to get China calmed down, and this talk is making them defensive and therefore uncooperative." The rest of the article is mostly just FUD to try to provide a plausible excuse for ignoring the obvious fact that China is covering up, so that raises the possibility that there is a mistake for them to cover up.
I would prefer the truth to be brought out. But, I have to admit, it may be that the "let's just pretend we don't realize they screwed up" policy is in fact the wiser one.
The real motive behind most of the lab leak articles:
"Please shut up about zoonotic origins, we don't want to have to worry about factory farming of animals, and for fucks sake could you imagine a world where we had to admit the goddamn VEGANS were right? That certainly can't ever happen. They're already insufferable assholes, could you imagine?"
(p.s. be very, very angry at China so you don't think about the US policy response that wound up with half a million Americans dead -- once you pin fault on someone that allows everyone later to neatly escape any guilt)
"Please shut up about zoonotic origins, we don't want to have to worry about factory farming of animals, and for fucks sake could you imagine a world where we had to admit the goddamn VEGANS were right? That certainly can't ever happen. They're already insufferable assholes, could you imagine?"
(p.s. be very, very angry at China so you don't think about the US policy response that wound up with half a million Americans dead -- once you pin fault on someone that allows everyone later to neatly escape any guilt)
Hmmm...maybe there are articles that slant that way, but I haven't run across them. Can you cite an example?
Can you cite an example of an article which literally says "we need to shut up about this to calm China down?"
agree with your read on the article but not on your conclusion. in general, I don't think fudging the truth for strategic reasons ever turns out well in the long run, mostly because, we're not smart enough to anticipate what the long run impact of our strategic lying will be. secondly, the strategy itself, going out of our way, up to and including hiding the causes of a global pandemic, in order to avoid ever hurting china's feelings, just does not seem viable to me at all.
They seem to be trying to insist that the virus didn't even originate in Wuhan at all, leak or no leak.
There is evidence pointing in that direction [0]:
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
China refuses to allow research into the origin of the virus and blames whoever is pissing them off that day.
I don't think it's beyond reason to think, in a country where officials routinely fudge numbers to avoid jail time, that someone covered their ass for too long and now it's the entire CCP's problem. This article looks like it's just running cover because, idk, GOP evil I guess.
I don't think it's beyond reason to think, in a country where officials routinely fudge numbers to avoid jail time, that someone covered their ass for too long and now it's the entire CCP's problem. This article looks like it's just running cover because, idk, GOP evil I guess.
Who is this author and as the lay public, can we trust the authoritative tone she takes? Basic clicking around shows she's a journalist, not a scientist, and has written articles e.g., highlighting the medical struggles of Jordan Peterson with statements about him like:
> His stern ethos of self-help and bootstrapping has made him a darling of the so-called intellectual dark web, and a gateway drug for countless budding right-wingers who have stumbled upon one of his lectures on YouTube. (https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter...)
It seems too much of a coincidence that another member of "the so-called intellectual dark web" is perhaps the most recognizable proponent of the Lab Leak Theory. She also writes for The Nation, which is unapologetically leaning pretty hard to the left.
In other words, I question both her motives and authority.
> His stern ethos of self-help and bootstrapping has made him a darling of the so-called intellectual dark web, and a gateway drug for countless budding right-wingers who have stumbled upon one of his lectures on YouTube. (https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter...)
It seems too much of a coincidence that another member of "the so-called intellectual dark web" is perhaps the most recognizable proponent of the Lab Leak Theory. She also writes for The Nation, which is unapologetically leaning pretty hard to the left.
In other words, I question both her motives and authority.
"Bats being bats..."
What about the undeniable fact that China (the government) is blocking all international research into the origin of Covid.
Is that only China being China?
What about the undeniable fact that China (the government) is blocking all international research into the origin of Covid.
Is that only China being China?
Yes? They even mention it in the article about SARS and MERS approach before natural origin was estabilished.
Skimmed the article but failed to see any evidence for a zoonotic origin. Did I miss it?
The evidence is that it's happened before so it could again.
It's not like there's a paper trail. The best you can say is that the virus looked very similar between species, so a natural jump is plausible.
It's not like there's a paper trail. The best you can say is that the virus looked very similar between species, so a natural jump is plausible.
There is no real case made for zoonotic origin in this article. The tone of the article exhibits some bias and spurious logic in the support of a zoonotic origin
The authors of the original Lancet letter (Daszak included) just came out with a similarly-toned new one in the same publication - with 3 of their co-signers from last year now having dropped out of it:
https://twitter.com/franciscodeasis/status/14122249205375139...
Link to the new letter in the lancet:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> On Feb 19, 2020, we, a group of physicians, veterinarians, epidemiologists, virologists, biologists, ecologists, and public health experts from around the world, joined together to express solidarity with our professional colleagues in China.1 Unsubstantiated allegations were being raised about the source of the COVID-19 outbreak and the integrity of our peers who were diligently working to learn more about the newly recognised virus, SARS-CoV-2, while struggling to care for the many patients admitted to hospital with severe illness in Wuhan and elsewhere in China.
