8 ms·

"Currently, our knowledge on the animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete to a large part." So we still have no proof of SARS-CoV-2 originating from natu

"Currently, our knowledge on the animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains incomplete to a large part." So we still have no proof of SARS-CoV-2 originating from natural selection, just as we have no proof of human intervention. I often read the first hypothesis is far more likely than the second, but I do not agree. The actual probabilities to be compared are: - the likelihood of a virus outbreak due to natural selection in Wuhan - the likelihood of a virus resulting from a gain of function experiment "escapes" from Wuhan BSL4 Note that we are sure that Wuhan BSL4 was doing gain of function experiments. Also note that natural virus outbreaks are quite likely when looking at China as a whole, China is big, or even when looking at the whole world. But that does not answer the question at hand, and that does not make the natural selection hypothesis "far more likely".

legulere 6y ago
The outbreak happening in Wuhan does not mean that the virus originated there. In the beginning there was more genetic variety seen in Guangdong, which is a sign that the virus originated there and not in Wuhan.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jerome-jh 6y ago
  The outbreak has always been claimed to occur in Wuhan's "wet market". The article only mentions pangolin coronavirus strains in relation to Guangdong. There is no assumption in the article SARS-CoV-2, the human virus, could originate from Guangdong. Should SARS-CoV-2 actually originate from Guangdong would anyway be the sign of a huge dissimulation.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    My understanding is that many scientists have concluded that animal->human adaptation occurred prior to the Wuhan wet market, and the market is basically a red herring. This is based on the relatively low degree of genetic drift that has occurred with SARS-Cov-2 since that time, which indicates that the substantial changes related to human adaptation are likely to have occurred prior to those wet market infections. There are better articles, but here's one [1]. [1] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-wet-market.html https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-...
hef19898 6y ago
Incomplete knowledge =/= no proof. From what I got, I am no virologist, is that it is experts consense that the virus jumped from animals to humans. It is just the details we don't know yet. And please, stop spreading this "Wuhan-lab-escaped-engineered-virus" BS.
- jerome-jh 6y ago
  If you read the article carefully, it leaves the two options open, refusing to conclude, with a preference towards a natural mutation. BTW the virus may have jumped from animals to humans inside the lab itself. What is BS is "mutations occur in the wild permanently, so that's the most likely hypothesis". In this particular case, that's unfounded and specifically what I am challenging.
threatripper 6y ago
What good does it if we discuss such a sensitive issue without solid proof? There are thousands of other theories that have no supporting evidence. Some of them may even be true but most are just BS that takes up time. So let's wait with this discussion until there really is solid evidence for a theory.
- nradov 6y ago
  We are probably never going to get solid proof either way. The lab origin hypothesis hasn't been ruled out. Yuri Deigin posted an interesting analysis with some circumstantial evidence. https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throu... There have been at least four other coronaviruses which crossed over from animals to humans before we had any real viral manipulation technology. So I suspect SARS-CoV-2 followed the same natural pattern. But that's still just a hypothesis, not proof.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    If you demand absolute proof of every (negative) claim, then you're going to be unable to function in the world. In practice, the important question is: "is there enough evidence for this extraordinary hypothesis that it should influence our response going forward." Right now, the answer seems to be negative.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to how we handle the current pandemic. But it would be useful for reducing the risk of another similar pandemic in the future.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        Understanding the origin of the pandemic is incredibly valuable. Continuing to moot about the possibility of lab origin in the absence of any positive evidence in favor of that hypothesis, that’s not terribly useful.

legulere 6y ago

The outbreak happening in Wuhan does not mean that the virus originated there. In the beginning there was more genetic variety seen in Guangdong, which is a sign that the virus originated there and not in Wuhan.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jerome-jh 6y ago
The outbreak has always been claimed to occur in Wuhan's "wet market". The article only mentions pangolin coronavirus strains in relation to Guangdong. There is no assumption in the article SARS-CoV-2, the human virus, could originate from Guangdong. Should SARS-CoV-2 actually originate from Guangdong would anyway be the sign of a huge dissimulation.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  My understanding is that many scientists have concluded that animal->human adaptation occurred prior to the Wuhan wet market, and the market is basically a red herring. This is based on the relatively low degree of genetic drift that has occurred with SARS-Cov-2 since that time, which indicates that the substantial changes related to human adaptation are likely to have occurred prior to those wet market infections. There are better articles, but here's one [1]. [1] https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-wet-market.html https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-did-not-start-at-wuhan-...

hef19898 6y ago

Incomplete knowledge =/= no proof. From what I got, I am no virologist, is that it is experts consense that the virus jumped from animals to humans. It is just the details we don't know yet. And please, stop spreading this "Wuhan-lab-escaped-engineered-virus" BS.

jerome-jh 6y ago
If you read the article carefully, it leaves the two options open, refusing to conclude, with a preference towards a natural mutation. BTW the virus may have jumped from animals to humans inside the lab itself. What is BS is "mutations occur in the wild permanently, so that's the most likely hypothesis". In this particular case, that's unfounded and specifically what I am challenging.

threatripper 6y ago

What good does it if we discuss such a sensitive issue without solid proof? There are thousands of other theories that have no supporting evidence. Some of them may even be true but most are just BS that takes up time. So let's wait with this discussion until there really is solid evidence for a theory.

nradov 6y ago
We are probably never going to get solid proof either way. The lab origin hypothesis hasn't been ruled out. Yuri Deigin posted an interesting analysis with some circumstantial evidence. https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throu... There have been at least four other coronaviruses which crossed over from animals to humans before we had any real viral manipulation technology. So I suspect SARS-CoV-2 followed the same natural pattern. But that's still just a hypothesis, not proof.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  If you demand absolute proof of every (negative) claim, then you're going to be unable to function in the world. In practice, the important question is: "is there enough evidence for this extraordinary hypothesis that it should influence our response going forward." Right now, the answer seems to be negative.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to how we handle the current pandemic. But it would be useful for reducing the risk of another similar pandemic in the future.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      Understanding the origin of the pandemic is incredibly valuable. Continuing to moot about the possibility of lab origin in the absence of any positive evidence in favor of that hypothesis, that’s not terribly useful.