Covid 19's Origins Re-considered by Scientific Community
May 26, 2021 10:34 AM Subscribe
Claims that Covid-19 was an engineered virus developed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and escaped during a lab accident have long been treated skeptically by the scientific community.
In the past few weeks there has been a change of tone by scientists and experts including Dr Fauci who have begun to re-consider the possibility of a lab accident as the origin of the outbreak.
Scientists are demanding a more transparent investigation into the origins of the pandemic, while also being careful to point out that while a leak is a possibility, the most likely origin remains a natural one. The Biden administration has also remained cautious about drawing any conclusions as illustrated in these exchanges between Jen Psaki and Steve Doucy. Meanwhile news outlets like the Washington Post seem to be moving ahead of the evidence towards a conclusion
Scientists are demanding a more transparent investigation into the origins of the pandemic, while also being careful to point out that while a leak is a possibility, the most likely origin remains a natural one. The Biden administration has also remained cautious about drawing any conclusions as illustrated in these exchanges between Jen Psaki and Steve Doucy. Meanwhile news outlets like the Washington Post seem to be moving ahead of the evidence towards a conclusion
The prospect of an escape from a lab has always seemed unlikely, but plausible, and never something that could be entirely dismissed without clear-eyed investigation. The Chinese governments actions in this area have only increased the sense that they're hiding something. I don't know enough about the situation to have a strong opinion, but the actions of Wuhan and Beijing officials is absolutely feeding the sense that they're not simply being typically evasive, but actively covering up something extremely bad. Their behavior definitely conforms to what a government would do to cover up a lab escape.
Without a real, public, and unbiased investigation, the speculation and accusations are only going to increase.
posted by tclark at 10:40 AM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Without a real, public, and unbiased investigation, the speculation and accusations are only going to increase.
posted by tclark at 10:40 AM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
I've heard Fauci's statements, and read that WaPo article yesterday. It is very disconcerting, I am afraid that if the consensus does edge toward this being an accidental release that we'll see a huge rise in anti-Chinese violence all over the world--but if this was an accident, it was a preventable tragedy of almost unfathomable magnitude, and the global community needs to address that. At this point, it's not just speculation, there seem to be legitimate basis for suspicions (drawing mostly from the sources in the Wapo link).
posted by skewed at 10:44 AM on May 26, 2021 [31 favorites]
posted by skewed at 10:44 AM on May 26, 2021 [31 favorites]
*pulls head out of ground*
Are we at zombies yet? No? Harumph.
*sticks head back into ground*
posted by From Bklyn at 10:44 AM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Are we at zombies yet? No? Harumph.
*sticks head back into ground*
posted by From Bklyn at 10:44 AM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Beware of the political abuses of this from all sides, in all kinds of awful ways, from racially-motivated violence as per skewed to criminally incompetent governments & companies around the world using blame as an excuse to cover up or excuse their mostly kack-handed global response to the pandemic.
posted by chavenet at 10:48 AM on May 26, 2021 [28 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 10:48 AM on May 26, 2021 [28 favorites]
I am going to be SUPER pissed if my dad gets to say "I told you so."
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 10:49 AM on May 26, 2021 [107 favorites]
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 10:49 AM on May 26, 2021 [107 favorites]
Phylogenetic analyses are compelling and strongly point to this virus having natural origin. There are a lot of reasons to put China on the spot, but this is not one of them and it will likely prove a fool's errand to go down this road. A lot of people got sick because of the sheer incompetence and greed of their own governments.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on May 26, 2021 [47 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on May 26, 2021 [47 favorites]
Citation and discussions, just to avoid that kind of response.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
The claims in early 2020 were mostly motivated by anti-Chinese sentiment, not real evidence. But it's definitely a possibility and some of the more recent stuff summarized in the WaPo article is concerning. It'd be nice if we could have an honest investigation but neither the Chinese government nor the anti-Chinese factions in the US and Europe can be trusted to be objective.
FWIW though lab-escape pathogens happen every few years. Here's a couple of articles written pre-Covid: How deadly pathogens have escaped the lab — over and over again and Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped From Laboratory Containment. Wikipedia has a list, too, which among others includes 12 examples from the United States. The 1977 H1N1 outbreak from a Russian lab was particularly bad.
posted by Nelson at 10:51 AM on May 26, 2021 [15 favorites]
FWIW though lab-escape pathogens happen every few years. Here's a couple of articles written pre-Covid: How deadly pathogens have escaped the lab — over and over again and Here Are 5 Times Infectious Diseases Escaped From Laboratory Containment. Wikipedia has a list, too, which among others includes 12 examples from the United States. The 1977 H1N1 outbreak from a Russian lab was particularly bad.
posted by Nelson at 10:51 AM on May 26, 2021 [15 favorites]
These theories aren't mutually exclusive. Natural origin, then studied in a lab, then accidentally escaped from the lab.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:53 AM on May 26, 2021 [61 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:53 AM on May 26, 2021 [61 favorites]
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if …?
Novelist Nicholson Baker took an early look at this in January.
posted by chavenet at 10:54 AM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Novelist Nicholson Baker took an early look at this in January.
posted by chavenet at 10:54 AM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
LemmySays: "A long read from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (5 May):"
Just a note, author of this article, Nicholas Wade, has some, er, unfortunate ideas about genetics and race.
posted by chavenet at 10:59 AM on May 26, 2021 [22 favorites]
Just a note, author of this article, Nicholas Wade, has some, er, unfortunate ideas about genetics and race.
posted by chavenet at 10:59 AM on May 26, 2021 [22 favorites]
I was always neutral on the "escaped virus" theory because (a) I don't know squat and (b) when it came to virus response, it didn't make much of a difference. Sure, some people should be investigating it, but the politicians who were shouting about it possibly being an engineered virus were ignoring the main poin. Whether not it was wouldn't change the utility of wearing a mask. Or social distancing. Or remaining at home. It was, in my opinion, a handy distraction. The subtext was that we don't need to act responsibly because the virus is "someone else's fault". Which is total bullshit, of course, but very compelling bullshit to a large segment of the population.
I guess we should investigate, but ideally this shouldn't be a politically motivated investigation. This should be a "were lab best-practices being followed" and "how can we manage this better in the future" sort of boring scientific wonky investigation. It won't be, of course, and I suspect the answer will be used as a cudgel to beat up on China and Chinese people or ignored (if the conclusion is that the virus was completely natural).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:00 AM on May 26, 2021 [50 favorites]
I guess we should investigate, but ideally this shouldn't be a politically motivated investigation. This should be a "were lab best-practices being followed" and "how can we manage this better in the future" sort of boring scientific wonky investigation. It won't be, of course, and I suspect the answer will be used as a cudgel to beat up on China and Chinese people or ignored (if the conclusion is that the virus was completely natural).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:00 AM on May 26, 2021 [50 favorites]
Claims that Covid-19 was an engineered virus developed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and escaped during a lab accident have long been treated skeptically by the scientific community.
Not the same thing!
There are no credible claims that this was an engineered virus and you can objectively study the sequence and prove that.
The lab accident theory is unprovable one way or the other. Could a virus being studied have infected a lab worker and escaped? I guess. Is it possible to prove that this *didn't* happen without finding the original origin (probably somewhere in South China with bat populations)? No.
Trump made it impossible to have an honest and open scientific conversation about it and now we never will.
posted by atrazine at 11:03 AM on May 26, 2021 [90 favorites]
Not the same thing!
There are no credible claims that this was an engineered virus and you can objectively study the sequence and prove that.
The lab accident theory is unprovable one way or the other. Could a virus being studied have infected a lab worker and escaped? I guess. Is it possible to prove that this *didn't* happen without finding the original origin (probably somewhere in South China with bat populations)? No.
Trump made it impossible to have an honest and open scientific conversation about it and now we never will.
posted by atrazine at 11:03 AM on May 26, 2021 [90 favorites]
Tweet from Weijia Jiang:
NEW: Dr. Fauci tells me that his opinion about the origins of COVID-19 have not changed: He believes that it is “highly likely” that it first occurred naturally before spreading from animal to human. Since no one is 100% sure, he’s open to a thorough investigation.
posted by NoMich at 11:04 AM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
NEW: Dr. Fauci tells me that his opinion about the origins of COVID-19 have not changed: He believes that it is “highly likely” that it first occurred naturally before spreading from animal to human. Since no one is 100% sure, he’s open to a thorough investigation.
posted by NoMich at 11:04 AM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
This archived version of the WaPo article just leaked out .... Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible
posted by chavenet at 11:05 AM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by chavenet at 11:05 AM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Cheryl Rofer chimes in with some common sense:
The narrative for scientists has not changed: We don't know the origin of SARS-CoV-2. There is not much evidence for any of the hypotheses.
What has changed is the bullshit being tossed around by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
posted by NoMich at 11:06 AM on May 26, 2021 [42 favorites]
The narrative for scientists has not changed: We don't know the origin of SARS-CoV-2. There is not much evidence for any of the hypotheses.
What has changed is the bullshit being tossed around by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
posted by NoMich at 11:06 AM on May 26, 2021 [42 favorites]
The articles that claim it was engineered start with "just asking questions!" and very quickly devolve into breathless "The lack of restriction sites PROVES they used nickless ligation to cover their tracks because they knew it was wrong!"
Which... I'd be very surprised if a lab went the extra mile for no scientific reason instead of putting in 6 extra bases on each primer and reaching for EcoRI.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:07 AM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
Which... I'd be very surprised if a lab went the extra mile for no scientific reason instead of putting in 6 extra bases on each primer and reaching for EcoRI.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:07 AM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
There are many ways the lab could of been part of the transmission vector for this virus. It is very unlikely that we will ever know. China isn’t ever going to be able to cooperate enough to satisfy everyone; unless they release evidence that it came via the lab. This could end up line the Iraq WMD charges with similar terrible consequences. And just to add that if we did find evidence China would use the Iraq WMD claims to discredit it
posted by interogative mood at 11:10 AM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 11:10 AM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
OK, first off, WaPo is kinda sus in and of itself. They have always pushed an agenda.
