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

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

#331

Post by Izkata » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:22 AM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #246

roenxi wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) This clearly wasn't biowarfare. The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon that there is no way it is even vaguely possible that it was developed as one. The idea is laughable. The Chinese military would have to be beyond stupid to go into a bioweapons program and develop a virus that mainly only targets old people, usually doesn't cause symptoms, spreads like wildfire and is therefore a huge risk to…

> The coronavirus is so useless when viewed as a bioweapon Considering the how it's playing out in the US, it looks like a great bioweapon for an civilian attack. A big chunk of the population is old enough to be at risk of death. Another non-negligable portion of young people develops long-term disabilities (which is even more crippling to the economy than short-term deaths). And as a nice side-effect of how bad job…

The variety of weird symptoms ("covid toes" and loss of sense of smell, for example) also adds a lot of uncertainty and distrust on top of the actual problems the virus causes.

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

#332

Post by La1n » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:24 AM UTC

etangent wrote: post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

>current culture in science

It's been that way for a long time, with Kuhn writing a whole book on it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_...

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

#333

Post by Lendal » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:33 AM UTC

noelherrick wrote: post #295

iask wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sadly, the damage is done. And it has certainly exposed our unpreparedness, broken/outdated protocols among agencies and exposed deep divisions in these United States. Just imagine if this is a test case, we’ve really exposed ourselves. I am quite certain our adversaries are watching and learning.

No, sorry. The US was prepared, we just have an administration that failed us and an entire political party that cares more about short-term politics than protecting its citizens. We have to reform our system because it should not be possible that someone like Trump is head of the executive or Mitch McConnell is head of the Senate. Arguing counter factuals is hard, but I entirely believe we could have whipped this th…

Yeah we've been tracking it and preparing for it since 1918. There's a whole industry built up over the years around preparing for this, but it still requires leadership involvement to put it into action. The leadership we have now believes in ideologies, conspiracy theories and blame. All they had to do was stand on the shoulders of science and let it work, as many previous administrations have done to prevent pandemics from becoming catastrophes.

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

#334

Post by DoingIsLearning » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:33 AM UTC

hirenj wrote: post #252

Of the five salient points they make here, I would argue that they are a lot less strong than the authors believe them to be. Point 1 can also likely be made for the original Sars-CoV, and probably is irrelevant. If they show CoV-2 is more human like than the earlier, then they can begin to make the point. Point 2 is a gigantic leap of faith - I don’t understand how they connect amino acid inserts into the sequence t…

I will add a few points which I read on a github page and I am unable to verify, so I would be keen to have others review and sanity check:

1) The likely genetic source of SARS cov1 and cov2 is a species of bat in Yunnan province, thousands of miles away, two provinces away from Hubei (Wuhan).

Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/

2) The outbreak allegedly started in December in Hubei province when the local bat population (which does not carry this SARS virus?) would be hibernating (?)

3) Only 66% of the initial 41 COVID patients had exposure to Huanan _seafood_ market.

Ref: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

4) A seafood market where you would have to have non-hibernating bats from Yunnan thousands of miles away from Wuhan(?)

5) The seafood market is 13Km away from Wuhan Institute of Virology where Yunnan bats were studied. And 1.4km away from Wuhan's Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (?)

Are these points real or misinformation? If real, why is there no pressure for an independent investigation?

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

#335

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:40 AM UTC

jkhdigital wrote: post #127

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…

[deleted]

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

#336

Post by chrisco255 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #282

chrisco255 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there often a trade-off between virulence and infectiousness in viral transmission? See "A transmission-virulence evolutionary trade-off explains attenuation of HIV-1 in Uganda" https://elifesciences.org/articles/20492

That trade off is made by evolution. I don't see why scientists in a lab would make that trade off in a gain of function analysis - you can just make it more infectious and keep (likely increase) the level of virulence. Since evolution isn't involved in the proposed mechanism, I see no reason why such a trade-off would occur.

I think you presume a level of mastery over artificially engineered viruses that just doesn't exist. Is it obvious before a modification is made to a virus strand whether it will be more or less virulent? Besides, engineering for virulence can easily get yourself killed. Furthermore it didn't necessarily have to be engineered for nefarious purposes. It could have been an experimental virus that accidentally escaped and that's all.

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

#337

Post by hollander » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:54 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #244

jkhdigital wrote: post #127

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…

This isn't entirely true, though. SARS-CoV-2 is much less virulent than SARS or MERS. For a virus that recently crossed the zoonotic barrier, and even moreso for one crossing from bats, it's virulence is actually astonishingly low. Therefore, the hypothesis of a two-stage crossing to humans, from bats to a larger land based mammal and then to humans is much much more likely, because this would explain high transmissi…

What I know is that a virus like Ebola, which kills almost everybody who is untreated, cannot be that successful as a virus like Covid19 or HIV, because it gets no chance to spread. The corona virus is so successful because it can spread without killing everybody.

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

#338

Post by dustinmoris » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:57 AM UTC

nthj wrote: post #95

causality0 wrote: post #88

Do viruses closely related to SARS-Cov-2 do all the "unusual" things it does? Do they cause brain damage, reproductive damage, anosmia without congestion, strokes, and unusual clotting activity? If not, I would be reassured by someone explaining to me how a natural pathogen could pick up all these features at the same time.

If the natural pathogen causes blood clots, everything else you described naturally occurs as a side effect.

Precisely this. I can't understand how so many people are so dumb that they can't add one plus one and understand that all the scare stories they hear is just normal consequences of a single issue. It's like saying that people who have a salmonella infection also have other issues likes diarrhoea, dehydration, headache, dizziness, tiredness, etc. Well of course, if you have a stomach bug which gives you diarrhoea then you shit water and you get dehydrated. When you dehydrate then you get headaches, can feel dizzy and your energy levels drop and you feel tired.

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

#339

Post by quonn » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 9:59 AM UTC

pldr2244 wrote: post #289

chrisbrandow wrote: post #228

Has this paper either been peer-reviewed or submitted for peer-review as a preprint? I have a PhD in chemistry and I certainly don’t feel like I’m qualified to judge the quality of the work or the track record of the authors, scientifically. I think this paper’s deserves a thorough airing and evaluation, but I don’t think Hacker news is a forum well equipped to produce a high signal to noise evaluation on such a high…

Most of HN is not qualified either to judge the quality of AI, ML, opsec, renewables or any of a whole host of topics that are actually deeply complex. But that does not mean it does not classify as potentially substantial news, that at least should be visible. Nobody is arguing that it shouldn’t be more properly vetted when published via normal scientific channels, as these things usually are.

> topics that are actually deeply complex

The topics you mentioned are all part of a CS masters degree (and by far not the most complex ones there).

Many people on HN have a CS background so they are surely qualified.

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

#340

Post by nickfromseattle » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 10:00 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #247

stx wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually believe this to be the case. From what I have read researchers often do something called gain of function research. In this research they add genetic features to viruses that could make it more infective. This is done, at least in part, to help learn how to protect society from such a virus if it were to evolve naturally. I thought I heard somewhere that one of the functions coronavirus has that its closes…

The thing I just don't understand is why gain research would take the effort of making the virus much less deadly. This virus is around ten times less deadly that SARS, wouldn't gain research at least maintain virulence?

You switch from death rate or R0, so it's not clear which variable you are referring to. COVID-19 may be less deadly, but it has killed more people than SARS. So it does appear to be a 'better' virus.