This is such an odd way to discuss an issue of finding the truth. This first paragraph of the article seems to intentionally try to create a sense of sympathy for the Chinese scientists against whom “unsubstantiated allegations” were being leveled. Of course we should all feel bad for well-intentioned people being thrown into the controversy of the pandemic origins, but this is not about shielding people from difficult circumstances—this is about finding truth so that we can minimize the risk that this ever happens again.
This is such an odd way to discuss an issue of finding the truth. This first paragraph of the article seems to intentionally try to create a sense of sympathy for the Chinese scientists against whom “unsubstantiated allegations” were being leveled. Of course we should all feel bad for well-intentioned people being thrown into the controversy of the pandemic origins, but this is not about shielding people from difficult circumstances—this is about finding truth so that we can minimize the risk that this ever happens again.
"WIV officials told the investigators that serum samples for all staff and students in the bat coronavirus group subsequently tested negative for Covid antibodies. We have only their word to go on because the lab hasn’t been independently audited, but if that’s true,..."
My goodness, that statement from the essay is missing critical context. The lab hasn't been independently audited because the CCP refused permission for any independent inspections.
And yes, you are allowed to take into account their refusal to allow inspections when making a judgement on whether the CCP is covering up a lab-leak.
My goodness, that statement from the essay is missing critical context. The lab hasn't been independently audited because the CCP refused permission for any independent inspections.
And yes, you are allowed to take into account their refusal to allow inspections when making a judgement on whether the CCP is covering up a lab-leak.
The evidence is sadly too thin to make a definitive call one way or the other at this point. We may never know.
But at the same time I have to wonder how much it matters? It's the difference between telling some researchers to double-check their containment procedures vs. not? I think it's extremely unlikely that this was an intentional attack from CCP on their own people. It wasn't a Uyghur town as far as I know, and even so containment was nearly impossible so it's a dumb idea anyway.
So the only two plausible theories is it was either a natural source or an unintentional lab leak. At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much which one was true, the response is about the same. Maybe on the extreme end the lab could be shut down and its work moved elsewhere. People are wasting an enormous amount of energy arguing over this.
But at the same time I have to wonder how much it matters? It's the difference between telling some researchers to double-check their containment procedures vs. not? I think it's extremely unlikely that this was an intentional attack from CCP on their own people. It wasn't a Uyghur town as far as I know, and even so containment was nearly impossible so it's a dumb idea anyway.
So the only two plausible theories is it was either a natural source or an unintentional lab leak. At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much which one was true, the response is about the same. Maybe on the extreme end the lab could be shut down and its work moved elsewhere. People are wasting an enormous amount of energy arguing over this.
"Rasmussen notes another major piece of new evidence against a lab origin: If Covid-19 were invented as part of a benevolent gain-of-function experiment, the goal would be to make it more transmissible, or more lethal to people, in order to study that strain in the lab. But when current strains of Covid-19 are cultured in cells in the laboratory, the virus tends to mutate fast and become less contagious to humans. "
The author presents the mutation history as an argument against a 'benevolent gain-of-function experiment.' But the key word there is 'benevolent.' And it is there on purpose. Let me formalize this: Set(gain-of-function experiments) - Set(benevolent gain-of-function experiments) => Set(non-benevolent gain-of-function experiments).
So if it was a lab leak from a gain-of-function experiment, it is, according to Rasmussen, a lab leak from a biowarfare gain-of-function experiment.
The author presents the mutation history as an argument against a 'benevolent gain-of-function experiment.' But the key word there is 'benevolent.' And it is there on purpose. Let me formalize this: Set(gain-of-function experiments) - Set(benevolent gain-of-function experiments) => Set(non-benevolent gain-of-function experiments).
So if it was a lab leak from a gain-of-function experiment, it is, according to Rasmussen, a lab leak from a biowarfare gain-of-function experiment.
As far as I'm concerned it's largely irrelevant, because the real question is how the governments all handled the Covid crisis, once it was out in the open.
I struggle to understand this thinking. If (and I don’t know) this was a leak of a gain-of-function modified virus, it’s a scientific experiment that killed 10 million people.
We need to know so we don’t do it again.
I’m not concerned about whether the car driver was drunk, I’m more concerned about how the paramedics responded to the crash.
We need to know so we don’t do it again.
I’m not concerned about whether the car driver was drunk, I’m more concerned about how the paramedics responded to the crash.
Well I don't think we will ever uncover the truth about the origin of the outbreak, I'm interested in the fact that China (seemingly) and East Asia managed to contain the virus, in Europe their was initially a huge outbreak, then some level of containment, and in the US and Americas there was a huge outbreak with no respite. That's three different responses to the same thing.
Not really. Once thing the lab leak theory would explain is that why the virus was so unexpectedly infective right from the start (adapted to human tissue e. g. via passage in humanized mice).
In that sense, I hope that it was a lab leak. It will be better for us humans.