As are the first few sources in their timeline.
Putting a timeline together like this is in itself an agenda: what you leave out, who you leave in, what bits you quote.
This one is DEFINITELY built to build suspicion and fear and uncertainty.
For example the many inclusions of intelligence officers: it is their job to be suspicious and not to discount malefide origins. That's their job.
But they're NOT scientists.
And many have a bias. Like this guy who was quoted prominently: Matt Pottinger.
In the end: yes, a lab breakout is possible. So says the science.
BUT the science and most scientists also say it is unlikely.
Yeah, stymied investigation by experts and China limiting them is sus. BUT it's China. Saving face and not wanting people near a lab? Big surprise.
AND the 'nearest neighbour' is that batcave.
Had it not mutated with more viral properties, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
But it did have more viral properties. That is what nature does with these things. And what is the cause of an outbreak/pandemic.
Was Polio or the flu of 1917 caused by a lab? Nope. Is this one? Maybe, could be.
But we were due.
The WaPo article is just too spot on with unimportant people (suspicious intel people with a bias) commenting.
I still will put my faith in the scientific consensus.
posted by MacD at 11:10 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
As are the first few sources in their timeline.
Putting a timeline together like this is in itself an agenda: what you leave out, who you leave in, what bits you quote.
This one is DEFINITELY built to build suspicion and fear and uncertainty.
For example the many inclusions of intelligence officers: it is their job to be suspicious and not to discount malefide origins. That's their job.
But they're NOT scientists.
And many have a bias. Like this guy who was quoted prominently: Matt Pottinger.
In the end: yes, a lab breakout is possible. So says the science.
BUT the science and most scientists also say it is unlikely.
Yeah, stymied investigation by experts and China limiting them is sus. BUT it's China. Saving face and not wanting people near a lab? Big surprise.
AND the 'nearest neighbour' is that batcave.
Had it not mutated with more viral properties, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
But it did have more viral properties. That is what nature does with these things. And what is the cause of an outbreak/pandemic.
Was Polio or the flu of 1917 caused by a lab? Nope. Is this one? Maybe, could be.
But we were due.
The WaPo article is just too spot on with unimportant people (suspicious intel people with a bias) commenting.
I still will put my faith in the scientific consensus.
posted by MacD at 11:10 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
Twitter thread on the context of the so-called evidence
posted by airmail at 11:23 AM on May 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by airmail at 11:23 AM on May 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
The Chinese governments actions in this area have only increased the sense that they're hiding something.
Eh, I don't necessarily think this can be counted as evidence. The Chinese Communist Party always acts like it's hiding something, even when there's nothing to hide or whatever it's hiding is already known. The Party is an authoritarian government after all, so it doesn't see transparency or openness as a sign of strength or necessary. Also, for much of its early history the CCP had to obfuscate it's strength against bigger and stronger adversaries in order to grow as a movement and organization. So, some of this might just be institutional memory.
posted by FJT at 11:28 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
Eh, I don't necessarily think this can be counted as evidence. The Chinese Communist Party always acts like it's hiding something, even when there's nothing to hide or whatever it's hiding is already known. The Party is an authoritarian government after all, so it doesn't see transparency or openness as a sign of strength or necessary. Also, for much of its early history the CCP had to obfuscate it's strength against bigger and stronger adversaries in order to grow as a movement and organization. So, some of this might just be institutional memory.
posted by FJT at 11:28 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
Trump made it impossible to have an honest and open scientific conversation about it and now we never will.
I'm down with this sentiment, but I'll add that the Chinese Government's response has also made it impossible to have an honest and open scientific conversation about this.
Inevitably the investigations will be highly technical and nuanced, conclusions of any study will be a series of probabilities and ascribed likeliness of various scenarios, and the interpretation and response will be political. It's hard to imagine that there will ever be some sort of evidentiary "smoking gun" one way or the other.
posted by meinvt at 11:31 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
I'm down with this sentiment, but I'll add that the Chinese Government's response has also made it impossible to have an honest and open scientific conversation about this.
Inevitably the investigations will be highly technical and nuanced, conclusions of any study will be a series of probabilities and ascribed likeliness of various scenarios, and the interpretation and response will be political. It's hard to imagine that there will ever be some sort of evidentiary "smoking gun" one way or the other.
posted by meinvt at 11:31 AM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
I don't know how I feel about this.
I don't how relevant where the virus came from is in the context of the United States response to covid-19. We had enough warning and enough resources to do much better than we did in the first months. From January 2020 till maybe April? we didn't increase testing capacity, we didn't spin up contact tracing, and we argued about whether to social distance. Even if there was a Chinese mad scientist who brewed up a batch of corona virus and deliberately released into the world.the deaths of hundred of thousands of Americans are our responsibility.
Compare the United States to Germany. Germany was much more responsible and they weren't hit nearly as hard during the early part of the pandemic. Now they're not doing all that much better than we are because it's hard to protect against such a widespread virus and we're distributing vaccines faster than they are.
posted by rdr at 11:35 AM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
I don't how relevant where the virus came from is in the context of the United States response to covid-19. We had enough warning and enough resources to do much better than we did in the first months. From January 2020 till maybe April? we didn't increase testing capacity, we didn't spin up contact tracing, and we argued about whether to social distance. Even if there was a Chinese mad scientist who brewed up a batch of corona virus and deliberately released into the world.the deaths of hundred of thousands of Americans are our responsibility.
Compare the United States to Germany. Germany was much more responsible and they weren't hit nearly as hard during the early part of the pandemic. Now they're not doing all that much better than we are because it's hard to protect against such a widespread virus and we're distributing vaccines faster than they are.
posted by rdr at 11:35 AM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
I've read that Origins of Covid article on medium first, and I have to admit, the details were very convincing. I'd be very grateful if an actual molecular biologist would weigh in to evaluate the evidence, especially regarding the "furin cleavage site" and the connection to the ongoing research in Wuhan.
posted by kmt at 11:36 AM on May 26, 2021
posted by kmt at 11:36 AM on May 26, 2021
We're seeing pathogens spread further afield due to climate change and increased land development, as well as global travel and shipping. Humans are encroaching on and developing previously undisturbed land where there are reservoirs for zoonotic viruses — bats, in this case. We also go all over the planet, and we bring guests along with us where we go. We don't see these aspects being discussed much by the press — at all, really. I haven't seen it mentioned much in these kinds of articles, personally.
I have an alternative hypothesis. Hear me out. Reflecting about how and why we are changing our environment — and the knock-on effects of that, such as bringing bugs back from where we go — is bad for business. That involves hard questions that the media does not generally ask, because slowing down or stopping development hurts profits. Looking at what changes are needed to slow climate change, say to slow the spread of pathogens endemic to tropical regions, as a recent example — that hurts profits. Inquiring into the side effects of moving people and products around the world is bad for profits. Investigating corrupt government leaders who make money off of short-selling stocks, diverting PPE supplies, or selling pool cleaner as medicine, say — that's bad for profits. I hypothesize that it is quite cheap and easy, however, to ignore a lot of empirical evidence and just ask questions that play on general cultural and racial mistrust.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:43 AM on May 26, 2021 [26 favorites]
I have an alternative hypothesis. Hear me out. Reflecting about how and why we are changing our environment — and the knock-on effects of that, such as bringing bugs back from where we go — is bad for business. That involves hard questions that the media does not generally ask, because slowing down or stopping development hurts profits. Looking at what changes are needed to slow climate change, say to slow the spread of pathogens endemic to tropical regions, as a recent example — that hurts profits. Inquiring into the side effects of moving people and products around the world is bad for profits. Investigating corrupt government leaders who make money off of short-selling stocks, diverting PPE supplies, or selling pool cleaner as medicine, say — that's bad for profits. I hypothesize that it is quite cheap and easy, however, to ignore a lot of empirical evidence and just ask questions that play on general cultural and racial mistrust.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:43 AM on May 26, 2021 [26 favorites]
I haven't seen it mentioned much in these kinds of articles, personally.
Check this article, by the very same Peter Daszak, actually referenced in that stupid Medium article. Check his call in April 2020 on India and the actual outcome of COVID, vs all the other articles which also jump to so many silly conclusions they own Tom from Office Space money.
Also, why the investigation into the lab is going to be fruitless: (same article)
"It’s impossible to say that it didn’t happen, and it never will be possible, even if you showed video evidence of every hour of everybody working in that lab. And there are video cameras up there. These are biosecure labs with very high-tech, sophisticated security systems. ...They’re accredited by the U.S. So, it’s ironic that now we’re saying they’re not very well organized. We actually inspected them properly and allowed them to open."
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:51 AM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
“How It Started, How It's Going”—On the Media, 21 May 2021
A year and a half into the pandemic, we still don’t know how it began. This week, a look at how investigating COVID-19’s origins became a political and scientific minefield. Plus, how a mistake of microns caused so much confusion about how COVID spreads.posted by ob1quixote at 11:53 AM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
Matt Yglesias discusses the "media fiasco" of the original coverage.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:54 AM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 11:54 AM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
if this was a natural virus being studied at the wuhan virology institute that escaped, it would be arguably the most egregious act of reckless criminal negligence by a government in world history, killing millions. not to mention the coverup.
to blithely dismiss an investigation into that as pointless ("what's the difference now?") or not worth it due to the potential of racism or it being used for political ends, would be a total abrogation of duty by the US government and a betrayal of everyone who died and suffered from the lockdown restrictions. everyone on earth deserves to know what the origins of this were and why the original WHO report that dismissed a leak theory as implausible is now viewed as politically biased by mainstream scientists.
posted by wibari at 11:58 AM on May 26, 2021 [23 favorites]
to blithely dismiss an investigation into that as pointless ("what's the difference now?") or not worth it due to the potential of racism or it being used for political ends, would be a total abrogation of duty by the US government and a betrayal of everyone who died and suffered from the lockdown restrictions. everyone on earth deserves to know what the origins of this were and why the original WHO report that dismissed a leak theory as implausible is now viewed as politically biased by mainstream scientists.
posted by wibari at 11:58 AM on May 26, 2021 [23 favorites]
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
Once the local governments had an idea something was up they should have acted sooner and alerted everyone about the risk. While the numbers were still manageable every other country should have blocked flights to/from China and travelers who had been to China recently, and once the European sources were discovered countries should have shut their borders from all sources.
