The “Lab Leak”: It’s Not Enough to Say Accidents Happen(nautil.us)
nautil.us
The “Lab Leak”: It’s Not Enough to Say Accidents Happen
https://nautil.us/blog/the-lab-leak-its-not-enough-to-say-accidents-happen
57 comments
Future regulation of such research, mostly.
Agree. In this regard, think about how procedures changed following Chernobyl, or consider how the various "Broken Arrow" events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear...) have influence nuclear policy.
Another incident to consider is the previous "biological Chernobyl" from 1979, which involved a (drum roll) lab leak of Anthrax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak). Incidentally, all investigation was blocked in that incident, and the government denied culpability until Boris Yeltsin came into power and admitted that it was caused by military development (of biological weapons). The lack of accountability and transparency with the international community in that incident is part of why Russia was able to get away with continued work on anthrax-based biological weapons even after this incident. It's also why we need to bring greater scrutiny to what happened here with SARS-CoV-2, instead of pushing it under the rug - these leaks are more damaging than nuclear weapons and need the same kinds of controls.
Except it doesn't really matter if it actually came from a lab.
It clearly could have so it's a possibility for future research too. It isn't even more likely to happen if this was a lab leak.
It clearly could have so it's a possibility for future research too. It isn't even more likely to happen if this was a lab leak.
Which just points out that the issue is more political than scientific.
How can wanting to know the origins of this pandemic not be scientific?
The idea of not wanting to know is just bizarre to me.
I feel like people are so wrapped up in the political sport/game that it is almost like people who lean Democrat don't want to investigate this further because they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good if it did happen to come from a lab. As if you can only lose from further investigation.
As someone who doesn't really care for either party, that is a completely insane.
To say it will be inconclusive so why bother, again, a bizarre line of thinking to me.
The idea of not wanting to know is just bizarre to me.
I feel like people are so wrapped up in the political sport/game that it is almost like people who lean Democrat don't want to investigate this further because they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good if it did happen to come from a lab. As if you can only lose from further investigation.
As someone who doesn't really care for either party, that is a completely insane.
To say it will be inconclusive so why bother, again, a bizarre line of thinking to me.
I also don't care for either party, but also don't really care where the virus originated. Both possibilities seem plausible, and rather than waste time figuring out which one was responsible we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
You don't think there's anything we could possibly learn that would help inform us on how to operate labs and what sort of things are safe to study going forward?
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that.
We already know that non-SARS coronaviruses were being studied under BSL-2 conditions that are equivalent to a dental office.
Even if there’s only a 5 or 10% chance that this led to the covid-19 pandemic, it calls for action to update safety standards globally.
Even if there’s only a 5 or 10% chance that this led to the covid-19 pandemic, it calls for action to update safety standards globally.
If it's a lab breach, the most likely cause is someone breaking protocol. If we somehow determined that everything in place was handled correctly yet the virus leaked through some before unimagined method, the research would be useful. I find it very unlikely that is the case, and even more doubtful that we would ever be able to determine it.
More useful research would just be additional studies testing various breach scenarios.
More useful research would just be additional studies testing various breach scenarios.
If it was a lab leak that's a strong signal that humanity in general and China in particular is not doing enough to keep labs safe. I think it would be entirely reasonable for the international community to pressure China to document their disease research, problems, and expand safety protocols.
If this has a zoonotic origin then we don't really have the evidence that our current methods are as terribly insufficient. We do have a record of occasional lab leaks, but nothing disastrous as a result.
If it wasn't a lab leak then we should be asking questions along the lines of how to reduce future zoonotic transfer. Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Either way, it's interesting as a scientific question. To look at the origins of one of the most impactful global events of the last year and just shrug strikes me as strangely incurious.
Of course, in reality I don't expect the US government will do anything productive and even if we knew the origins of the virus conclusively I doubt they'd do anything.
If this has a zoonotic origin then we don't really have the evidence that our current methods are as terribly insufficient. We do have a record of occasional lab leaks, but nothing disastrous as a result.
If it wasn't a lab leak then we should be asking questions along the lines of how to reduce future zoonotic transfer. Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Either way, it's interesting as a scientific question. To look at the origins of one of the most impactful global events of the last year and just shrug strikes me as strangely incurious.
Of course, in reality I don't expect the US government will do anything productive and even if we knew the origins of the virus conclusively I doubt they'd do anything.
