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

Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

biorxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 250 posts

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#61

Post by s1artibartfast »

m0llusk wrote: post #18

There are at least a couple of suspicious points in this study: First and foremost the central claim is that 5 potential restriction binding sites versus 2 means that SARS-CoV2 is non natural. That does not necessarily follow. Just as SARS-CoV2 is unusually infectious and damaging to humans it could just happen to have an additional 3 restriction binding sites. So there is nothing inconsistent with natural selection…

>Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics.

I strongly disagree. If of natural origin, there are a plethora of simple controls that could be implemented. Control doesn't necessarily need to be perfect. Some simple controls could be restrictions or bans on Commercial trade or transport of high-risk animals. If not of natural origin, it obviously indicates that BSL4 controls are inadequate or inconsistently applied. A simple but perhaps costly solution might be to not certify bsl4 Laboratories in dense Urban settings.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#62

Post by Dig1t »

nl wrote: post #40
Dig1t wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't see how saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin is "a dangerous level of sloppiness".

Well considering that's not what the OP said at all I guess it's ok you don't see that.

>These second and third criticisms are not direct against the evidence and logic presented, but show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research

OP _literally_ said that.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#63

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

someuser54541 wrote: post #22

Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence? Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the…

Studied and then escaped from a lab does not equal synthetic.

Exactly nothing in your post supports a synthetic origin over a sample from nature that got studied in a lab.

Jumping to these kinds of one sided conclusions should be a red flag.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#64

Post by adamredwoods »

callesgg wrote: post #15

I Honestly thought it was common belief that corona come from that lab in china. But now after reading this, I searched a bit and read up on it and I guess it is still a somewhat honest debate on the topic. Even if it was lab made, it would be sort of stupid to dig in to it, due to the political nature of the matter. What happened happened, most likely the release would have been accidental, so why play blame games.

Even the big paper publishers say "No conclusive evidence for either theory."

https://www.science.org/content/article/do-three-new-studies...

>> Still, Worobey and his co-authors concede, even that evidence might not be enough to end this polarizing debate. “With the way that people have been able to just push aside any and all evidence that points away from a lab leak, I do fear that even if there were evidence from one of these samples that was full of red fox DNA and SARS-CoV-2 that people might say, ‘We still think it actually came from the handler of that red fox,’” Worobey says.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#65

Post by _jal »

Dig1t wrote: post #24
m0llusk wrote: post #18

There are at least a couple of suspicious points in this study: First and foremost the central claim is that 5 potential restriction binding sites versus 2 means that SARS-CoV2 is non natural. That does not necessarily follow. Just as SARS-CoV2 is unusually infectious and damaging to humans it could just happen to have an additional 3 restriction binding sites. So there is nothing inconsistent with natural selection…

I really don't see how saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin is "a dangerous level of sloppiness".

The accusation of sloppiness is based on two claims, and you're only responding to a bastardization of one of them.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#67

Post by cybertronic »

pencilguin wrote: post #60
danbtl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why play blame games Because of the question of liability: If it was lab made and accidentally released, was it due to recklessness or criminal negligence? Is someone guilty of involuntary mass-manslaughter? Or if this was state-sponsored research, could they be found liable for the damage caused?

What court would usefully find this? What authority would enforce it?

US court?

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#68

Post by jalino23 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #37
jalino23 wrote: post #13

do I understand this correctly? that the paper is saying that covid 19 is highly likely a synthetic virus?

It's claiming that there are sequences on the viral code that are unlikely to have occurred naturally, but are really convenient for slicing the genetic sequence in a lab context. Sort of like if you shaved the fur on a hyena and discovered a "THIS END UP" tattoo on its skin.

oh damn! thats very interesting

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#69

Post by tripletao »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #61
m0llusk wrote: post #18

There are at least a couple of suspicious points in this study: First and foremost the central claim is that 5 potential restriction binding sites versus 2 means that SARS-CoV2 is non natural. That does not necessarily follow. Just as SARS-CoV2 is unusually infectious and damaging to humans it could just happen to have an additional 3 restriction binding sites. So there is nothing inconsistent with natural selection…

>Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics. I strongly disagree. If of natural origin, there are a plethora of simple controls that could be implemented. Control doesn't necessarily need to be perfect. Some simple controls could be restrictions or bans on Commercial trade or transp…

I generally agree, but would note that the WIV worked with novel natural or synthetic bat-origin viruses at BSL-2 or -3, mostly not BSL-4. From an interview with Dr. Shi:

> A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories. [...]

https://web.archive.org/web/20210727042832/https://www.scien...

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#70

Post by adamredwoods »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #23
someuser54541 wrote: post #22

Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence? Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the…

My Occam's razor says that every other virus has a natural origin, why wouldnt this one too? Maybe your razor needs sharpening?

Seeing how the previous SARS-CoV was from natural origins, most likely the following ones will be, too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7113851/

>> In most bat families, both alpha- and betacoronaviruses are known, and these detections have originated from both frugivorous and insectivorous bat hosts. Lack of detection in the remaining bat families is likely due to non-exhaustive sampling of the almost 1200 extant bat species (Schipper et al., 2008, Simmons, 2005, Teeling et al., 2005). This void may be filled in future studies.

Post reply on HN