Lock the borders for a month, contact trace any cases we had and make a plan for how to screen, quarantine, and test everyone who arrived after that month was up and we'd all emerge relatively unscathed like New Zealand. Instead our leaders in Canada were trying to keep things business as usual as much as possible and encouraging us to eat at Chinese restaurants to show how non-racist we all are.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:10 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Once the local governments had an idea something was up they should have acted sooner and alerted everyone about the risk. While the numbers were still manageable every other country should have blocked flights to/from China and travelers who had been to China recently, and once the European sources were discovered countries should have shut their borders from all sources.
Lock the borders for a month, contact trace any cases we had and make a plan for how to screen, quarantine, and test everyone who arrived after that month was up and we'd all emerge relatively unscathed like New Zealand. Instead our leaders in Canada were trying to keep things business as usual as much as possible and encouraging us to eat at Chinese restaurants to show how non-racist we all are.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:10 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Biden asks US intel officials to investigate COVID-19 origin
posted by chavenet at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by chavenet at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2021
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
Even if it was released by mistake, it would give countries one helluva leverage against China, which is why China is pretending covid-19 originated from imported pizza rolls or dirty backpackers. Imagine if countries decided to seek damages through established trade organizations.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:20 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Even if it was released by mistake, it would give countries one helluva leverage against China, which is why China is pretending covid-19 originated from imported pizza rolls or dirty backpackers. Imagine if countries decided to seek damages through established trade organizations.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:20 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Here's a less loaded, more scientifically grounded article on the subject.
posted by The Power Nap at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by The Power Nap at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2021
This Current Affairs article I thought gave a pretty even-handed treatment of the issue.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:34 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:34 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Comments linking to Nicholas Wade's article have been deleted. He has a track of creating racist content and should not be linked here.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [23 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [23 favorites]
he certainly does have a track record of racist views, but that's a remarkable position to take when the article in question (i) does not express such views and (ii) is linked in the wapo article that forms part of this fpp.
anyway, reposting without linking to his article:
if the lab wasn't working on this particular coronavirus, why not release the lab's records? obviously people would question whether any material released was genuine, complete, etc., but from the chinese government's perspective, what does it lose by releasing that information?
posted by inire at 12:49 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
anyway, reposting without linking to his article:
if the lab wasn't working on this particular coronavirus, why not release the lab's records? obviously people would question whether any material released was genuine, complete, etc., but from the chinese government's perspective, what does it lose by releasing that information?
posted by inire at 12:49 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'm fine with scientists looking into the origins of the virus, but as a practical matter, what fucking difference does it make? Trump did worse than nothing about the pandemic; he actively lied about how serious it what and discouraged people from protecting themselves and others by wearing masks.
He also repeatedly insinuated that evil Chinese doctors cooked it up. So what? It's not like oh, evildoers evil did it so you get a pass for letting over half a million Americans die on your watch.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on May 26, 2021 [9 favorites]
He also repeatedly insinuated that evil Chinese doctors cooked it up. So what? It's not like oh, evildoers evil did it so you get a pass for letting over half a million Americans die on your watch.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on May 26, 2021 [9 favorites]
I agree with kmt, I would very much like to read a knowledgeable scientific critique of Nicholas Wade's BAS article. I found it convincing before knowing about Wade's racism, and I would be curious to know how it's wrong.
posted by medusa at 1:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by medusa at 1:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
it's not his prior and presumably ongoing racism that gives me pause re his article, it's the fact that i recall his previous racist output was (in addition to being racist) criticised on scientific grounds as well.
so while i find his article moderately convincing, i do wonder whether he's making unjustified leaps and, if so, what they are.
posted by inire at 1:07 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
so while i find his article moderately convincing, i do wonder whether he's making unjustified leaps and, if so, what they are.
posted by inire at 1:07 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
but from the chinese government's perspective, what does it lose by releasing that information?
Eh, it's been kind of explained: I pointed out the CCP by default hides things. Someone else pointed out it might be to save face and that makes sense too.
But from me attempting to look at this from the Party's perspective, this is starting to look like a witch hunt. Because the WHO has already looked into it and the Party itself has already looked into it and both found nothing. It looks like the people demanding records already think I'm guilty, and if that's the case why would I give them fuel?
posted by FJT at 1:14 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Eh, it's been kind of explained: I pointed out the CCP by default hides things. Someone else pointed out it might be to save face and that makes sense too.
But from me attempting to look at this from the Party's perspective, this is starting to look like a witch hunt. Because the WHO has already looked into it and the Party itself has already looked into it and both found nothing. It looks like the people demanding records already think I'm guilty, and if that's the case why would I give them fuel?
posted by FJT at 1:14 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Wade article was the subject of a soon-deleted FPP a while back. My own experience reading it was that it was initially persuasive, but as it went on the lopsidedness became increasingly evident. Every nefarious insinuation was given full weight and all doubts were pooh-pooed.
His history aside, whether that particular article was explicitly racist, well... it was bending over backwards to blame the Chinese and commenters here worried that such lines of argument can lead to real harm. Also, it was at least gratuitous to have written, "They have barricaded themselves behind a Chinese wall of silence...." I don't know why he felt the need to do that or why an editor didn't strike it.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:16 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
His history aside, whether that particular article was explicitly racist, well... it was bending over backwards to blame the Chinese and commenters here worried that such lines of argument can lead to real harm. Also, it was at least gratuitous to have written, "They have barricaded themselves behind a Chinese wall of silence...." I don't know why he felt the need to do that or why an editor didn't strike it.
posted by sjswitzer at 1:16 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
i read wade's article -- knowing nothing about wade's history -- and did not find it convincing, although it may have been the most convincing yet among many such articles i've been pointed to by a friend whose feelings were hurt when i disparaged his (evidently racist) sources as charlatan conspiracy theorists unqualified to have an opinion. (i don't recall their names, and hesitate to point you toward their podcast or guest spot on bill maher). they had a source -- i think some of the above comments refer to a long medium article by a russian fellow -- who may have been convincing or not; i was unable to evaluate what he presented as scientific evidence. i was not convinced by wade because he made adverse inference upon adverse inference that were not required by the purported facts that he presented, and seemed to think those inferences were warranted because chinese/communist. i laughed out loud when he said (i paraphrase): how dare they call us conspiracy theorists when all we're doing is asking questions about the possibility that a bunch of people are covering up the truth? eventually i read the rest.
i do think wade's article, which i understand interested parties can find linked from stories linked above, is germane to this discussion. and, insofar as it is discussion about the trajectory of the idea of laboratory origin in the mediascape, i think questions of racism are also germane.
i, too, would value a point-by-point response to wade, et al., by a qualified virologist. i know TWiV personnel have repeatedly expressed frustration at the tenacity of the idea, though they haven't addressed it at length in some time. (see, e.g., episodes 737 c. 1:05:40 on WHO report and 722 c. 19:20 on beta coronaviruses found in thai and japanese bats).
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
i do think wade's article, which i understand interested parties can find linked from stories linked above, is germane to this discussion. and, insofar as it is discussion about the trajectory of the idea of laboratory origin in the mediascape, i think questions of racism are also germane.
i, too, would value a point-by-point response to wade, et al., by a qualified virologist. i know TWiV personnel have repeatedly expressed frustration at the tenacity of the idea, though they haven't addressed it at length in some time. (see, e.g., episodes 737 c. 1:05:40 on WHO report and 722 c. 19:20 on beta coronaviruses found in thai and japanese bats).
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
should add: until some advocate of thorough investigation into laboratory origin proposes some concrete steps that might lead toward the acquisition and evaluation of relevant information or data, i remain disinclined to consider that, short of identifying the source animal, an answer can be found.
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:35 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by 20 year lurk at 1:35 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
I really can't think of anything I'm interested in less than the origins of COVID-19. The fact that so many Republicans are glomming onto it as the GRAND UNIFIED DEMOCRATS SUCK theory tells me I'm doing the right thing.
posted by rhizome at 1:36 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 1:36 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
Dammit -- renewed virus-origin speculation is going to lead to more hate crimes, when Biden signed the anti-Asian hate crime bill just last week.
Wish I'd had the kind of social influence to give a crackpot* "Northern Italian Job" theory legs, as competition.
*Italian study suggesting COVID predates China outbreak sparks scepticism (Reuters, Nov. 18, 2020) Italy’s first COVID-19 patient was detected on Feb. 21 in a small town near Milan, in the northern region of Lombardy. But the Italian researchers’ findings show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in the cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had signs of having already encountered the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, most of them well before February.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wish I'd had the kind of social influence to give a crackpot* "Northern Italian Job" theory legs, as competition.
*Italian study suggesting COVID predates China outbreak sparks scepticism (Reuters, Nov. 18, 2020) Italy’s first COVID-19 patient was detected on Feb. 21 in a small town near Milan, in the northern region of Lombardy. But the Italian researchers’ findings show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in the cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had signs of having already encountered the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, most of them well before February.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
My understanding is that the scientific community thinks there is a lot of value in understanding the failures that allowed this virus to go from a single case to a global pandemic. By my count We’ve had 6 major pandemic threats since 1980: HIV, Bird Flu, SARS, MERS, Swine Flu, Ebola, and Covid. We stopped 50% of those from becoming pandemics. We need to learn from our mistake and know what mistakes we made. The only ways to do that it to trace the whole story of the virus’ jump into humans.
posted by interogative mood at 1:43 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 1:43 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
China, US, and WHO have all acted with their own ulterior motives on this. All relevant evidence is probably long since gone and nothing can be uncovered unless China puts out an official statement to that effect.
