Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your impetus to tell others to 'stick to your lane' but I respectfully disagree and cite their post and your response as why. OP had what you deem a misapprehension and they deem a valid point. By voicing their point as they believes it, you were able to retort with evidence you feel should convincingly disprove it. To me, this is reasoned, diverse discourse correcting for unintuitive misapprehensions, a…
As I understand it, the general rule of nature is that biological specimens don't thrive as well in environments that they are not evolutionary adapted to. This is why humans can't swim very fast and fish can't walk on land. The fact is that COVID-19 made its first jump to humans (new environment) only a few months ago and yet it spreads better than most pre-existing known coronaviruses that have been affecting human…
The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
341–350 of 494 posts
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#342Just look at the prior chinese coronavirus-related studies, they did antibody tests in villages near bat caves for SARS-like coronaviruses, some of villagers had antibodies in 2015 despite no reported SARS infections ever near the area.
Simplest conclusion: Zoonotic diseases sometimes jump from bats to humans in Chinese rural areas. The case clusters stay inside the isolated communities and stop naturally due to low population and lack of super-spreader events that can kickstart an epidemic.
In 2019 it happened again, but this time a villager who was infected visited Wuhan => pandemic
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now this sounds exactly like something Donald Trump has been saying all this time, and such conspiracy theories don't contribute much to the discussion. If thousands of deaths in China, a complete lockdown that hit the economy incredibly hard and perhaps more crucially, the total breakdown and potential reshaping of the global supply chain, which China has been benefitting from massively, is something that the Chines…
Which professional published best case death estimate did the US not beat? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23407130 Excess deaths are the only accurate measure.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious as to why this was downvoted so much. This chap seems legit (I checked), so he's not one of these "instant Internet experts." He's probably not in line for a Nobel in medicine, anytime soon, but he does seem to fit his description. I don't see much in his breakdown that is inflammatory. I am not qualified to judge it on its merits, though, so maybe he puts forth some kind of bad science.
Thank-you for your reply, tbh I couldn't understand it either and it was quite savage initially, particularly given the effort I went into to walk a straight line (and yes, certainly not going to be heading to Sweden anytime). Perhaps the highly political nature of the subject matter? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word dangerous
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, and this is a really crazy theory, they were studying it in China because it was a local virus that they were worried might one day infect humans. Maybe they were studying which changes would make it most dangerous because they wanted to be ready if those changes happened naturally. Honest hard work can sometimes look like evil plans, and not every coincidence is the result of conspiracy.
Yeah sure the racist hypothesis of Chinese people eating bats is far more likely than a virus escape from a Wuhan lab with known protocol defects that worked on coronaviruses. /s
What's racist about suggesting someone eats bats? Mammalian flesh is a common food source across human cultures.
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).
Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).
Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least. From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).
Yes, but is the theory is that one experiment, in the context of a gain analysis, was made in order to see how the virus might evolve to be much less severe? Why would a gain analysis try to find ways in which a virus could be made weaker? I don't doubt that an accidental release is feasible, though very very unlikely, but why would an experiment make a less severe virus in the first place?
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
As noted downthread, these points don't particularly point to it being engineered (point 1 applies in spades to SARS and MERS, for example). Most scientists believe the evidence [0] indicates it's of natural origin. [0] https://www.sciencealert.com/the-new-coronavirus-could-have-...
> SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins were so effective at binding to human cells, they had to be caused by natural selection. Read the article you are citing. There is convincing evidence that the virus developed via evolutionary mechanisms. That in no way refutes lab-origin and is entirely consistent with how most labs promote infectiousness (particularly airborn infectiousness) through gain-of-function research. https://www…
Er, yes. Not sure what you're saying here (the title is "..Covid-19 is not a naturally-evolved virus...')?
Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this actually the case? This paper [1] seems to indicate that there are multiple types of gain-of-function research, not just an increase in virulence. In fact, the paper specifically discusses “transmissibility”, which would seem to support the argument of the paper under discussion: “In short, SARS-CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result o…
Sure. The issue is that there would have to be gain-of-function research to reduce virulence and (maybe, it's not entirely clear) to increase transmissivity. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, and I don't understand why a lab would do a gain of function experiment and reduce function instead.
Introducing feature X (regardless of effect) allows you to study X.
You do it to learn more about X, not because you particularly want to engineer something more virulent or lethal.