4 ms·

>>>1) A disease traveled hundreds of miles to a large city without leaving a trace of evidence This doesn't strike me as intrinsically unlikely. Bats can appar

• jkhdigital 6y ago
  And that bus happened to be traveling to a city which hosts a top-tier biolab with the world's foremost experts on bat-borne coronaviruses. Not a smoking gun, of course, but anyways I think your logical fallacy here is the "reasonableness" heuristic, in which you base the likelihood of some incredibly unlikely event on whether you can "imagine" some scenario where it happened. The fact that you can come up with a story to explain... well, I don't even know exactly what you're explaining, because it's really just a fragment of a chain of causation which has been mostly left unsaid. But anyways, I'm willing to wager that you know very little about disease transmission patterns so your intuition here is worse than ignorance.
  • patmcc 6y ago
    The OP specifically said "in the absence of evidence we need to ask ourselves which is more likely..." - and suggested (strongly) that a lab outbreak is much more likely than the alternatives. I was trying to point out that a) once the virus is in humans it's easily spread and b) though the lab's research may have led to the pandemic, it doesn't necessarily follow that there was a "lab outbreak". Here's my understanding on what (probably?) happened: 1) Bat(s) carrying the novel coronavirus were taken from Yunnan or Zhejiang province. 2) They were brought to the lab in Wuhan (WHCDC) (~500+ miles away). 3) They were experimented upon, dissected for tissue samples, etc. 4) Some/all of these samples were disposed of. And some time later, the Huanan Seafood Market (near this lab) was likely an origin point of the epidemic. Now, the actual disease release could happen at any of the 4 steps above. Someone who captured the bats could have been infected at that time. Someone could have been exposed during transport of the bats. Someone could have been infected during experimentation. The materials could have been improperly disposed of, tainting food/water/clothes/whatever. Would we consider all of those "lab outbreaks"? Also, I want to point out - "a city which hosts a top-tier biolab with the world's foremost experts on bat-borne coronaviruses" - we may also expect such a biolab to be located in an area where bats, and bat-borne viruses, are more likely to be, no? Where else would be a more logical place to put it? :)
    • brippalcharrid 6y ago
      But is it more likely for the virus to have undergone sufficient natural mutation from its closest known relative* (RaTG13) in order for it to have become both capable of and very effective at infecting humans (ACE2 receptors) and for it to have then been so carelessly disposed of from the BSL-4 Wuhan biolab that someone came into contact with it and became infected, or is it more likely for it to have been the product of the Gain-of-Function research on bat coronaviruses in that lab which the NIH began funding in 2014 due to the US-wide ban on Gain-of-Function research that lasted until 2017? [0] Consider the fact that lab safety protocols are designed to contain pathogens, which creates very poor conditions for viruses to naturally evolve and transfer zoonotically, whereas Gain-of-Function research has the express aim of creating ideal conditions for evolution which is both directed and can proceed many orders of magnitude faster. *Also, there's plenty of doubt as to whether RaTG13[1] actually exists; we just have the RNA sequence and we're currently just taking Beijing's word for that. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741 https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan... [1] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-serious-data-discrepancies-in-RaTG13-sequence.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200910/Scientists-claim-...