In that sense, I hope that it was a lab leak. It will be better for us humans.
> Once thing the lab leak theory would explain is that why the virus was so unexpectedly infective right from the start.
There's nothing unexpected about Covid being infective because spread in humans is why we took note of it and are currently discussing it. That is, we're discussing P(human infectiousness | human epidemic). If we _randomly selected_ a virus from amongst _all_ viruses, then yes, P(human infectiousness) would be expected to be low, but we're not doing that. The former is plain selection bias (by which I mean the technical error; I'm not accusing you of bias).
There's nothing unexpected about Covid being infective because spread in humans is why we took note of it and are currently discussing it. That is, we're discussing P(human infectiousness | human epidemic). If we _randomly selected_ a virus from amongst _all_ viruses, then yes, P(human infectiousness) would be expected to be low, but we're not doing that. The former is plain selection bias (by which I mean the technical error; I'm not accusing you of bias).
There's nothing unique about covid spreading to humans. It infects various species very easily. Cats, dogs, ferrets.
It wasn't uniquely adapted to humans in the beginning. Humans are just more connected species than for example panthers.
As it grew to pandemic levels it spawned mutations slightly more adapted to humans.
It wasn't uniquely adapted to humans in the beginning. Humans are just more connected species than for example panthers.
As it grew to pandemic levels it spawned mutations slightly more adapted to humans.
>It wasn't uniquely adapted to humans in the beginning.
Seems wrong.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92388-5#Abs1
>Conspicuously, we found that the binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein was higher for human ACE2 than any other species we tested, with the ACE2 binding energy order, from highest to lowest, being human > pangolin > dog > monkey > hamster > ferret > cat > tiger > bat > civet > horse > cow > snake > mouse.
>>These findings show that the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 isolates were surprisingly well adapted to bind strongly to human ACE2, helping explain its efficient human to human respiratory transmission.
Seems wrong.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92388-5#Abs1
>Conspicuously, we found that the binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein was higher for human ACE2 than any other species we tested, with the ACE2 binding energy order, from highest to lowest, being human > pangolin > dog > monkey > hamster > ferret > cat > tiger > bat > civet > horse > cow > snake > mouse.
>>These findings show that the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 isolates were surprisingly well adapted to bind strongly to human ACE2, helping explain its efficient human to human respiratory transmission.
"Overall, given the high binding energy of S protein for pangolin ACE2, the possibility of pangolins being an intermediary vector for SARS-CoV-2 cannot be excluded"
There's really no wonder that virus that spreads through human population is slightly better adjusted to humans than animal species its ancestor was infecting.
It's the case of water in the puddle surprised how well the puddle shape fits the water shape.
What I'm saying is that this virus is sufficiently general that it can infect multiple species with high efficiency and if hamsters were more densly connected than humans it could have been a hamster pandemic before it would become human pandemic.
This virus fits us well but not uniquely well.
There's really no wonder that virus that spreads through human population is slightly better adjusted to humans than animal species its ancestor was infecting.
It's the case of water in the puddle surprised how well the puddle shape fits the water shape.
What I'm saying is that this virus is sufficiently general that it can infect multiple species with high efficiency and if hamsters were more densly connected than humans it could have been a hamster pandemic before it would become human pandemic.
This virus fits us well but not uniquely well.
>There's really no wonder that virus that spreads through human population is slightly better adjusted to humans than animal species its ancestor was infecting.
This does not make sense to me, because I think the COVID virus was pretty stable for a long time (being an RNA virus and all that, I don't know). So the idea is that it was optimally adapted during the time of the jump to humans (of course it could have got the perfect mutation right at the time of the jump, but the chances of that happening is astronomically small), and the optimal human transmission was not acquired later when it started circulating in humans.
So the only way to have this happened is if it was optimized in a GoF research in a lab.
This does not make sense to me, because I think the COVID virus was pretty stable for a long time (being an RNA virus and all that, I don't know). So the idea is that it was optimally adapted during the time of the jump to humans (of course it could have got the perfect mutation right at the time of the jump, but the chances of that happening is astronomically small), and the optimal human transmission was not acquired later when it started circulating in humans.
So the only way to have this happened is if it was optimized in a GoF research in a lab.
Virus doesn't need to be perfectly adapted to infect a species.
It easily infects species other than humans.
It's stable but not that stable. The variant that spread out of China was already different than the variant that initially caused trouble in China. Since then we got few new variants and that's only counting the ones that spread enough for us to notice.
There are no perfect things in biology. All things are just good enough. This virus was just good enough at spreading between people that given our connectivity it spread pandemically.
If the virus was was somehow uniquely well adapted to humans (which it isn't) it would be still more probable that its ancestor was just an unknown human coronavirus (other than 4 that cause some common colds) that we haven't discovered yet, because it spread completely asympthomatically. And the mutation it acquired made it slightly lethal not more infectious.
I don't think that happened because then why would pangolins be better suited for it than dogs, although dogs and cats being high on the list is quite curious.
