6 ms·

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another." Pretty standard scientific writing. I think the lesson is don't trust journalists and the general public to not blow what you're saying out of proportion and assign it more certainty than you intended. Lab leak is possible, sure. But keep in mind every horrible disease humanity has faced up until the early part of the 20th century came about before microbiology labs even existed. Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Imagine if polio or smallpox or leprosy popped up today, you'd have every Joe internet theorizing how it came from a lab in whatever country it appeared in first. I guess back in the day they used to say it was punishment from God. The Spanish flu, God out there smiting the Spaniards.

jonnycomputer 3y ago
100% this.
COGlory 3y ago
>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.
- stubybubs 3y ago
  My point is that we don't have any documented anything for the first couple hundred thousand of years of humanity's existence, and we encountered the most horrific viral and bacterial infections, many of which caused unthinkable mass deaths. They were so awful we attributed them to God(s) as punishment for our bad behavior. None of them have documented microbiological origins. Some would have some from spontaneous mutation in humans and many would have come from animals. They are de facto not lab leaks, so the fact that we have some lab leaks documented in the last few decades isn't really convincing. There is nothing there that makes a zoonotic origin less likely. Here's a scientist who said we couldn't dismiss the lab leak, and asked for more research, which he did. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/19/1016005828/new-data-leads-to-rethinking-once-more-where-the-pandemic-actually-began https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/19/1016005... The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London. That article is from 2021, but he stands by it in 2023: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-l... "What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion." Edit: 2 things. It's important to rule out that the idea that this could only be engineered, which would imply a definite lab origin. That is why engineered viruses come up. A non-lab leak is certainly plausible, and a lab leak is not ruled out. There are labs all over China, there are markets all over China. The overlap of cities having both is significant. Viruses appear in larger, denser population centers. The "next thing" was very likely to appear in a city with a lab. The thing is, it's not very close to the lab. There's a large cluster around the market. Lab theory doesn't have much going for it. It's not actually that close to the epicenter. There are labs everywhere. SARS is widely studies. Sure some viruses have long incubation periods, but that would show as far less of a tight cluster around the market. Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.
  - COGlory 3y ago
    I'm being very precise to avoid conflating lab leak and natural origin. There is a possibility those are the same thing. The virus could have been discovered in nature, brought to a lab, and leaked. I personally find this whole debate pretty boring, but it really worries me how frequently people mix this up. These two things are not exclusive. Argument in favor of one does not invalidate the other. Re: a few specific points. >The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London. This is a bit of a trap. From that article: >What about cases near the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is more than 10 miles from the market? "There are no cases around the WIV," Worobey says. "If the outbreak did start in the lab, the bottom line is, it would be odd for it not to be spreading from there rather than from elsewhere." The thing here to consider is that, lets say someone gets an accidental exposure. There's an incubation period, in which you are not shedding. Then you move around. Epidemiological data only shows where the first human-to-human transmission happened, not where the animal-human jump happened. Since you aren't immediately infectious after contracting the virus. Re: >"What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion." SARS-CoV (the original) notoriously escaped a Beijing lab, not once, but twice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ SARS-CoV also has the added advantage of being much easier to track, because the symptoms are so severe. With SARS-CoV-2, the symptoms are so mild, it's unlikely most people would think it was anything but a cold. Whether someone that worked at a virology institute would think that is a matter of some debate, but people have died from laboratory exposures before because they thought they had a benign illness, so it certainly has happened. The problem is, people aren't having a genuine discussion. The communication goes something like this: someone says something about lab leak, and gets shut down by saying "the science says animal origin was more likely". The scientists are saying "the data says this was likely an animal to human transmission". But if you dig in on either of those points, things get shakier and shakier. The data that the virus evolved in animals, strong. The data that the virus evolved in any one specific species - less strong. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species that was in the wet market, even weaker. