5 ms·

There are more people in Wuhan City than in New York City. Would you immediately jump to conspiracy theories if an outbreak of a novel flu started in Galveston

There are more people in Wuhan City than in New York City. Would you immediately jump to conspiracy theories if an outbreak of a novel flu started in Galveston Texas? Or Atlanta? Or Boston? And that's just some of the BSL-4 facilities in the US. Coronaviruses can be studied in BSL-3 labs, which China has tons of, basically one in every major city (much like the US).

gridlockd 7y ago
There are two labs in Wuhan which performed experiments with bats and bat coronaviruses under unsafe conditions, where animal-to-human transmission could have occured - one being the Wuhan CDC and the other being the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Those are the kind of bats that most likely evolved COVID-19, which are native to southern China, not Wuhan. That's factual, not a conspiracy theory. The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places and imposed gag orders on the scientists involved. Again, just facts, not a conspiracy theory. The CCP has furthermore suppressed the spread of information on the initial outbreak and has been uncooperative regarding investigation on the origin of the virus. A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. Note that none of these facts support the conspiracy theory that the virus has been engineered or intentionally released.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. Source?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market...
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. But misleading. The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. > The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places and imposed gag orders on the scientists involved. Correct, but the Wuhan CDC is also where most of the early analysis of covid was being done after it was discovered. The CCP also silenced doctors in hospitals, they generally tried to cover up covid in general. Keeping the scientists working on it silenced isn't any different than how they treated hospital workers.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. Let's suppose we had to decide between two scenarios, which one of these two sounds more probable? A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a researcher working at one of two specialist centers in central China, while performing research on bats and/or bat coronaviruses, under a questionable safety regime. A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. Which of these two scenarios is preferable to the ruling party of China? Which is feeding the narrative that "human encroachment on nature is dangerous" (bad thing is dangerous), as opposed to "scientific research can be dangerous" (good thing is dangerous)? > The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. How is that more likely? The finding is that there is no epidemiological link to the seafood market in 13 out 41 patients, including the earliest known patient. Your interpretation is the opposite of what the paragraph regarding the incubation period says: "Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts."
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  > There are two labs in Wuhan which performed experiments with bats and bat coronaviruses under unsafe conditions First of all, they conducted experiments with deactivated samples of bat coronaviruses, not with live virus or with bats. Second of all, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a world-class BSL-4 lab. They do not operate under "unsafe conditions." > native to southern China, not Wuhan A couple of things: 1. It is widely suspected that there was an intermediate host species between bats and humans, just as was the case in the last two major coronavirus outbreaks, SARS and MERS. 2. Nobody knows where, exactly, the virus first spilled over into the human population. Wuhan is just the first place where it was detected. A virus like this can spread for quite a while, particularly in the middle of flu season, before it is detected. There's nothing to say it didn't emerge in some rural village in Yunnan first. > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. With human-to-human transmission, this is entirely consistent with the first outbreak (or super-spreading event) occurring at the market. > The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places Did the CCP order that, or did the Chinese government order that? I've noticed a trend in which people who make extremely anti-China posts refer repeatedly to the "CCP." I strongly suspect that these people are just using that terminology for the shock value. Beyond that, the news report (from Caixin) that I believe is the origin of your claim about destruction of evidence says that after the virus was identified, low-security Chinese labs were ordered to either transfer their samples to high-security labs or to destroy them. I recall this being a safety measure, in other words, though you could ascribe other motives if you wanted to.
pacala 7y ago
Great question. If an outbreak of smallpox happened in Atlanta, 10 miles from the BSL-4 center, would you be so quick to call out any questions regarding said center as 'conspiracy theories'?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Smallpox and a flu-like virus aren't comparable. So I reject your premise. Like I said, if a novel flu-like virus appeared in Atlanta, would your first guess be that it leaked from the CDC facility? That's what you're faced with, not smallpox.
  - pacala 7y ago
    Do you have a source for how many research labs in China were actively working on bat coronaviruses? From what I can garner in the Western press, WIV is their #1 such research lab. If a new flu virus, quite more virulent that the usual flu, popped up in Atlanta 10 miles from the BSL4 facility and the closest known relative is endemic in polar bears, yeah, I'd be asking questions. Both about BSL4 and about the zoo. And maybe there are private citizens raising polar bears in Atlanta. I'd ask about them too. Especially if it were already known that polar bear viruses can be quite dangerous, see SARS episode 1. But then again, these discussions are by now futile. It is obvious that the conversation has been politicized. One side will try its best to dismiss and discredit the slightest mention that there was ongoing bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, including WTF moments like creating chimera viruses for the specific purpose of infecting humans. The other will overhype all the scary innuendo that can possibly be created around WIV, whether it relates even remotely to SARS-CoV-2 or not. I don't have the energy to elaborate the full decision tree in every post. Have fun!
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Much like smallpox isn't equivalent to a flu-like virus, polar bears aren't equivalent to bats/civets/pangolins in terms of how close they are to Atlanta. I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate every time you compare to Wuhan, but it isn't interesting.