Anyways, scientists in the Lab might also have brought in and spread the virus from the community at large rather than the other way around as well.
posted by asra at 1:44 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Anyways, scientists in the Lab might also have brought in and spread the virus from the community at large rather than the other way around as well.
posted by asra at 1:44 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Personally I'm sort of avoiding everything written about this until it settles down. In like 5 years from now. I care, but I don't think I'm going to get a quick answer with so many people pitching a specific answer in the absence of evidence. So I will assume natural causes (Occam's Razor) and not waste the energy for now to try and deconvolute who's saying what based on what's filtered through confused journalists and contrarian pundits. Eventually they'll be more of a consensus.
but seeing a lot of this sentiment:
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
If a catastrophic flood killed 10,000 people I'd sure care whether it was a seasonal storm or a dam breach. And I can't really imagine anyone else saying "who cares?" in that situation either. It just seems important to have on the record.
posted by mark k at 1:46 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
but seeing a lot of this sentiment:
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
If a catastrophic flood killed 10,000 people I'd sure care whether it was a seasonal storm or a dam breach. And I can't really imagine anyone else saying "who cares?" in that situation either. It just seems important to have on the record.
posted by mark k at 1:46 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
such lines of argument can lead to real harm
they absolutely can, and have. but that's a reason to take better measures to protect people's safety, not a reason to avoid trying to identify the possible source of the pandemic (as long as you're doing so in an evidence-based and well-reasoned way, which i'm not clear if wade is - but then he's not the only one raising the possibility of a lab leak).
the origin of the pandemic isn't as important as how to stop it, but it is important. for one thing, if it did turn out to be an accidental lab leak, that's either due to a one-in-a-million series of extraordinary events that allowed the virus to escape despite proper controls being in place (in which case there may not be lessons to learn), or it's due to inadequate and / or flawed controls.
if it's the latter, some remedial steps need to be taken globally, and quick, to reduce the risk of poorly-conducted virology research kicking off another global pandemic.
posted by inire at 1:47 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
they absolutely can, and have. but that's a reason to take better measures to protect people's safety, not a reason to avoid trying to identify the possible source of the pandemic (as long as you're doing so in an evidence-based and well-reasoned way, which i'm not clear if wade is - but then he's not the only one raising the possibility of a lab leak).
the origin of the pandemic isn't as important as how to stop it, but it is important. for one thing, if it did turn out to be an accidental lab leak, that's either due to a one-in-a-million series of extraordinary events that allowed the virus to escape despite proper controls being in place (in which case there may not be lessons to learn), or it's due to inadequate and / or flawed controls.
if it's the latter, some remedial steps need to be taken globally, and quick, to reduce the risk of poorly-conducted virology research kicking off another global pandemic.
posted by inire at 1:47 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
I am so frustrated with the world's, and especially the news media's, utter collective amnesia sometimes. Here's a "timeline" for ya:
2006, Senate hearing [transcript]: Preparing for Pandemic Flu
January 8, 2015, The Week: The next pandemic Think Ebola is alarming? Scientists expect a much deadlier virus to emerge in the not-distant future.
2016: The Obama administration develops a pandemic response playbook, because after the Ebola outbreak and Zika (remember Zika?) lots of infectious disease experts warned the government that we needed one.
May 2017, TIME magazine cover headline: WARNING: We are not ready for the next pandemic.
November 2018, CNN: The big one is coming, and it’s going to be a flu pandemic
November 2018, BBC: What if a deadly influenza pandemic broke out today? It’s been a century since the Spanish flu claimed up to 100 million lives. It’s only a matter of time until a similar strain re-emerges.
September 2019, Vox: The next global pandemic could kill millions of us. Experts say we’re really not prepared. We’ve got a bad habit of paying attention to pandemics only when it’s too late.
September 2019, ForeignPolicy.com: The World Knows an Apocalyptic Pandemic Is Coming But nobody is interested in doing anything about it.
2020-2021: [Pandemic happens]
May 2021, the entire news media: HOW COULD THIS HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED? IS IT ALL CHINA'S FAULT?!?!??
posted by mstokes650 at 1:47 PM on May 26, 2021 [115 favorites]
2006, Senate hearing [transcript]: Preparing for Pandemic Flu
January 8, 2015, The Week: The next pandemic Think Ebola is alarming? Scientists expect a much deadlier virus to emerge in the not-distant future.
2016: The Obama administration develops a pandemic response playbook, because after the Ebola outbreak and Zika (remember Zika?) lots of infectious disease experts warned the government that we needed one.
May 2017, TIME magazine cover headline: WARNING: We are not ready for the next pandemic.
November 2018, CNN: The big one is coming, and it’s going to be a flu pandemic
November 2018, BBC: What if a deadly influenza pandemic broke out today? It’s been a century since the Spanish flu claimed up to 100 million lives. It’s only a matter of time until a similar strain re-emerges.
September 2019, Vox: The next global pandemic could kill millions of us. Experts say we’re really not prepared. We’ve got a bad habit of paying attention to pandemics only when it’s too late.
September 2019, ForeignPolicy.com: The World Knows an Apocalyptic Pandemic Is Coming But nobody is interested in doing anything about it.
2020-2021: [Pandemic happens]
May 2021, the entire news media: HOW COULD THIS HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED? IS IT ALL CHINA'S FAULT?!?!??
posted by mstokes650 at 1:47 PM on May 26, 2021 [115 favorites]
Even if China created the virus in a lab, it doesn't excuse Trump and other officials -- but especially Trump -- botching the response.
Republicans are going to act as if the Wuhan lab story exonerates Trump, and it doesn't. Don't let them. (You hear me, news media? It doesn't! Don't let them!)
posted by Gelatin at 1:55 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
Republicans are going to act as if the Wuhan lab story exonerates Trump, and it doesn't. Don't let them. (You hear me, news media? It doesn't! Don't let them!)
posted by Gelatin at 1:55 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
i, too, would value a point-by-point response to wade, et al., by a qualified virologist
I'm not picking on you 20 year lurk, but this type of request happens all the time.
Someone completely unqualified makes all sorts of unfounded conspiracy claims (granted, sometimes with a seed of truth to ground them), than demands a point-by-point refutation by actual-real-scientists to their blather. Why should scientists spend their time and energy refuting this kind of stuff?
Flat-earthers and creationists come to mind as extreme examples of this tactic.
Wade is a journalist and science writer, not a scientific expert in the field of virology, genetics, or epidemiology. I think it is fair to weight his article on the subject accordingly.
That said, it is important to find out how pandemics start in order to plan for the future.
posted by fimbulvetr at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm not picking on you 20 year lurk, but this type of request happens all the time.
Someone completely unqualified makes all sorts of unfounded conspiracy claims (granted, sometimes with a seed of truth to ground them), than demands a point-by-point refutation by actual-real-scientists to their blather. Why should scientists spend their time and energy refuting this kind of stuff?
Flat-earthers and creationists come to mind as extreme examples of this tactic.
Wade is a journalist and science writer, not a scientific expert in the field of virology, genetics, or epidemiology. I think it is fair to weight his article on the subject accordingly.
That said, it is important to find out how pandemics start in order to plan for the future.
posted by fimbulvetr at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
The fact that so many Republicans are glomming onto it as the GRAND UNIFIED DEMOCRATS SUCK theory tells me I'm doing the right thing.
In a previous thread, I pointed to some recent research out of MIT on the misuse of data science to push anti-mask rhetoric. What was interesting to me in that paper was the doggedness of those coopting real scientific language to push miscommunication — bullshit, in the technical Frankfurtian sense — and those in the GOP pushing against Fauci and others in the research community are using similarly bullshit questions about the Wuhan lab to do exactly the same thing now.
When the Tom Cottons and Rand Pauls of Congress keep pushing language in committee meetings about "gain of function" research, they are effectively using the legitimacy of scientific language that they do not understand to push their xenophobic agenda, one that is popular with their constituents, by implying the lab engineered the virus, despite all evidence to the contrary. It was suggested upthread that Trump had made it impossible to deal with this issue, and his acolytes in the GOP are certainly doing all they can to keep poisoning the well in their own twisted ways.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:02 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
In a previous thread, I pointed to some recent research out of MIT on the misuse of data science to push anti-mask rhetoric. What was interesting to me in that paper was the doggedness of those coopting real scientific language to push miscommunication — bullshit, in the technical Frankfurtian sense — and those in the GOP pushing against Fauci and others in the research community are using similarly bullshit questions about the Wuhan lab to do exactly the same thing now.
