3 ms·

"some scientists have put forward unsubstantiated claims linking the coronavirus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)," Indeed, but zoonotic origin is also

"some scientists have put forward unsubstantiated claims linking the coronavirus to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)," Indeed, but zoonotic origin is also unsubstantiated at this point. In fact this itself is surprising, since in most other cases, with far fewer resources dedicated to the search, the origins are reliably indicated fairly quickly. So it's a case of balance of probability, based on circumstantial evidence. Demands to investigate a potential lab leak more fully may well be politically uncomfortable, 'unhelpful' in ending the pandemic, etc, etc, but should be made anyway to get to the truth. That is what science is about, after all. Perhaps some virologists complain too much.

tzs 5y ago
> Indeed, but zoonotic origin is also unsubstantiated at this point. In fact this itself is surprising, since in most other cases, with far fewer resources dedicated to the search, the origins are reliably indicated fairly quickly. It took five years for SARS. The origin of the 2013 Ebola outbreak is still unknown. Years to never is the norm for tracing the origins of new viruses. Even for known viruses where we already know what species it lives in normally it usually takes years to find where a particular major outbreak started. It took until 2016 to find out where, other than "probably somewhere in Mexico", that the H1N1 strain that gave us the 2009 swine flu pandemic came from.
- jacknews 5y ago
  But progress was made in months on eg SARS1 and MERS, identifying intermediary species, etc. What do we have for COVID19? Nothing at all. After more than a year of surely much more intense search.
bookofsand 5y ago
"Lab leak" and "zoonotic" are not mutually exclusive. The pandemic could have been triggered by simply collecting samples from a remote cave and culturing them in a lab in the middle of a 10M people metropolis. A routine lab accident then led to the uncontrolled replication of the virus. Similarly, uranium sitting in the ground at low density is largely inoffensive, but increase its density up to the critical point and you end up with an uncontrolled chain reaction. Fundamental question: Under which circumstances is it ethical to culture dangerous viruses in a lab? This is obviously a conversation that some influential virology researchers don't want to have, therefore the disgraceful political circus created to deflect it.
- jacknews 5y ago
  I think 'lab leak' has been 'conspiricised' as 'developed in the lab, possibly as a secret bioweapon, and released accidentally (or not)' To me, it simply means they had it in the lab (posssibly collected, as you say), and that's where the initial human infection occurred.
- candiodari 5y ago
  > Similarly, uranium sitting in the ground at low density is largely inoffensive, but increase its density up to the critical point and you end up with an uncontrolled chain reaction. This is not going to happen. What is going to happen is that you're going to accidentally add a neutron moderator to uranium. Because water is a neutron moderator. Any amount of uranium denser than 1.2% will suddenly fission. It won't be a runaway reaction, so no explosion BUT anyone standing nearby or unprotected by a quite a few feet of rocks will be irradiated by slow neutrons, the worst possible way to get irradiated, and die painfully. During the discovery of fission one of the fuckups was that it was just noticed that uranium heats up when you put several pieces next to eachother. When the experiment was done it was decided it is prudent to store the samples in water. Well, that turned out to be anything but prudent. The container (a big metal vat) was gone and replaced by a deep hole in the ground the next day. Luckily there was no-one present for more than a few minutes. Still that researcher died of cancer (decades later, so very low dose)
joshuahedlund 5y ago
> In most other cases, with far fewer resources dedicated to the search, the origins are reliably indicated fairly quickly. Is this true? I've seen claims, including in the most recent TWIV podcast, that it took over a dozen years to reliably indicate the origins of SARS-COV-1 (which seems to be supported by this 2017 paper[0]), and that we are still working on identifying the origins of last decade's Ebola outbreaks. Although I suppose it may depend on what precisely is meant by "origins" and "reliably". [0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130141222.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130141222.h...
- jacknews 5y ago
  True, it takes time to follow the leads and pin things down to something plausible. But in this case there appear to be no leads, at all. Except for maybe frozen food imports. Seriously?

tzs 5y ago

> Indeed, but zoonotic origin is also unsubstantiated at this point. In fact this itself is surprising, since in most other cases, with far fewer resources dedicated to the search, the origins are reliably indicated fairly quickly. It took five years for SARS. The origin of the 2013 Ebola outbreak is still unknown. Years to never is the norm for tracing the origins of new viruses. Even for known viruses where we already know what species it lives in normally it usually takes years to find where a particular major outbreak started. It took until 2016 to find out where, other than "probably somewhere in Mexico", that the H1N1 strain that gave us the 2009 swine flu pandemic came from.

jacknews 5y ago
But progress was made in months on eg SARS1 and MERS, identifying intermediary species, etc. What do we have for COVID19? Nothing at all. After more than a year of surely much more intense search.

bookofsand 5y ago

"Lab leak" and "zoonotic" are not mutually exclusive. The pandemic could have been triggered by simply collecting samples from a remote cave and culturing them in a lab in the middle of a 10M people metropolis. A routine lab accident then led to the uncontrolled replication of the virus. Similarly, uranium sitting in the ground at low density is largely inoffensive, but increase its density up to the critical point and you end up with an uncontrolled chain reaction. Fundamental question: Under which circumstances is it ethical to culture dangerous viruses in a lab? This is obviously a conversation that some influential virology researchers don't want to have, therefore the disgraceful political circus created to deflect it.

jacknews 5y ago
I think 'lab leak' has been 'conspiricised' as 'developed in the lab, possibly as a secret bioweapon, and released accidentally (or not)' To me, it simply means they had it in the lab (posssibly collected, as you say), and that's where the initial human infection occurred.
candiodari 5y ago
> Similarly, uranium sitting in the ground at low density is largely inoffensive, but increase its density up to the critical point and you end up with an uncontrolled chain reaction. This is not going to happen. What is going to happen is that you're going to accidentally add a neutron moderator to uranium. Because water is a neutron moderator. Any amount of uranium denser than 1.2% will suddenly fission. It won't be a runaway reaction, so no explosion BUT anyone standing nearby or unprotected by a quite a few feet of rocks will be irradiated by slow neutrons, the worst possible way to get irradiated, and die painfully. During the discovery of fission one of the fuckups was that it was just noticed that uranium heats up when you put several pieces next to eachother. When the experiment was done it was decided it is prudent to store the samples in water. Well, that turned out to be anything but prudent. The container (a big metal vat) was gone and replaced by a deep hole in the ground the next day. Luckily there was no-one present for more than a few minutes. Still that researcher died of cancer (decades later, so very low dose)

joshuahedlund 5y ago

> In most other cases, with far fewer resources dedicated to the search, the origins are reliably indicated fairly quickly. Is this true? I've seen claims, including in the most recent TWIV podcast, that it took over a dozen years to reliably indicate the origins of SARS-COV-1 (which seems to be supported by this 2017 paper[0]), and that we are still working on identifying the origins of last decade's Ebola outbreaks. Although I suppose it may depend on what precisely is meant by "origins" and "reliably". [0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130141222.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130141222.h...

jacknews 5y ago
True, it takes time to follow the leads and pin things down to something plausible. But in this case there appear to be no leads, at all. Except for maybe frozen food imports. Seriously?