10 ms·

the main thing about the accidental release theory to me is it neglects the intermediary animal aspect most scientists seem to agree on. An accidental transmis

• jnbiche 7y ago
  > An accidental lab transmission from bats to pangolins to humans (currently thought likely) is much harder to believe. The pangolin hypothesis has been proposed by one research group, as far as I can tell. A whole-genome comparison found that the pangolin and human coronaviruses share 90.3% of their DNA. Civets, the source of SARS virus (SARS-Cov-1) shared 99%+ of its DNA with human SARS. So far, the closest match to the human coronavirus has been found in a bat in China’s Yunnan province, which is where the research bats at both the Institute of Virology and Wuhan Centers of Disease Control were from. > The lab-transmission theory is also dangerous because it's currently baseless in terms of hard evidence Hard evidence will be extremely hard to come by in a situation like this. But based on circumstantial evidence, it's a leading theory. There's a reason why multiple Western intelligence agencies are reported to be considering it (including many that dislike Trump). > It doesn't follow the rule of simple explanations. Not true. In fact, it's one of the most straight forward explanation so far. A Beijing lab studying SARS in animal models experience 2 fatal accidental spillover events in 2004, infecting multiple humans with SARS. If it was caused by a wet market, why have Chinese authorities started allowing them to operate again? That seems really risky, no? > Yes, it could be true, but I hope you'll join me in really hoping it isn't I agree. I hope it isn't, but it's imperative to nail down what caused this. Civilization may well depend upon it. Covid-19 has been an amazingly benign illness compared to what it might have been. We have to figure out if it was a wet market. If it was, it's incredibly foolish to allow them to continue to operate. If it was an accidental lab release, the world community needs to pressure the Chinese authorities to better regulate their labs. > "It's from a chinese lab accident" is not the pseudo explanation we all need right now, It's far, far less of a "pseudo-explanation" than the bat soup, which was taken as gospel for a while. > Because I unironically think that if it turns out to be true it could cause a war. It's possible, but I'm very skeptical we'd go to war for a variety of reasons. First, this is an accident we're discussing about, of ordinary scientific research. Not a bioweapons program, or an intentional release. That's very significant, obviously. Second, but Trump wants to avoid getting into war at almost any cost. His isolationism is part of his appeal to his base, and the one thing that I believe would cause them to desert him once the body bags started piling up and the initial patriotic fervor wore off. He knows this. I'm personally more concerned about another deadly pandemic coming out of China than I am about a major war. Emerging diseases like SARS, H7N9, and now Covid-19 have all come from China in the past 20 years. We really need to get a handle on this, ASAP.
  • spats1990 7y ago
    "researchers from Hong Kong, China and Australia have found that genetic sequences of the novel coronavirus in pangolins are 85.5% to 92.4% identical to the coronavirus currently infecting hundreds of thousands people." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0 trade in pangolins just seems to offer the virus more attack vectors than accidental human exposure to... what? bat blood in a lab? direct exposure to the virus? it seems highly unlikely vs the possibility of someone catching it from a pangolin they were buying/selling/doing whatever people do with them. Were you talking about SARS or COVID19 with the 99% comment? >If it was caused by a wet market, why have Chinese authorities started allowing them to operate again? That seems really risky, no? No, because most wet markets are just normal markets that sell seafood, meat, veggies etc. They're pretty important community-wise. finally I don't think trump, much less which intelligence agencies "dislike" him, has any place in this discussion.
    • jnbiche 7y ago
      > Were you talking about SARS or COVID19 with the 99% comment? SARS and Civet coronaviruses. The closest match of any host or vector coronavirus to human Covid-19 has been a 96% match in _Rhinolophus affinis_ (a bat). That's also the major bat species that was used for live animal research in both Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan CDC, according to peer-reviewed research published in international scientific journals. > No, because most wet markets are just normal markets that sell seafood, meat, veggies etc. To be more specific, I mean wet markets dealing in exotic, non-domestic source of meat, ones that are scientifically known to pose a threat of spreading novel infectious organisms. You believe they should continue to operate as before? > finally I don't think trump, much less which intelligence agencies "dislike" him, has any place in this discussion. OK, then war doesn't have any place in this heretofore scientific discussion, either...