>I think it would be entirely reasonable for the international community to pressure China to document their disease research, problems, and expand safety protocols.
And then the next time the source is India. There's plenty of examples worldwide of biological research being handled poorly, if China was responsible for the worst result it doesn't mean they were less responsible.
>Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Should we stop eating pigs? As swine flu had the potential to be comparatively catastrophic.
Your entire post is filled with "blame China" when everything involved is an international issue. This is exactly why I don't care about where it came from, too many people will push for that information to be used to "punish those responsible" rather than actually try to limit future outbreaks.
And then the next time the source is India. There's plenty of examples worldwide of biological research being handled poorly, if China was responsible for the worst result it doesn't mean they were less responsible.
>Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Should we stop eating pigs? As swine flu had the potential to be comparatively catastrophic.
Your entire post is filled with "blame China" when everything involved is an international issue. This is exactly why I don't care about where it came from, too many people will push for that information to be used to "punish those responsible" rather than actually try to limit future outbreaks.
It seems like you're saying we shouldn't "punish those responsible" which is odd.
Obviously, if we have evidence that we need better safety protocols in labs then we should expect India, as well as every other country on Earth, to follow them. What coronavirus may mean though is that China is demonstrably dangerously lacking and cannot be trusted to implement sufficient safety protocols. We have no such evidence about India or other countries.
Why shouldn't hold accountable the people responsible for killing millions with dangerous research and substandard safety protocols? (Assuming the truth of the lab leak hypothesis)
Obviously, if we have evidence that we need better safety protocols in labs then we should expect India, as well as every other country on Earth, to follow them. What coronavirus may mean though is that China is demonstrably dangerously lacking and cannot be trusted to implement sufficient safety protocols. We have no such evidence about India or other countries.
Why shouldn't hold accountable the people responsible for killing millions with dangerous research and substandard safety protocols? (Assuming the truth of the lab leak hypothesis)
>Obviously, if we have evidence that we need better safety protocols in labs then we should expect India, as well as every other country on Earth, to follow them
From another post, the US had 1100 reported incidents in a four year period involving biologically risky agents. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/report... I don't assume the US is particularly bad about this, so I expect other countries have similar rates, I only picked India to escape claims of "whataboutism."
Dangerous research with a sketchy safety record happens worldwide. That the worst outcome potentially came from a Chinese incident does not mean they're the only ones at fault, and punishing them does little to prevent future outbreaks.
From another post, the US had 1100 reported incidents in a four year period involving biologically risky agents. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/report... I don't assume the US is particularly bad about this, so I expect other countries have similar rates, I only picked India to escape claims of "whataboutism."
Dangerous research with a sketchy safety record happens worldwide. That the worst outcome potentially came from a Chinese incident does not mean they're the only ones at fault, and punishing them does little to prevent future outbreaks.
That is literally the stated goal of determining the source of the virus.
No, the stated goal of determining the source of the virus is "determining the source of the virus."
Okay. And then what?
Answer: use this information to guide policy changes. This is how incident response works. You don’t just ignore what happened and spray a bunch of bruteforce measures that miss the point; you root cause it.
D.R.A.S.T.I.C. and others working towards this effort are definitely interested in it because of its value for guiding prevention.
Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/30/scientist...
Answer: use this information to guide policy changes. This is how incident response works. You don’t just ignore what happened and spray a bunch of bruteforce measures that miss the point; you root cause it.
D.R.A.S.T.I.C. and others working towards this effort are definitely interested in it because of its value for guiding prevention.
Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/30/scientist...
>use this information to guide policy changes.
I see it as more likely they use this information to punish the responsible source and ignore all other potential sources.
I see it as more likely they use this information to punish the responsible source and ignore all other potential sources.
OK... so basically, we should work to prevent future pandemics:
> we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
And scientists and researchers claim that to do this, we need to determine the root cause of the initial spread:
> [Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and a leading expert on the virus,] said coming to firm conclusions about how the virus emerged was “absolutely essential” in preventing future pandemics.
But we shouldn't do that, because China might suffer political consequences if it turns out that negligence or irresponsible behavior lead to the outbreak.
In other words: We should try to limit the possibility of this happening in the future. But, the search for the source of the pandemic, that scientists and researchers suggest are needed to prevent future pandemics, and indeed would follow standard incident response protocol in virtually any situation, is "political." But, the notion that we shouldn't do that because it might harm China from a political standpoint is not political.