When the Tom Cottons and Rand Pauls of Congress keep pushing language in committee meetings about "gain of function" research, they are effectively using the legitimacy of scientific language that they do not understand to push their xenophobic agenda, one that is popular with their constituents, by implying the lab engineered the virus, despite all evidence to the contrary. It was suggested upthread that Trump had made it impossible to deal with this issue, and his acolytes in the GOP are certainly doing all they can to keep poisoning the well in their own twisted ways.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:02 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the old line about bullshit is that it takes an order of magnitude more work to refute it than to create it. We have to push back on obvious racists who are "just asking question" with an agenda without rebutting them point by point. Doing that is part of their strategy to exhaust actual experts while they rope in the useful idiots.
that said,
it would be arguably the most egregious act of reckless criminal negligence by a government in world history
So what? Blaming the person who pushed the first domino is less important that understanding why there were a million dominoes all lined up net to each other in the first place. Even if it came out of a lab, experts have been warning about a coming viral pandemic for years. We got lucky that SARS and MERS weren't more contagious. We continue to get lucky that the non-human reservoir of ebola remains really small and isolated. The response is infinitely more important than the source.
posted by GuyZero at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [15 favorites]
that said,
it would be arguably the most egregious act of reckless criminal negligence by a government in world history
So what? Blaming the person who pushed the first domino is less important that understanding why there were a million dominoes all lined up net to each other in the first place. Even if it came out of a lab, experts have been warning about a coming viral pandemic for years. We got lucky that SARS and MERS weren't more contagious. We continue to get lucky that the non-human reservoir of ebola remains really small and isolated. The response is infinitely more important than the source.
posted by GuyZero at 2:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [15 favorites]
Virologist? IANYV IANAV but I did at one time know an awfu' lot about synonymous codon usage. The key molecular evidence in the Nicholas Wade article is that , when compared to the nearest available wild relative, SARS-CoV2 spike protein has an extra 12 bases inserted in the middle which . . . make a furin cleavage site of four amino acids "PRRA" at just the place needed to promote viral infectivity. You can see this in Fig 6 of this peer-reviewed article. What the Nicholas Wade article fails to do, but which is apparent in that Fig 6, is acknowledge that furin cleavage sites are wide-spread in coronaviruses [it's the red bits]. Also [pedantic deet] the furin cleavage site isn't quite that but one codon along: RRAR.
TheNicholas Wade article interviews a bloke called David Robertson as a sort of straw man floating the idea that all kinds of weird and wonderful shit goes down in viral evolution and this is not really so surprising. I worked with Robertson in the 90s when he was a graduate student; just before he co-published a Nature paper showing recombination - to a precision of between This base and That base - between two strains of HIV-1 [that was ground-breaking at the time]. If Robertson thought there was codon woo-wah in SARS-CoV2, he'd be eminently qualified to flag it - but he didn't. That's the appeal to authority!
Someone with better Bayesian chops than me could work out the probability of getting a 12 base furin site in about the right place in the 30,000 bases of the SARS genome. Furin sites are quite woolly, so a variety of 12-bases-inserts would do the job. TheNicholas Wade article uses quite naive stats which are all post-hoc: we have a bad actor loose on the World, let's look really closely at one difference with another related virus which isn't really close enough to be the obvious wild progenitor. This reasoning ignores all the benign SARS-like viruses that have a furin site: many shown in that Fig 6.
Finally, the Undark article - - -cited by The Power Nap upthread, quotes David Relman [big cheese, hats off] saying that it's worth investigating the origin of this pandemic because it will help prepare for the next one. Do we ban visits to tropical bat caves or do we ban WMD?
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [35 favorites]
The
Someone with better Bayesian chops than me could work out the probability of getting a 12 base furin site in about the right place in the 30,000 bases of the SARS genome. Furin sites are quite woolly, so a variety of 12-bases-inserts would do the job. The
Finally, the Undark article - - -cited by The Power Nap upthread, quotes David Relman [big cheese, hats off] saying that it's worth investigating the origin of this pandemic because it will help prepare for the next one. Do we ban visits to tropical bat caves or do we ban WMD?
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [35 favorites]
agreed, fimbulvetr. i dismissed him for his poor argumentation and evident bias; just saying i'd welcome refutation on the merits as well. thank you, BoBTheScientist.
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 2:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
I don’t know anything, except that if this virus didn’t escape from the one lab on Earth that was doing this type of research, the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is the coincidence of the millennium
posted by moorooka at 2:15 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:15 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Why should scientists spend their time and energy refuting this kind of stuff?
Because communicating scientific knowledge and correcting misunderstandings is part of our job.
posted by biogeo at 2:15 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
SARS also originated in South China, it's not surprising that in a region that has a lot of zoonotic viruses active (bats, civets) that there's a research lab studying them.
posted by GuyZero at 2:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [21 favorites]
That is, the research lab is there because of the viruses, not the other way around.
posted by GuyZero at 2:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [53 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [53 favorites]
don’t know anything, except that if this virus didn’t escape from the one lab on Earth that was doing this type of research, the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is the coincidence of the millennium
Even prior to the pandemic there were many labs studying coronavirus. This one happens to be geographically closest to the animals that probably acted as the origin of the virus. It would be more suspicious if the virus had emerged somewhere further from the suspected animal populations.
posted by interogative mood at 2:25 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
Even prior to the pandemic there were many labs studying coronavirus. This one happens to be geographically closest to the animals that probably acted as the origin of the virus. It would be more suspicious if the virus had emerged somewhere further from the suspected animal populations.
posted by interogative mood at 2:25 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
Many labs may have studied coronaviruses but how many were doing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses? I believe that it was only the one lab coincidentally next to the pandemic’s epicentre, in a city geographically distant from any actual bat habitats
posted by moorooka at 2:32 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by moorooka at 2:32 PM on May 26, 2021
If a catastrophic flood killed 10,000 people I'd sure care whether it was a seasonal storm or a dam breach. And I can't really imagine anyone else saying "who cares?" in that situation either. It just seems important to have on the record.
I am far less concerned about where it came from tham I am about the fact that it is here now.
The likelihood of an unintentional lab leak is, to my own mind, many magnitudes greater than that of either extreme negligence on said lab's part (aw, jeez, Bob, I've told you five times now not to leave the vials open!) or some lab worker stealing vials of live virus and releasing them whilst twirling a Snidely Whiplash mustache. And the main people who are pounding the "Chinese lab leak" drumbeat are the same people who long to end their every spoken sentence with "China dēlenda est."
posted by delfin at 2:37 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
I am far less concerned about where it came from tham I am about the fact that it is here now.
The likelihood of an unintentional lab leak is, to my own mind, many magnitudes greater than that of either extreme negligence on said lab's part (aw, jeez, Bob, I've told you five times now not to leave the vials open!) or some lab worker stealing vials of live virus and releasing them whilst twirling a Snidely Whiplash mustache. And the main people who are pounding the "Chinese lab leak" drumbeat are the same people who long to end their every spoken sentence with "China dēlenda est."
posted by delfin at 2:37 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Maybe the problem isn’t “China”. Maybe the problem is research into how to make animal viruses more transmissible in humans.
posted by moorooka at 2:43 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 2:43 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
I've had a little bit of luck dissuading conspiracy theorists and racists who want to talk about Covid as a "bioweapon" by talking to them about bats, I think because while the details of viruses are heckin' complicated, some basic details about why bats so frequently infect humans with horrifying diseases (rabies, ebola, Nipah, SARS and MERS and Covid), either directly or indirectly, are fascinating and easy to understand.
Bats are highly social and highly mobile -- like modern humans! -- which makes it easy for viruses to spread among bat colonies, and for bats to carry those viruses far away. They're also (like humans) long-lived, so viruses can circulate in colonies over time, mutating as they encounter individuals with immunity to a prior version. (This fact may be too complicated.)
Because bats are the only flying mammal, a couple of really interesting things happen. Flying requires an astonishing metabolic expenditure, which sends their body temperature soaring. Meanwhile, when they roost in the daytime, most bats enter a daily torpor state. The difference between daily torpor and nightly flight body temperatures are astonishing -- 6–30 °C, depending on species. The normal human body temperature range is about 1°C.
Fever is one of the ways that bodies cope with pathogens, trying to burn them out. But viruses that cross into humans or other mammals from bats are used to handling massive temperature swings -- way bigger, even at the low end, than humans can manage. If you're running a fever that's 5°C above normal, you're already dead. For bats, that's just Tuesday.
(There's actually a whole bunch more evolutionary changes in bat immune systems to cope with high metabolism that may explain why they can reservoir viruses like rabies without all dropping dead like other mammals, but that's all back to "complicated and hard to understand.")
And then you gotta include the poop facts to drive the bat virus points home, because people remember gross poop facts: First, that bat poop is really valuable and humans have mined it for centuries (mostly for fertilizer, but you can also use it to make gunpowder). And that means bat poop is definitely getting in mouths, eyes, and noses. And second, when a bat colony takes off at dusk, in its thousands or even millions, and you happen to be walking near their cave, it's an instinctual reaction to look up at the MASSIVE SWEEP OF BATS, with your mouth slightly open. And bats tend to loose their bowels as they first take off. Congrats on accidentally swallowing and inhaling bat poop containing terrifying viruses.
(I am not a scientist, I just love reading about zoonotic diseases.)
" that if this virus didn’t escape from the one lab on Earth that was doing this type of research, the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is the coincidence of the millennium"
Uh ... it's really not. Lots of labs research bat viruses, and they tend to research them from local bats. The CDC and NIH both have bat labs in or near relatively large American cities.
In most ways, it doesn't actually matter exactly where this coronavirus came from -- there are going to be more of these diseases, many more, as long as humans and bats are coexisting. Some are going to become pandemics. The answer is actually more research on bats, bat immune systems, bat viruses, mRNA vaccines, and all that stuff, not less. (And obviously much, much better public health responses.) Even if we were to discover that any particular recent zoonotic-appearing epidemic was deliberately created in a lab or accidentally released from one, it wouldn't really do a damn thing to help prevent the next zoonotic epidemic. They're going to keep coming. Refusing to research them isn't going to stop these epidemics from happening; it will just make our responses slower and dumber.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:44 PM on May 26, 2021 [111 favorites]
Bats are highly social and highly mobile -- like modern humans! -- which makes it easy for viruses to spread among bat colonies, and for bats to carry those viruses far away. They're also (like humans) long-lived, so viruses can circulate in colonies over time, mutating as they encounter individuals with immunity to a prior version. (This fact may be too complicated.)
Because bats are the only flying mammal, a couple of really interesting things happen. Flying requires an astonishing metabolic expenditure, which sends their body temperature soaring. Meanwhile, when they roost in the daytime, most bats enter a daily torpor state. The difference between daily torpor and nightly flight body temperatures are astonishing -- 6–30 °C, depending on species. The normal human body temperature range is about 1°C.
