3 ms·

Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural. Just because China refuses to cooperate (as stated by the article), does not mean that trying

Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural. Just because China refuses to cooperate (as stated by the article), does not mean that trying to find a natural cause is the only way to resolve the issue. It's a bit misleading as well as the vast majority of the agencies mentioned in the article do not believe in a natural origin. >The ODNI report said four U.S. spy agencies and a multi-agency body have "low confidence" that COVID-19 originated with an infected animal or a related virus.

simonh 5y ago
>Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural. Unless the virus was literally constructed using base chemicals from the ground up entirely artificially, something that as far as we know has never been done and the technology for which doesn't yet plausibly exist, the virus must have a natural progenitor from which it either evolved, was bred or was engineered. That does not exclude the possibility that the virus was engineered from a progenitor virus in a lab and is "artificial" in that sense. So yes you are technically correct (which of course is the best correct), but could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded?
- kjaftaedi 5y ago
  >could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded Natural = produced by nature We know for a fact that coronaviruses were being engineered in unsafe BSL2 lab conditions literally blocks away from the epicenter of the outbreak. With China's refusal to cooperate, they are asking you to believe that this is all merely coincidence. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
  - simonh 5y ago
    All known viruses were originally produced by nature. Engineered viruses are natural viruses that were modified artificially, but they still had a natural origin. We don't have the technology to create a virus entirely from scratch, we can only modify existing viruses in fairly limited ways. Surely you know this, right? If we can find that original natural source strain of virus, we should be able to compare it to Cov-19 and determine the likely path of development. This has been done many times before for other viruses, such as SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, etc.
    - kjaftaedi 5y ago
      Nobody is suggesting that the virus was created from scratch. Of course the viruses have a natural origin, where do you think the original samples come from? I don't know where you are interpreting your stance from, and I am sorry if I am being unclear, english is not my first language.. but just because viruses are being engineered in a lab does not mean they build them molecule by molecule, but they do transfer genes between existing viruses.
      - simonh 5y ago
        Ok, so we're describing the same thing. Cool. It's all good, misunderstandings happen.
- inciampati 5y ago
  This virus would not have had to be created from the ground up. It's based on a comment model viral system about which we know an amazing amount. Particularly, it's a viral system that's apt to recombine, and whose organization and components thus by design support recombinant exploitation of the evolutionary space. It is very easy to build a novel organization of such parts. You build as many as you can manage (trillions+) and then screen for viable viruses. Then with a little selection pressure in different environments, you can optimize them and see how the novel variants evolve. Doing this at scale helps us understand the way viruses evolve. And if you think that genome synthesis is not possible, look up "DNA printer". But i don't think that's what you mean.

simonh 5y ago

>Such a premise begins with the assumption the origin is natural. Unless the virus was literally constructed using base chemicals from the ground up entirely artificially, something that as far as we know has never been done and the technology for which doesn't yet plausibly exist, the virus must have a natural progenitor from which it either evolved, was bred or was engineered. That does not exclude the possibility that the virus was engineered from a progenitor virus in a lab and is "artificial" in that sense. So yes you are technically correct (which of course is the best correct), but could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded?

kjaftaedi 5y ago
>could you be more clear what you mean by natural, and what alternatives you think are being excluded Natural = produced by nature We know for a fact that coronaviruses were being engineered in unsafe BSL2 lab conditions literally blocks away from the epicenter of the outbreak. With China's refusal to cooperate, they are asking you to believe that this is all merely coincidence. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-...
- simonh 5y ago
  All known viruses were originally produced by nature. Engineered viruses are natural viruses that were modified artificially, but they still had a natural origin. We don't have the technology to create a virus entirely from scratch, we can only modify existing viruses in fairly limited ways. Surely you know this, right? If we can find that original natural source strain of virus, we should be able to compare it to Cov-19 and determine the likely path of development. This has been done many times before for other viruses, such as SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, etc.
  - kjaftaedi 5y ago
    Nobody is suggesting that the virus was created from scratch. Of course the viruses have a natural origin, where do you think the original samples come from? I don't know where you are interpreting your stance from, and I am sorry if I am being unclear, english is not my first language.. but just because viruses are being engineered in a lab does not mean they build them molecule by molecule, but they do transfer genes between existing viruses.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Ok, so we're describing the same thing. Cool. It's all good, misunderstandings happen.
inciampati 5y ago
This virus would not have had to be created from the ground up. It's based on a comment model viral system about which we know an amazing amount. Particularly, it's a viral system that's apt to recombine, and whose organization and components thus by design support recombinant exploitation of the evolutionary space. It is very easy to build a novel organization of such parts. You build as many as you can manage (trillions+) and then screen for viable viruses. Then with a little selection pressure in different environments, you can optimize them and see how the novel variants evolve. Doing this at scale helps us understand the way viruses evolve. And if you think that genome synthesis is not possible, look up "DNA printer". But i don't think that's what you mean.