On the other hand, it sounds a lot like doing the wrong thing in order to avoid causing an unwanted political outcome, such as creating justification for actions that a political adversary might want taken. It comes off a bit like this tweet:
> David Hogg @davidhogg111
> I feel the need to continue wearing my mask outside even though I’m fully vaccinated because the inconvenience of having to wear a mask is more than worth it to have people not think I’m a conservative
This is absolutely benign since wearing a mask is actually not a bad idea and stops the spread of flus and common colds. However, consider the reverse of not wearing a mask despite not being fully vaccinated, because you don't want to appear liberal. This is not making a decision because it is the right or logical thing to do. This is making a decision out of fear that it might come to a conclusion, or have optics that don't support your political causes.
This is, of course, hot garbage, and if we wind up with another serious viral outbreak, I'm sure we can all be glad that at least China didn't face unfair political retribution while huge portions of the population are dying.
> we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
And scientists and researchers claim that to do this, we need to determine the root cause of the initial spread:
> [Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and a leading expert on the virus,] said coming to firm conclusions about how the virus emerged was “absolutely essential” in preventing future pandemics.
But we shouldn't do that, because China might suffer political consequences if it turns out that negligence or irresponsible behavior lead to the outbreak.
In other words: We should try to limit the possibility of this happening in the future. But, the search for the source of the pandemic, that scientists and researchers suggest are needed to prevent future pandemics, and indeed would follow standard incident response protocol in virtually any situation, is "political." But, the notion that we shouldn't do that because it might harm China from a political standpoint is not political.
On the other hand, it sounds a lot like doing the wrong thing in order to avoid causing an unwanted political outcome, such as creating justification for actions that a political adversary might want taken. It comes off a bit like this tweet:
> David Hogg @davidhogg111
> I feel the need to continue wearing my mask outside even though I’m fully vaccinated because the inconvenience of having to wear a mask is more than worth it to have people not think I’m a conservative
This is absolutely benign since wearing a mask is actually not a bad idea and stops the spread of flus and common colds. However, consider the reverse of not wearing a mask despite not being fully vaccinated, because you don't want to appear liberal. This is not making a decision because it is the right or logical thing to do. This is making a decision out of fear that it might come to a conclusion, or have optics that don't support your political causes.
This is, of course, hot garbage, and if we wind up with another serious viral outbreak, I'm sure we can all be glad that at least China didn't face unfair political retribution while huge portions of the population are dying.
I believe you edited in that link, or I just somehow missed it, but I agree with Holtz that we should do serious research to prevent a lab leak from occurring, I just don't see how determining if COVID was a lab leak accomplishes that. As I still view research on lab leaks as necessary even if the outbreak ultimately is found to have a zoological origin.
Threats and intimidation works counterproductively on China. Nobody says don't research this, except maybe CCP, but to progress we need diplomacy.
[deleted]
> people who lean Democrat don't want to investigate this further because they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good if it did happen to come from a lab.
And Biden himself called in February 2020 for US investigators to be let into China.
The entire politicization of this has been disappointing to see.
However, at this point I find it hard to believe if there was actually any evidence of a lab leak that it hasn’t been disappeared by China. We will probably never know unless further research does turn up increasing evidence for a zoonotic origin - on the other hand such research will likely involve the WIV themselves and be viewed with suspicion, I suppose.
And Biden himself called in February 2020 for US investigators to be let into China.
The entire politicization of this has been disappointing to see.
However, at this point I find it hard to believe if there was actually any evidence of a lab leak that it hasn’t been disappeared by China. We will probably never know unless further research does turn up increasing evidence for a zoonotic origin - on the other hand such research will likely involve the WIV themselves and be viewed with suspicion, I suppose.
> they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good
And this is actually how people think. I have no idea what's wrong with them, but it's completely f-ing crazy. A CNN staffer was wishing that the death toll was higher just to say that they were right and the Republicans were wrong.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/14/cnn-staffer-tells-project-veri...
I also remember some interview, that I probably won't be able to find, where some left-wing protester was also saying something like he wants the country to fall apart, because if it doesn't then that'd mean that Trump was right. Or something along these lines.
And this is actually how people think. I have no idea what's wrong with them, but it's completely f-ing crazy. A CNN staffer was wishing that the death toll was higher just to say that they were right and the Republicans were wrong.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/14/cnn-staffer-tells-project-veri...
