3 ms·

At the time, i was asking myself why the lab-leak was rejected. I mean, its obviously not human-made, but why couldn't it be a contagion inside the lab from an

by orwin 5y ago

At the time, i was asking myself why the lab-leak was rejected. I mean, its obviously not human-made, but why couldn't it be a contagion inside the lab from an already made virus. Now, maybe its reactance, but i believe the zoonose more likely.

quanticle 5y ago
Yes, for the record, I believed then (and still believe today) that the virus has zoonotic origins. The primary point of evidence that the lab-leak advocates point to, the fact that the animal reservoir hasn't yet been identified, isn't convincing to me. It took more than a decade to find the animal reservoir for SARS. We still don't know where the animal reservoir is for Ebola. Similarly, the presence of the "furin cleavage site", which supposedly makes the virus ideal for spreading in humans is less significant than it appears. There are numerous other coronaviruses which have the same feature, and it's plausible that SARS-COV-2 picked up the feature via recombination somewhere on its way to becoming a virus that spread primarily among humans. But all that is beside the point. The point is that many voices that took on the air of authority during the pandemic changed their view for no reason other than shifts in the broader political climate. It has made people suspicious and frustrated with the experts, which then leads them to embrace crackpot theories peddled by those who (correctly) point out that the authoritative sources in the media have been lying to them. The solution, as I see it, isn't that the media should get its facts and story right the first time. That's impossible, especially in a fast-changing situation like the early stages of a global pandemic. What the media (and by "the media", I mean major newspapers like the New York Times, and major news outlets, like CNN) ought to be doing is stating clearly when one of their stories contradicts a story that they've published in the past, and stating clearly the reason for the contradiction. "We were wrong about masks, because we misinterpreted a directive to preserve masks for emergency workers as meaning that masks were ineffective," would have gone a long way towards helping convince mask skeptics about the need for masks when the media suddenly reversed its advice.
- lodi 5y ago
  > But all that is beside the point. The point is that many voices that took on the air of authority during the pandemic changed their view for no reason other than shifts in the broader political climate. Not only did they take an air of authority, they also actively censored contrary opinions. Twitter, facebook, youtube...
XorNot 5y ago
Because, if there was a non-human made virus being studied in a lab which was human-infectious...then that virus would already be out there in the wild unless you'd made a specific effort to eradicate it like we did with smallpox. "Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered" and while not completely implausible, the methodology for selective rapid-evolution of a virus requires the exact same conditions as are trivially recreated in the population and human-animal contact regime of greater China.
- lodi 5y ago
  > "Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered"... That's exactly the allegation circa March 2020 though: scientists collect various bat-borne coronaviruses (e.g. RaTG13) in Yunnan province around 2013, evolve one of them at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though gain-of-function research, and then due to lax safety protocols end up accidentally leaking an evolved virus in late 2019. For example, see this podcast from a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug

by orwin 5y ago

quanticle 5y ago

Yes, for the record, I believed then (and still believe today) that the virus has zoonotic origins. The primary point of evidence that the lab-leak advocates point to, the fact that the animal reservoir hasn't yet been identified, isn't convincing to me. It took more than a decade to find the animal reservoir for SARS. We still don't know where the animal reservoir is for Ebola. Similarly, the presence of the "furin cleavage site", which supposedly makes the virus ideal for spreading in humans is less significant than it appears. There are numerous other coronaviruses which have the same feature, and it's plausible that SARS-COV-2 picked up the feature via recombination somewhere on its way to becoming a virus that spread primarily among humans. But all that is beside the point. The point is that many voices that took on the air of authority during the pandemic changed their view for no reason other than shifts in the broader political climate. It has made people suspicious and frustrated with the experts, which then leads them to embrace crackpot theories peddled by those who (correctly) point out that the authoritative sources in the media have been lying to them. The solution, as I see it, isn't that the media should get its facts and story right the first time. That's impossible, especially in a fast-changing situation like the early stages of a global pandemic. What the media (and by "the media", I mean major newspapers like the New York Times, and major news outlets, like CNN) ought to be doing is stating clearly when one of their stories contradicts a story that they've published in the past, and stating clearly the reason for the contradiction. "We were wrong about masks, because we misinterpreted a directive to preserve masks for emergency workers as meaning that masks were ineffective," would have gone a long way towards helping convince mask skeptics about the need for masks when the media suddenly reversed its advice.

lodi 5y ago
> But all that is beside the point. The point is that many voices that took on the air of authority during the pandemic changed their view for no reason other than shifts in the broader political climate. Not only did they take an air of authority, they also actively censored contrary opinions. Twitter, facebook, youtube...

XorNot 5y ago

Because, if there was a non-human made virus being studied in a lab which was human-infectious...then that virus would already be out there in the wild unless you'd made a specific effort to eradicate it like we did with smallpox. "Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered" and while not completely implausible, the methodology for selective rapid-evolution of a virus requires the exact same conditions as are trivially recreated in the population and human-animal contact regime of greater China.

lodi 5y ago
> "Lab-leak" is non-sensical in all forms which don't begin with "lab evolved/bioengineered"... That's exactly the allegation circa March 2020 though: scientists collect various bat-borne coronaviruses (e.g. RaTG13) in Yunnan province around 2013, evolve one of them at the Wuhan Institute of Virology though gain-of-function research, and then due to lax safety protocols end up accidentally leaking an evolved virus in late 2019. For example, see this podcast from a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5SRrsr-Iug