Live data from Hacker News

The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

thebulletin.org

461–470 of 578 posts

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#461
post #179

For me it felt allways a bit strange how fast china acted. The virus was very fresh, nothing was known, just a few cases and china totaly locked down millions if people. Two, three months later, when we already had high numbers if cases in the west, lockdowns started in the west also. But everybody said, "we know nothing about this new virus". For me it allways like, china knew much more about the virus early on.

They did have the experience with SARS1. And if you look at other countries that had experience with SARS1 they also acted very swiftly and did fairly well - Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam. What I found absolutely baffling is that we in west saw what China was doing and haven't got our shit together until months later (with exceptions). Instead the discourse was about how much the Chinese eat unsavory things an…

When China was quenching their epidemic whole wester world was going "omg, look at those totalitarian, weak dumbasses, pass me the popcorn"

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be in my opinion.

What is least likely? A group of scientists in a quasy communist country do a shit job of safety and end up endangering the worlds population or that a virus that coexists with Bats, somehow and for no (direct) evolutionary benefit, becomes able to infect humans?

Based on what we know about the history and ecology of pathogens, the latter is far more likely. I say this as someone with training in the biological sciences.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#463
Nicholas has Waded (pun intended) into the waters of irrational horror over gain-of-function research that seems to gain viral traction following every spill-over event. The only argument presented in the article that leans towards the lab-leak hypothesis is the human-preffered double CGG codon that appears in the furin cleavage site; this is nothing like a smoking gun, IMO. Yesterday's TWiV 751 covered a paper The furin cleavage site in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is required for transmission in ferrets [1] which has the following abstract:

> To investigate the importance of the spike polybasic CS of SARS-CoV-2 (PRRAR), a number of spike mutants predicted to modulate the efficiency of furin cleavage were generated (Fig. 1a), including: substituting two upstream arginines to produce a monobasic CS similar to SARS-CoV spike (monoCS), replacing the tribasic CS with the furin CS of a highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza haemagglutinin containing seven basic amino acids (H5CS) and two naturally occurring deletions seen following passage in Vero E6 cells and/or in clinical isolates21,26. The first deletion removes eight amino acids including all three arginines of the PRRAR site (ΔCS), while the other removes five flanking amino acids but retains the tribasic CS (Δflank). The mutations were engineered into a spike expression plasmid to enable cell surface expression and generation of coronavirus lentiviral PVs. In addition, to study the importance of the PRRAR motif in the context of live virus, we used a naturally occurring Vero-cell-adapted mutant SARS-CoV-2, ΔCS26. This variant and the wild-type (WT) virus from which it was derived were cloned by limiting dilution to enable studies using individual genotypes.

This is the horror of in vitro and in vivo viral lab research and the result is a magnificent advancement of our understanding of SARS-CoV-2, the furin cleavage site, and its role in TMPRSS2 assisted membrane entry. This research follows the equally eye-opening paper covered in TWiV 715 that explained why hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) failed; Vero E6 cells lack TMPRRS2 so HCQ fully blocks entry via endocytosis. It should be noted that this study includes MERS-CoV which also has a furin cleavage site; falsifying one of the claims of Wade's article.

Regardless, lab experiments begin with one or more viral isolates and molecular clock techniques should show that the original Wuhan variant has almost identical non-coding genome segments compared to existing lab isolates. The RaTG13 sequence is a very distant relative using this measure. Also, RaTG13 is not an isolate, only an RNA sample collected in wild bat anal swabs. Conflating viral isolates with RNA samples seems to be a common error; an entry in a genetic database does not imply that a viable viral line exists in a lab. A RaTG13 lab isolate would have been an important achievement to further our scientific understanding.

I'm confused by the dismissals of the natural origins hypothesis. The horseshoe bat roosts, that are studied, are mostly found in or near Kunming, Yunnan. This lush wild area is part of the Lancang/Mekong River watershed/ecosystem shared by nocturnal bats and nocturnal arboreal mammals like palm civets, pangolins, and raccoon dogs. The nearby villages contain people engaged in guano collection, the wildlife trade, and domestic livestock farming.