And I'd be careful about reasoning that if I can't imagine any other way something could happen then it must have happened exactly the way I think it happened. It's good to be aware that no matter who I am and what I know, my ignorance always exceeds my knowledge and imagination.
It easily infects species other than humans.
It's stable but not that stable. The variant that spread out of China was already different than the variant that initially caused trouble in China. Since then we got few new variants and that's only counting the ones that spread enough for us to notice.
There are no perfect things in biology. All things are just good enough. This virus was just good enough at spreading between people that given our connectivity it spread pandemically.
If the virus was was somehow uniquely well adapted to humans (which it isn't) it would be still more probable that its ancestor was just an unknown human coronavirus (other than 4 that cause some common colds) that we haven't discovered yet, because it spread completely asympthomatically. And the mutation it acquired made it slightly lethal not more infectious.
I don't think that happened because then why would pangolins be better suited for it than dogs, although dogs and cats being high on the list is quite curious.
And I'd be careful about reasoning that if I can't imagine any other way something could happen then it must have happened exactly the way I think it happened. It's good to be aware that no matter who I am and what I know, my ignorance always exceeds my knowledge and imagination.
>Virus doesn't need to be perfectly adapted to infect a species.
To be frank, no one said so.
>And I'd be careful about reasoning that if I can't imagine any other way something could happen then it must have happened exactly the way I think it happened
No one is doing that either. Just that the chance of alternative is astronomically small..
To be frank, no one said so.
>And I'd be careful about reasoning that if I can't imagine any other way something could happen then it must have happened exactly the way I think it happened
No one is doing that either. Just that the chance of alternative is astronomically small..
That's a weird way of saying "I believe it didn't happen like that."
This is simply the result of natural selection, there are tons of viruses that are less infectious, but they simply die out.
It had this quality seemingly out of the gate, not after a period of selection. that’s part of the problem.
The mechanism that duplicate the virus genome is fairly imprecise, which means that they produce an astronomical number of mutants. The only mutants that we will really notice are the ones that survive. There is nothing sinister about the fact that the very first COVID virus was already adapted to humans because otherwise it would never have been to infect humans.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's completely irrelevant. If it was a leak, we will want guarantees that another leak is not possible (ie. better safety, or downright stop dangerous research, such as gain of function). It's all about reducing risks.
So: assume that a leak can happen all the time, find out how, and fix it. Red team/blue team your virus lab. This blamelaying is complete nonsense, and is a huge waste of funds across multiple regions.
You have to know who is to blame in order to know how it escaped. If we don't know how this leak happened we can't fix it.
To make the argument that, because in the past the transmission from animal to human happened in nature, that in the present it could only happen there, implies that your assumptions stay constant.
Things have changed since Ebola 50 years ago and Sars1 20 years ago. For one thing, millions of dollars have been invested in gain-of-function research. There are many more labs, many times more investigators and projects running. These scientists are working to create the characteristics in viruses that make them more deadly and more infectious.
Also, today powerful new bio-engineering tools are available, in the past 10 years especially. Today the situation is different, since there are now new pathways for a deadly virus to come into being.
I don't think anyone can argue that the number of dangerous viruses being studied in laboratories around the world is the same now as it was 20 years ago.
If you want to argue against a lab-leak today, you really need to argue that the BSL-rated laboratories are perfectly leak-proof.
Things have changed since Ebola 50 years ago and Sars1 20 years ago. For one thing, millions of dollars have been invested in gain-of-function research. There are many more labs, many times more investigators and projects running. These scientists are working to create the characteristics in viruses that make them more deadly and more infectious.
Also, today powerful new bio-engineering tools are available, in the past 10 years especially. Today the situation is different, since there are now new pathways for a deadly virus to come into being.
I don't think anyone can argue that the number of dangerous viruses being studied in laboratories around the world is the same now as it was 20 years ago.
If you want to argue against a lab-leak today, you really need to argue that the BSL-rated laboratories are perfectly leak-proof.
> WIV officials told the investigators that serum samples for all staff and students in the bat coronavirus group subsequently tested negative for Covid antibodies. We have only their word to go on because the lab hasn’t been independently audited...
Why has the lab not been independently audited? If I was going to make a case against someone making an error, saying "well, that group said they didn't make an error" seems like a bad argument.
> The first human case of Covid could have been infected hundreds of miles away, perhaps closer to the horseshoe bat caves of southern China.
Have we found such a person?
> You can get on the fast train in Wuhan and be in Guandong Province, the home of the original SARS outbreak, in under four hours.
If someone had been in Guandong, and taken a train to Wuhan, it seems to me that the early cases would not have been so concentrated in Wuhan, for two reasons: 1) if Wuhan is really all that accessible by different means of transportation, you'd expect people would just as easily take it from Wuhan to other places, and 2) presumably, the fast train doesn't just stop in Wuhan (Google says it's 1000 km away), meaning an infected person on the train could easily have infected someone else on the train who got off in between. Honest question: is that not how the spread of disease would work?