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species at the wet market, and then jumped from animals to humans at the wet market? Basically non-existent - circumstantial at best. The only piece of data in that tree that would directly contradict the lab leak hypothesis is that last little bit of data. But it all gets wrapped up and packaged into the wordplay of "the data says the virus jumped to humans from animals", probably unintentionally by some, intentionally by others. The wet market hypothesis began because SARS had been found to transfer at a wet market in the past. But, that data has never been super convincing to begin with (this type of data never is, it was a full year after SARS-CoV 1 that antibodies were detected in civets), and there was no direct evidence of the wet market with SARS-CoV-2, so the hypothesis started out as pattern matching with an n=1 (SARS-CoV the original). Whereas, pattern matching with n=4 (or more) for lab leak works just as well. Also frustrating is that not being able prove one hypothesis doesn't de facto validate the other. The hypotheses aren't even totally orthogonal! Only in very specific cases are they orthogonal, and those cases contain the weakest evidence of all the evidence in all categories. The featured article is talking more about the conversation, and the nuances of the conversation, than it is the absolute truth of the matter. There will never be an answer, other than that "both are possible". Re: the "spirit" of your point, if you will, which I interpret at something like "there are many more species than just humans, therefore most viruses evolve in other species and jump to humans", I certainly agree, but then we went and tipped the scales pretty badly by rounding up these viruses and putting them in close proximity to humans. And while we've been recording data, there have been far more lab leaks than there have been zoonotic events. So that argues that in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have, artificially, changed that calculation.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recognized immediately, too), there is no precedent for a previously unknown coronavirus leaking. > It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab. Not really. If the virus is natural in origin (which is a certainty now) and completely unknown before the initial outbreak (also a virtual certainty now), the chance that it somehow entered a lab, unknown, and then exited again are basically zero, compared to the chance that it spilled over in any one of the many millions of daily interactions between humans and wild or farmed animals. They were selling farmed wild animals that we know can carry SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market, and that's where the initial outbreak was centered. In contrast, there's zero evidence for a lab leak, and not for lack of searching. There's simply no evidence that anyone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had or knew about this virus before the outbreak, and we have a very good idea of what the WIV was researching.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    You're wrong. There have been at least three known lab leaks of SARS cov-19 post pandemic. Here is one in Taiwan: https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-covid-19-research-in-taiwan-exposed-110-people-after- https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-... becoming-infected-at-work/amp/ Covid-19 is very slippery. Analogizing from historical pandemics is begging the question and doesn't match the data.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      How am I wrong? There were countless spillover events for the original SARS. To this day, it's not known precisely how many SARS spillover events there were, because they were so numerous and tracing was so poor back then. In a different comment in this thread, I cited a review article that goes over the evidence for widespread spillover events of SARS in 2002-2003.[0] The gist of it is that SARS popped up independently at numerous markets, dotted across the Pearl River Delta. SARS infection was very common among palm civet traders in the region (it's even possible that most of them became infected). The lab leaks came later, after huge interest emerged in the new virus and it started to be cultured in large quantities in many labs. Those leaks were extremely rare compared to the spillover events, they were immediately detected, and they led to much stricter lab security practices. But the relative probability of a novel virus that nobody even knows they have initially leaking from a lab vs. spilling over from large animal populations that host the virus is basically nil. 0. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_13 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_...
- pcrh 3y ago
  There are numerous cornaviruses that infect humans as well as bats and birds, and have done so for thousands of years at least. Animal-to-human transfer of novel viruses is by far the most common cause of novel epidemics. >Many human coronaviruses have their origin in bats.[75] The human coronavirus NL63 shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (ARCoV.2) between 1190 and 1449 CE.[76] The human coronavirus 229E shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (GhanaGrp1 Bt CoV) between 1686 and 1800 CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus
  - COGlory 3y ago
    Yes, I'm well aware of this, but it's not really applicable to the point I'm making, because those pre-dated laboratories.

