4 ms·

Do you know where you got this idea? I've seen it endlessly repeated, but I've been unable to trace it to any authoritative source. In any case, it's completel

Do you know where you got this idea? I've seen it endlessly repeated, but I've been unable to trace it to any authoritative source. In any case, it's completely wrong. Dr. Shi herself didn't expect natural spillover anywhere near Wuhan: > We have done bat virus surveillance in Hubei Province for many years, but have not found that bats in Wuhan or even the wider Hubei Province carry any coronaviruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2. I don't think the spillover from bats to humans occurred in Wuhan or in Hubei Province. https://web.archive.org/web/20210727042832/https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q%26A.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20210727042832/https://www.scien... She could be wrong, but the idea that she chose her work location based on the natural abundance of sarbecoviruses is unequivocally false. The BSL-4 also isn't very relevant. As described in the link above, the WIV worked at BSL-2, with correspondingly greater risk of an incident if one of their viruses turned out to infect humans. The point of extraordinary coincidence is their collection of novel sarbecoviruses, which was the biggest anywhere in the world.

viraptor 2y ago
Parent was asking about "catastrophic outbreak" not about COVID specifically. Other labs are not relevant in this calculation either. The question was about the likelihood of outbreak being colocated with a research facility and I stand by the answer - higher than random.
- tripletao 2y ago
  We're talking about SARS-CoV-2. We know that's a sarbecovirus, and we know the WIV had the world's largest collection of sarbecoviruses. That's the extraordinary coincidence that has prompted all of this debate. Your comment clearly implied that wasn't actually so surprising, because the WIV was located in a place where natural zoonosis was also believed to be more likely. That's completely false though, per the comments I've quoted from Dr. Shi herself. It's certainly possible that other labs are deliberately located close to natural populations of the other organisms they're studying. That's not relevant in a discussion of the WIV and sarbecoviruses, though. There's no reason except obfuscation to shift focus to some broader question when we have facts specific to SARS-CoV-2. In case you wish to clarify: Do you agree that specifically as to SARS-CoV-2, the probability of natural zoonosis near Wuhan was no higher than (and actually lower than, per Dr. Shi) random?

viraptor 2y ago

Parent was asking about "catastrophic outbreak" not about COVID specifically. Other labs are not relevant in this calculation either. The question was about the likelihood of outbreak being colocated with a research facility and I stand by the answer - higher than random.

tripletao 2y ago
We're talking about SARS-CoV-2. We know that's a sarbecovirus, and we know the WIV had the world's largest collection of sarbecoviruses. That's the extraordinary coincidence that has prompted all of this debate. Your comment clearly implied that wasn't actually so surprising, because the WIV was located in a place where natural zoonosis was also believed to be more likely. That's completely false though, per the comments I've quoted from Dr. Shi herself. It's certainly possible that other labs are deliberately located close to natural populations of the other organisms they're studying. That's not relevant in a discussion of the WIV and sarbecoviruses, though. There's no reason except obfuscation to shift focus to some broader question when we have facts specific to SARS-CoV-2. In case you wish to clarify: Do you agree that specifically as to SARS-CoV-2, the probability of natural zoonosis near Wuhan was no higher than (and actually lower than, per Dr. Shi) random?