The average incubation time of COVID-19 is 4.5 days. Armed with Google maps and a basic understanding of planes, trains, and automobiles we can gauge travel time from Kunming Airport to either Wuhan Tianhe International Airport (2 hr 5 min) or Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport (2 hrs). In 2003, SARS-1 emerged in Guangzhou (near Hong Kong) and the now demonized Dr. Zheng-li Shi and her team traced the origins to palm civets (the intermediate host). Why is this so hard? Why do we not ridicule the assumption that travel between major Chinese transportation hubs must leave a wake of infections along the path?

Finally, Wade's article mentions a U.S. State Department claim [2]:

> The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.

If true, this is an important early super-spreader event but the remainder of the release consists of a facile analysis performed by people more knowledgeable in geopolitics than science.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-021-00908-w

[2] https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan...

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#464
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's a 50/50 chance there is an intruder in your house, wouldn't you act as if there was?

If it was 50% likely that people would break the speed limit when driving, should they be banned from driving? It's easy to make false equivalences all day long but it is of no benefit to anybody.

If their breaking the speed limit would result in 3M human deaths plus the loss of 4% of the world's GDP with no offsetting benefit, then I think they probably should? So I agree that the equivalences aren't too helpful.

The point is that we should consider both the cost and the benefit of any regulation, in an expected value sense. Cars do kill people, but they also provide transportation that we've judged is worth that cost. But there's little indication that the WIV's (USA-funded!) risky research has delivered any significant benefit--the predicted coronavirus pandemic has indeed occurred, whatever the cause, and has anything from the WIV's work help us deal with that? On the other hand, even a small chance that their work caused this pandemic is a hugely negative expected value.

Long before the pandemic, there was obscure, academic debate over whether certain types of research with potential pandemic pathogens were worth the risk. Even with the evidence available at that time, I believe the 2014 ban was good, and its 2017 lifting was bad; but that debate now that takes on terrible new significance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097416/

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so many attempts to muddy the waters it would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Even though I'm not sure you attempted to do that here, it certainly reads like it. So, basically, you're saying that (many, we know how contagious covid 19 is) people got sick and put into hospital/died with a novel respiratory disease in another (or several other) chinese cities first. However, that was covered up or unnoticed _…

The most straightforward explanation is that factory farming of animals provided natural bioreactors to execute "gain of function experiments" where bats gave the animals viruses which eventually jumped to humans. What China and the CCP wants though is to have this debate centered around if it was lab produced or not. They can rely on western scientists to debunk the lab created hypothesis. That leaves their own theo…

The species of bats allegedly involved are not near Wuhan.

Bats — aside from the few blood-drinking bats which aren't implicated, and aren't they New-World species anyway — don't tend to interact much with other mammals or with birds. Without human intervention, there's not much opportunity for them to infect humans or any other animals. Carnivores (raptors, felines, to a lesser extent maybe even canines) do eat bats, but not commonly, and they're unlikely to spread disease further due to their lack of social behavior.

Neither bats nor pangolins are factory farmed (it seems some people have tried with pangolins, given their delicacy status, but they're not easy enough to raise in captivity to make it worthwhile). Bush meat and wet markets create other disease risks, but not the concentrated disease reservoir effect you're pointing out as a problem in factory farming, i.e. typically swine or fowl. There are many reasons to reduce factory farming (meat consumption per capita); disease risk is just one of them. Diseases in factory farms can be monitored, particularly these days with cheap DNA/RNA sequencing. Diseases from wild animals sold in wet markets... no surveillance... greater risk.

Given the bats are the most likely original source, and given that Wuhan lab scientists travelled and collected bat virus samples from where those species of bats actually live, the obvious most likely theory is that there was an accidental leak of a natural or derived virus from the WIV (or at least from WIV scientists on return from one of their trips if you cling to the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is of entirely natural origin).

