4 ms·
> Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2 Paraphrasing from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2 h
by caperfee 5y ago
> Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2
Paraphrasing from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2
> BANAL-52 is 96.8% identical to SARS-CoV-2; one section in BANAL-103 and BANAL-52 could have shared an ancestor with sections of SARS-CoV-2 less than a decade ago.
> RaTG13 is 96.1% identical to SARS-CoV-2 and the two viruses probably shared a common ancestor 40–70 years ago.
- hunterb123 5y ago> The results, which are not peer reviewed, have been posted on the preprint server Research Square It's a CCP propaganda piece. I find that "study" pretty fishy, the results would have been easy to verify if true. Same as the CDC study they tried to use against Israel's study for natural immunity.
- mrtesthah 5y agoOnce you let ideology infiltrate your reasoning, you’re no longer doing science. Just because you don’t like the implications of a particular piece of research doesn’t mean you get to dismiss it.
- hunterb123 5y agoThat's not what I said. I said it should be easy to peer review but it hasn't been. That's a very common ask especially among HN, is it not? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=peer%20review&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... From my perspective it looks dubious and the only goal is to shift attention away from the RatG13 sample.