> There is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or anyone else, ever had any strain that similar to Covid-19.
Again, that's what we're trying to figure out. You can't take the thing we're trying to figure out as evidence one way or the other, that's Begging the Question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
> Given that Covid (or its direct ancestor) must exist in nature, it’s more likely that it got out naturally (like SARS and MERS) than that it took an undetectable detour through a secure biolab.
I don't understand this jump. Most people I've read arguing that the lab leak theory is possible agree that there must be some base virus in nature. The question is, what is the more likely path from that natural virus to the COVID outbreak, through a lab or through some other animal (or animals)? I understand the argument that we didn't find the transmission chain for SARS or MERS or Ebola for years, but why does asserting it started in nature lead to the conclusion it therefore had a natural path? This again seems like the author is trying to prove a conclusion using the conclusion.
> The fact that China is being secretive about Covid-19 isn’t evidence for any particular theory.
When SARS came out, I don't remember the Chinese government blaming Italian frozen food or athletes at an international athletics competition for SARS. I don't remember them promising people that it's not transmittable between humans, or that it's not a big deal. I think simply saying "China is being secretive" is not looking at the whole picture.
> All theories of the origins of Covid-19 should be investigated, including lab origin theories. We should go wherever the science takes us.
This seems right to me. We can't make bricks without clay though.
Why has the lab not been independently audited? If I was going to make a case against someone making an error, saying "well, that group said they didn't make an error" seems like a bad argument.
> The first human case of Covid could have been infected hundreds of miles away, perhaps closer to the horseshoe bat caves of southern China.
Have we found such a person?
> You can get on the fast train in Wuhan and be in Guandong Province, the home of the original SARS outbreak, in under four hours.
If someone had been in Guandong, and taken a train to Wuhan, it seems to me that the early cases would not have been so concentrated in Wuhan, for two reasons: 1) if Wuhan is really all that accessible by different means of transportation, you'd expect people would just as easily take it from Wuhan to other places, and 2) presumably, the fast train doesn't just stop in Wuhan (Google says it's 1000 km away), meaning an infected person on the train could easily have infected someone else on the train who got off in between. Honest question: is that not how the spread of disease would work?
> There is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or anyone else, ever had any strain that similar to Covid-19.
Again, that's what we're trying to figure out. You can't take the thing we're trying to figure out as evidence one way or the other, that's Begging the Question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
> Given that Covid (or its direct ancestor) must exist in nature, it’s more likely that it got out naturally (like SARS and MERS) than that it took an undetectable detour through a secure biolab.
I don't understand this jump. Most people I've read arguing that the lab leak theory is possible agree that there must be some base virus in nature. The question is, what is the more likely path from that natural virus to the COVID outbreak, through a lab or through some other animal (or animals)? I understand the argument that we didn't find the transmission chain for SARS or MERS or Ebola for years, but why does asserting it started in nature lead to the conclusion it therefore had a natural path? This again seems like the author is trying to prove a conclusion using the conclusion.
> The fact that China is being secretive about Covid-19 isn’t evidence for any particular theory.
When SARS came out, I don't remember the Chinese government blaming Italian frozen food or athletes at an international athletics competition for SARS. I don't remember them promising people that it's not transmittable between humans, or that it's not a big deal. I think simply saying "China is being secretive" is not looking at the whole picture.
> All theories of the origins of Covid-19 should be investigated, including lab origin theories. We should go wherever the science takes us.
This seems right to me. We can't make bricks without clay though.
> it seems to me that the early cases would not have been so concentrated in Wuhan
There's genetic evidence that the origin was 600 miles south of Wuhan [0]:
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
And this [1]:
> Upon further investigation, the first case detected from December 1st was found to have no connection to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Also, that patient was never linked to any future cases of COVID19. A third of the first 41 cases had no connection to the market, including 3 of the first 4 cases reported. Given this data, we have a new hypothesis: The first human cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection must have happened before December 2019 and likely did not originate at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
There's genetic evidence that the origin was 600 miles south of Wuhan [0]:
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
And this [1]:
> Upon further investigation, the first case detected from December 1st was found to have no connection to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. Also, that patient was never linked to any future cases of COVID19. A third of the first 41 cases had no connection to the market, including 3 of the first 4 cases reported. Given this data, we have a new hypothesis: The first human cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection must have happened before December 2019 and likely did not originate at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
[1] https://leelabvirus.host/covid19/origins-part3
Why has the lab not been independently audited? If I was going to make a case against someone making an error, saying "well, that group said they didn't make an error" seems like a bad argument.
Well, remember back in February 2019 when China said Covid was basically over and capped their infection count at about 60k? While every other country reported the truth in the millions, they just said ‘no, it stopped at 60k (as of today less than 100k still)’.
They are liars, that’s why there’s no independent investigation. China believes it deserves automatic respect and the rest of the world should take it’s word for it. They do not accept that many countries work hard to earn a modest reputation of integrity.
