3 ms·

> doing research on exactly that family of viruses "The IC has no information, however, indicating that any WIV genetic engineering work has involved SARS-CoV-

> doing research on exactly that family of viruses "The IC has no information, however, indicating that any WIV genetic engineering work has involved SARS-CoV-2, a close progenitor, or a backbone virus that is closely-related enough to have been the source of the pandemic." https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Report-... > but it's "more possible" that the virus came from nature in the exact same area's wet markets The geographic distribution of cases around the wet market suggests that was the spillover event. In the case of SARS-CoV-1 there was a lab spillover from a tech getting infected, she wound up infecting her mother who died. This is the kind of contact tracing that would be expected from a lab spillover. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 there is no link to the lab, so the hypothesis must be that the person got sick and then went to the one kind of place in Wuhan where a natural spillover would happen, caused the pandemic and then went about their life and failed to infect anyone else in their life. It requires a Shroedinger's Lab Worker that only exists when they visit the one place that makes it look exactly like natural spillover. A deliberate release of a bioweapon in the market actually makes more sense than accidental spillover from a lab leak.

tripletao 3y ago
> This is the kind of contact tracing that would be expected from a lab spillover. Except that SARS-1 causes ~10x the fatality rate, and correspondingly more serious nonfatal sickness? That obviously makes contact tracing easier than for a novel virus with symptoms easily misattributed to a common cold or flu.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  Except we have good contact tracing associated with the wet market and it hits people >50 years old hard, and >70 with a high fatality rate ("severe pneumonia in people over 50 years old with comorbidities" is how it was characterized at the start). So again, the infected lab worker was perfectly surrounded by healthy young people and very fit old people, except for one visit to the exact location where zoonotic spillover would have happened.
  - tripletao 3y ago
    > except for one visit to the exact location where zoonotic spillover would have happened. You're continuing to assume no cryptic spread. The IFR is low, and the overdispersed epidemiological dynamics mean that most lineages die out. This makes it impossible to exclude many (even ten or more) generations of cryptic human-to-human spread between that hypothetical infected lab worker and the market. Even with advance warning, public health authorities in Western countries succeeded in tracing almost no cases back to the port of entry. I don't see why you'd expect the Chinese authorities to have succeeded at their much more difficult task.
coldtea 3y ago
>In the case of SARS-CoV-2 there is no link to the lab Would we have the information if there was? As if it's not in the interests in both China (where the lab operated and whose control it was under) AND the US (who co-funded the lab work) to not be blamed for some millions of deaths globally?

tripletao 3y ago

> This is the kind of contact tracing that would be expected from a lab spillover. Except that SARS-1 causes ~10x the fatality rate, and correspondingly more serious nonfatal sickness? That obviously makes contact tracing easier than for a novel virus with symptoms easily misattributed to a common cold or flu.

lamontcg 3y ago
Except we have good contact tracing associated with the wet market and it hits people >50 years old hard, and >70 with a high fatality rate ("severe pneumonia in people over 50 years old with comorbidities" is how it was characterized at the start). So again, the infected lab worker was perfectly surrounded by healthy young people and very fit old people, except for one visit to the exact location where zoonotic spillover would have happened.
- tripletao 3y ago
  > except for one visit to the exact location where zoonotic spillover would have happened. You're continuing to assume no cryptic spread. The IFR is low, and the overdispersed epidemiological dynamics mean that most lineages die out. This makes it impossible to exclude many (even ten or more) generations of cryptic human-to-human spread between that hypothetical infected lab worker and the market. Even with advance warning, public health authorities in Western countries succeeded in tracing almost no cases back to the port of entry. I don't see why you'd expect the Chinese authorities to have succeeded at their much more difficult task.

coldtea 3y ago

>In the case of SARS-CoV-2 there is no link to the lab Would we have the information if there was? As if it's not in the interests in both China (where the lab operated and whose control it was under) AND the US (who co-funded the lab work) to not be blamed for some millions of deaths globally?