      • spats1990 7y ago
        >SARS and Civet coronaviruses. The closest match of any host or vector coronavirus to human Covid-19 has been a 96% match in _Rhinolophus affinis_ (a bat). That's also the major bat species that was used for live animal research in both Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan CDC, according to peer-reviewed research published in international scientific journals. I thought direct bat-to-human transmission was considered broadly unlikely (sorry for non-scholarly source): "On February 7, 2020, we learned that a virus even closer to SARS-CoV-2 had been discovered in pangolin. With 99% of genomic concordance reported, this suggested a more likely reservoir than bats. However, a recent study under review shows that the genome of the coronavirus isolated from the Malaysian pangolin (Manis javanica) is less similar to SARS-Cov-2, with only 90% of genomic concordance. This would indicate that the virus isolated in the pangolin is not responsible for the COVID-19 epidemic currently raging. However, the coronavirus isolated from pangolin is similar at 99% in a specific region of the S protein, which corresponds to the 74 amino acids involved in the ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2) receptor binding domain, the one that allows the virus to enter human cells to infect them. By contrast, the virus RaTG13 isolated from bat R. affinis is highly divergent in this specific region (only 77 % of similarity). This means that the coronavirus isolated from pangolin is capable of entering human cells whereas the one isolated from bat R. affinis is not." https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-origins-genome-analysis-suggests-two-viruses-may-have-combined-134059 https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-origins-genome-analy... To be clear, I'm taking this as suggesting that just having the bats in the lab in order to study the coronaviruses they carry isn't a likely vector of direct transmission to humans ("bat blood, bat pee" as your OP suggested). I'm also sticking with broad scientific opinion that says there was most likely another spillover animal. >To be more specific, I mean wet markets dealing in exotic, non-domestic source of meat, ones that are scientifically known to pose a threat of spreading novel infectious organisms. You believe they should continue to operate as before? I don't have time to look it up but I wouldn't be surprised to find that such trade is nominally illegal in china, hence the "bats aren't sold in this wet market" line. They are, but they aren't. Since there are many definitions of "exotic sources of meat", "domestic sources of meat" I think people should be able to eat what they want as long as it isn't an endangered animal or one that presents broader risk e.g. virus spillover. And of course it would be better if we didn't pollute the environment with intensified domestic farming, which is what is happening where I am. Regarding Trump/war I suppose you're right, it was just jarring. My war comment was wild speculation based on how the world might react to the irrefutable news that COVID19 was caused by a scientific accident. But there are other possible causes of war than just Trump wanting or not wanting one. In the meantime I'm going to stick with scientific opinion vs. unnamed sources, diplomatic cables that aren't released in their entirety, etc. Speculation. I try to ask myself, do you want this to be true? Why? I want it to be true that the virus jumped through animals to humans and wasn't the result of a lab accident because I see major global strife occurring if it were a lab accident. Do you want it to be true that it was a lab accident? Why? Because it was definitive human error? Because China? (hope not :/ ) Because it's a simple and satisfying explanation, as I suggested earlier?
• philwelch 7y ago
  Three points: 1. It is always going to be a little suspicious, at the very least, that the first COVID-19 outbreak happened in the same city as a virology institute. (Conversely, if we had a bizarre viral outbreak in Atlanta, I would have very similar suspicions.) 2. Nobody is going to start a war with China. On top of the centuries-old reasons that attacking China is stupid, they have nuclear weapons. 3. If it was released from a lab, it was almost certainly the result of an honest accident. SARS was very serious and China would have wanted to invest in research intended to prevent the kind of problems we are having now. If that research led to an accidental exposure and release of this virus, that would be a very cruel cosmic joke on us all, but it wouldn’t be a conspiracy for global domination or anything stupid like that.
  • stareatgoats 7y ago
    > Nobody is going to start a war with China. Hopefully you are right, and I share your opinion (if that is what it is) that there will be no war in the immediate aftermath of covid-19. But I need to point out that the cited remark represents a kind of absolutist statements about the future that have had a chronic tendency to be wrong up through history. There is definitely a risk for war with China as long as the US have a considerable number of weapons pointed against China, a war triggered either by intent or by mistake. The best way IMO to avoid the risk of war is to work towards total disarmament under the oversight of transparent and neutral international agencies. And discredit the warmongering on all sides. Somehow and unfortunately I don't anticipate that such initiatives will be accepted by the world main powers, or by a frightened and easily manipulated public, any time soon.
    • philwelch 7y ago
      Disarmament doesn’t prevent war. It only prevents winning. “Transparent and neutral international agencies” are a pipe dream. Furthermore, remember what I actually said. The main reason there won’t be a war with China is because China is too dangerous to attack. When China was less well armed than they are today, they ended up at war much more frequently. Why does the US “point weapons” at China? Same reason. We don’t want them to attack us or our allies, though our commitment to those allies has turned less credible in recent years. In both cases, the basic principle is the same: si vis pacem, para bellum. That is the only way to preserve peaceful coexistence between states that have fundamental differences and distrust between them. Which, after all, is the same basic reason different countries exist in the first place.
• rajlego 7y ago
  Do you have any links on what you mentioned about the "rule of simple explanations"? It seems like a useful mental model.