Well, remember back in February 2019 when China said Covid was basically over and capped their infection count at about 60k? While every other country reported the truth in the millions, they just said ‘no, it stopped at 60k (as of today less than 100k still)’.
They are liars, that’s why there’s no independent investigation. China believes it deserves automatic respect and the rest of the world should take it’s word for it. They do not accept that many countries work hard to earn a modest reputation of integrity.
[deleted]
Huh, the second sentence of the article made me doubt how good it is...
> Last spring, the media accurately reported the scientific consensus that Covid (also known as SARS CoV-2) is a natural virus [...]
To be pedantic: No, lady, Covid is the disease, and the virus is SARS-CoV-2. Like AIDS and HIV (disease and virus respectively).
It's a little thing, but accuracy in journalism is still important (or is it just me?).
> Last spring, the media accurately reported the scientific consensus that Covid (also known as SARS CoV-2) is a natural virus [...]
To be pedantic: No, lady, Covid is the disease, and the virus is SARS-CoV-2. Like AIDS and HIV (disease and virus respectively).
It's a little thing, but accuracy in journalism is still important (or is it just me?).
The article has far more severe accuracy problems than that. The author appears is a typical journalist with a left wing axe to grind, so nothing in the article should be taken at face value. Look at this sentence:
"Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas entertained a particularly fringe version of this last variation, speculating that China might even have attacked Wuhan with a biological weapon"
She actually provides a link here, which goes to a Twitter thread [1] where Cotton starts out by saying the exact opposite:
"@paulina_milla and her “experts” wrongly jump straight to the claim that the coronavirus is an engineered bioweapon. That’s not what I’ve said. There’s at least four hypotheses about the origin of the virus: 1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market). 2. Good science, bad safety (eg, they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred). 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach). 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in). Again, none of these are “theories” and certainly not “conspiracy theories.” They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence, if the Chinese Communist Party would provide it."
In other words, merely enumerating every hypothesis that had been proposed by anyone got turned into "Republican thinks China might have attacked its own city". That is a blatant mis-representation of his position and shows the journalist is willing to manipulate her reader. Moreover this was in February 2020, long before the recent evidence of a lab leak became available, and thus Cotton's openness to the lab leak theory looks rather prescient in hindsight.
[1] https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202139232292866
"Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas entertained a particularly fringe version of this last variation, speculating that China might even have attacked Wuhan with a biological weapon"
She actually provides a link here, which goes to a Twitter thread [1] where Cotton starts out by saying the exact opposite:
"@paulina_milla and her “experts” wrongly jump straight to the claim that the coronavirus is an engineered bioweapon. That’s not what I’ve said. There’s at least four hypotheses about the origin of the virus: 1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market). 2. Good science, bad safety (eg, they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred). 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach). 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn’t rule out till the evidence is in). Again, none of these are “theories” and certainly not “conspiracy theories.” They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence, if the Chinese Communist Party would provide it."
In other words, merely enumerating every hypothesis that had been proposed by anyone got turned into "Republican thinks China might have attacked its own city". That is a blatant mis-representation of his position and shows the journalist is willing to manipulate her reader. Moreover this was in February 2020, long before the recent evidence of a lab leak became available, and thus Cotton's openness to the lab leak theory looks rather prescient in hindsight.
[1] https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202139232292866
Additionally:
1. There wasn't a consensus, some scientists disagreed
2. A natural virus can leak from a lab
Also, a reminder that biosecurity incidents are common, there were about 17 in the last decade [0]. Just (natural) SARS-CoV-1 leaked from the lab 4 times [1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
1. There wasn't a consensus, some scientists disagreed
2. A natural virus can leak from a lab
Also, a reminder that biosecurity incidents are common, there were about 17 in the last decade [0]. Just (natural) SARS-CoV-1 leaked from the lab 4 times [1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...
> 1. There wasn't a consensus, some scientists disagreed
Consensus means "general agreement", it doesn't mean unanimous.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
Consensus means "general agreement", it doesn't mean unanimous.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
There wasn't general agreement either. There was a propaganda piece architected by Peter Daszak (Leader of EcoHealth Alliance, who Fauci's NIAID contracted with for gain-of-function research at WIV after Obama banned it), signed by a few scientists, and The Lancet published. The "general agreement" many folks may be thinking of is the general agreement amongst mainstream and social media that a lab leak shouldn't even be investigated and anybody that suggested doing so was a maniac.
>'Evidence Strongly Favors The Lab Origin': GOP-Called Medical Witness Discusses COVID-19 Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbbJaaMG7Bs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbbJaaMG7Bs
This is the best assessment to date I've seen.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
Full disclosure:
I do not think this virus was engineered
I do not think this was deliberately released
I do think the Chinese were studying this virus in the lab, not engineering it, but studying it. I do think it was the result of a lab accident, a technician tried to cover up an accident/carelessness in order to avoid getting punished or fired, normal human behavior.
