U.S. spy agencies say origins of Covid-19 may never be known(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. spy agencies say origins of Covid-19 may never be known
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-releases-report-covid-19-origins-2021-10-29/
71 comments
There is no international oversight of nuclear weapons.
Very good note. There should be (in the sense that treaties were signed), just not that those treaties are ratified by important countries (and therefore enforced). IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking), as I know the only reduction treaties (it's a series) that are successful is between US and Russia (nuclear arms successor of the Soviet Union), which is only two of nine who openly have nuclear weapons, not to mention the (around) five alleged-but-never-admitted nuclear states, and many more that may have dormant technical capability that can be used when it really gone bad.
(edited because I forgot about New START)
(edited because I forgot about New START)
> IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking)
The problems tackled by WHO are mostly cooperative, while the ones tackled by the IAEA are mainly competitive. It's easier to get consensus on subjects where everyone stands to benefit than in subjects where everyone is looking to take power away from you.
The problems tackled by WHO are mostly cooperative, while the ones tackled by the IAEA are mainly competitive. It's easier to get consensus on subjects where everyone stands to benefit than in subjects where everyone is looking to take power away from you.
"International oversight" implies there is a powerful enough entity to impose oversight. Even North Korea is powerful enough to refuse international oversight.
> It doesn't really matter.
Uhh, it matters a lot.
an important part of effective oversight programs is accountability .. which requires knowing if the virus was fucking man-made.
Also the WHO lost any credibility it still had when it started bending over for China.
Uhh, it matters a lot.
an important part of effective oversight programs is accountability .. which requires knowing if the virus was fucking man-made.
Also the WHO lost any credibility it still had when it started bending over for China.
It doesn't matter.
The international rules you want to set against (eg) gain-of-function research, or rules on moving research abroad to bypass local ethics requirements can be created without knowing what caused SARS-CoV-2.
I don't see any benefit to society trying to punish people for it. It's a colossal waste of focus. Just stop it happening next time.
The international rules you want to set against (eg) gain-of-function research, or rules on moving research abroad to bypass local ethics requirements can be created without knowing what caused SARS-CoV-2.
I don't see any benefit to society trying to punish people for it. It's a colossal waste of focus. Just stop it happening next time.
An important measure of the efficacy of rules is how much people follow / break the rules.
What do you propose we do if we catch someone not following the rules?
What do you propose we do if we catch someone not following the rules?
Saying we could find the person who mixed this stuff together, accidentally dropped it out a window, whatever… What jurisdiction do you suppose "we" have to prosecute someone we catch in China? Is what they did even illegal in China?
Because China seems fairly happy continuing as if there were no crime. If you want to take it further than that, you're going to unravel decades of every country on the planet shipping their manufacturing off to China, because while they make everything we need, sanctions just hurt us. There's rarely a second hub we can use to provide those goods.
If you want this to be illegal in China in the future, you might have more luck. Getting the people who provide money for this sort of work (which is much more international) to adhere to ethics rules wouldn't be a bad thing.
But while we're still in this, talking about hunting down exactly where this leaked from so we can make an example of somebody, seems both unrealistic and ineffective. Wear a mask, get your jabs. Focus on what's important in your life.
Because China seems fairly happy continuing as if there were no crime. If you want to take it further than that, you're going to unravel decades of every country on the planet shipping their manufacturing off to China, because while they make everything we need, sanctions just hurt us. There's rarely a second hub we can use to provide those goods.
If you want this to be illegal in China in the future, you might have more luck. Getting the people who provide money for this sort of work (which is much more international) to adhere to ethics rules wouldn't be a bad thing.
But while we're still in this, talking about hunting down exactly where this leaked from so we can make an example of somebody, seems both unrealistic and ineffective. Wear a mask, get your jabs. Focus on what's important in your life.
this is a bizarrely fatalistic and defeatist perspective
you may think you're being a realist, but really it just sounds like you're giving up because it's easier
you may think you're being a realist, but really it just sounds like you're giving up because it's easier
Thanks for dismissing what I said without engaging with any of it.
