4 ms·

Yes, this virus definitely could be the result of artificial selection, negating the whole argument of this nature medicine paper. That said, I agree that the v

Yes, this virus definitely could be the result of artificial selection, negating the whole argument of this nature medicine paper. That said, I agree that the virus likely emerged as a natural phenomena. Both SARS and MERS emerged as natural phenomena, so there's no reason to believe that SARS-Cov-2 is unnatural.

matthewdgreen 7y ago
I don't think they negate it. They state that it is unlikely, and then they note that the debate is not settled: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses."
ha4fsd3fas 7y ago
Isn't it unlikely that a naturally emerged virus would have both high virality and mortality rate? I have read that viruses usually have one or the other, which would indicate that both is more rare. Combining the rare odd with the odds that the host happens to infect a human would make it even less likely to happen. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I could be mistaken. I don't think it's very interesting if it was a naturally or artificially selected virus. The more interesting question is was the infected specimen a research subject or not.
- soperj 7y ago
  Like Spanish Flu? Smallpox? Tuberculosis? SARS was both as well, we just caught it early.
api 7y ago
You can't prove it was not engineered or bred/selected (an ancient method of genetic engineering!). But... the burden of proof is on anyone asserting that it was intentionally created to provide evidence. So far I have only seen innuendo and the weakest sort of circumstantial evidence, but if someone can produce something stronger I'd be willing to consider it.
- downerending 7y ago
  Perhaps, though in this case I'd put that burden as relatively weak. That is, we know that in principle it could have been made, even if we don't (publicly) know how that would have been done in 2019. An additional important point is that there's a middle scenario where a natural virus being studies could have been accidentally mutated and accidentally released. This might be all but impossible to distinguish between origin in the wild. I'd guess intentional manufacture as very unlikely, but sloppy lab practices as not likely but much more likely than that.
- dwd 7y ago
  There was a spike in non-influenza related pneumonia cases prior to the outbreak, particularly in Australia where it's not flu season. My wife caught it in early March and developed mild bacterial pneumonia but tested negative for flu and Covid-19. Part of the argument for natural evolution is that there are mutations that most likely occured in a human host as they indicated adaption to an immune response. My personal theory is that an individual infected with this unknown virus that was going around came into contact with the bat originated coronavirus in Wuhan (which may or may not have originated in the lab). RNA was exchanged and a novel variation emerged that was now both highly contagious and deadly. But I am not an epidemiologist.

matthewdgreen 7y ago

I don't think they negate it. They state that it is unlikely, and then they note that the debate is not settled: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses."

ha4fsd3fas 7y ago

Isn't it unlikely that a naturally emerged virus would have both high virality and mortality rate? I have read that viruses usually have one or the other, which would indicate that both is more rare. Combining the rare odd with the odds that the host happens to infect a human would make it even less likely to happen. I'm not very familiar with the topic so I could be mistaken. I don't think it's very interesting if it was a naturally or artificially selected virus. The more interesting question is was the infected specimen a research subject or not.

soperj 7y ago
Like Spanish Flu? Smallpox? Tuberculosis? SARS was both as well, we just caught it early.

api 7y ago

You can't prove it was not engineered or bred/selected (an ancient method of genetic engineering!). But... the burden of proof is on anyone asserting that it was intentionally created to provide evidence. So far I have only seen innuendo and the weakest sort of circumstantial evidence, but if someone can produce something stronger I'd be willing to consider it.

downerending 7y ago
Perhaps, though in this case I'd put that burden as relatively weak. That is, we know that in principle it could have been made, even if we don't (publicly) know how that would have been done in 2019. An additional important point is that there's a middle scenario where a natural virus being studies could have been accidentally mutated and accidentally released. This might be all but impossible to distinguish between origin in the wild. I'd guess intentional manufacture as very unlikely, but sloppy lab practices as not likely but much more likely than that.
dwd 7y ago
There was a spike in non-influenza related pneumonia cases prior to the outbreak, particularly in Australia where it's not flu season. My wife caught it in early March and developed mild bacterial pneumonia but tested negative for flu and Covid-19. Part of the argument for natural evolution is that there are mutations that most likely occured in a human host as they indicated adaption to an immune response. My personal theory is that an individual infected with this unknown virus that was going around came into contact with the bat originated coronavirus in Wuhan (which may or may not have originated in the lab). RNA was exchanged and a novel variation emerged that was now both highly contagious and deadly. But I am not an epidemiologist.