4 ms·

Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have

Could you explain why evidence that the virus evolved naturally contradicts the lab-leak theory? I'm all ears and waiting to hear the reasoning. As others have pointed out, lab-leak does not imply artificially developed. > I’m a bioscientist. And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that: - the virus appeared to originate in Wuhan - genome sequences from patients were 96% or 89% identical to the Bat CoV ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolophus affinis - The bats carrying CoV ZC45 were originally found in Yunnan or Zhejiang province, both of which are more than 900 kilometers away Wuhan - According to municipal reports and the testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors, the bat was never a food source in the city, and no bat was traded in the market - Wuhan is home to two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus - Within ~280 meters from the market, there was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control & Prevention (WHCDC). WHCDC hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes. In one of their studies, 155 bats including Rhinolophus affinis were captured in Hubei province, and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province - one of the researchers described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. In another accident, bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick Not conclusive by any means, but I have yet to hear reasoning by which we should exclude the lab-leak theory, besides that the virus evolved naturally, which does not contradict the lab-leak theory whatsoever. Also, from your article: > As a team of researchers from the WHO This WHO? [0][1] Doesn't instill much confidence in me, to be sure. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCYFh8U2xM [1] https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/who-chief-urges-countries-not-close-borders-foreigners-china https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/...

tbenst 6y ago
No, it is not a coincidence. There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. There are a lot of bats carrying coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have triggered past epidemics. Ergo, there’s an institute for virology in Wuhan. Listen starting at 6:30 in the podcast I posted from Nature. There is indeed strong correlation but no causal relationship established.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
  > There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. Except everything I've read indicates the bats carrying the most closely related virus are not in Wuhan, not even close: > The SARS-CoV-2 virus is most closely related to coronaviruses found in certain populations of horseshoe bats that live about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away in Yunnan province, China. [0] [0] https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicated-origins.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicate... So why would the virus so strongly appear to originate in Wuhan, and not in another city, closer to the bats' native regions? Appears quite statistically unlikely.
  - tbenst 6y ago
    What you’re saying is all possible. But there’s no evidence to support leak from a lab, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the natural spillover hypothesis. As such, the latter interpretation is more likely to be correct. For example, there were cases as early as December 2019 that did not come from Wuhan. Wuhan was no doubt a key early hotspot. 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... There has been rigorous scholarship done on this question. I recommend reading it given your interest in the subject.
    - Enginerrrd 6y ago
      The article that you linked, if anything, offers more support for a lab leak. Chiefly, it says that there is evidence that not only did the virus NOT originate from an animal source in the seafood market, but they suggest that Chinese officials knew that it did NOT originate in the Market, yet they issued statements saying that it did anyway.
    - caminante 6y ago
      > For example, there were cases as early as December 2019 that did not come from Wuhan. No. This isn't deducible from the article YOU linked! Not having a link to the seafood marketplace in Wuhan != originating from outside Wuhan. > The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers > Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. > 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.
polartx 6y ago
Archiving this before it’s removed for ‘elevating an idea to the public mind’
drran 6y ago
Virus is absent in blood or urine.
- SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
  I'm not suggesting that either fluid was the pathway by which the virus jumped to humans, nor do I know how it happened, only that evidence suggests researchers interact closely with the animals. And I am not ready to dismiss the theory but I am always open to hearing evidence to exclude the theory.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  Viruses behave very differently in different species. For example, I think ebola can be airborne in pigs because it binds to receptors in pig lung cells and is more of a respiratory disease for them. It doesn't have a great affinity to human lung cells however so it's NOT airborne in humans.
ineptech 6y ago
> And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that... Then you ought to know that seeing more circumstantial evidence for A than B does not imply that A is more likely. What would imply that A is more likely is if you find more circumstantial evidence for A than whatever amount you would expect to find if A didn't happen. That's why good Bayesians place so little weight on circumstantial evidence: because it's difficult or impossible to predict the expected amount of circumstantial evidence for something that didn't happen. It would involve answering questions like, "When a novel coronavirus moves from the animal population to humans without a lab accident, what are the odds that it will happen within X miles of a lab studying such viruses?" That's pretty difficult to answer, given that we don't know a lot about how or why that happens yet. And it shouldn't even need to be said that this all goes double when the thing being argued over is political (because, even if you personally are unbiased, the people gathering and publishing the evidence you rely on may not be) and treble when the evidence is technical and outside your area of expertise.

