Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

minervanett.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 494 posts

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

#371

Post by matwood »

DanBC wrote: post #362
matwood wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A background check does help though. If a paper written by or on an anti-vaxx site for example, I have some idea what I’m dealing with right away. It makes me less likely to be charitable on any questionable claims. Also, swamping people with already settled arguments that they have to continue to prove or disprove is a disinformation tactic. A background check helps avoid giving those situations any air.

How do you make sure this doesn't lull you into a false sense of trust? Here's a discussion about a paper by respected scientists working in a respected organisation. The paper is probably bad science. https://twitter.com/DiseaseEcology/status/128386841036377702...

I said it makes me less likely to be charitable. I try and read every paper with a skeptical mind.

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

#372

Post by JohnStrangeII »

Feolkin wrote: post #249

Look, when most virologists/epidemiogists look at this "evidence" and consider it too flimsy and flawed, then I wonder why people here are so eager to jump on it as "I'm not a biologist, covid19 is so unusual, it's obviously man-made". HN is embarrassing right now.

The same happened with HIV, these kind of conspiracy theories are inevitable. People always want to blame someone, even when there is overwhelming evidence that a natural catastrophe occurred. Remember the Italian seismologists who got sued because they didn't predict an earthquake?

Fact is that if the virus escaped a lab, the incident could have occurred in any other lab, too. It likely evolved naturally, though, and another fact is that it could have occurred naturally in many places in the world - e.g. in the Middle East or in Africa -, and a more dangerous virus could evolve in many regions of the world at any time.

Many people just don't want to accept this, especially those who reacted in the wrong way to the pandemic initially. It's always easier to blame someone else.

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

#373

Post by sudosysgen »

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #368
sudosysgen wrote: post #288

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.

Reduce virulence compared to what? SARS-1? But they are not talking about SARS-1, they actually were talking about some other random bat viruses, which have zero virulence in humans.

Au contraire, you would expect random bat viruses to be incredibly virulent in humans.

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

#374

Post by chiefalchemist »

sudosysgen wrote: post #269
holler wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).

Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?

> Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker?

You're presuming it was for gain analysis. What if the intention was different? What if you were ultimately considering the virus for bio-warfare and wanted to hide that intention?

If we're going to explore theories this fits the evidence, or is at least possible.

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

#375

Post by bananaface »

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…

Edit: I'm very wrong about the terminology here.

---

CoV-2 is way more virulent than SARS, as evidenced by the fact it's spread across the entire world. SARS might spread more easily from contact, and it does more damage once it's inside you, but that's only one component of virulence. MERS is also not really comparable - it's very difficult to transmit between humans.

I get what you're saying but practical effects just matter more than isolated metrics. Viruses that transmit asymptomatically are more likely to be virulent, because you can't isolate patients. If you're trying to engineer a virus, you want to make it transmit faster than it kills people and you want to make it hard to quarantine.

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

#376

Post by Confusion »

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?

One way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change decreases property X.

Another way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change indeed increases property X, while also discovering it decreases property Y.

While attempting to increase both X and Y, they made an intermediate with increased X and decreased Y. Perhaps it seemed a promising starting point to also increase Y.

I don't get the surprise. This is all par for the course in research.

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

#377

Post by sudosysgen »

bananaface wrote: post #375
sudosysgen wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Edit: I'm very wrong about the terminology here. --- CoV-2 is way more virulent than SARS, as evidenced by the fact it's spread across the entire world. SARS might spread more easily from contact, and it does more damage once it's inside you, but that's only one component of virulence. MERS is also not really comparable - it's very difficult to transmit between humans. I get what you're saying but practical effects j…

You're confusing virulence and infectivity. Virulence is specifically how severe a virus is. For example, one might say that Hepatitis is more virulent than the common cold.

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

#378

Post by sudosysgen »

bb2018 wrote: post #302
sudosysgen wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/p…

I can't give you a non-paywalled link legally, but there are actually Shortridge horseshoe bats in Hubei.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortridge%27s_horseshoe_bat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubei

You can see that Hubei is indeed in the area where horseshoe bats are found.

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

#379

Post by Aeolun »

wokwokwok wrote: post #241
jkhdigital wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you see the qualitative difference between "pandemic virus appears in general region where these kinds of viruses are common" and "pandemic virus appears down the street from a viral research lab"? You're also just making a straight up false claim anyway, since most of the virus samples discussed in their research come from distant regions (500+ miles away).

It's a tough call. If you read the actual paper, what they say is: "These meet the criteria of means, timing, agent and place in this reconstructed historical aetiology to produce sufficient confidence in the account to reverse the burden of proof. Henceforth, those who would maintain that the Covid-19 pandemic arose from zoonotic transfer need to explain precisely why this more parsimonious account is wrong before a…

How you interpret their data is up to you (e.g. whether it gives you a high level of confidence). But they’ve clearly given you proof that the virus is artificial.

Personally I think the circumstantial evidence in this case is fairly strong. But I’m hardly impartial.

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

#380

Post by bananaface »

sudosysgen wrote: post #377
bananaface wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: I'm very wrong about the terminology here. --- CoV-2 is way more virulent than SARS, as evidenced by the fact it's spread across the entire world. SARS might spread more easily from contact, and it does more damage once it's inside you, but that's only one component of virulence. MERS is also not really comparable - it's very difficult to transmit between humans. I get what you're saying but practical effects j…

You're confusing virulence and infectivity. Virulence is specifically how severe a virus is. For example, one might say that Hepatitis is more virulent than the common cold.

You're right, I am. I should have focussed on the point that asymptomatic transmission and lack of severity may be a feature in an engineered virus, not a bug.
Post reply on HN