I also remember some interview, that I probably won't be able to find, where some left-wing protester was also saying something like he wants the country to fall apart, because if it doesn't then that'd mean that Trump was right. Or something along these lines.
Why generalize like this?
100% this ^.
Scientific results are very commonly misapplied in political arguments. Politicians often find scary numbers to push whatever policy they already believe is best. I often hear them throw out numbers or scientific results and think "is that number connected to the policy, or are they jumping to conclusions, or did the completely misapply the data".
Scientific results are very commonly misapplied in political arguments. Politicians often find scary numbers to push whatever policy they already believe is best. I often hear them throw out numbers or scientific results and think "is that number connected to the policy, or are they jumping to conclusions, or did the completely misapply the data".
[deleted]
I think what is at stake if the future of consensus on truth.
Its easy to accept that in this case we will never know for sure what happened.. but how damaging is it to peoples sense of trust in society, that even with an issue that has such existential risk as a pandemic, will never be openly investigated to the point that there could be a consensus about it.
Everyone on Earth has had their lives upended over this virus. I think we're obligated to understand everything we can about it's origins (regardless of source) so as to help prevent it from happening again.
By far the most likely cause for the next pandemic is transmission from animals. By just focusing on labs you do not do anything substantial to prevent that pandemic.
[deleted]
[deleted]
We are left in an inconclusive grey area because of non cooperation. I think part of the challenge is holding the Chinese government accountable for suppressing reporting, delaying a site visit, deleting information, and interfering with a transparent independent process by requiring review/approval of the WHO report. I am frankly in favor of assuming a lab leak in the absence of explicit evidence just because my estimation of likelihood points in that direction, and even more so given the obstruction of transparency so far.
The WHO and NIH also deserve scrutiny. And the press and social media companies for censoring discussions that could have pushed for transparency and investigations sooner.
Accountability will help us handle future situations better, and will help us get back to valuing civil discourse and freedom of expression. Beyond that, what’s at stake is safety from dangerous research. Maybe that means a ban on gain of function work, or updated protocols, or independent audits of BSL labs by an international team like we have for nuclear controls. Just a week ago Nate Silver of 538 wrote (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480), "it seems very warped that a bunch of prominent scientists are saying we shouldn't investigate the claims for reasons that have little to do with science and lots to do with politics". This author it seems, is one of those pushing this warped position.
The WHO and NIH also deserve scrutiny. And the press and social media companies for censoring discussions that could have pushed for transparency and investigations sooner.
Accountability will help us handle future situations better, and will help us get back to valuing civil discourse and freedom of expression. Beyond that, what’s at stake is safety from dangerous research. Maybe that means a ban on gain of function work, or updated protocols, or independent audits of BSL labs by an international team like we have for nuclear controls. Just a week ago Nate Silver of 538 wrote (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480), "it seems very warped that a bunch of prominent scientists are saying we shouldn't investigate the claims for reasons that have little to do with science and lots to do with politics". This author it seems, is one of those pushing this warped position.
There's not much there in this piece, it's a very longwinded story that doesn't seem discuss any of the recent evidence, including recent reports that other research from prior to this that surveyed the Wuhan wet market and showed that neither bats nor pangolins were sold there after a comprehensive sampling of the market.
There is a coherent theory of how this might've happened. It rests on the lab's own papers. That's not proof, but there's plenty of investigation going on here and so far we're not finding wild animal reservoirs. If that happened, it might change things.
There is a coherent theory of how this might've happened. It rests on the lab's own papers. That's not proof, but there's plenty of investigation going on here and so far we're not finding wild animal reservoirs. If that happened, it might change things.
>recent reports that other research from prior to this that surveyed the Wuhan wet market and showed that neither bats nor pangolins were sold there after a comprehensive sampling of the market.
That news came out early last year[1] but was mostly ignored by mainstream media (and the general public). China themselves disavowed the wet market theory rather quickly.[2] That disavowal was also mostly ignored.
[1]March 2020 "But no one has yet found evidence that pangolins were at the Wuhan market, or even that venders there trafficked pangolin" https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/from-bats-to-huma...
[2]May 2020 "The coronavirus didn't really start at that Wuhan 'wet market'" https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-...