gridlockd 7y ago

There are two labs in Wuhan which performed experiments with bats and bat coronaviruses under unsafe conditions, where animal-to-human transmission could have occured - one being the Wuhan CDC and the other being the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Those are the kind of bats that most likely evolved COVID-19, which are native to southern China, not Wuhan. That's factual, not a conspiracy theory. The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places and imposed gag orders on the scientists involved. Again, just facts, not a conspiracy theory. The CCP has furthermore suppressed the spread of information on the initial outbreak and has been uncooperative regarding investigation on the origin of the virus. A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. Note that none of these facts support the conspiracy theory that the virus has been engineered or intentionally released.

birdyrooster 7y ago
> A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. Source?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market...
joshuamorton 7y ago
Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. But misleading. The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. > The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places and imposed gag orders on the scientists involved. Correct, but the Wuhan CDC is also where most of the early analysis of covid was being done after it was discovered. The CCP also silenced doctors in hospitals, they generally tried to cover up covid in general. Keeping the scientists working on it silenced isn't any different than how they treated hospital workers.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Correct, but note that they don't really support the idea that the virus was accidentally released from the lab either. Let's suppose we had to decide between two scenarios, which one of these two sounds more probable? A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a researcher working at one of two specialist centers in central China, while performing research on bats and/or bat coronaviruses, under a questionable safety regime. A virus endemic to bats from southern China was first transmitted to a human in the wildlife market in central China where no bats are sold, presumably through an intermediate host such as a pangolin. Which of these two scenarios is preferable to the ruling party of China? Which is feeding the narrative that "human encroachment on nature is dangerous" (bad thing is dangerous), as opposed to "scientific research can be dangerous" (good thing is dangerous)? > The article you cite notes the much likelier cause: the long incubation period means that those who did come into contact with the market infected others. How is that more likely? The finding is that there is no epidemiological link to the seafood market in 13 out 41 patients, including the earliest known patient. Your interpretation is the opposite of what the paragraph regarding the incubation period says: "Lucey says if the new data are accurate, the first human infections must have occurred in November 2019—if not earlier—because there is an incubation time between infection and symptoms surfacing. If so, the virus possibly spread silently between people in Wuhan—and perhaps elsewhere—before the cluster of cases from the city’s now-infamous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discovered in late December. “The virus came into that marketplace before it came out of that marketplace,” Lucey asserts."
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
> There are two labs in Wuhan which performed experiments with bats and bat coronaviruses under unsafe conditions First of all, they conducted experiments with deactivated samples of bat coronaviruses, not with live virus or with bats. Second of all, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a world-class BSL-4 lab. They do not operate under "unsafe conditions." > native to southern China, not Wuhan A couple of things: 1. It is widely suspected that there was an intermediate host species between bats and humans, just as was the case in the last two major coronavirus outbreaks, SARS and MERS. 2. Nobody knows where, exactly, the virus first spilled over into the human population. Wuhan is just the first place where it was detected. A virus like this can spread for quite a while, particularly in the middle of flu season, before it is detected. There's nothing to say it didn't emerge in some rural village in Yunnan first. > A large amount of the initial cases had no connection to the Wuhan seafood market. Factual. With human-to-human transmission, this is entirely consistent with the first outbreak (or super-spreading event) occurring at the market. > The CCP has ordered the destruction of evidence at those places Did the CCP order that, or did the Chinese government order that? I've noticed a trend in which people who make extremely anti-China posts refer repeatedly to the "CCP." I strongly suspect that these people are just using that terminology for the shock value. Beyond that, the news report (from Caixin) that I believe is the origin of your claim about destruction of evidence says that after the virus was identified, low-security Chinese labs were ordered to either transfer their samples to high-security labs or to destroy them. I recall this being a safety measure, in other words, though you could ascribe other motives if you wanted to.

pacala 7y ago

Great question. If an outbreak of smallpox happened in Atlanta, 10 miles from the BSL-4 center, would you be so quick to call out any questions regarding said center as 'conspiracy theories'?

joshuamorton 7y ago
Smallpox and a flu-like virus aren't comparable. So I reject your premise. Like I said, if a novel flu-like virus appeared in Atlanta, would your first guess be that it leaked from the CDC facility? That's what you're faced with, not smallpox.
- pacala 7y ago
  Do you have a source for how many research labs in China were actively working on bat coronaviruses? From what I can garner in the Western press, WIV is their #1 such research lab. If a new flu virus, quite more virulent that the usual flu, popped up in Atlanta 10 miles from the BSL4 facility and the closest known relative is endemic in polar bears, yeah, I'd be asking questions. Both about BSL4 and about the zoo. And maybe there are private citizens raising polar bears in Atlanta. I'd ask about them too. Especially if it were already known that polar bear viruses can be quite dangerous, see SARS episode 1. But then again, these discussions are by now futile. It is obvious that the conversation has been politicized. One side will try its best to dismiss and discredit the slightest mention that there was ongoing bat coronavirus research in Wuhan, including WTF moments like creating chimera viruses for the specific purpose of infecting humans. The other will overhype all the scary innuendo that can possibly be created around WIV, whether it relates even remotely to SARS-CoV-2 or not. I don't have the energy to elaborate the full decision tree in every post. Have fun!
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Much like smallpox isn't equivalent to a flu-like virus, polar bears aren't equivalent to bats/civets/pangolins in terms of how close they are to Atlanta. I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate every time you compare to Wuhan, but it isn't interesting.