Fever is one of the ways that bodies cope with pathogens, trying to burn them out. But viruses that cross into humans or other mammals from bats are used to handling massive temperature swings -- way bigger, even at the low end, than humans can manage. If you're running a fever that's 5°C above normal, you're already dead. For bats, that's just Tuesday.
(There's actually a whole bunch more evolutionary changes in bat immune systems to cope with high metabolism that may explain why they can reservoir viruses like rabies without all dropping dead like other mammals, but that's all back to "complicated and hard to understand.")
And then you gotta include the poop facts to drive the bat virus points home, because people remember gross poop facts: First, that bat poop is really valuable and humans have mined it for centuries (mostly for fertilizer, but you can also use it to make gunpowder). And that means bat poop is definitely getting in mouths, eyes, and noses. And second, when a bat colony takes off at dusk, in its thousands or even millions, and you happen to be walking near their cave, it's an instinctual reaction to look up at the MASSIVE SWEEP OF BATS, with your mouth slightly open. And bats tend to loose their bowels as they first take off. Congrats on accidentally swallowing and inhaling bat poop containing terrifying viruses.
(I am not a scientist, I just love reading about zoonotic diseases.)
" that if this virus didn’t escape from the one lab on Earth that was doing this type of research, the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is the coincidence of the millennium"
Uh ... it's really not. Lots of labs research bat viruses, and they tend to research them from local bats. The CDC and NIH both have bat labs in or near relatively large American cities.
In most ways, it doesn't actually matter exactly where this coronavirus came from -- there are going to be more of these diseases, many more, as long as humans and bats are coexisting. Some are going to become pandemics. The answer is actually more research on bats, bat immune systems, bat viruses, mRNA vaccines, and all that stuff, not less. (And obviously much, much better public health responses.) Even if we were to discover that any particular recent zoonotic-appearing epidemic was deliberately created in a lab or accidentally released from one, it wouldn't really do a damn thing to help prevent the next zoonotic epidemic. They're going to keep coming. Refusing to research them isn't going to stop these epidemics from happening; it will just make our responses slower and dumber.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:44 PM on May 26, 2021 [111 favorites]
Many labs may have studied coronaviruses but how many were doing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses? I believe that it was only the one lab coincidentally next to the pandemic’s epicentre, a city geographically distant from any actual bat habitats
I think you got this backwards. The Wuhan lab detected the virus first. Not surprising since it's part of their job. So they detect it and suddenly we and the Chinese government see a bunch of people dying of a new disease. Before the virus is identified a bunch of people probably died of "pneumonia".
posted by rdr at 2:49 PM on May 26, 2021 [15 favorites]
I don’t know anything, except that if this virus didn’t escape from the one lab on Earth that was doing this type of research, the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is the coincidence of the millennium
Many labs may have studied coronaviruses but how many were doing gain of function research on bat coronaviruses? I believe that it was only the one lab coincidentally next to the pandemic’s epicentre, in a city geographically distant from any actual bat habitats
This is a whole lot of "just asking questions" speculation that's rooted in "this feels like it should be significant, like it's implausible for it to be otherwise" in the middle of a topic that's proved time and again that going on gut-feel is a bad idea that frequently leads awry.
To turn it around, how *do* you know it's the coincidence of the millennium? As you say, you don't know anything, except a whole lot of incomplete phrases that point in a particular direction. Maybe this is super likely & there's been people warning about this exact thing?
posted by CrystalDave at 2:50 PM on May 26, 2021 [23 favorites]
I don’t know anything,
Copied without comment.
except that if this virus didn’t escape from the one
Counting error noted.
lab on Earth that was doing this type of research,
Where by "this type of research" you can explain the technical details accurately...?
the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is
...quite clearly related to the lab being located near the area where the type of viruses being studied tend to naturally occur. As another commenter noted above, it would perhaps be more unusual and unexpected for a virus in this class to appear almost anywhere else on Earth.
the coincidence of the millennium
Wow. Given that very improbably coincidences occur regularly and frequently (the probability of any one given coincidence is very low, but the number of such coincidences is very, very high, and they are mostly independent of each other, so the very small probabilities add up to quite a strong probability that some very unlikely random coincidence will occur every day), "the coincidence if the millenium" is an exceptionally strong and drastic claim. It is the lowest probability coincidental event out of all of the very low probability coincidental events that have been occuring routinely every day for an entire millenium?! A claim that strong definitely needs some evidence and sourcing to back it up.
posted by eviemath at 2:51 PM on May 26, 2021 [26 favorites]
Copied without comment.
except that if this virus didn’t escape from the one
Counting error noted.
lab on Earth that was doing this type of research,
Where by "this type of research" you can explain the technical details accurately...?
the fact that it first appears on earth literally on the doorstep of said lab is
...quite clearly related to the lab being located near the area where the type of viruses being studied tend to naturally occur. As another commenter noted above, it would perhaps be more unusual and unexpected for a virus in this class to appear almost anywhere else on Earth.
the coincidence of the millennium
Wow. Given that very improbably coincidences occur regularly and frequently (the probability of any one given coincidence is very low, but the number of such coincidences is very, very high, and they are mostly independent of each other, so the very small probabilities add up to quite a strong probability that some very unlikely random coincidence will occur every day), "the coincidence if the millenium" is an exceptionally strong and drastic claim. It is the lowest probability coincidental event out of all of the very low probability coincidental events that have been occuring routinely every day for an entire millenium?! A claim that strong definitely needs some evidence and sourcing to back it up.
posted by eviemath at 2:51 PM on May 26, 2021 [26 favorites]
Maybe the problem is research into how to make animal viruses more transmissible in humans.
Gain-of-function research is extremely useful in many respects; deciding to simply terminate that line of inquiry just improves the chances you'll be confused the next time a novel virus appears, because (among other things) you'll be missing a lot of background information on mutations that improve transmissibility.
posted by aramaic at 2:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
Gain-of-function research is extremely useful in many respects; deciding to simply terminate that line of inquiry just improves the chances you'll be confused the next time a novel virus appears, because (among other things) you'll be missing a lot of background information on mutations that improve transmissibility.
posted by aramaic at 2:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
Between this, last week's credulous reporting of UFOs (could they be hyper-advanced Chinese drones?!), and the Communist Death Rays, the media seem to have a sudden interest in "just asking questions" about conspiracy theories pointed at China.
posted by Pyry at 2:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 2:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
If you did not know what "gain of function research" is in virology labs before last week, please don't start making out like it's the Da Vinci code or something, please.
posted by GuyZero at 2:57 PM on May 26, 2021 [33 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 2:57 PM on May 26, 2021 [33 favorites]
Between this, last week's credulous reporting of UFOs (could they be hyper-advanced Chinese drones?!), and the Communist Death Rays, the media seem to have a sudden interest in "just asking questions" about conspiracy theories
Maybe it's a side effect of the vaccines, that the rest of us in other countries that haven't been able to buy up as large a share of the world's vaccine production as the US should be worried about? :P
posted by eviemath at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Maybe it's a side effect of the vaccines, that the rest of us in other countries that haven't been able to buy up as large a share of the world's vaccine production as the US should be worried about? :P
posted by eviemath at 3:00 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Or is that the first vaccine dose, that I was fortunately able to get yesterday, talking?
posted by eviemath at 3:01 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:01 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
The issue is that Wuhan is not actually all that near where these viruses tend naturally to occur. China is an enormous country. Wuhan is one of many, many large metropolises in China that do not host bat habitats. It happens to host the only lab that was doing gain of function research to make bat coronaviruses more transmissible in humans. It was not only the only lab in China doing this research, but the only lab in the world. Yes it could be a coincidence that the virus first appears on its very doorstep. In fact this seems to be the general consensus here. There also seems to be a consensus that there is something egregious in noting how remarkable this coincidence is.
posted by moorooka at 3:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
The (sudden) shift of conversation to whether it came out of a lab… I mean, yes, people have been ranting about this for a while, but it really feels like it got to the surface of daily conversation (the post, the times) very recently, and goddamn. Aside from people who decide to ignore science whenever it’s convenient, and glom onto it only in moments of opportunity, it really feels like this whole diversion has some basic questions that are much, much more important at the moment.
1) Who benefits from this discussion? Who gains from the focus being on China and a lab that, being realistic, no matter what answers come out, the people driving the conversation will *never* be satisfied with? If the Chinese govt. out and says, “yup, our bad, we were working on a bio weapon, Steve’s had slipped, mea culpa” the people pushing this won’t be happy unless China also admits to being behind humidity, solar flares, and failed marriages.
But what do they gain? Well, shit, this has surely sucked the air out of any concentrated attempt to discuss the almost certainly criminal inaction, let alone possible actual criminal intent in the Trump administration’s reaction to the virus. Allocation of PPR favoring pro-Trump states over others? That should be in front of congress, people should be in jail.
Past that, sure, change the conversation, push “it was China” and maybe people won’t look to closely at how your network (fox) pushed misinformation that quite likely prolonged the pandemic, resulting in more deaths. Or, you know, Q-uncle, desperate to avoid any personal realization that their irresponsible bullshit narrative of the last year might have gotten loved ones killed. If it’s China, then it’s not your fault that you took part in anti mask rallies and “somehow” a family member later contracted COVID and died.
It’s an other to blame, a scapegoat that allows people to avoid ever having to take responsibility for their reckless, irresponsible behavior.
2) Have these people really thought this through? Let’s say, just for a minute, since we’re just asking questions that we find proof. Somehow Alex Jones manages to Mission Impossible his way into China and brings back definitive proof that it was developed in a lab. Hell, let’s find a way to imagine it was manufactured with the intent of starting a pandemic. The whole nation just standing there, twirling mustaches and Snidely Whiplash laughing. What actually happens then? We somehow get, what? Reparations? Do they honestly think the supervillain nation that they’ve decided China is would suddenly bend the knee to America?
