Very good article on Covid 19 genesis theories

[Catalogue of ills]

This is a very good article examining the possibility of Covid 19 being a lab escape rather than a natural phenomenon. It's not a conspiracy piece, and the author is not saying that it definitely was an accidental lab release, but lays out the evidence that might support that theory. It seems balanced. Lab release is not the mainstream view, and the counter-arguments are acknowledged, but the article gives good reasons for keeping an open mind. It also does a good job of explaining science stuff, so that even a food-grade moron like me can understand it.

[bgmnts]

Nicholas Wade is a science writer, editor, and author who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times.

He is the author of the controversial book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (2014)

The book has not been well received by much of the scientific community, including many of the scientists upon whose work the book was based. On 8 August 2014, The New York Times Book Review published an open letter signed by 139 faculty members in population genetics and evolutionary biology. After publication, the letter was signed by 4 more faculty members. The letter read:

As discussed by Dobbs and many others, Wade juxtaposes an incomplete and inaccurate account of our research on human genetic differences with speculation that recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results, political institutions and economic development. We reject Wade's implication that our findings substantiate his guesswork. They do not.

We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade's conjectures.

[steveh]

Better reading this on why it is improbable that it emerged through laboratory manipulation and this more nuanced piece from Vice yesterday which also goes into Chinese political culture and the dangers of the US / China divide when managing future pandemics.

[Catalogue of ills]

Excellent, thank you. I'll read that Nature article in a bit. Best to read both rather than one or the other, surely? This Peter Daszak fellow seems interesting. Are Wade's insinuations that Daszak has conflicts of interest off the mark, or is there something to that?

[MojoJojo]

It was interesting. There are a few problems with it:

1) He argues the evidence that it wasn't lab produced doesn't apply if certain types of experiments were being done, but then suggests they did some very specific things that would seem to rule out the "invisible" genetic engineering methods. Essentially it would be a bit strange for them to be doing things in such a way that the engineered virus wouldn't look engineered.
2) He seems to completely overlook the wet market, and say the virus would have had to evolve outside Wuhan as no bats in the city.
3) A lot of his arguments seem to rely on absence of evidence being evidence of absence. For example, he claims that the furin clevage site has never been seen in coronavirus's before so it's therefore more likely to have been inserted by a lab. But that assumes we have sampled a significant proportion of all corona virus's, whereas I suspect the reality is only a tiny fraction of virus have been studied.
4) The furin clevage site has been found in other coronavirus. In fact it's in MERS-CoV. He must either mean it's a very specific type of furin clevage he's talking about, or he's just cocked up.

[Catalogue of ills]

It was interesting. There are a few problems with it:

1) He argues the evidence that it wasn't lab produced doesn't apply if certain types of experiments were being done, but then suggests they did some very specific things that would seem to rule out the "invisible" genetic engineering methods. Essentially it would be a bit strange for them to be doing things in such a way that the engineered virus wouldn't look engineered.
2) He seems to completely overlook the wet market, and say the virus would have had to evolve outside Wuhan as no bats in the city.
3) A lot of his arguments seem to rely on absence of evidence being evidence of absence. For example, he claims that the furin clevage site has never been seen in coronavirus's before so it's therefore more likely to have been inserted by a lab. But that assumes we have sampled a significant proportion of all corona virus's, whereas I suspect the reality is only a tiny fraction of virus have been studied.
4) The furin clevage site has been found in other coronavirus. In fact it's in MERS-CoV. He must either mean it's a very specific type of furin clevage he's talking about, or he's just cocked up.

As regards the wet market point, I think he is expressing surprise that the virus suddenly sprang up in Wuhan, when you might have expected there to be a trail of infections from the source of whatever animal carried the virus to the market in the city. Whereas he says that it just seemed to spring out of nowhere in the city of Wuhan. Clearly there are contentious points in his article that may not stand up. I read the Nature article linked by steveh which is also good. What is common between both articles is that no-one has, as yet, identified either the bat population it originated in or the intermediary species (if indeed it is a bat virus), or the species it originated in and jumped from if it's not a bat virus (although pangolins are a clear contender). So I guess it's a case of time will tell. The longer we go without identifying which species it came from, the more weight that lends to the lab escape hypothesis (which the Nature article as much as acknowledges), whereas if the origin or intermediary species is identified, that puts the lab escape theory to bed.

It's good to see that there is some skepticism, and a lot of people are unwilling to definitively rule one or other theory out.

Another thing that both articles confirm is that there have been numerous experiments trying to create or recreate viruses with pandemic potential in biosecurity level 2 labs, for years. That seems mad doesn't it? Surely that has to change.

[steveh]

You might find this interesting on DNA analysis from bats and pangolins in SE Asia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21240-1. Rather them than me doing rectal swabs on bats in a Thai cave...

Some time back I think I posted another article on likely origins in the SW China border region but can't find it now.

As regards the wet market point, I think he is expressing surprise that the virus suddenly sprang up in Wuhan, when you might have expected there to be a trail of infections from the source of whatever animal carried the virus to the market in the city.

It's not like a trader bringing in say a pangolin or civet into Wuhan would have sustained, close contact with it though. It's going to be stuck in a cage on the back of a truck, likely in the middle of a load of other animals. Then it's only a subset of people who are significant spreaders anyway.

[MojoJojo]

As regards the wet market point, I think he is expressing surprise that the virus suddenly sprang up in Wuhan, when you might have expected there to be a trail of infections from the source of whatever animal carried the virus to the market in the city.

Again though, that's an absence of evidence being used as evidence of absence. What percentage of people with cold like symptoms have their virus DNA profiled? I don't think it's that surprising that their isn't a clear trail.

[Chedney Honks]

Why eat pangolin in Wuhan when you can eat hot dry noodles?

If you had eat them you would agree with me.

Ipso facto, defo labo.

[steveh]

Good accessible summary of what's known: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3.

[phantom_power]

Why eat pangolin in Wuhan when you can eat hot dry noodles?

If you had eat them you would agree with me.

Ipso facto, defo labo.

I bet pangolin tastes like chicken, but really, really nice chicken. Like really, really nice

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It came from a working monkey called Elsworthy "He dance for u"

Elsworthy shagged a rat 🙈

why? Dumbass

[banana]

Or you could watch this video from way back in April 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU

[vanilla.coffee]

Or you could watch this video from way back in April 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU

I watched this video. Very interesting although I do have one question if I may and I know you can't answer it as you weren't there.
So the reason it escaped the lab (according to the video) is that people in the lab got splashed with bat urine.

My question is, how do people in a lab get splashed with bat urine?

[JamesTC]

My question is, how do people in a lab get splashed with bat urine?

Hilarious prank.

[hamfist]

Berghain Wuhan bat piss goblin