Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there is no strong evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence.
But this (escape from a vial in a lab) isn't a strong claim, or at least no stronger than the alternative (the virus escaped from bat in a a wet-market)- why is there no outcry against the wet market hypothesis?
Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
141–150 of 372 posts
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#142Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#143For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"
Looking at the report, most of the likelihood is from a single "prior". The whole likelihood basically hinges on the fact that the outbreak occurred in Wuhan and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working for decades on enhancing coronavirus strains. That's quite strongly circumstantial but it's not evidence. Possible chimerization and furin-cleavage insertion seem a lot more interesting imo but are weight…
The initial prior of zoonotic origin simply because that was usually the case in the past is just as circumstantial, but also just as solid in bayesian terms.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#144Oh 2020. It's a crazy thing to say out loud (or even to type), but there is substantial doubt about the origin story of this virus in mainstream scientific circles. The National Academy of Sciences published an opinion piece from a reputable scientist containing fairly strongly worded (for PNAS, anyway) conjecture regarding a possible laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. [0] (you might recognize Relman's name from his wo…
These sorts of conjectures of what might be possible are exactly on the same level as me writing that it is possible that the virus could have been developed in an American lab and planted in Wuhan as part of a CIA plot. The realm of what is 'possible' is extremely large. This is exactly a reason why serious people without an agenda tend not to play this conjecture game and stick to evidence-based facts.
What has he to prove and to whom?
I'm as distrusting of establishment forces as anyone (and heck, maybe that's part of what predisposes me to take this more seriously), but everything about this seems genuine to me. And while I don't think he's entirely above reproach, I think he's a really good guy and someone who is unlikely to mislead or engage in the kind of undue speculation you're talking about.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#145Whenever 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…
In the US, it's because this claim, or rejection of it, is strongly tied to political identity. Because the US is highly polarized right now, once political identity comes into play, you've left the realm of rationality and entered the realm of tribalism.
Again, I don’t think there was that much, let alone enough to swing the election, but we can’t even discuss any of it honestly.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#146Earlier 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.
For one thing, this is a classic example of correlation != causation. Let’s say you had a shark attack on some beach and there was a team researching shark attack located right in that area. Would you then conclude that the team engineered the shark attack? The simple reality is that the most likely reason the team studying shark attacks is located in that region is simply because that region either has a history of shark attacks or even if it doesn’t have a history, is likely to have shark attacks. That’s why a team studying shark attacks would decide to locate themselves there.
The same is true here. Wuhan hosts a bat virology research institute because bat viruses are a higher risk here than in most places.
The other factor is that there is probably an infinite number of things that could look suspicious if there is such a disaster. It could be the presence of a bat focused research institute. It could be a conference that was held out there in the past few months. It could be a scientist from that region predicting a bat virus a few weeks before. It could be a district updating its pandemic protection plans in the weeks before. Etc.
The odds of any specific one of them happening are extremely low and would rightly make one suspicious. But the odds of at least one of the infinite suspicious things being true is almost 100%. And that’s probably all there is to it here. The presence of the bat research is just the 1 of many suspicious things that just happens to be true.
That being said, I think the strongest explanation is that Wuhan was considered a likely source of bat virus infections and that’s why the research was focused there.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don’t really get why even entertaining the question is dangerous, and I can imagine some reasonable justifications for why they’d be doing that kind of research (which I believe is called “Gain of Function”). Understanding what mutations could make a virus more communicable is something that I think would benefit everyone. The dangerous questions really do come in at your last hypothetical, which obviously signals…
I’m a complete nobody, but the internet has a way of amplifying things.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#148For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"
Looking at the report, most of the likelihood is from a single "prior". The whole likelihood basically hinges on the fact that the outbreak occurred in Wuhan and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working for decades on enhancing coronavirus strains. That's quite strongly circumstantial but it's not evidence. Possible chimerization and furin-cleavage insertion seem a lot more interesting imo but are weight…
>Furin cleavage sites are not common in other related coronaviruses.
However, this claim appears to have been investigated and debunked [1]
>Furin cleavage sites occurred independently for multiple times in the evolution of the coronavirus family, supporting the natural occurring hypothesis of SARS-CoV-2.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187350612...
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Wuhan lab being specialized in bat viruses means very little. For one thing, this is a classic example of correlation != causation. Let’s say you had a shark attack on some beach and there was a team researching shark attack located right in that area. Would you then conclude that the team engineered the shark attack? The simple reality is that the most likely reason the team studying shark attacks is located in…
Except the bat in question doesn't originate in Wuhan. I can't remember the cave exactly but the Wuhan researchers documented the capture thousands of miles from the lab, several years ago.
Re: Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it
#150Whenever 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…
A very calm response to this https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 > Why do these distinctions matter? If we find more concrete evidence of a “spill-over” event with SARS-CoV-2 passing directly from bat to human, then efforts to understand and manage the bat–human interface need to be significantly strengthened. But if SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab to cause the pandemic, it will become critical to understand the…
It seems the crux of the argument is to better react in the short term, but it looks to my untrained eyes that we already passed that level of investigation if we have effective means to prevent infection.
I also guess we’d still need to explore all other tracks anyway (we can’t just focus on lab spills for instance, if that was the root cause, and stop to care about the bat/human interface, nor should it be assumed that any other path will be less important in the future)