5 ms·

For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 orig

For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"

delbarital 6y ago
From their Twitter account: "Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. " https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168 https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168
- cassianoleal 6y ago
  Which is a lot more acurate than the title of this posting. The posting says the startup "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab", whereas the Twitter post says it "has likely originated in a lab." There's an important distinction between fact and likelihood of fact.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  The problem here is that "anomalies in the genetic code" is, I believe, their claim, not fact, but presented as a fact along with established facts, which may be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to spread essentially 'fake news'.
  - meowface 6y ago
    I disagree, I don't think it's presented as a fact. They have a detailed analysis on the page. Click the "More" links under the "Chimera" and "Furin cleavage" topics. No idea how credible that analysis is, but it seems to me like it's done in good faith.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      That tweet is as misleading as possible and does present it as fact. At best this is a startup company seeking publicity so 'good faith' is to be taken with more than a grain of salt.
      - meowface 6y ago
        >Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. They're stating the facts of the results of the probabilistic analysis, not the facts of the actual situation. Their only comment about the actual situation is that it's "likely". I can see how it could be interpreted in the way you suggest, but if you read it from the perspective of discussing the probabilistic analysis, I don't think they're intending to mislead. But, again, I also don't know how strong the analysis is. It could be that the analysis is weak, in which case I still wouldn't think the tweet is likely deliberately misleading, but simply wrong.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        I am commenting on their statement about "anomalies in the genetic code", which, as presented, is not a result of their probalistic analysis, but a premise. Is it a fact that this virus has "anomalies" in its DNA? If the answer is 'no' then there is no point discussing their 'analysis' further.
        gus_massa 6y ago
        One of the links goes (after a few steps) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x that now has a warning: > 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.
dang 6y ago
Ok, I've squeezed "likely" into the title above.
altarius 6y ago
Looking at the report, most of the likelihood is from a single "prior". The whole likelihood basically hinges on the fact that the outbreak occurred in Wuhan and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working for decades on enhancing coronavirus strains. That's quite strongly circumstantial but it's not evidence. Possible chimerization and furin-cleavage insertion seem a lot more interesting imo but are weighted much lower. Based on their report [1], most of the likelihood of lab-escape (almost 50x weight) just stems from the fact that the outbreak is in Wuhan. They state that it's because of the proximity to Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the lab's gain-of-function research - only one of 5 locations world-wide. That single "bullet-point" re-weights zoonotic origin from 97% to 56% and lab-escape from 1.4% to 42%. Otherwise their final likelihoods would be: "zoonotic" 85.5%, "lab-escape" 8.5%, "bioweapon" 6%. [1] https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/what-is-the-source-of-covid-19-sars-cov-2 https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/what-is-the-source-of-cov...
- nwah1 6y ago
  And that is very solid bayesian logic. Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China, and was specifically working on gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The initial prior of zoonotic origin simply because that was usually the case in the past is just as circumstantial, but also just as solid in bayesian terms.
  - malcolmgreaves 6y ago
    Belief in the posterior update is still completely circumstantial. It's not direct evidence, nor an explained cause other than proximity. I'd argue they miscalcualted the probability change with respect to this piece of information.
  - someperson 6y ago
    > Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China The Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Heilongjiang is another BSL-4 lab
    - nwah1 6y ago

delbarital 6y ago

From their Twitter account: "Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. " https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168 https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168

cassianoleal 6y ago
Which is a lot more acurate than the title of this posting. The posting says the startup "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab", whereas the Twitter post says it "has likely originated in a lab." There's an important distinction between fact and likelihood of fact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The problem here is that "anomalies in the genetic code" is, I believe, their claim, not fact, but presented as a fact along with established facts, which may be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to spread essentially 'fake news'.
- meowface 6y ago
  I disagree, I don't think it's presented as a fact. They have a detailed analysis on the page. Click the "More" links under the "Chimera" and "Furin cleavage" topics. No idea how credible that analysis is, but it seems to me like it's done in good faith.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    That tweet is as misleading as possible and does present it as fact. At best this is a startup company seeking publicity so 'good faith' is to be taken with more than a grain of salt.
    - meowface 6y ago
      >Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. They're stating the facts of the results of the probabilistic analysis, not the facts of the actual situation. Their only comment about the actual situation is that it's "likely". I can see how it could be interpreted in the way you suggest, but if you read it from the perspective of discussing the probabilistic analysis, I don't think they're intending to mislead. But, again, I also don't know how strong the analysis is. It could be that the analysis is weak, in which case I still wouldn't think the tweet is likely deliberately misleading, but simply wrong.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        I am commenting on their statement about "anomalies in the genetic code", which, as presented, is not a result of their probalistic analysis, but a premise. Is it a fact that this virus has "anomalies" in its DNA? If the answer is 'no' then there is no point discussing their 'analysis' further.
      - gus_massa 6y ago
        One of the links goes (after a few steps) to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x that now has a warning: > 11 November 2020 Editor's Note: Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised about the identity of the pangolin samples reported in this paper and their relationship to previously published pangolin samples. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.

dang 6y ago

Ok, I've squeezed "likely" into the title above.

altarius 6y ago

Looking at the report, most of the likelihood is from a single "prior". The whole likelihood basically hinges on the fact that the outbreak occurred in Wuhan and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been working for decades on enhancing coronavirus strains. That's quite strongly circumstantial but it's not evidence. Possible chimerization and furin-cleavage insertion seem a lot more interesting imo but are weighted much lower. Based on their report [1], most of the likelihood of lab-escape (almost 50x weight) just stems from the fact that the outbreak is in Wuhan. They state that it's because of the proximity to Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the lab's gain-of-function research - only one of 5 locations world-wide. That single "bullet-point" re-weights zoonotic origin from 97% to 56% and lab-escape from 1.4% to 42%. Otherwise their final likelihoods would be: "zoonotic" 85.5%, "lab-escape" 8.5%, "bioweapon" 6%. [1] https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/what-is-the-source-of-covid-19-sars-cov-2 https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/what-is-the-source-of-cov...

nwah1 6y ago
And that is very solid bayesian logic. Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China, and was specifically working on gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. The initial prior of zoonotic origin simply because that was usually the case in the past is just as circumstantial, but also just as solid in bayesian terms.
- malcolmgreaves 6y ago
  Belief in the posterior update is still completely circumstantial. It's not direct evidence, nor an explained cause other than proximity. I'd argue they miscalcualted the probability change with respect to this piece of information.
- someperson 6y ago
  > Wuhan has the only BSL-4 lab in China The Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Heilongjiang is another BSL-4 lab
  - nwah1 6y ago