I mean, never doubt that there are people who want war. These are always the people who have absolutely nothing at risk, no loved one in danger. And yeah, half the people who’ve been screaming about this for the past year, they’re all for, if not an actual shooting war, then at least a fresh Cold War with proxy police actions to fight. Meanwhile, hate crimes rise and they don’t care because clearly the only ones that can be trusted to be “real” Americans look just like they do.
It’s naked self-serving cynicism. Keep the spotlight away from any possible inspection, reflection, or introspection over our response, and find a scapegoat, especially one that is visibly different, and swell your ranks. Every time another person is saying, hmm, I mean, it’s not impossible, we’ve gotten that much further from any chance of dealing with things that might actually make a difference, investigating the domestic response, from profiteering to criminal actions, to investigating the shocking disparity in vaccinations by race and income in the early days of open vaccination. Instead, we’re giving oxygen to bullshit. Even if, going against pretty much all we know of how likely or unlikely this is, it somehow managed to be true, what fucking actual difference would it make?
posted by Ghidorah at 3:06 PM on May 26, 2021 [47 favorites]
1) Who benefits from this discussion? Who gains from the focus being on China and a lab that, being realistic, no matter what answers come out, the people driving the conversation will *never* be satisfied with? If the Chinese govt. out and says, “yup, our bad, we were working on a bio weapon, Steve’s had slipped, mea culpa” the people pushing this won’t be happy unless China also admits to being behind humidity, solar flares, and failed marriages.
But what do they gain? Well, shit, this has surely sucked the air out of any concentrated attempt to discuss the almost certainly criminal inaction, let alone possible actual criminal intent in the Trump administration’s reaction to the virus. Allocation of PPR favoring pro-Trump states over others? That should be in front of congress, people should be in jail.
Past that, sure, change the conversation, push “it was China” and maybe people won’t look to closely at how your network (fox) pushed misinformation that quite likely prolonged the pandemic, resulting in more deaths. Or, you know, Q-uncle, desperate to avoid any personal realization that their irresponsible bullshit narrative of the last year might have gotten loved ones killed. If it’s China, then it’s not your fault that you took part in anti mask rallies and “somehow” a family member later contracted COVID and died.
It’s an other to blame, a scapegoat that allows people to avoid ever having to take responsibility for their reckless, irresponsible behavior.
2) Have these people really thought this through? Let’s say, just for a minute, since we’re just asking questions that we find proof. Somehow Alex Jones manages to Mission Impossible his way into China and brings back definitive proof that it was developed in a lab. Hell, let’s find a way to imagine it was manufactured with the intent of starting a pandemic. The whole nation just standing there, twirling mustaches and Snidely Whiplash laughing. What actually happens then? We somehow get, what? Reparations? Do they honestly think the supervillain nation that they’ve decided China is would suddenly bend the knee to America?
I mean, never doubt that there are people who want war. These are always the people who have absolutely nothing at risk, no loved one in danger. And yeah, half the people who’ve been screaming about this for the past year, they’re all for, if not an actual shooting war, then at least a fresh Cold War with proxy police actions to fight. Meanwhile, hate crimes rise and they don’t care because clearly the only ones that can be trusted to be “real” Americans look just like they do.
It’s naked self-serving cynicism. Keep the spotlight away from any possible inspection, reflection, or introspection over our response, and find a scapegoat, especially one that is visibly different, and swell your ranks. Every time another person is saying, hmm, I mean, it’s not impossible, we’ve gotten that much further from any chance of dealing with things that might actually make a difference, investigating the domestic response, from profiteering to criminal actions, to investigating the shocking disparity in vaccinations by race and income in the early days of open vaccination. Instead, we’re giving oxygen to bullshit. Even if, going against pretty much all we know of how likely or unlikely this is, it somehow managed to be true, what fucking actual difference would it make?
posted by Ghidorah at 3:06 PM on May 26, 2021 [47 favorites]
Retrospective studies in Italy of stored blood samples found antibodies were present in a significant number of people there in September 2019 (paper). Until that is connected with China in some way, I'm not even convinced about country of origin.
posted by joeyh at 3:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by joeyh at 3:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [12 favorites]
It isn’t clear that WIV was engaged in gain of function research either. They were looking at existing virus proteins to evaluation how easily they could infect humans, but it’s not clear they manipulated the proteins. This is one of the things we need to have independent investigators determine.
posted by interogative mood at 3:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 3:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Everyone seemed pretty good with the wet market theory which is equally compelling and equally low-key racist.
Toronto is also not very close to Hong Kong or a big bat habitat, but yet somehow SARS managed to get there.
And as someone else mentioned, we have zero indication that Wuhan was where the virus actually started.
This is basically like looking for you lost keys at nighttime under a streetlamp because that's where the light is. For all we know there were several outbreaks of "a mysterious pneumonia characterized by fever, dry cough, and fatigue, and occasional gastrointestinal symptoms" but we label it as happening in Wuhan because that where there was a lab capable of identifying it as a novel virus.
In short, why are my keys always in the last place I look!
posted by GuyZero at 3:11 PM on May 26, 2021 [30 favorites]
Toronto is also not very close to Hong Kong or a big bat habitat, but yet somehow SARS managed to get there.
And as someone else mentioned, we have zero indication that Wuhan was where the virus actually started.
This is basically like looking for you lost keys at nighttime under a streetlamp because that's where the light is. For all we know there were several outbreaks of "a mysterious pneumonia characterized by fever, dry cough, and fatigue, and occasional gastrointestinal symptoms" but we label it as happening in Wuhan because that where there was a lab capable of identifying it as a novel virus.
In short, why are my keys always in the last place I look!
posted by GuyZero at 3:11 PM on May 26, 2021 [30 favorites]
The Chinese Communist Party always acts like it's hiding something, even when there's nothing to hide or whatever it's hiding is already known.
I have never encountered an organisation of which this was not true, or any embarrassing fact which was too trivial to bother concealing. Most of us have worked in offices; we know what happens when something becomes A Problem. It can be as minor as “who keeps failing to flush the toilet?” or “why are the good biscuits disappearing so quickly?”: it doesn't matter; people feel guilty or they want to protect people they imagine may be guilty or they want the disruption to go away or or or. Now scale that up to multiple levels of people doing the same and having conflicts between authority exerted via the country/province/city chain of command and the ministry/department/program/lab/team chain of command, where nobody knows anything but they don't want to discover that it was their fault. Hey presto, that's where we are right now: there may not be anything to find, but nobody who could potentially be found at fault is going to want further investigation.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:14 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have never encountered an organisation of which this was not true, or any embarrassing fact which was too trivial to bother concealing. Most of us have worked in offices; we know what happens when something becomes A Problem. It can be as minor as “who keeps failing to flush the toilet?” or “why are the good biscuits disappearing so quickly?”: it doesn't matter; people feel guilty or they want to protect people they imagine may be guilty or they want the disruption to go away or or or. Now scale that up to multiple levels of people doing the same and having conflicts between authority exerted via the country/province/city chain of command and the ministry/department/program/lab/team chain of command, where nobody knows anything but they don't want to discover that it was their fault. Hey presto, that's where we are right now: there may not be anything to find, but nobody who could potentially be found at fault is going to want further investigation.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:14 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
I would encourage anyone who thinks they have an air-tight explanation of where covid-19 came from to look up the definition of a "just-so story."
posted by GuyZero at 3:16 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 3:16 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
All I can think about in this context is how much (very much) (so very much) time and brainpower and money was spent "just asking questions" about whether vaccines cause autism.
Letting our national research agenda be driven by right-wing JAQasses who don't even care about the science (or health, or humans), in the end, is what makes me give up on the idea of intelligent life.
head::desk
posted by Dashy at 3:17 PM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
Letting our national research agenda be driven by right-wing JAQasses who don't even care about the science (or health, or humans), in the end, is what makes me give up on the idea of intelligent life.
head::desk
posted by Dashy at 3:17 PM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
It wasn’t first detected in Wuhan because the lab was in Wuhan. China has a nation-wide early alert system for unusual “pneumonia” outbreaks which they established after SARS. At the time it was identified as a novel coronavirus, the “pneumonia” outbreak had spread throughout Wuhan in a manner that was not comparable to any other location either inside or outside of China. This makes it very unlikely (although obviously not impossible) that it arrived in Wuhan after already spreading elsewhere
posted by moorooka at 3:18 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 3:18 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
The issue is that Wuhan is not actually all that near where these viruses tend naturally to occur. China is an enormous country.
Wuhan is the capital of the Hubei province which has many caves full of bats. This seems like another misunderstanding posing as a fact. There was a cave in southern China were a number of coronavirus samples were collected but that isn’t the only cave in China where the viruses exist in bat populations. One of the viruses collected in that cave had a 96% similarity to covid-19 but that is the same similarity we have with baboons so not evidence of anything.
posted by interogative mood at 3:21 PM on May 26, 2021 [16 favorites]
Wuhan is the capital of the Hubei province which has many caves full of bats. This seems like another misunderstanding posing as a fact. There was a cave in southern China were a number of coronavirus samples were collected but that isn’t the only cave in China where the viruses exist in bat populations. One of the viruses collected in that cave had a 96% similarity to covid-19 but that is the same similarity we have with baboons so not evidence of anything.
posted by interogative mood at 3:21 PM on May 26, 2021 [16 favorites]
If you weren't super into Chinese public health policy in early 2019 it seems kinda suspect to start now.
posted by GuyZero at 3:25 PM on May 26, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 3:25 PM on May 26, 2021 [21 favorites]
I don't get the huge pushback on even taking this seriously as a hypothesis. Is the lab leak theory the most likely explanation? No, not based on what we know right now. But the circumstantial nature of a (rare) coronavirus biolab being in Wuhan and the biggest novel pandemic in over a century starting in Wuhan and being of the exact type studied at the biolab should be enough by itself for a full and thorough investigation.
