Live data from Hacker News

The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

minervanett.no

301–310 of 494 posts

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The issue is that there would have to be gain-of-function research to reduce virulence and (maybe, it's not entirely clear) to increase transmissivity. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, and I don't understand why a lab would do a gain of function experiment and reduce function instead.

It strikes me as reducing virulence would be a responsible first step before conducting research on increasing transmissivity of a deadly virus.

Do you have the study where they would have reduced virulence for these reasons? Because reducing the virulence of a virus to such a level that a large part of the population don't even get any symptoms seems odd to say the least.

Also, it's not even clear that COVID-19 is that much more infectious (or at all) than SARS, it seems to me that its explained well enough by so many people brushing it off or not even realizing they have it because it's so much less severe.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#302
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had some trouble understanding this claim though. From my understanding the bats that the virus most likely came from are thousands of miles away from Wuhan. This also is the area that the Wuhan researches went every year to collect samples. My understanding of Chinese geography is a bit weak - but it is a bit like if a cow disease broke out in Boston near a BS4 lab. There are certainly some cows in Boston a few…

Yes, the institute of Virology in Wuhan did research on bats up to thousands of kilometers away. There are, after all, only two BSL-4 labs. However, there is a large population of bats right outside Wuhan, and you can find research by the WIV cataloguing different viruses found in the same province. For example : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31009304/ The key here is that the bats the virus (likely) came from are…

I'm a bit confused. That article doesn't mention viruses at all in its abstract, only bacterial studies.

My understanding is that the virus came from horseshoe bats. These largely live in Southern China. Wuhan is not Southern China. All studies of Corona viruses I can find deal with going to southern China (because that's where horseshoe bats live) to collect samples from horsehoe bats: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563315/

Do you have a non-paywalled version to the link you provided? It says they looked at bacteria in bats in the abstract but didn't mention anything about which species of bats.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#303
post #166
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the “hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec” is still very relevant, and the few papers claiming to have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 prior to Dec 2019 outside China are still very questionable. It’s not like they tested old samples in a few places and the virus promptly showed up. Rather, lots of old samples were tested all over the place, and the virus almost never showed up, except in a ver…

Why not both? There could have been a baseline level of the virus or a close brother of it in circulation early in 2019, but the conditions of the wet market ecosystem in late 2019 let it suddenly spiral out of control, or make a final evolution to its current high-transmissiveness form. Sort of like how we can find, retrospectively, intermittent cases of HIV back to the early part of the 20th century, but it suddenl…

It's actually been hypothesised from the beginning that ancestors of Covid-19 passed back and forth between humans and animals several times before taking its current form. The idea being that an ancestor of the virus was first transferred to humans where it 'learned' how to adapt to the human body before transmitting back to an animal host and mutated to become more deadly to humans and then transferred back to humans. This is partly based on the idea that a successful virus wouldn't adapt to be more lethal to its host and that close cousins of Covid-19 have been found in several species of bats and other animals.

This actually makes China a much better candidate than Europe for the place where the most important step in its evolution occurred. China has much more vibrant trade in wild animals for clothing, consumption, and traditional medicine. China also happens to be the place where the first reports of widespread hospitalisations occurred.

I don't think it's possible that Covid-19 in its current form could have floated around with its current high level of transmissivity or even the lower level of transmissibility of the Chinese strain without being detected for more than a month.

As we've seen from America's second wave (bumpy first wave?) the virus replicates exponentially (even with some social distancing), so tens of thousands of people can be infected within two weeks. So we ought to see pretty strong signal in ICU admissions within about 5 weeks of an outbreak (allowing ramp up time, incubation period, and time for symptoms to progress). We'd also expect to see all-cause mortality rates of people over 65 to increase significantly within about 7 to 8 weeks of the outbreak occurring as the average time to mortality is about 18 days.

I fail to see how it'd be possible for the health system of any developed nation to miss all that, but a developing country that has a culture of secrecy and suppressing information from both its own people and central authorities? Yeah I could believe that.

> Sort of like how we can find, retrospectively, intermittent cases of HIV back to the early part of the 20th century, but it suddenly exploded in the 1980s.