I've told you what's actually possible in any measurable way to make the future safer, and that largely involves limiting how people spend their money on research. Long term diversification of manufacturing wouldn't be a silly idea either, for many reasons.
But if you can see a way to actually achieve what you want, please share it. Your little quips only amount to pathetic sabre rattling, wasting everybody's time and most importantly, distracting people from what we all need to do to get through this.
I've told you what's actually possible in any measurable way to make the future safer, and that largely involves limiting how people spend their money on research. Long term diversification of manufacturing wouldn't be a silly idea either, for many reasons.
But if you can see a way to actually achieve what you want, please share it. Your little quips only amount to pathetic sabre rattling, wasting everybody's time and most importantly, distracting people from what we all need to do to get through this.
i;m sorry you took that personally, it wasn't meant to be. but it's really up to you to separate your own ego from your arguments, i can't be held accountable for hurt feelings
also i don't think i was being dismissive, i correctly characterized your argument.
if you believe that accountability is neither possible nor effective (in this case? in all cases?) then there's really nothing to argue. I can't change the mind of someone that doesnt want to have their mind changed.
i do think think your comment about improved reporting and scrutiny over funding is interesting. because we are still funding the wuhan lab. and we did have reports of gain of function from EcoHealth Alliance back in 2018 that the NIH is denying.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r...
who watches the watchers? at the end of the day, accountability is an unavoidable solution if we want to have any hope of a fair and just system.
or, we can be fatalist-deafetists that think such a system is impossible and we just have to accept whatever disasters happen to us.
also i don't think i was being dismissive, i correctly characterized your argument.
if you believe that accountability is neither possible nor effective (in this case? in all cases?) then there's really nothing to argue. I can't change the mind of someone that doesnt want to have their mind changed.
i do think think your comment about improved reporting and scrutiny over funding is interesting. because we are still funding the wuhan lab. and we did have reports of gain of function from EcoHealth Alliance back in 2018 that the NIH is denying.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r...
who watches the watchers? at the end of the day, accountability is an unavoidable solution if we want to have any hope of a fair and just system.
or, we can be fatalist-deafetists that think such a system is impossible and we just have to accept whatever disasters happen to us.
Using an ad hominem to not apologise for an ad hominem is interesting but regardless, you'll be elated to know my feelings haven't deigned to notice.
Who watches the watchers? Thanks for joining me on the same page.
I'm not fatalist —I think things can be improved, and have said how— I just don't think there's anything to gain from demanding the revenge you seem to think you're owed.
Who watches the watchers? Thanks for joining me on the same page.
I'm not fatalist —I think things can be improved, and have said how— I just don't think there's anything to gain from demanding the revenge you seem to think you're owed.
If it spread via military games in 2019, would the US Intel community be honest about it?
https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadi...
https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadi...
Updated Assessment on COVID-19 Origins: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declass...
Short version - until we find a candidate progenitor virus in an animal population, which enables us to work out a likely route of transmission to humans, we don't have enough information to know.
Although I think, from skimming the report, there is probably enough information to say that this (1) wasn't intentional and (2) is possibly a lab leak.
That is enough to say that it will probably happen again in our lifetime from an actual lab leak. We have the technology, the world is large, there are a lot of foolish researchers in it. We need to be more prepared to curtail or cease international travel.
That is enough to say that it will probably happen again in our lifetime from an actual lab leak. We have the technology, the world is large, there are a lot of foolish researchers in it. We need to be more prepared to curtail or cease international travel.
It has already happened multiple times previously in our lifetime:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/
If intentional, would China shoot itself in the foot by releasing a deadly virus in its own major cities and infect potentially millions/billions?
Or would the US and its allies release a virus it knowingly funded (for plausible deniability) in a state it constantly calls its 'greatest adversary & threat' during the 2019 war games?