tbenst 6y ago

No, it is not a coincidence. There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. There are a lot of bats carrying coronaviruses. Coronaviruses have triggered past epidemics. Ergo, there’s an institute for virology in Wuhan. Listen starting at 6:30 in the podcast I posted from Nature. There is indeed strong correlation but no causal relationship established.

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
> There are a lot of bats in Wuhan. Except everything I've read indicates the bats carrying the most closely related virus are not in Wuhan, not even close: > The SARS-CoV-2 virus is most closely related to coronaviruses found in certain populations of horseshoe bats that live about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away in Yunnan province, China. [0] [0] https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicated-origins.html https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-complicate... So why would the virus so strongly appear to originate in Wuhan, and not in another city, closer to the bats' native regions? Appears quite statistically unlikely.
- tbenst 6y ago
  What you’re saying is all possible. But there’s no evidence to support leak from a lab, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the natural spillover hypothesis. As such, the latter interpretation is more likely to be correct. For example, there were cases as early as December 2019 that did not come from Wuhan. Wuhan was no doubt a key early hotspot. 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... There has been rigorous scholarship done on this question. I recommend reading it given your interest in the subject.
  - Enginerrrd 6y ago
    The article that you linked, if anything, offers more support for a lab leak. Chiefly, it says that there is evidence that not only did the virus NOT originate from an animal source in the seafood market, but they suggest that Chinese officials knew that it did NOT originate in the Market, yet they issued statements saying that it did anyway.
  - caminante 6y ago
    > For example, there were cases as early as December 2019 that did not come from Wuhan. No. This isn't deducible from the article YOU linked! Not having a link to the seafood marketplace in Wuhan != originating from outside Wuhan. > The paper, written by a large group of Chinese researchers > Their data also show that, in total, 13 of the 41 cases had no link to the marketplace. > 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.

polartx 6y ago

Archiving this before it’s removed for ‘elevating an idea to the public mind’

drran 6y ago

Virus is absent in blood or urine.

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
I'm not suggesting that either fluid was the pathway by which the virus jumped to humans, nor do I know how it happened, only that evidence suggests researchers interact closely with the animals. And I am not ready to dismiss the theory but I am always open to hearing evidence to exclude the theory.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
Viruses behave very differently in different species. For example, I think ebola can be airborne in pigs because it binds to receptors in pig lung cells and is more of a respiratory disease for them. It doesn't have a great affinity to human lung cells however so it's NOT airborne in humans.

ineptech 6y ago

> And I'm a Bayesian analyst. Surely your position is that it is a coincidence that... Then you ought to know that seeing more circumstantial evidence for A than B does not imply that A is more likely. What would imply that A is more likely is if you find more circumstantial evidence for A than whatever amount you would expect to find if A didn't happen. That's why good Bayesians place so little weight on circumstantial evidence: because it's difficult or impossible to predict the expected amount of circumstantial evidence for something that didn't happen. It would involve answering questions like, "When a novel coronavirus moves from the animal population to humans without a lab accident, what are the odds that it will happen within X miles of a lab studying such viruses?" That's pretty difficult to answer, given that we don't know a lot about how or why that happens yet. And it shouldn't even need to be said that this all goes double when the thing being argued over is political (because, even if you personally are unbiased, the people gathering and publishing the evidence you rely on may not be) and treble when the evidence is technical and outside your area of expertise.