jonnycomputer 3y ago

100% this.

COGlory 3y ago

>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

stubybubs 3y ago
My point is that we don't have any documented anything for the first couple hundred thousand of years of humanity's existence, and we encountered the most horrific viral and bacterial infections, many of which caused unthinkable mass deaths. They were so awful we attributed them to God(s) as punishment for our bad behavior. None of them have documented microbiological origins. Some would have some from spontaneous mutation in humans and many would have come from animals. They are de facto not lab leaks, so the fact that we have some lab leaks documented in the last few decades isn't really convincing. There is nothing there that makes a zoonotic origin less likely. Here's a scientist who said we couldn't dismiss the lab leak, and asked for more research, which he did. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/19/1016005828/new-data-leads-to-rethinking-once-more-where-the-pandemic-actually-began https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/19/1016005... The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London. That article is from 2021, but he stands by it in 2023: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-leak-energy-department-fbi https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-l... "What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion." Edit: 2 things. It's important to rule out that the idea that this could only be engineered, which would imply a definite lab origin. That is why engineered viruses come up. A non-lab leak is certainly plausible, and a lab leak is not ruled out. There are labs all over China, there are markets all over China. The overlap of cities having both is significant. Viruses appear in larger, denser population centers. The "next thing" was very likely to appear in a city with a lab. The thing is, it's not very close to the lab. There's a large cluster around the market. Lab theory doesn't have much going for it. It's not actually that close to the epicenter. There are labs everywhere. SARS is widely studies. Sure some viruses have long incubation periods, but that would show as far less of a tight cluster around the market. Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.
- COGlory 3y ago
  I'm being very precise to avoid conflating lab leak and natural origin. There is a possibility those are the same thing. The virus could have been discovered in nature, brought to a lab, and leaked. I personally find this whole debate pretty boring, but it really worries me how frequently people mix this up. These two things are not exclusive. Argument in favor of one does not invalidate the other. Re: a few specific points. >The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London. This is a bit of a trap. From that article: >What about cases near the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is more than 10 miles from the market? "There are no cases around the WIV," Worobey says. "If the outbreak did start in the lab, the bottom line is, it would be odd for it not to be spreading from there rather than from elsewhere." The thing here to consider is that, lets say someone gets an accidental exposure. There's an incubation period, in which you are not shedding. Then you move around. Epidemiological data only shows where the first human-to-human transmission happened, not where the animal-human jump happened. Since you aren't immediately infectious after contracting the virus. Re: >"What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion." SARS-CoV (the original) notoriously escaped a Beijing lab, not once, but twice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ SARS-CoV also has the added advantage of being much easier to track, because the symptoms are so severe. With SARS-CoV-2, the symptoms are so mild, it's unlikely most people would think it was anything but a cold. Whether someone that worked at a virology institute would think that is a matter of some debate, but people have died from laboratory exposures before because they thought they had a benign illness, so it certainly has happened. The problem is, people aren't having a genuine discussion. The communication goes something like this: someone says something about lab leak, and gets shut down by saying "the science says animal origin was more likely". The scientists are saying "the data says this was likely an animal to human transmission". But if you dig in on either of those points, things get shakier and shakier. The data that the virus evolved in animals, strong. The data that the virus evolved in any one specific species - less strong. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species that was in the wet market, even weaker. The data that the virus evolved in an animal species at the wet market, and then jumped from animals to humans at the wet market? Basically non-existent - circumstantial at best. The only piece of data in that tree that would directly contradict the lab leak hypothesis is that last little bit of data. But it all gets wrapped up and packaged into the wordplay of "the data says the virus jumped to humans from animals", probably unintentionally by some, intentionally by others. The wet market hypothesis began because SARS had been found to transfer at a wet market in the past. But, that data has never been super convincing to begin with (this type of data never is, it was a full year after SARS-CoV 1 that antibodies were detected in civets), and there was no direct evidence of the wet market with SARS-CoV-2, so the hypothesis started out as pattern matching with an n=1 (SARS-CoV the original). Whereas, pattern matching with n=4 (or more) for lab leak works just as well. Also frustrating is that not being able prove one hypothesis doesn't de facto validate the other. The hypotheses aren't even totally orthogonal! Only in very specific cases are they orthogonal, and those cases contain the weakest evidence of all the evidence in all categories. The featured article is talking more about the conversation, and the nuances of the conversation, than it is the absolute truth of the matter. There will never be an answer, other than that "both are possible". Re: the "spirit" of your point, if you will, which I interpret at something like "there are many more species than just humans, therefore most viruses evolve in other species and jump to humans", I certainly agree, but then we went and tipped the scales pretty badly by rounding up these viruses and putting them in close proximity to humans. And while we've been recording data, there have been far more lab leaks than there have been zoonotic events. So that argues that in the 20th and 21st centuries, we have, artificially, changed that calculation.
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recognized immediately, too), there is no precedent for a previously unknown coronavirus leaking. > It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab. Not really. If the virus is natural in origin (which is a certainty now) and completely unknown before the initial outbreak (also a virtual certainty now), the chance that it somehow entered a lab, unknown, and then exited again are basically zero, compared to the chance that it spilled over in any one of the many millions of daily interactions between humans and wild or farmed animals. They were selling farmed wild animals that we know can carry SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market, and that's where the initial outbreak was centered. In contrast, there's zero evidence for a lab leak, and not for lack of searching. There's simply no evidence that anyone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had or knew about this virus before the outbreak, and we have a very good idea of what the WIV was researching.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  You're wrong. There have been at least three known lab leaks of SARS cov-19 post pandemic. Here is one in Taiwan: https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-covid-19-research-in-taiwan-exposed-110-people-after- https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-... becoming-infected-at-work/amp/ Covid-19 is very slippery. Analogizing from historical pandemics is begging the question and doesn't match the data.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    How am I wrong? There were countless spillover events for the original SARS. To this day, it's not known precisely how many SARS spillover events there were, because they were so numerous and tracing was so poor back then. In a different comment in this thread, I cited a review article that goes over the evidence for widespread spillover events of SARS in 2002-2003.[0] The gist of it is that SARS popped up independently at numerous markets, dotted across the Pearl River Delta. SARS infection was very common among palm civet traders in the region (it's even possible that most of them became infected). The lab leaks came later, after huge interest emerged in the new virus and it started to be cultured in large quantities in many labs. Those leaks were extremely rare compared to the spillover events, they were immediately detected, and they led to much stricter lab security practices. But the relative probability of a novel virus that nobody even knows they have initially leaking from a lab vs. spilling over from large animal populations that host the virus is basically nil. 0. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_13 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_...
pcrh 3y ago
There are numerous cornaviruses that infect humans as well as bats and birds, and have done so for thousands of years at least. Animal-to-human transfer of novel viruses is by far the most common cause of novel epidemics. >Many human coronaviruses have their origin in bats.[75] The human coronavirus NL63 shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (ARCoV.2) between 1190 and 1449 CE.[76] The human coronavirus 229E shared a common ancestor with a bat coronavirus (GhanaGrp1 Bt CoV) between 1686 and 1800 CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus
- COGlory 3y ago
  Yes, I'm well aware of this, but it's not really applicable to the point I'm making, because those pre-dated laboratories.