One of these seems more likely than the other to an objective observer since this isn't the first time the US and its allies have engaged in chemical & bio-warfare against the Chinese.
The foreign aircraft carriers and war ships surrounding the Chinese coast are perhaps yet another clue...
Or would the US and its allies release a virus it knowingly funded (for plausible deniability) in a state it constantly calls its 'greatest adversary & threat' during the 2019 war games?
One of these seems more likely than the other to an objective observer since this isn't the first time the US and its allies have engaged in chemical & bio-warfare against the Chinese.
The foreign aircraft carriers and war ships surrounding the Chinese coast are perhaps yet another clue...
Since the next best species that the virus can spread among (apart form humans) is civets then we should probably start huge research on viruses carried by them and we'll probably find the progenitor and most likely learn a lot of interesting things along the way.
Which we won’t it it was bred in a lab. Hence, we won’t know.
Even if it was bred in a lab, it must have been bred from something. That version of the virus can't be massively different from Cov-19.
> That version of the virus can't be massively different from Cov-19.
Yes it can. Labs specifically study, and propagate, mutations. A lab can do in years what might take nature decades. If it did originate from a lab, we very likely would never find a close enough progenitor in nature to know where things started (what strain the lab started with).
Yes it can. Labs specifically study, and propagate, mutations. A lab can do in years what might take nature decades. If it did originate from a lab, we very likely would never find a close enough progenitor in nature to know where things started (what strain the lab started with).
We can trace mutation histories of viruses very extensively, the tools and techniques for this are now pretty sophisticated, so that's not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle.
There is a probabilistic aspect to this though. If we happen to find the exact wild virus population Cov-19 originated from (whether it then mutated naturally or in a lab) then I think we'll nail it. On the other hand if we just find an adjacent population that diverged from the actual Cov-19 source some time ago it could be harder to pin down the route.
There is a probabilistic aspect to this though. If we happen to find the exact wild virus population Cov-19 originated from (whether it then mutated naturally or in a lab) then I think we'll nail it. On the other hand if we just find an adjacent population that diverged from the actual Cov-19 source some time ago it could be harder to pin down the route.
In the Fauci emails, a reply from a scientist, in the beginning of the pandemic, states a "recipe" on how the virus could have been changed in a lab
They probably meant RNA code of the virus. Since if you know it you can produce it in a lab and introduce it into cells and they will manufacture functional copies of the virus.
It's not a recipe to create virus in a lab. It's a recipe to manufacture copies of the virus in a lab.
It's not a recipe to create virus in a lab. It's a recipe to manufacture copies of the virus in a lab.
SARS CoV grows on VERO substrate, so it's relatively easy to make mutations of the virus. Here is example for IBV CoV: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898227/
So you could say that this virus is kind of alien[1]?
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alien
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alien
Why? The report explains the position quite well - lacking other data, finding a progenitor virus is the most likely to confirm a natural origin.
Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural.
Just because China refuses to cooperate (as stated by the article), does not mean that trying to find a natural cause is the only way to resolve the issue.
It's a bit misleading as well as the vast majority of the agencies mentioned in the article do not believe in a natural origin.
>The ODNI report said four U.S. spy agencies and a multi-agency body have "low confidence" that COVID-19 originated with an infected animal or a related virus.
Just because China refuses to cooperate (as stated by the article), does not mean that trying to find a natural cause is the only way to resolve the issue.
It's a bit misleading as well as the vast majority of the agencies mentioned in the article do not believe in a natural origin.
>The ODNI report said four U.S. spy agencies and a multi-agency body have "low confidence" that COVID-19 originated with an infected animal or a related virus.
>Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural.
Unless the virus was literally constructed using base chemicals from the ground up entirely artificially, something that as far as we know has never been done and the technology for which doesn't yet plausibly exist, the virus must have a natural progenitor from which it either evolved, was bred or was engineered. That does not exclude the possibility that the virus was engineered from a progenitor virus in a lab and is "artificial" in that sense.