HOW DID THE CHINESE KNOW THEY HAD A NEW VIRUS WHEN THEY ONLY HAD A HANDFUL OF CASES????????
Covid-19 presents like the flu, without a test you don't can't know if it's the flu or Covid-19, but the Chinese knew they had a new virus in late Nov, early Dec when there were only a handful of cases. HOW DID THEY KNOW???
The only way to tell if you've got something new is because: a) unique symptoms b) a statistically significant increase in cases c) a statistically significant number of deaths
In the early day of Covid-19 you had none of these present, with only a handful of cases NOBODY WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED ANYTHING WAS AMISS.
I can see it now, "Hey, I'm thinking that we have these flu cases, in flu season, and there isn't anything remarkable about the cases but I think they are the result of a new virus, so we should raise a red flag and swing the government into action." Highly unlikely.
There is one other way that you know you've got something new: d) you know something that no one else knows, like there was a lab accident.
How did the Chinese know they had something new, when they had no evidence or indication that something new was circulating?
This is the only question that needs to be answered. Nothing else. If there isn't a reasonable and logical answer to how the Chinese knew they had a new virus with only a few cases that looked just like the flu, and no other information, then it stands to reason they knew something else.
What I think happened.
A lab tech had an accident or was careless, and exposed themselves to the virus they were studying in the lab. The tech didn't report the incident because they didn't want to be punished or fired. The tech incorrectly assumed that everything was fine, but then got sick. Then when some other lab workers got sick, the safety people at the lab got involved and they learned what really happened, and they pushed the panic button, quietly. The rest is history.
I do think the Chinese were studying this virus in the lab, not engineering it, but studying it. I do think it was the result of a lab accident, a technician tried to cover up an accident/carelessness in order to avoid getting punished or fired, normal human behavior.
HOW DID THE CHINESE KNOW THEY HAD A NEW VIRUS WHEN THEY ONLY HAD A HANDFUL OF CASES????????
Covid-19 presents like the flu, without a test you don't can't know if it's the flu or Covid-19, but the Chinese knew they had a new virus in late Nov, early Dec when there were only a handful of cases. HOW DID THEY KNOW???
The only way to tell if you've got something new is because: a) unique symptoms b) a statistically significant increase in cases c) a statistically significant number of deaths
In the early day of Covid-19 you had none of these present, with only a handful of cases NOBODY WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED ANYTHING WAS AMISS.
I can see it now, "Hey, I'm thinking that we have these flu cases, in flu season, and there isn't anything remarkable about the cases but I think they are the result of a new virus, so we should raise a red flag and swing the government into action." Highly unlikely.
There is one other way that you know you've got something new: d) you know something that no one else knows, like there was a lab accident.
How did the Chinese know they had something new, when they had no evidence or indication that something new was circulating?
This is the only question that needs to be answered. Nothing else. If there isn't a reasonable and logical answer to how the Chinese knew they had a new virus with only a few cases that looked just like the flu, and no other information, then it stands to reason they knew something else.
What I think happened.
A lab tech had an accident or was careless, and exposed themselves to the virus they were studying in the lab. The tech didn't report the incident because they didn't want to be punished or fired. The tech incorrectly assumed that everything was fine, but then got sick. Then when some other lab workers got sick, the safety people at the lab got involved and they learned what really happened, and they pushed the panic button, quietly. The rest is history.
From what I understand they knew because there was a lot more than a handful of cases. The government was suppressing the news because that's what you do when you have bad news in an authoritarian state. Remember the early news from doctors who were trying to understand what was going on and were getting censored by the government? They had to form an underground information exchange until the problem finally got so big (and spread internationally) that they couldn't pretend anymore.
IMHO, this discussion about the lab is a distraction from the real discussion we should be having. The one about suppressing discussion between doctors who are merely reporting on what they're seeing and delaying the worldwide response as a result.
Even today the CCPs official numbers on COVID infections in China are extremely unlikely. They claim to have had fewer cases than even New Zealand. Clearly there is political influence being exerted over the official figures.
IMHO, this discussion about the lab is a distraction from the real discussion we should be having. The one about suppressing discussion between doctors who are merely reporting on what they're seeing and delaying the worldwide response as a result.
Even today the CCPs official numbers on COVID infections in China are extremely unlikely. They claim to have had fewer cases than even New Zealand. Clearly there is political influence being exerted over the official figures.
It's kinda obvious that the 'lab leak theory' was created just to attack China.
I would argue the exact opposite: the lab leak theory is intentionally downplayed to protect China/relations with China.
There are a lot of coincidences that make a lab leak a real possibility. It is possible those are all coincidences and the virus is of natural origin, but it is also possible that those are not coincidences and the virus originates from a lab leak.
Most likely we will never know since virus origin investigations are difficult to begin with, and China has no motivation to fairly cooperate in this investigation. It also is not actually important, since it is extremely unlikely the virus was intentionally released.
For political reasons it is better to go with the natural origin story and avoid stirring things up - there is no gain to be had from pressing the issue.
