5 ms·

That article has biased interpretations of the data. It discounts circumstantial evidence of a lab origin, while foregrounding circumstantial evidence of zoono

by toomim 3y ago

That article has biased interpretations of the data. It discounts circumstantial evidence of a lab origin, while foregrounding circumstantial evidence of zoonotic origin. Neither theory has direct evidence. Nobody has found covid at WIV, and nobody found an animal reservoir that could prove zoonotic origin. All we have are two pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) Lab origin: Covid was discovered close to the WIV, while it was researching gain-of-function on coronaviruses. (2) Zoonotic origin: Covid was discovered in a wet market, where past coronaviruses have been known to evolve and leap to humans. Yet, that article completely discounts (1) as evidence, while calling the evidence of it occurring near WIV "a coincidence": > There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses That is a biased interpretation. Then it goes on to say that (2) does count as evidence, even though there's no reservoir animal that could make the direct connection: > We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Certainly, if you discount all the evidence coming from your opposition, and foreground all the evidence that agrees with you, it's going to look like your side is right.

fasterik 3y ago
It's not circumstantial evidence in the case of the market, there is direct evidence. You're ignoring the fact that contact tracing of early cases pointed to employees of the market and people who visited the market, and that SARS-CoV-2 was found in environmental samples from the market. On the other hand, there is no contact tracing and no biological sample that leads to the WIV or its employees.
- tripletao 3y ago
  There's no question that the market was a major cluster, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily the point of introduction. SARS-CoV-2 must have been introduced to other continents at airports or seaports, but that's not where the first major clusters were found there. SARS-CoV-2 has relatively low IFR, and symptoms easily confused with other respiratory illnesses. This means that even with advance warning and good surveillance, many generations of cryptic spread are possible before someone gets sick enough to get tested. I've seen many fine-grained geographic arguments, both for and against unnatural origin, but would generally consider them to be noise given that early under-ascertainment. As to the environmental samples, virus was definitely present in the market, since infected humans were present. A few samples with raccoon dog DNA were found with a few SARS-CoV-2 reads; but almost all the SARS-CoV-2 in that market must have come from infected humans, and there's no evidence those reads didn't too. The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 presence and raccoon dog presence is negative, and that correlation is most positive for non-susceptible animal species; so I again think that's noise. This is from Jesse Bloom's analysis at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538336v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538336v1
- toomim 3y ago
  That's direct evidence that covid was in the market, but only circumstantial evidence for where it originated. The market was both (1) close to the lab and (2) a place where nature contacts humans. The lab origin theory says it originated in the lab, and then an infected WIV employee came to the market for lunch or dinner and created a super-spreader. The zoonotic theory says an animal brought it or a precursor to the market, where it possibly mutated and jumped to humans. The existence of covid in the market provides circumstantial evidence for both theories.
oneshtein 3y ago
> (1) Lab origin: Covid was discovered close to the WIV, while it was researching gain-of-function on coronaviruses. COVID-19 was discovered by Chinese scientists because they were studying this virus and were familiar with it, whereas in other countries, this virus was overlooked as a complication of a common cold. Research on virus strains shows that the COVID-19 epidemic began 2-3 months before the epidemic in Wuhan. Therefore, the evidence for the virus's laboratory origin should look like this: (1) The virus's high adaptability for human transmission indirectly indicates human intervention in its evolution. (1) Studies indicate that the global spread of the virus started from the World Military Games in Wuhan, indirectly pointing to the involvement of the military or a military laboratory. (1) Research shows that the virus's spread began two to three months before the start of the epidemic in Wuhan, indirectly suggesting the involvement of the Russian «Vector» laboratory in Novosibirsk, which experienced a serious security incident (explosion and military incursion) during this period. (2) Zoonotic origin: Covid was discovered in a wet market, where past coronaviruses have been known to evolve and leap to humans.
- tripletao 3y ago
  None of this makes much sense. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in Wuhan when local doctors noticed the unusual volume of sick and dying patients. The WIV's specialized knowledge wasn't necessary for that. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 was first published not by the WIV but by Professor Zhang Yongzhen at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chin... There's no evidence that the Vector Institute in Novosibirsk had any role in this. SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, and the WIV had the world's biggest collection of novel sarbecoviruses sampled from nature, plus an unfunded proposal (DEFUSE) to engineer in a furin cleavage site. The Vector Institute had no significant coronavirology work.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    «Vector» is the largest depository of viruses in the world. Of course, «Vector» has SARS CoV in their depository. Nobody knows what they did with it. However, «Vector» was first in Russia which started to perform testing for SARS-CoV-2, so they had experience with some variant of that virus. Moreover, «Vector» started to develop 2 vaccines for Covid-19 almost immediately. There was epidemic in Russia in November-December 2019 with up to 700 cases per week of pneumonia in some regions (thousands of cases in whole Russia), which is at Covid level. Quote 1tv.ru, Nov 19 2019: > Weekly, around 300 cases are recorded in the region. 10 schools have already been placed under quarantine. Earlier, students in the Vladimir, Samara, and Orenburg regions, as well as in Rostov-on-Don, Ulyanovsk, and Krasnoyarsk, went on forced vacations. How can you protect yourself from the disease and what should you do at the first signs of discomfort? > The number of pneumonia cases is growing across the country. Schools in Chelyabinsk are being closed due to quarantine. > "This year, considering the rise from the previous year, we are particularly attentive to this infection. When the incidence rate became sufficiently high, we suspended the educational process," said Tatiana Sofiikina, Deputy Head of the Department of Epidemiological Surveillance at the Rospotrebnadzor office for the Chelyabinsk region. > More such patients have also appeared in Rostov-on-Don. Often, pneumonia develops after the flu or acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI). However, not only viruses cause pneumonia. During the cold season, our lungs become more susceptible, and we easily catch any infection on the go. Moreover, the disease often progresses asymptomatically. A person only feels mild discomfort, unaware that a catastrophe is developing within their body.

