5 ms·

There already is a consensus on the true origin of SARS-CoV-2.

by hyko 6y ago

gojomo 6y ago
Where?
- hef19898 6y ago
  Among the scientific community.
  - gojomo 6y ago
    Which? Links?
  - tomp 6y ago
    Should we make “appeal to science” an official logical fallacy? Maybe a subtype of “appeal to authority”...
    - hef19898 6y ago
      No.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      You want to make deferring to the experise of the people most qualified to provide an informed opinion a logical fallacy?
nradov 6y ago
There is no consensus yet. We should keep an open mind. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246
- hyko 6y ago
  I am keeping an open mind, which is why I refer to a consensus and not a fact. We have reasonable evidence that this is likely not a synthetic virus: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 Given that, we have to think about prior probabilities: what is more likely, and requires fewer assumptions? i.e. that the virus emerged via the bountiful natural mechanisms that evolution has bestowed upon the world (and that have wrought pestilence upon humans many times), or via those channels plus a mistake in a lab in Wuhan? It seems like a key part of the theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology is that the virus emerged in Wuhan; in fact, we do not know where the virus emerged in humans. There's evidence that the virus was in Italy in December 2019: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/2/20-4632_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/2/20-4632_article Obviously it would be a bit of a leap to link that to the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases, a BSL4 facility. It is an entirely possible theory, but it cannot and will not become the consensus view of scientists without some real evidence. The consensus view among virologists is that the virus originated in bats, where it either spread to humans directly or through an intermediate host. A painstaking effort to identify the source is underway: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9
  - gojomo 6y ago
    None of your links identifies a "consensus on the true origin" you claimed. Instead you highlight multiple recent open questions that indicate there is no consensus. The claim it escaped from a lab is not a contradiction with a bat-based origin; in fact, emphasizing all the research evidence tying SARS-CoV2 to bat strains already sequenced years ago in China – like RaTG13 – makes the outbreak's connection to prior research more plausible. The November 2020 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science article, by Stanford & Veterans Administration Doctor/Professor David A Relman, in the comment to which you are replying (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246), lays out the mainstream understanding very well, and it leaves oven 3 main possibilities: > There are several potential origin scenarios. First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats, which are known reservoirs of immense coronavirus diversity (2), and then spread directly, or indirectly via an intermediate host, to humans through natural mechanisms. The degree of anticipated but undiscovered natural diversity clearly lends support to this scenario, as well as support to other scenarios. Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally. … > The third scenario, seemingly much less likely, involves laboratory manipulation or release, with the clear intention of causing harm. … > Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts.

There already is a consensus on the true origin of SARS-CoV-2.

by hyko 6y ago

There already is a consensus on the true origin of SARS-CoV-2.

gojomo 6y ago

Where?

hef19898 6y ago
Among the scientific community.
- gojomo 6y ago
  Which? Links?
- tomp 6y ago
  Should we make “appeal to science” an official logical fallacy? Maybe a subtype of “appeal to authority”...
  - hef19898 6y ago
    No.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    You want to make deferring to the experise of the people most qualified to provide an informed opinion a logical fallacy?

nradov 6y ago

There is no consensus yet. We should keep an open mind. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246

hyko 6y ago
I am keeping an open mind, which is why I refer to a consensus and not a fact. We have reasonable evidence that this is likely not a synthetic virus: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 Given that, we have to think about prior probabilities: what is more likely, and requires fewer assumptions? i.e. that the virus emerged via the bountiful natural mechanisms that evolution has bestowed upon the world (and that have wrought pestilence upon humans many times), or via those channels plus a mistake in a lab in Wuhan? It seems like a key part of the theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology is that the virus emerged in Wuhan; in fact, we do not know where the virus emerged in humans. There's evidence that the virus was in Italy in December 2019: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/2/20-4632_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/2/20-4632_article Obviously it would be a bit of a leap to link that to the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases, a BSL4 facility. It is an entirely possible theory, but it cannot and will not become the consensus view of scientists without some real evidence. The consensus view among virologists is that the virus originated in bats, where it either spread to humans directly or through an intermediate host. A painstaking effort to identify the source is underway: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03165-9
- gojomo 6y ago
  None of your links identifies a "consensus on the true origin" you claimed. Instead you highlight multiple recent open questions that indicate there is no consensus. The claim it escaped from a lab is not a contradiction with a bat-based origin; in fact, emphasizing all the research evidence tying SARS-CoV2 to bat strains already sequenced years ago in China – like RaTG13 – makes the outbreak's connection to prior research more plausible. The November 2020 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science article, by Stanford & Veterans Administration Doctor/Professor David A Relman, in the comment to which you are replying (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246), lays out the mainstream understanding very well, and it leaves oven 3 main possibilities: > There are several potential origin scenarios. First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats, which are known reservoirs of immense coronavirus diversity (2), and then spread directly, or indirectly via an intermediate host, to humans through natural mechanisms. The degree of anticipated but undiscovered natural diversity clearly lends support to this scenario, as well as support to other scenarios. Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally. … > The third scenario, seemingly much less likely, involves laboratory manipulation or release, with the clear intention of causing harm. … > Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts.