131–140 of 372 posts
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that people should not be able to hunt for wild foods? Or that they shouldn’t be able to sell what they catch or kill? Or something else?
If it's proven that wet markets are a breeding ground for novel viruses, then yeah, clearly they should be banned.
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…
It would have vast consequences if this came from a lab. It would be the most deadly example of "science gone wrong" ever: 1.8 million deaths, comparable to the Holocaust, from a single disaster in a single lab. We would seriously have to rethink how we did virus biology. And probably there would be repercussions throughout the whole of science. We might e.g. start to worry much more about the risks of many kinds of…
The link made it pretty clear that the vast majority of the world already refuses to fund the type of research that could have led to the virus.
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…
Entertaining the question is dangerous (I don’t believe it, but for the sake of argument)... My next question would be “why”? What would be the CCP’s motives to study and modify the virus? Is it to test whether different changes would make the virus more/less communicable? Is it to prevent another MERS SARS? Is it to tailor disease for certain ethnicities? CCP doesn’t appear to have qualms about getting rid of troubl…
> Pangolins and bats don't usually cohabitate, making this somewhat unlikely in nature.
Horseshoe bats are nocturnal animals that roost in caves during the day but sometimes practice perch feeding at night [1]:
> The other strategy is known as perch feeding: Individuals roost on feeding perches and wait for prey to fly past, then fly out to capture it.
Pangolins [2] and palm civets [3] are nocturnal and arboreal. The bat viral RNA sequences come from anal swabs of netted animals so they are primarily gastrointestinal infections. All of these animals are found in the Lancang/Mekong [4] catch basin. Bat guano seems like a good vector for the virus.
Gain-of-function experiments require two viral isolates that recombine during passage. The lab theory assumes that the RNA sequence of the original viral isolates were never shared. I find this scenario unlikely but I am open to changing my mind based on evidence. SARS-1 is evidence of a very similar zoonotic scenario.
Humans that encounter bat guano in this region also seem like a good host for a recombination event.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_bat#Diet_and_foragin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin#Behavior
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_palm_civet#Feeding_and_d...
The Chinese sure acted like it was a possibility that it came from their own lab - their initial reaction was to downplay and cover up.
One thing I wonder is: How did the UK virus suddenly get 17 mutations at once if it's not a new engineered release by someone? I'm not a biologist, but that part had me wondering. Any biologists here who want to explain for a layman?
Not a biologist, this is not a biological question per se - all viruses and bacteria mutate over time during replication. It's a question of statistics rather... When you have 100 infected individuals and a virus that mutates in 1% of infected people (note: this is a random number, no idea what the actual mutation rate of coronavirus is), you'll end up with one mutated version. When you have 100k of infected people,…
Normally we should have sampled a number of strains with fewer of the same mutations, shouldn't we?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, technically the chemicals are being put in the water and are turning the frogs gay but you see, they only intended to put the chemicals in the water and didn't specifically intend to turn the frogs gay.
The chemicals are not being intentionally put in the water at all. They are sprayed onto plants and then run off into the water. Atrazine is a herbicide.
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground). My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help de…
This is the virus that has probably received the most attention by the largest number of global experts in history, or close to. If there was anything that showed it was in any way artificial it would have been detected by all mainstream experts by now and that information would have been publicised one way or another. Yet these claims and 'evidence' are only reported as coming from fringe people if not likely paid '…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground What are you talking about? Zoonotic origin is the source of the majority of viruses: > Approximately 60% of the known infectious diseases and 75% of the new emerging or re-emerging diseases infecting humans came from animals. SARS-CoV-2 is the latest addition to the seven coronaviruses found in humans, and experts said that all of these viruses either came…
One can conclude you believe it purely coincidental that the Wuhan Institute of Virolgy specialized in research on bat coronaviruses? A paper in the lancet early in the year reported that the Wuhan Seafood market not only did not sell bats, but that many of the early patients reported never visiting the market. At this point, it may be too late to ever discover the true origin of the virus.
Ironically one of these researchers, Daszak, was politically targeted for his connections to this Wuhan lab [1], even though he and Wuhan scientists have been trying to get the attention to this problem for some time. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4