by toomim 3y ago

fasterik 3y ago

It's not circumstantial evidence in the case of the market, there is direct evidence. You're ignoring the fact that contact tracing of early cases pointed to employees of the market and people who visited the market, and that SARS-CoV-2 was found in environmental samples from the market. On the other hand, there is no contact tracing and no biological sample that leads to the WIV or its employees.

tripletao 3y ago
There's no question that the market was a major cluster, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily the point of introduction. SARS-CoV-2 must have been introduced to other continents at airports or seaports, but that's not where the first major clusters were found there. SARS-CoV-2 has relatively low IFR, and symptoms easily confused with other respiratory illnesses. This means that even with advance warning and good surveillance, many generations of cryptic spread are possible before someone gets sick enough to get tested. I've seen many fine-grained geographic arguments, both for and against unnatural origin, but would generally consider them to be noise given that early under-ascertainment. As to the environmental samples, virus was definitely present in the market, since infected humans were present. A few samples with raccoon dog DNA were found with a few SARS-CoV-2 reads; but almost all the SARS-CoV-2 in that market must have come from infected humans, and there's no evidence those reads didn't too. The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 presence and raccoon dog presence is negative, and that correlation is most positive for non-susceptible animal species; so I again think that's noise. This is from Jesse Bloom's analysis at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538336v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538336v1
toomim 3y ago
That's direct evidence that covid was in the market, but only circumstantial evidence for where it originated. The market was both (1) close to the lab and (2) a place where nature contacts humans. The lab origin theory says it originated in the lab, and then an infected WIV employee came to the market for lunch or dinner and created a super-spreader. The zoonotic theory says an animal brought it or a precursor to the market, where it possibly mutated and jumped to humans. The existence of covid in the market provides circumstantial evidence for both theories.

oneshtein 3y ago

> (1) Lab origin: Covid was discovered close to the WIV, while it was researching gain-of-function on coronaviruses. COVID-19 was discovered by Chinese scientists because they were studying this virus and were familiar with it, whereas in other countries, this virus was overlooked as a complication of a common cold. Research on virus strains shows that the COVID-19 epidemic began 2-3 months before the epidemic in Wuhan. Therefore, the evidence for the virus's laboratory origin should look like this: (1) The virus's high adaptability for human transmission indirectly indicates human intervention in its evolution. (1) Studies indicate that the global spread of the virus started from the World Military Games in Wuhan, indirectly pointing to the involvement of the military or a military laboratory. (1) Research shows that the virus's spread began two to three months before the start of the epidemic in Wuhan, indirectly suggesting the involvement of the Russian «Vector» laboratory in Novosibirsk, which experienced a serious security incident (explosion and military incursion) during this period. (2) Zoonotic origin: Covid was discovered in a wet market, where past coronaviruses have been known to evolve and leap to humans.

tripletao 3y ago
None of this makes much sense. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in Wuhan when local doctors noticed the unusual volume of sick and dying patients. The WIV's specialized knowledge wasn't necessary for that. The genome of SARS-CoV-2 was first published not by the WIV but by Professor Zhang Yongzhen at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chinese-laboratory-first-shared-coronavirus-genome-world-ordered https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3052966/chin... There's no evidence that the Vector Institute in Novosibirsk had any role in this. SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, and the WIV had the world's biggest collection of novel sarbecoviruses sampled from nature, plus an unfunded proposal (DEFUSE) to engineer in a furin cleavage site. The Vector Institute had no significant coronavirology work.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  «Vector» is the largest depository of viruses in the world. Of course, «Vector» has SARS CoV in their depository. Nobody knows what they did with it. However, «Vector» was first in Russia which started to perform testing for SARS-CoV-2, so they had experience with some variant of that virus. Moreover, «Vector» started to develop 2 vaccines for Covid-19 almost immediately. There was epidemic in Russia in November-December 2019 with up to 700 cases per week of pneumonia in some regions (thousands of cases in whole Russia), which is at Covid level. Quote 1tv.ru, Nov 19 2019: > Weekly, around 300 cases are recorded in the region. 10 schools have already been placed under quarantine. Earlier, students in the Vladimir, Samara, and Orenburg regions, as well as in Rostov-on-Don, Ulyanovsk, and Krasnoyarsk, went on forced vacations. How can you protect yourself from the disease and what should you do at the first signs of discomfort? > The number of pneumonia cases is growing across the country. Schools in Chelyabinsk are being closed due to quarantine. > "This year, considering the rise from the previous year, we are particularly attentive to this infection. When the incidence rate became sufficiently high, we suspended the educational process," said Tatiana Sofiikina, Deputy Head of the Department of Epidemiological Surveillance at the Rospotrebnadzor office for the Chelyabinsk region. > More such patients have also appeared in Rostov-on-Don. Often, pneumonia develops after the flu or acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI). However, not only viruses cause pneumonia. During the cold season, our lungs become more susceptible, and we easily catch any infection on the go. Moreover, the disease often progresses asymptomatically. A person only feels mild discomfort, unaware that a catastrophe is developing within their body.