I think the closest natural virus was 95% similar. 5% seems pretty far for mutations. Is there a historical track record for finding the natural virus to a 99.9% similarity?
[deleted]
The Lab Leak Hypothesis
11–20 of 244 posts
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#12I don't see any evidence for the speculation it was lab created (or modified into it's current form) except for an acknowledgement that the capability to do so exists. I don't doubt the possibility of such a thing occurring, but I just haven't seen any evidence to support this.
I assume you mean to say “the speculation that it was...”?
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#13This is a good, balanced article. I've been of a similar mind for over a year now.
The chances of the CCP releasing a self-harming bioweapon in order to harm the US seems silly. But an accident involving a well-intentioned gain-of-function experiment seems quite possible and was something that the US was concerned about with its own gain-of-function research.
In any case, this, like so much of this other nonsense around Covid [lockdowns in Contra Costa County when the major hospitals were empty-ish; no gradual escalation of lockdown given mid-January knowledge of Covid], seems pretty amenable to a calm, clear analysis...
Hypothesis | Evidence | Likelihood
------------------------------+----------------------------------------+-----------------
CCP Virus | [That'd be 360 degree dumb of the CCP] | *low*
Gain of function lab accident | [Existing concerns and experience] | *moderate*
Zoonotic transfer | [No likely vector for extant virus] | *moderate-low*
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#14Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#15I don't see any evidence for the speculation it was lab created (or modified into it's current form) except for an acknowledgement that the capability to do so exists. I don't doubt the possibility of such a thing occurring, but I just haven't seen any evidence to support this.
I assume you mean to say “the speculation that it was...”?
Yep, corrected, thanks.
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#16Months ago, everyone talking about this hypothesis was denounced as an evil right wing racist conspiracy theorist, mostly because the people who came to that conclusion were generally right wing racist conspiracy theorists. What does this say about the appropriate credibility update for right wing racist conspiracy theorists?
There's a difference between an intentional release of the virus, which is what conspiracy theorists say, and an accidental release, which is what this article postulates. Do people have a tendency to dismiss both as if they were the same? Sure. But that's just because there's many more people saying it was intentional than accidental.
Even saying you thought it was an accidental release would get you in trouble with Twitter or Youtube though.
Social media loses a lot of its utility if you're only allowed to say things that are blessed by official, mainstream media. :-)
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#17I'm not convinced either way, but posting because this is an articulate well written non-sensational discussion of the idea. If it is true, it was almost certainly an accident. Nobody really benefited from this (even if China really has eradicated it, it's damaged their export-heavy economy badly), and if it was terrorists they would have claimed responsibility since that's the point of terrorism. Biological warfare…
The interesting thing for me is the contrast in the behavior of the Chinese government between the previous viral leaks from China. I'm citing a few references from before 2020:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-bei...
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly...
The previous behavior was to acknowledge the leaks and try to contain them. The current behavior is to arrest people who document the government cover up. Why the change in behavior, unless the government absolutely knows what happened and is trying to control the information?
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#18This article is a masterpiece of disinformation.
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#19Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance researching the origins of pandemics, pointed out in April that nearly 3% of the population in China's rural farming regions near wild animals already had antibodies to coronaviruses similar to SARS. "We're finding 1 to 7 million people exposed to these viruses every year in Southeast Asia; that's the pathway. It's just so obvious to all of us working in the field..."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/8417296...
Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis
#20I think the closest natural virus was 95% similar. 5% seems pretty far for mutations. Is there a historical track record for finding the natural virus to a 99.9% similarity?
We see around one base pair mutation per host transmission, so that would likely already put us outside 99.9% similarity even among humans with coronavirus wouldn't it?
Rough estimate:
(29,000 base pairs, just assuming 3.5 days between generations, 395 days since first affected person (probably it was a bit more), would be 112 mutations = 99.6% similarity)
And I think we'd expect more changes to be selected for in the early period of host adaptation.