That news came out early last year[1] but was mostly ignored by mainstream media (and the general public). China themselves disavowed the wet market theory rather quickly.[2] That disavowal was also mostly ignored.
[1]March 2020 "But no one has yet found evidence that pangolins were at the Wuhan market, or even that venders there trafficked pangolin" https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/from-bats-to-huma...
[2]May 2020 "The coronavirus didn't really start at that Wuhan 'wet market'" https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-...
However, there must be more evidence than three lab workers seeking medical help with symptoms of a cold (about what may be statistically expected for a complex of that size in the cold season) and no apparent trail of possible infections in that (social) vicinity. This is simply not a sufficient argument for a hypothesis of such gravity.
Moreover, I have a hard time seeing how this could have happened, provided the requirement of some considerable exposure (viral load) over a considerable time. (A COVID-19 infection is not a matter of a short contact for a few seconds or even minutes.) Personally, I'd say, there is no coherent theory, just politics.
Moreover, I have a hard time seeing how this could have happened, provided the requirement of some considerable exposure (viral load) over a considerable time. (A COVID-19 infection is not a matter of a short contact for a few seconds or even minutes.) Personally, I'd say, there is no coherent theory, just politics.
>no apparent trail of possible infections in that (social) vicinity
There is a trail, though. A cluster in a straight line along Wuhan subway Line 2 connecting the lab with the PLA hospital.
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210605182232if_/https://zenodo...
There is a trail, though. A cluster in a straight line along Wuhan subway Line 2 connecting the lab with the PLA hospital.
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210605182232if_/https://zenodo...
I'd expect a discernible trail in the social vicinity of said personal. A geographical vicinity to their route of commute (alone) is rather an argument to the contrary.
Disclaimer: I studied social research and related statistics.
Disclaimer: I studied social research and related statistics.
This is an unreasonable demand. By the nature of the situation, we will likely never get the data needed to put together such a specific hypothesis for how the virus escaped. Besides the political situation, containment failures are most likely a result of people not following the official written procedures in unpredictable ways that are themselves never written down. None of this makes the underlying idea less likely, so not being able to satisfy this piece's standard is a red herring, not evidence.
Another perspective: try applying the same standard to the zoonotic hypothesis, and (last I heard anyway) you will find the same void of specific data. This is again of no use for discriminating between our hypotheses.
Another perspective: try applying the same standard to the zoonotic hypothesis, and (last I heard anyway) you will find the same void of specific data. This is again of no use for discriminating between our hypotheses.
By the same standards, you would have to include the commonly dismissed military sports festival hypothesis: geographical and temporal vicinity, some symptoms of cold — you find as much in this as in the lab leak theory. There is no sense in picking a favorite hypothesis, besides maybe politics. As long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we'll have to treat it as a case of force majeure. Even, if it may offend our (quite illusionary) sense of total control over nature.
Acts of God is an ancient concept. The rest is up to diplomacy and level-headed introspection.
In arguing that BSL-4 labs are so safe, and suggesting the reader focus on different, lower-level labs, this article ignores the history of lab leaks, including at such well-protected labs. Here is a list of a whole bunch:
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-histo...
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-long-histo...
Plus that facility has Level 2 and 3 labs and no one really knows what lab they used.
> This is a question of mechanism: How a breach could have occurred in a way that could produce widespread infection.
I’m not sure why knowing the exact mechanism of the leak is relevant. Lab leaks happen and it is enough to say so. SARS (the first one) leaked from well-run labs multiple times. The leak from the Beijing lab even led to deaths. Given WIV has papers (example https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JVI.02582-15) claiming they developed infectious clones of SARS like viruses (AKA gain of function) in the last few years, it doesn’t seem outlandish at all that a new leak would happen. WIV also has not just BSL4 labs but lesser controlled labs too. But even leaving that aside, consider the diplomatic cables indicting a lack of trained staff at Wuhan to operate such a lab at an appropriate safety level (https://www.ibtimes.sg/shocking-diplomatic-cables-reveal-saf...).
To put it another way, this is a game of probabilities. There are numerous factors that make the case for a lab leak more likely. This is also why Nate Silver updated his priors (https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1396550770368172033) in response to the recent WSJ exclusive on WIV researchers falling ill.