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#466
post #66

There is an interesting peer reviewed paper published last month with analysis of existing facts about the origin of covid-19. A part from their conclusion: More than a year after the initial documented cases in Wuhan, the source of SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be identified, and the search for a direct or intermediate host in nature has been so far unsuccessful. The low binding affinity of SARS-CoV-2 to bat ACE2 studied to…

> "Furin cleavage sites naturally occur in coronaviruses" > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187350612... They exist in the human HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-OC43, MERS-CoV and appear to have evolved independently at least 6 times in betacoronaviruses. Furthermore while this article claims that the furin cleavage site has not found in any sarbecoviruses, that is now outdated information: > "Evidence for SARS-Co…

What's your estimate of the relative prevalence of an FCS among the likely space of lab-created SARS-like coronaviruses vs. among natural, SARS-like coronaviruses? My understanding is that adding an FCS is a very common method of lab gain of function, but rare among such viruses in nature.

I don't think the FCS is determinative, and I agree Wade's article overstates its significance. In a Bayesian analysis, it still seems to me like it points weakly (at least 3x prevalence?) towards lab origin, though.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is fascinating. Rogin is making the claim right before your eyes and your conclusion is that he doesn't mean it because he never printed it?

He's literally not. I don't have the book, your other link is a podcast. And (this is the really important part) literally no one else, not even Breitbart or conservative link farms who would slurp this up like candy, is reporting that Rogin said it. So I choose to believe that you're just wrong about what he said. Again, Fauci covertly directing funds to an area of research that the medical community has recognized…

As claimed by Rogin, the medical research community is privately divided but largely unwilling to speak out publicly because they don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists, don’t want to be associated with supporting a position tangentially aligned with trump, and first and foremost don’t want to jeopardize their grants or careers.

According to Rogin, Fauci did not so much covertly direct funds, but rather, quietly reinstated gain a function research which was stopped by the Obama administration (without approval from the Trump administration). He also doubled down with new grants in the same area as a response to the pandemic.

I personally find none of this particularly difficult to believe given other positions the medical establishment has taken over the coarse of the pandemic and the extreme lack of curiosity in the press.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is fascinating. Rogin is making the claim right before your eyes and your conclusion is that he doesn't mean it because he never printed it?

He's literally not. I don't have the book, your other link is a podcast. And (this is the really important part) literally no one else, not even Breitbart or conservative link farms who would slurp this up like candy, is reporting that Rogin said it. So I choose to believe that you're just wrong about what he said. Again, Fauci covertly directing funds to an area of research that the medical community has recognized…

Are you taking issue with the word "covertly", or the statement that Fauci's NIAID funded GoF research? Because the latter is also claimed directly in the OP.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#469

I think most people are confused because of CCP’s successful disinformation campaign, and also out of fear of being seen as prejudiced. The fact is that an epidemic with a corona virus (never before or since seen in the wild) with a peculiarly efficient ability to infect humans started in the _only city in the world with a lab where gain-of-function experiments on corona viruses_ is located. Just apply occam’s razor,…

> Every other theory requires involving many more unsupported hypotheses. No it doesn't. All it takes is bats around farmed animals like minks or raccoon dogs. That sets up a natural "gain of function" experiment with the bats passing viruses off to the farmed animals who pass it sequentially through the entire farm. The humans who work at those farms then bring in human coronaviruses which could have recombined with…

Except that after 15 months of global catastrophy and investigation, no evidence has been found in support of that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that if 'minks' were the problem, there would be trail of evidence to pick up on.

Hence the notion of speculation / Occam's Razor.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#470
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it also becoming more and more suspicious that they appear to literally be almost the best country in the world at controlling it. We are talking multiple orders of magnitude better. I struggle to understand how exactly.

If we're basing that claim on the numbers they're providing on deaths/cases, I don't believe it for a second.

Except even if they report fake numbers if there was actually significant outbreaks we would hear about it still. It would leak. Something is super odd.
Post reply on HN