So yes you are technically correct (which of course is the best correct), but could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded?
Unless the virus was literally constructed using base chemicals from the ground up entirely artificially, something that as far as we know has never been done and the technology for which doesn't yet plausibly exist, the virus must have a natural progenitor from which it either evolved, was bred or was engineered. That does not exclude the possibility that the virus was engineered from a progenitor virus in a lab and is "artificial" in that sense.
So yes you are technically correct (which of course is the best correct), but could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded?
This virus would not have had to be created from the ground up. It's based on a comment model viral system about which we know an amazing amount. Particularly, it's a viral system that's apt to recombine, and whose organization and components thus by design support recombinant exploitation of the evolutionary space. It is very easy to build a novel organization of such parts. You build as many as you can manage (trillions+) and then screen for viable viruses. Then with a little selection pressure in different environments, you can optimize them and see how the novel variants evolve. Doing this at scale helps us understand the way viruses evolve.
And if you think that genome synthesis is not possible, look up "DNA printer". But i don't think that's what you mean.
And if you think that genome synthesis is not possible, look up "DNA printer". But i don't think that's what you mean.
>could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded
Natural = produced by nature
We know for a fact that coronaviruses were being engineered in unsafe BSL2 lab conditions literally blocks away from the epicenter of the outbreak.
With China's refusal to cooperate, they are asking you to believe that this is all merely coincidence.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
Natural = produced by nature
We know for a fact that coronaviruses were being engineered in unsafe BSL2 lab conditions literally blocks away from the epicenter of the outbreak.
With China's refusal to cooperate, they are asking you to believe that this is all merely coincidence.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
All known viruses were originally produced by nature. Engineered viruses are natural viruses that were modified artificially, but they still had a natural origin. We don't have the technology to create a virus entirely from scratch, we can only modify existing viruses in fairly limited ways. Surely you know this, right?
If we can find that original natural source strain of virus, we should be able to compare it to Cov-19 and determine the likely path of development. This has been done many times before for other viruses, such as SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, etc.
If we can find that original natural source strain of virus, we should be able to compare it to Cov-19 and determine the likely path of development. This has been done many times before for other viruses, such as SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, etc.
Nobody is suggesting that the virus was created from scratch.
Of course the viruses have a natural origin, where do you think the original samples come from?
I don't know where you are interpreting your stance from, and I am sorry if I am being unclear, english is not my first language.. but just because viruses are being engineered in a lab does not mean they build them molecule by molecule, but they do transfer genes between existing viruses.
Of course the viruses have a natural origin, where do you think the original samples come from?
I don't know where you are interpreting your stance from, and I am sorry if I am being unclear, english is not my first language.. but just because viruses are being engineered in a lab does not mean they build them molecule by molecule, but they do transfer genes between existing viruses.
Ok, so we're describing the same thing. Cool. It's all good, misunderstandings happen.
The Chinese government could dispell any doubt as to whether it came from the Wuhan lab by allowing unlimited access to an independent forensic team. Any other country would allow this, or at the very least pretend to do it. It's only fair therefore to assume they have something to hide there. The only exculpatory hypothesis is that their political system is so authoritarian that they can't even allow the appearance of an independent commission, even if they have nothing to hide wrt this virus. And it's damning in itself.
It will not clear doubts, because «they destroyed the evidence!!!11».
BTW, there are few other labs, which are candidates for forensic analysis: Vector BSL4 lab in Novosibirsk, RF, which had major incident right before epidemic, and maybe other labs should be checked too, because China and US have different strains of SARS CoV2 with common ancestor outside of both countries.
BTW, there are few other labs, which are candidates for forensic analysis: Vector BSL4 lab in Novosibirsk, RF, which had major incident right before epidemic, and maybe other labs should be checked too, because China and US have different strains of SARS CoV2 with common ancestor outside of both countries.