There are a lot of coincidences that make a lab leak a real possibility. It is possible those are all coincidences and the virus is of natural origin, but it is also possible that those are not coincidences and the virus originates from a lab leak.
Most likely we will never know since virus origin investigations are difficult to begin with, and China has no motivation to fairly cooperate in this investigation. It also is not actually important, since it is extremely unlikely the virus was intentionally released.
For political reasons it is better to go with the natural origin story and avoid stirring things up - there is no gain to be had from pressing the issue.
No gain in truth, let's just lie. Yeah, I think my government says the same things about UFOs. It's working out really well, for the past 80 years. We should have the truth so we can be abreast of what is possible in this world. For example, if actual engineers knew that Mach 10 UFOs existed, they'd probably be working on next-generation propulsion systems. And as for the lab leak, those in biological research would be a little bit more careful. How do you avoid mistakes if you are unaware one ever occurred? A lab leak that killed millions and changed years of our lives is not a white lie! It's egregious that you are willing to sacrifice truth for a diplomatic pin cushion.
>as for the lab leak, those in biological research would be a little bit more careful.
You say this as if you know that they're purposefully not being careful or something.
You say this as if you know that they're purposefully not being careful or something.
There are different levels of "careful". Look at the early days of nuclear research, chemicals or aviation industries compared to present-day regulations in those fields.
Of course the theory is used that way, it fits nicely into various political arguments. But that doesn't influence the veracity of the lab leak theory either way.
Looking at the article, it also uses weak arguments to support its thesis: "She first takes aim at the popular version of the lab leak theory that posits that Covid was taken from nature and escaped in its wild form. The problem with that scenario, she told me, is that a swab from a bat contains very little infectious virus. Each bat weighs less than half an ounce, and each sample is basically a Q-tip swiped briefly over a bat’s mouth or anus. These samples are stored in vials in the freezer; they’re not likely to spill or leak, the way disaster movies have primed us to suppose."
The real-world counter-argument to this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus
Lab leaks do happen, and all researchers in those labs do have an interest to play down the danger and cover things up to continue working.
Looking at the article, it also uses weak arguments to support its thesis: "She first takes aim at the popular version of the lab leak theory that posits that Covid was taken from nature and escaped in its wild form. The problem with that scenario, she told me, is that a swab from a bat contains very little infectious virus. Each bat weighs less than half an ounce, and each sample is basically a Q-tip swiped briefly over a bat’s mouth or anus. These samples are stored in vials in the freezer; they’re not likely to spill or leak, the way disaster movies have primed us to suppose."
The real-world counter-argument to this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus
Lab leaks do happen, and all researchers in those labs do have an interest to play down the danger and cover things up to continue working.
There is some evidence that they had live bats in the laboratory. This would make sense, bats are quite different from other mammals, and it seems very likely that some bat viruses can not be cultivated in standard cell cultures.
Marburg is a different virus. Coronaviruses infection very much depends on the size of viral load.
It's not like ebola where single micro droplet is enough.
It's not like ebola where single micro droplet is enough.
> a swab from a bat contains very little infectious virus
We know that they were doing gain of function research, but that only works with live viruses. So they must have some method to cultivate the virus. When they can do that small size of the initial sample is no longer relevant.
We know that they were doing gain of function research, but that only works with live viruses. So they must have some method to cultivate the virus. When they can do that small size of the initial sample is no longer relevant.
It originated because we know for a fact that lab leaks do happen. SARS leaked from a lab in Beijing a few years ago and there have been leaks in Russia, the USA, the UK and many other countries. It's just a fact that these things can happen. That by itself doesn't make this particular lab leak theory particularly likely or plausible, but it definitely make it possible.
I have no time whatsoever for the nutters who say the lab leak is definitely correct or has been proven. Likewise I have no time for people who say the lab leak was not possible and should not be considered. In both cases there's a big chunk of motivated reasoning, and quite possibly wilful ignorance going on IMHO.
I have no time whatsoever for the nutters who say the lab leak is definitely correct or has been proven. Likewise I have no time for people who say the lab leak was not possible and should not be considered. In both cases there's a big chunk of motivated reasoning, and quite possibly wilful ignorance going on IMHO.
Or....hear me out....
It was created because people thought it was weird that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a research facility specializing in novel bat coronaviruses.
It was created because people thought it was weird that a novel bat coronavirus originated blocks away from a research facility specializing in novel bat coronaviruses.
shroom(1)
Taking this as read, either:
Researchers at the lab failed to spot something like this in the wild, in an area where they were looking for this. So, failed to raise the alarm appropriately with acceptable transparency.
or, Researcher work at the lab led to the collection of this from bats and some set of unknown situations led to it getting into the populace. So, caused the disaster they were trying to prevent/research.
Either way it's clear China reacted as-if this was the end of days. Which is understandable given the nature of the work going on inside the lab The fact that everyone involved seems to have thrown up barriers into a sensible discussion on this is unfortunate and renders most conversations mute such that we'll probably never know how bad it was.