That's in large part because HIV collided with African urbanisation, significant international air travel deflation, an explosion of homosexual activity (unprotected sex), an industrialised blood transfer system, and a drug epidemic with administration using shared syringes. I can't think of a similar set of factors changing in our current society that could have allowed for the explosion of a coronavirus.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#304
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't spew falsehoods and add 'general concesus' to it. There are reports that the French team that traveled in October in Wuhan for mil. sports games, got infected by it. So, that it was at circulating in Wuhan at least since October, even most probably: early september. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/08/covid-19-pandemi...

The Telegraph is not a reliable source for anything connected to covid.

The Telegraph is not a reliable source for anything.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#305

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the argument in this paper: 1. SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique and unusual genetic features, when compared to close relatives, many of which explain its high virulence and infectivity among humans. 2. A series of research papers published by a group of virologists, dating back a little over a decade, demonstrate (1) a progressively increasing understanding of viral features which m…

As noted downthread, these points don't particularly point to it being engineered (point 1 applies in spades to SARS and MERS, for example). Most scientists believe the evidence [0] indicates it's of natural origin.

[0] https://www.sciencealert.com/the-new-coronavirus-could-have-...

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#306
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even taking the worst possible view of the Chinese government, they have strong economic reasons to have been preparing for a new SARS type epidemic over the past twenty years. They don't need the benefit of the doubt.

[flagged]

One could also easily argue that the CCP has very little to gain from ruining almost all of their customers financially.

So far, it also looks like mainland China was hit hard, while Taiwan got off easy. The CCP would most likely not strengthen a territory that they hope to eventually absorb.

And lastly, I would assume that with Trump, the CCP could just bribe their way into Washington.

So I see very little for them to be gained from starting this. And you yourself also conclude that India is benefiting more than China.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#307
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Telegraph is not a reliable source for anything connected to covid.

The Telegraph is not a reliable source for anything.

Newspapers are not a reliable source for news.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#308

As an aside, if you look at that person's comment history, pretty much every comment they've made is about China and defending China. An odd focus for a hackernews account.

Can we stop with these posts where we dig through someone's post history and accuse them of shilling/being paid trolls if they hold a constant view that differs from our own? If you disagree with something you can debate it without having to resort to such nasty, underhanded tactics.

I don't think looking at someone's post history qualifies as "nasty, underhanded tactics". That user's post history is a nearly uninterrupted string of defending China (occasionally interrupted to attack India or the US on matters related to China).

If noticing unusual posting patterns is bad for some reason, perhaps you should explain why. I read your current post as an insult and think an explanation would be both more appropriate and more productive.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#309

It is interesting to think about the origins of Covid-19 with Bayesian statistics in mind. We believe that the virus originated in Wuhan, and the two competing "mainstream" theories are whether the virus came from a wet market or a bio lab. I don't know exactly how many wet markets exist in China, but I would guess that there are thousands spread across China. A wet market is simply a place where fresh produce/meat i…

The wet market and lab are not the only two options. The millions of people who come into contact with animals infected by novel coronaviruses on farms or in nature every year are, by far, the most likely origin of the outbreak.

One the one hand, you have a handful of highly trained technicians basically wearing spacesuits, and undergoing strict decontamination procedures.

On the other hand, you have millions of people in the countryside who live around bats (a few percent of which are infected with SARS-like coronaviruses at any given time), or who live around livestock that are potentially exposed to bats. You have people who go into bat caves specifically to collect guano (i.e., bat poop). And there's evidence that a few percent of people in villages near these bat populations have actually been infected with novel bat coronaviruses (based on serology).

While you worry about a few people in the lab, there are millions of people in far more risky everyday situations you're ignoring.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#310
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Related to the origin hypotheses, the hypothesis of zoonotic outbreak from a wet market in mid-Dec no longer seems as relevant Perhaps in your mind, but this is not at all a fair representation of the general scientific consensus - most still hold the weight of the evidence leans towards a November '19 origin in Wuhan

He cited papers, you referenced a "general scientific consensus". This is a gun fight, sir, so you'd best put that knife away.

I see you’ve played knifey spoony before!
Post reply on HN