It will not clear doubts with everyone, cf jet fuel melting steel beams and the moon landing. I was implicitly talking about reasonable and rational people.
On the other hand, Western researches and intelligence have to corroborate how the hypothesis of an exclusive origin in or near Wuhan around November 2019 works out with the finding of Covid-19 in blood samples from mid-September 2019 in Italy (according to Reuters reporting).
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-tim...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-italy-...
[3] there has been dispute about this, as well: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dispute-over-italian-co...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-tim...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-italy-...
[3] there has been dispute about this, as well: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dispute-over-italian-co...
It's rather simple to explain with a banal hypothesis: that the epidemic began just slightly earlier than initially thought. It just failed to take hold, maybe by pure chance, or because the virus didn't infect a superspreader, or because the initial strains had not yet acquired a tiny mutation that would have made them infectious enough to propagate further.
But the idea is essentially that of a direct route (vicinity in space and time with any intermediaries eliminated), and at least this part seems to be seriously endangered. You can't simply ignore this. Either invalidate that data point on the basis of thorough research or accept that the null-hypothesis has been verified.
It's just a question of probabilities. There will be more people infected near the origin of the disease before a pandemic is detected. Some of them will travel and infects others, starting new foyers, but they will all be smaller than the starting location. The pandemic is therefore more likely to be detected at the starting point, because more people will have been affected right there.
If your hypothesis is based on an exclusive, direct trace, how comes that you may still maintain it, if you have to allow for an unaccounted for and untraced span of time and spread, including an untraced roundtrip around the globe? How do you still establish the link between the lab and a location as specific as the wet market? This is a matter of basic science and hypothesis checking. If you propose a direct link, any unrelated, conflicting data point invalidates your hypothesis. (Incidentally, Lombardy, where most of the Italian samples came from, was also one of the regions hit hardest by the Alpha variant.)
P.S.: Mind that the allegations are not about a loose probability, but about a very specific scenario, involving the lab and the outbreak at the wet market at a certain date.
P.S.: Mind that the allegations are not about a loose probability, but about a very specific scenario, involving the lab and the outbreak at the wet market at a certain date.
What is the point? The chinese authorities are untrustworthy and they know it. I am not particularly conspiracist, but if the chinese were to open the Wuhan lab for international inspection, even my reaction would be that it will prove nothing because surely they will have destroyed any incriminating samples and records, and briefed (threatened) the staff. So if they don’t get any benefit from coming out clean, why would they?
Your "Any other country would allow..." faith in the honesty, transparency, etc. of non-Chinese governments is touching. But not realistic. Certainly not for large, powerful countries - with both the pride and means to withstand some international arm-twisting.
And if the Chinese government did allow such an investigation, and it found China innocent? How many of those currently inclined to hate or blame China would believe it? Not getting into such a "heads we lose, tails they win" mess seems perfectly rational.
And if the Chinese government did allow such an investigation, and it found China innocent? How many of those currently inclined to hate or blame China would believe it? Not getting into such a "heads we lose, tails they win" mess seems perfectly rational.
I also said "or at least would pretend to."
But in any case, yes, there are plenty of institutions in the West that would make such a cover up near impossible. The exception might be if the events happened within a military institution -- and even then, in the US or Europe, there would be calls for inquiries.
Of course if you're part of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" or "the CIA killed JFK" crowds, that won't convince you of anything. Reasonable people will however recognize that covering up such events under such scrutiny is a risky move, and as such unlikely to stand for long. The calls for more investigation would never stop, just consider how riled up antivaxxers are for no good reason; do you really think there would npt be a much larger number of citizens up in arms and furious if there was any hint of such a cover up in their country?
But in any case, yes, there are plenty of institutions in the West that would make such a cover up near impossible. The exception might be if the events happened within a military institution -- and even then, in the US or Europe, there would be calls for inquiries.
