10 ms·

Overfocusing on the market cluster is an error. First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reac

by gojomo 4y ago

Overfocusing on the market cluster is an error. First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker. And second, early overemphasis on the market cluster caused authorities to search for every case there, and ignore cases elsewhere – just as in the US, authorities missed early community spread because they didn't even consider/test people who hadn't recently returned from China. If the crossover was zoonotic, and didn't involve EcoHealth/WIV/etc institutional actions, it should've been possible to find intermediate hosts, or viruses, in an earnest search. Instead of finding those - in any of the hypothesized animals, anywhere from bat caves to Wuhan – we've instead found yet another bat virus that's closer-to-SARS-CoV-2 (BANAL) in exactly the Laotian caves where EcoHealth was collecting hundreds of viruses to bring to Wuhan (& elsewhere) for study and gain-of-function-enhancement. Researchers were routinely making such viruses more human-adapted, and researchers had specifically had sought money to add the same 'furin cleavage' functionality that a BANAL-like virus needed to become SARS-CoV-2. It's not just China that was suspiciously half-assed in the early days, when the evidence either way for lab-leak or zoonosis could have been clearer. Fauci & Collins at the NIH were suspiciously half-assed too, & sent a clear message to everyone dependent on US federal research funding: "don't entertain this speculation if you want to be on our team". Fauci was energetic in sending that message even when he was still downplaying the risk & saying masks couldn't help. That is: they were prioritizing narrative control over either investigation or pandemic control. Very fishy!

mikeyouse 4y ago
Both of your points are directly and conclusively addressed in the post.. > First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker There were two distinct lineages at the market with a cluster of positive environmental samples in the wild animal section. I would love to hear a plausible theory on how two unrelated lineages came to be present there after human-human transmission. > And second, early overemphasis on the market cluster caused authorities to search for every case there, and ignore cases elsewhere – just as in the US, authorities missed early community spread because they didn't even consider/test people who hadn't recently returned from China. Not remotely true. I'd encourage you to read this paper: https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.YjSWqDUxmUk https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.YjSWqDUxmUk
- gojomo 4y ago
  The prior linked post is a gish-gallop of overconfident motivated reasoning. "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. Worobey et al's analysis is at the mercy of Chinese data sources, and even if all early cases were exclusively in the market, and even the live-animal section, that doesn't disprove lab origin. It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan, with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction. But you don't have to trust me; even the WHO now wants a better investigation of the prematurely-suppressed lab-origin possibility: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-covid-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-cov... There's a field-wide omerta about gain-of-function risks – who wants to ruin their relationship with the NIH, & admit research that's pretty typical across many leaky labs worldwide, may have killed 20 million people (and counting)?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    > "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. I mean, everyone can stop reading here... This is patently false. Multiple Spillover is a readily reproducible phenomenon that perfectly explains the dual lineages. Again, spell out specifically the route how two distinct lineages would be present at the market under the lab leak scenario. > It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan You literally only need one animal shedding virus - it's how literally every other pandemic started. The market was shut down weeks after it was clear that a pandemic was underway and only after that did the authorities start looking for infected animals. Absence of evidence here isn't remotely a substitution for evidence of the absence. > with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction. This part is just false and belies your lack of understanding of the science and the direction of causality. The reason scientists proposed studying the FCS is because it was identified a decade+ ago as both dangerous for zoonosis and readily possible with natural mutation. All of these virologists studying coronaviruses weren't doing it out of the blue, but because everyone knew that it was the single greatest zoonotic risk we faced.
jjoonathan 4y ago
Lab-leak was a sensational "whodunnit" and the entire purpose of promoting it (true or not) was to distract from the far more important "what should we do about the pandemic." The people pushing for this distraction A. wanted to do nothing (economy in an election year) and B. once they realized that doing nothing was unwise, needed to cover for having pushed A too hard, with too many "aged like milk" statements and actions. It was the public health policy equivalent of shouting "look, a squirrel!" Re-focusing the narrative away from the squirrel and back onto the pandemic wasn't only not sinister, it was a gigantic face-palm that it had to be done in the first place. That's also why interest evaporated: the two real reasons to push the story both expired in 2020. Now all that remains is idle curiosity. As far as I'm concerned: indulge. Go nuts. Now that you aren't worsening a public health crisis by pushing an election agenda, it really is just a fun little detective story, and I'm as curious as the next guy.

by gojomo 4y ago

mikeyouse 4y ago

Both of your points are directly and conclusively addressed in the post.. > First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker There were two distinct lineages at the market with a cluster of positive environmental samples in the wild animal section. I would love to hear a plausible theory on how two unrelated lineages came to be present there after human-human transmission. > And second, early overemphasis on the market cluster caused authorities to search for every case there, and ignore cases elsewhere – just as in the US, authorities missed early community spread because they didn't even consider/test people who hadn't recently returned from China. Not remotely true. I'd encourage you to read this paper: https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.YjSWqDUxmUk https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.YjSWqDUxmUk

gojomo 4y ago
The prior linked post is a gish-gallop of overconfident motivated reasoning. "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. Worobey et al's analysis is at the mercy of Chinese data sources, and even if all early cases were exclusively in the market, and even the live-animal section, that doesn't disprove lab origin. It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan, with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction. But you don't have to trust me; even the WHO now wants a better investigation of the prematurely-suppressed lab-origin possibility: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-covid-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-cov... There's a field-wide omerta about gain-of-function risks – who wants to ruin their relationship with the NIH, & admit research that's pretty typical across many leaky labs worldwide, may have killed 20 million people (and counting)?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  > "Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks. I mean, everyone can stop reading here... This is patently false. Multiple Spillover is a readily reproducible phenomenon that perfectly explains the dual lineages. Again, spell out specifically the route how two distinct lineages would be present at the market under the lab leak scenario. > It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan You literally only need one animal shedding virus - it's how literally every other pandemic started. The market was shut down weeks after it was clear that a pandemic was underway and only after that did the authorities start looking for infected animals. Absence of evidence here isn't remotely a substitution for evidence of the absence. > with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction. This part is just false and belies your lack of understanding of the science and the direction of causality. The reason scientists proposed studying the FCS is because it was identified a decade+ ago as both dangerous for zoonosis and readily possible with natural mutation. All of these virologists studying coronaviruses weren't doing it out of the blue, but because everyone knew that it was the single greatest zoonotic risk we faced.

jjoonathan 4y ago

Lab-leak was a sensational "whodunnit" and the entire purpose of promoting it (true or not) was to distract from the far more important "what should we do about the pandemic." The people pushing for this distraction A. wanted to do nothing (economy in an election year) and B. once they realized that doing nothing was unwise, needed to cover for having pushed A too hard, with too many "aged like milk" statements and actions. It was the public health policy equivalent of shouting "look, a squirrel!" Re-focusing the narrative away from the squirrel and back onto the pandemic wasn't only not sinister, it was a gigantic face-palm that it had to be done in the first place. That's also why interest evaporated: the two real reasons to push the story both expired in 2020. Now all that remains is idle curiosity. As far as I'm concerned: indulge. Go nuts. Now that you aren't worsening a public health crisis by pushing an election agenda, it really is just a fun little detective story, and I'm as curious as the next guy.