This article seems to completely ignore the brazen contempt from the political left in 2020 for any legitimate hypothesis about origins. The vicious attacks against the lab leak hypothesis, the lack of coverage from news media, and censorship from tech companies were all in service of keeping a negative focus on Trump. This happened because it was an election year where the Democrats were expected to lose, and this pandemic was the only available political opportunity at the time. This artificial interference with free discourse allowed the CCP and WHO to avoid transparency. We COULD have potentially had harder evidence, except that these actions delayed discussion of lab leaks and now we are some 18 months past when an independent international site visit should have taken place. So forgive me if I find the sneering demand for “extraordinary evidence” to be just completely tone deaf and absurd.
I’m not sure why knowing the exact mechanism of the leak is relevant. Lab leaks happen and it is enough to say so. SARS (the first one) leaked from well-run labs multiple times. The leak from the Beijing lab even led to deaths. Given WIV has papers (example https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JVI.02582-15) claiming they developed infectious clones of SARS like viruses (AKA gain of function) in the last few years, it doesn’t seem outlandish at all that a new leak would happen. WIV also has not just BSL4 labs but lesser controlled labs too. But even leaving that aside, consider the diplomatic cables indicting a lack of trained staff at Wuhan to operate such a lab at an appropriate safety level (https://www.ibtimes.sg/shocking-diplomatic-cables-reveal-saf...).
To put it another way, this is a game of probabilities. There are numerous factors that make the case for a lab leak more likely. This is also why Nate Silver updated his priors (https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1396550770368172033) in response to the recent WSJ exclusive on WIV researchers falling ill.
This article seems to completely ignore the brazen contempt from the political left in 2020 for any legitimate hypothesis about origins. The vicious attacks against the lab leak hypothesis, the lack of coverage from news media, and censorship from tech companies were all in service of keeping a negative focus on Trump. This happened because it was an election year where the Democrats were expected to lose, and this pandemic was the only available political opportunity at the time. This artificial interference with free discourse allowed the CCP and WHO to avoid transparency. We COULD have potentially had harder evidence, except that these actions delayed discussion of lab leaks and now we are some 18 months past when an independent international site visit should have taken place. So forgive me if I find the sneering demand for “extraordinary evidence” to be just completely tone deaf and absurd.
The question is only how to go about it against a superpower.
Completely agree - it was literally done to keep that negative spin on Trump at all odds. The extremely rapid publication of the "no lab leak" paper was super sus as well!
This seems ridiculous in the context of a very popular cable news network and associated newspapers and web properties that were entirely free and highly motivated (according to your theory) to publicize reasoned theories about lab leaks. I don't remember any such stories. All I remember were conspiracy type stories about deliberate Chinese virus synthesis and release.
> But to argue for a human error producing global tragedy out of this environment, a responsible reporter needs to be able to show how would this one hypothesized accident have played out: How did this pathogen make its way from a freezer to sealed work area to a moon-suited person and then to the streets of the city?
I am not a biologist, but AIUI the gain-of-function research (allegedly?) being done involved intentionally infecting various animals. Those animals would have been alive, not in a freezer.
It’s not that hard to imagine an error that would allow a lab worker to catch an airborne virus from, say, a humanized mouse.
I am not a biologist, but AIUI the gain-of-function research (allegedly?) being done involved intentionally infecting various animals. Those animals would have been alive, not in a freezer.
It’s not that hard to imagine an error that would allow a lab worker to catch an airborne virus from, say, a humanized mouse.
Could a humanized mouse contaminate its environment with sufficient viral load? (The burden of proof is on the hypothesis.)
Edit: I'm rather critical of gain-of-function experiments myself, but such concerns shouldn't provide any reason for any further assumptions. The discussion of a particular, empirical case is entirely different from any concerns based in principles.
Edit: I'm rather critical of gain-of-function experiments myself, but such concerns shouldn't provide any reason for any further assumptions. The discussion of a particular, empirical case is entirely different from any concerns based in principles.
That’s quite the burden of proof. Is someone supposed to collect a bunch (how big a bunch, exactly) of infected humanized mice in a room and introduce COVID-naive volunteers with various mask types or no masks into the room for varying times to see who gets sick?
It seems to me that a better approach would be for the lab to sequence all the virus samples they surely kept and see how similar they are to SARS-nCoV-2.
It seems to me that a better approach would be for the lab to sequence all the virus samples they surely kept and see how similar they are to SARS-nCoV-2.