Of course if you're part of the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" or "the CIA killed JFK" crowds, that won't convince you of anything. Reasonable people will however recognize that covering up such events under such scrutiny is a risky move, and as such unlikely to stand for long. The calls for more investigation would never stop, just consider how riled up antivaxxers are for no good reason; do you really think there would npt be a much larger number of citizens up in arms and furious if there was any hint of such a cover up in their country?
> "or at least would pretend to."
True, and I was obnoxiously snarky. But for something so high-profile and emotionally charged, the loss of face, loss of control, and other big downsides (for those in power) kick in as soon as a nation even pretends to allow a serious international investigation.
I will not argue that a cover-up in most Western countries would have nearly the prospects of success that one would in China (also not asserting that China is doing any meaningful cover-up on this). I will argue that those in power would (per Churchill) probably do the right thing only after exhausting every possible alternative. Note that most Western countries have had their citizens "up in arms and furious" for a good while now, over the endless screw-ups handling COVID. Sadly, that has neither ejected many politicians from office, nor caused a mass outbreak of government honesty or competence.
(Personal aside on the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" crowd - both of my grandfathers were country blacksmiths. That profession is only possible because iron and steel get soft enough to work with simple hand tools at temperatures far, far below their melting points.)
[Edit - add the obvious missing carriage return after quoting parent.]
True, and I was obnoxiously snarky. But for something so high-profile and emotionally charged, the loss of face, loss of control, and other big downsides (for those in power) kick in as soon as a nation even pretends to allow a serious international investigation.
I will not argue that a cover-up in most Western countries would have nearly the prospects of success that one would in China (also not asserting that China is doing any meaningful cover-up on this). I will argue that those in power would (per Churchill) probably do the right thing only after exhausting every possible alternative. Note that most Western countries have had their citizens "up in arms and furious" for a good while now, over the endless screw-ups handling COVID. Sadly, that has neither ejected many politicians from office, nor caused a mass outbreak of government honesty or competence.
(Personal aside on the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" crowd - both of my grandfathers were country blacksmiths. That profession is only possible because iron and steel get soft enough to work with simple hand tools at temperatures far, far below their melting points.)
[Edit - add the obvious missing carriage return after quoting parent.]
I think it's both: they are so authoritarian and proud they do not allow anyone to enter their national research center and lab and they have a lab leak to hide.
> Any other country would allow this
The US would? Really?
How about a less controversial 'check', maybe let someone pop into fort knox and check if what they say is there is really there.
The US would? Really?
How about a less controversial 'check', maybe let someone pop into fort knox and check if what they say is there is really there.
Look at the heat Fauci has been getting from a part of population. Do you really think it would have been tamer had a US lab been in the same neighborhood as the epicenter of the outbreak? Maybe if it was a top secret military, and just maybe. China is getting away with this even though the lab is not top secret.
You mean the lab in the same neighborhood as the epicenter of the outbreak where US gain of function research moved to a few years ago. Where the US had been investing a lot of money?
And its China that is getting away with it right?
And its China that is getting away with it right?
What makes it obviously a lab leak is China's clearly guilty actions and non-cooperation after the fact.
Everything will be known sooner or later. Since when truth is dangerous?
"I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole… we had entire training courses." -- former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" -- CIA director William Colby
Something tells me that a different source of information should be sought...
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" -- CIA director William Colby
Something tells me that a different source of information should be sought...
guilhas(3)
Second we need to focus on how we will prevent the next pandemic irregardless if it comes from a lab or animal to human transmission. Most important is to contain it and provide the tools for the global community to respond such as gen sequencing and money for the affected area. If a state would receive funds and there was a very clear strategy they would be less likely to hide such an outbreak.
The biggest issue I see it how do we get something like this setup without there being issues like we see with the WHO. The US managed to turn any trust this organization had into the trash (although the US had the biggest influence in it) letting the countries that always had doubts about it get their confirmation.