5 ms·

For what seems to be a scientific source, evidence cited includes: "Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believ

by mianos 4y ago

For what seems to be a scientific source, evidence cited includes: "Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature." The very presence of such a quote confirms to me this is "opinion" not science.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
That's your take away? I think the point is that all the people in the world and all the various information they have received leads them to believe that a laboratory studying this very virus was responsible for its release. You chose to side with those that would blind themselves to any information that doesn't conform to a narrative
- mianos 4y ago
  Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perfectly reasonable to me. We don't have enough information and it's pretty bad a lot of professional public spokespeople are saying we are sure. That's the narrative. But, why does public opinion even factor in this argument? Like many people here I have closely followed a lot of the information published. I certainly feel I am much more informed about this than my friends. But, my opinion on the source does not count for shit if professional scientists say they don't know. This guy is a professional.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    The author is presumably a lady (her name is Alina) and the top of the article also says "Opinion". But my comment also questions why she thinks it matters what the public believes.
baja_blast 4y ago
I think the fact that with SARS2 unlike the original SARS and MERS which were circulating in animal populations only spilled over once in a single location counts as proof. You see when a wild virus that has been circulating within an intermediate host species, you get multiple independent outbreaks over a large geographic area with different mutations, additionally each of these outbreaks leave a trail of mutations as the virus adapts to humans. These mutations have been used to track down and find the intermediate host within months for both SARS -> civets and MERS -> Camels. They also had multiple outbreaks across many regions that were genetically distinct(but related). BUT! With SARS2 we seem to be missing the following: - Rapid mutations in the starting months of the outbreak(SARS2 displayed very little if any major mutations in the starting months as it was already pre-adapted towards humans). - Multiple spillovers over time each with a different variant of the animal virus, something that happened with SARS, MERS, Nipah virus, Ebola which had multiple spillovers all independent from each other. - Identification of intermediate host species. For SARS they found the virus that infected patient zero within months, MERS found the virus in camels. For SARS2 nothing! And this is after 3+ years of looking. And while it's true China won't allow scientists to look in China, the habitat of the Horseshoe bat overlaps with Laos and other South East asian countries and if it was present in civets you'd think they would find a civet with an ancestor of the early strains of the virus in Laos. So even throwing out circumstantial evidence like deleting databases in September of 2019, the way SARS2 outbreak occurred does not fit evolutionary theory.

by mianos 4y ago

upsidesinclude 4y ago

That's your take away? I think the point is that all the people in the world and all the various information they have received leads them to believe that a laboratory studying this very virus was responsible for its release. You chose to side with those that would blind themselves to any information that doesn't conform to a narrative

mianos 4y ago
Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perfectly reasonable to me. We don't have enough information and it's pretty bad a lot of professional public spokespeople are saying we are sure. That's the narrative. But, why does public opinion even factor in this argument? Like many people here I have closely followed a lot of the information published. I certainly feel I am much more informed about this than my friends. But, my opinion on the source does not count for shit if professional scientists say they don't know. This guy is a professional.
- netsharc 4y ago
  The author is presumably a lady (her name is Alina) and the top of the article also says "Opinion". But my comment also questions why she thinks it matters what the public believes.

baja_blast 4y ago

I think the fact that with SARS2 unlike the original SARS and MERS which were circulating in animal populations only spilled over once in a single location counts as proof. You see when a wild virus that has been circulating within an intermediate host species, you get multiple independent outbreaks over a large geographic area with different mutations, additionally each of these outbreaks leave a trail of mutations as the virus adapts to humans. These mutations have been used to track down and find the intermediate host within months for both SARS -> civets and MERS -> Camels. They also had multiple outbreaks across many regions that were genetically distinct(but related). BUT! With SARS2 we seem to be missing the following: - Rapid mutations in the starting months of the outbreak(SARS2 displayed very little if any major mutations in the starting months as it was already pre-adapted towards humans). - Multiple spillovers over time each with a different variant of the animal virus, something that happened with SARS, MERS, Nipah virus, Ebola which had multiple spillovers all independent from each other. - Identification of intermediate host species. For SARS they found the virus that infected patient zero within months, MERS found the virus in camels. For SARS2 nothing! And this is after 3+ years of looking. And while it's true China won't allow scientists to look in China, the habitat of the Horseshoe bat overlaps with Laos and other South East asian countries and if it was present in civets you'd think they would find a civet with an ancestor of the early strains of the virus in Laos. So even throwing out circumstantial evidence like deleting databases in September of 2019, the way SARS2 outbreak occurred does not fit evolutionary theory.