Or just do some good old inferring: if there was a lab accident with 3 workers showing symptoms of a common cold seeking medical assistance (and them spreading infections along the metro line of their commute to the hospital), this must have been the superspreader event of the century. How comes, the general rate of cold symptoms within lab workers conforms to what is statistically expected? Why is there no spreading in their social vicinity? How and why were they apparently infectious only on their individual rides to the hospital?
You really have to come up with a theory that may explain this very selective and peculiar pattern of spreading. Otherwise you may turn your interest towards an entirely different theory of origin.
You really have to come up with a theory that may explain this very selective and peculiar pattern of spreading. Otherwise you may turn your interest towards an entirely different theory of origin.
Then how, exactly, in steps, did the virus jump from bats to humans naturally?
I don't think we're going to get conclusive proof either way without the research records being released, and even then, maybe not.
But I don't see how any of this is anything to do with Trump, or that the theory was primarily used to deflect attention from Trump's scandalous mismanagement.
Is he saying that US media was/is so anti Trump that they buried this whole argument out of spite or to paint Trump as a ludicrous conspiracicst (they probably didn't need to try so hard)?
I don't think we're going to get conclusive proof either way without the research records being released, and even then, maybe not.
But I don't see how any of this is anything to do with Trump, or that the theory was primarily used to deflect attention from Trump's scandalous mismanagement.
Is he saying that US media was/is so anti Trump that they buried this whole argument out of spite or to paint Trump as a ludicrous conspiracicst (they probably didn't need to try so hard)?
I find this article incredibly frustrating because it basically proves my feeling that it is nearly impossible to have an opinion on this issue without taking a political side.
I agree with a substantial part of this article, but just like I roll my eyes when I read articles in favor of the lab leak hypothesis that are clearly trying hoist blame onto "liberals" for ignoring this last spring/summer, I had to roll my eyes when I read this: "If true, it would mean the 600,000 Americans who have died, mostly on Trump’s and the GOP’s watch, were victims of actions taken by a handful of researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
I have PLENTY of problems with how Trump and the GOP handled Covid, but trying to blame them for the deaths at this point is just plain stupid. I haven't seen any reasonable hypotheses how this could have been prevented, furthermore there are many many other states that have fared much worse, and hardly any that have similar demographics that have fared better that are not islands.
Honestly, even on HN which I find the place where flamewars are tapped down better than any other forum on the Internet, I find it impossible to have a discussion about this without the underlying motivation of "I'm trying to blame the other side" shining through.
I agree with a substantial part of this article, but just like I roll my eyes when I read articles in favor of the lab leak hypothesis that are clearly trying hoist blame onto "liberals" for ignoring this last spring/summer, I had to roll my eyes when I read this: "If true, it would mean the 600,000 Americans who have died, mostly on Trump’s and the GOP’s watch, were victims of actions taken by a handful of researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
I have PLENTY of problems with how Trump and the GOP handled Covid, but trying to blame them for the deaths at this point is just plain stupid. I haven't seen any reasonable hypotheses how this could have been prevented, furthermore there are many many other states that have fared much worse, and hardly any that have similar demographics that have fared better that are not islands.
Honestly, even on HN which I find the place where flamewars are tapped down better than any other forum on the Internet, I find it impossible to have a discussion about this without the underlying motivation of "I'm trying to blame the other side" shining through.
Terrible article.
Of course the virus most likely came from the lab, and had been engineered to be particularly effective against human cells. The burden of proof is one anyone else to show how it possibly evolved a furin cleavage site and many other odd sequences not seen in naturally occurring coronaviruses. And don't forget to explain why the outbreak started right next to the only lab doing gain of function research on coronaviruses, rather than near the bats thousands of miles away.
The dark truth is the "public health establishment" is happy there was an outbreak, anything to pretend they're the least bit important (they're not, and they got every single decision wrong during the pandemic).
Of course the virus most likely came from the lab, and had been engineered to be particularly effective against human cells. The burden of proof is one anyone else to show how it possibly evolved a furin cleavage site and many other odd sequences not seen in naturally occurring coronaviruses. And don't forget to explain why the outbreak started right next to the only lab doing gain of function research on coronaviruses, rather than near the bats thousands of miles away.
The dark truth is the "public health establishment" is happy there was an outbreak, anything to pretend they're the least bit important (they're not, and they got every single decision wrong during the pandemic).
What (if anything) is really at stake here?