Like if Monsanto was doing genetic research on some kind of wheat-killing fungi at a lab in San Antonio and then a fungus that killed wheat showed up in the wild in San Antonio I wager a lot of the same folks would be yelling for blood before even an investigation. Now, again, because viral pandemics do happen naturally every so often that's quite plausibly the actual reason. But waaaay too many folks are just writing off the other possibility for no rational reason I can see?
That there are a bunch of idiots screaming online about Chinese Bioweapons and other racist nonsense doesn't actually affect the odds of this being natural or a lab leak.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
Like if Monsanto was doing genetic research on some kind of wheat-killing fungi at a lab in San Antonio and then a fungus that killed wheat showed up in the wild in San Antonio I wager a lot of the same folks would be yelling for blood before even an investigation. Now, again, because viral pandemics do happen naturally every so often that's quite plausibly the actual reason. But waaaay too many folks are just writing off the other possibility for no rational reason I can see?
That there are a bunch of idiots screaming online about Chinese Bioweapons and other racist nonsense doesn't actually affect the odds of this being natural or a lab leak.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
tl;dr - Some people seem to be conflating "there should definitely be a thorough investigation" with "IT WAS THE CHINESE THEY DID IT" and that isn't the same thing.
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [8 favorites]
China has a nation-wide early alert system for unusual “pneumonia” outbreaks which they established after SARS
I mean, SARS had a fatality rate of about 10%. Covid-19 we're still guessing, but it looks to be about 1%, maybe even lower because we don't know how many people are entirely asymptomatic but it looks to be a lot. The start of a covid outbreak likely will spread fastest amongst younger people who socialise more, travel more for work, and are most likely to be asymptomatic. It could easily have started anywhere in the province before exploding in Wuhan. It's a coincidence, I'll grant you, but given that I would have bet big money on the next zoonotic coming out of China anyway, it's not as big a coincidence to me as you are making out. Well within the realm of "sure, could be, could not be".
posted by stillnocturnal at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
I mean, SARS had a fatality rate of about 10%. Covid-19 we're still guessing, but it looks to be about 1%, maybe even lower because we don't know how many people are entirely asymptomatic but it looks to be a lot. The start of a covid outbreak likely will spread fastest amongst younger people who socialise more, travel more for work, and are most likely to be asymptomatic. It could easily have started anywhere in the province before exploding in Wuhan. It's a coincidence, I'll grant you, but given that I would have bet big money on the next zoonotic coming out of China anyway, it's not as big a coincidence to me as you are making out. Well within the realm of "sure, could be, could not be".
posted by stillnocturnal at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Because Benghazi. There is NO END of "thorough investigations" when started by JAQasses.
posted by Dashy at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Dashy at 3:32 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
That there are a bunch of idiots screaming online about Chinese Bioweapons and other racist nonsense doesn't actually affect the odds of this being natural or a lab leak.
It does affect the odds of, when someone pops up Just Asking Questions, whether that person is likely genuinely looking for answers with no particular conclusion or ulterior motive in mind or whether entertaining them is likely to get into "You know who *really* controls the CCP?"
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
It does affect the odds of, when someone pops up Just Asking Questions, whether that person is likely genuinely looking for answers with no particular conclusion or ulterior motive in mind or whether entertaining them is likely to get into "You know who *really* controls the CCP?"
posted by CrystalDave at 3:33 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think we need to apply Occam’s razor here.
The closest relative is from bat viruses in China (found far from Wuhan) that were taken back to the Wuhan lab and studied/modified
But this “isn’t evidence of anything” so we have to posit that there are other hubei bats with even more closely related viruses (albeit not actually discovered as yet) which somehow took this virus from their “local” bat cave into this city, where the bat-coronavirus-research-lab’s presence was a mere coincidence. There were no bats at the wet market so we’re left trying to identify an intermediate animal that was present in the wet market, for which no compelling evidence has yet been presented
posted by moorooka at 3:36 PM on May 26, 2021
The closest relative is from bat viruses in China (found far from Wuhan) that were taken back to the Wuhan lab and studied/modified
But this “isn’t evidence of anything” so we have to posit that there are other hubei bats with even more closely related viruses (albeit not actually discovered as yet) which somehow took this virus from their “local” bat cave into this city, where the bat-coronavirus-research-lab’s presence was a mere coincidence. There were no bats at the wet market so we’re left trying to identify an intermediate animal that was present in the wet market, for which no compelling evidence has yet been presented
posted by moorooka at 3:36 PM on May 26, 2021
For what it’s worth, if China admitted accidentally releasing the virus and the regimes international and domestic legitimacy terminally undermined as a result, the geopolitical consequences and explosion of racism would probably not be worth it. So although I don’t think it was an actual coincidence, I am content enough with this being the “official” truth.
posted by moorooka at 3:41 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by moorooka at 3:41 PM on May 26, 2021
SARS was civets.
Covid-19 infected 120 Dutch mink farms.
Honestly we don't even know it was it was bats.
posted by GuyZero at 3:42 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
Covid-19 infected 120 Dutch mink farms.
Honestly we don't even know it was it was bats.
posted by GuyZero at 3:42 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
I too read the Medium article by the apparently racist author (thanks for that info, new to me). A scientist in the MIT article also mentions the oddity of the furin cleavage site so there seems to be some discrepancies here (upthread there's a link claiming higher frequency).
Honestly, I think this is a distraction to some extent. My interest of some resolution to this has more to do with an analysis of Gain of Function research and it's not clear to me that any benefit outweighs the possibility of a leak and a resulting pandemic. There are surely scientists who know more than me who have some considered opinions about this and maybe an investigation would provide clarity. But given the previous guy's politicizing of the origin story of COVID, it's going to be difficult.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:45 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I think this is a distraction to some extent. My interest of some resolution to this has more to do with an analysis of Gain of Function research and it's not clear to me that any benefit outweighs the possibility of a leak and a resulting pandemic. There are surely scientists who know more than me who have some considered opinions about this and maybe an investigation would provide clarity. But given the previous guy's politicizing of the origin story of COVID, it's going to be difficult.
posted by bluesky43 at 3:45 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't get the huge pushback on even taking this seriously as a hypothesis.
I don't want to be a useful idiot.
posted by GuyZero at 3:46 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don't want to be a useful idiot.
posted by GuyZero at 3:46 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
I have always understood arguments about a lab leak to be arguments for an engineered origin of SARS-CoV-2 that escaped. That still seems deeply implausible to me.
I will say, to my fault, I so deeply suspected the good faith of people making these arguments that I did not think to conceive of any other way a "lab leak" could happen.
But the idea that the lab studied viruses sampled from animals from somewhere else within the PRC and that a breach happened is not so far-fetched, particularly since lab biosecurity breaches have happened with alarming regularity.
"Not so far-fetched" doesn't mean true, or even likely true. I guess we'll see what comes of it.
posted by adoarns at 3:51 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
I will say, to my fault, I so deeply suspected the good faith of people making these arguments that I did not think to conceive of any other way a "lab leak" could happen.
But the idea that the lab studied viruses sampled from animals from somewhere else within the PRC and that a breach happened is not so far-fetched, particularly since lab biosecurity breaches have happened with alarming regularity.
"Not so far-fetched" doesn't mean true, or even likely true. I guess we'll see what comes of it.
posted by adoarns at 3:51 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Honestly we don't even know it was it was bats.
It's nonzero that it was a Bigfoot, but the field expert on that is Chuck Tingle and he has so far refused comment.
posted by delfin at 3:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's nonzero that it was a Bigfoot, but the field expert on that is Chuck Tingle and he has so far refused comment.
posted by delfin at 3:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yangyang Cheng (May 24, 2021 for Vice News):
In the popular imagination, the Chinese government operates from a panopticon: Every move is observed. Every order is dictated from the top down. The reality is much more complicated.posted by spamandkimchi at 3:53 PM on May 26, 2021 [21 favorites]
While the party under Xi Jinping has tightened central control, power within the bureaucracy remains fragmented. A lack of transparency, rather than serving a uniform agenda, is often the result of conflicting interests. Recognizing this intricacy is the first step in addressing underlying issues, so the same mistakes are not repeated in the next pandemic.
...
In the months since the pandemic started, politicians and pundits in the West would point to the Chinese government’s many mistakes and delayed actions as proof of a grand conspiracy. A monolithic, sinister China makes for a convenient adversary in great power competition. Painting the country as uniquely evil absolves outsiders of the need for self-reflection, obscuring the fact that a cumbersome bureaucracy, coupled with narrow self-interest, makes fertile ground for secrecy anywhere.
The othering gaze also tainted perceptions of the virus’s origin. The connection of earlier cases to a seafood market invoked racist stereotypes of native eating habits as a source of disease. Western mistrust of technological advancements in China was projected on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the country’s first Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) laboratory. With little concrete evidence, the competence and motivation of WIV staff were cast under the most ominous light. A 2018 U.S. State Department cable was widely cited as sounding the alarm about “real safety problems” at WIV. What the cable actually said was that the “state-of-the-art facility” had not been fully utilized due to bureaucratic inertia and a shortage of highly-trained staff. From Senate chambers to the White House, politicians with the biggest podiums started amplifying theories that the novel coronavirus was a Chinese invention.
I don't get the huge pushback on even taking this seriously as a hypothesis.
the huge pushback appears to be because people recognise that pursuing (let alone proving) the lab leak hypothesis will have a lot of undesirable consequences regardless of whether it's true, and / or because a mutant strain of the hypothesis was originally proposed by lunatic republicans.
none of that is related to the likelihood of a version of the hypothesis being true, but i can see why people would like it to be not only untrue, but so obviously untrue that it merits no further discussion.
unfortunately, it's not clear that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that.
(edited to add: obviously some of the pushback is because people have made inaccurate statements or flawed arguments - but not to the point where one can conclude the lab leak hypothesis is impossible / vanishingly unlikely, and not to the point that would justify the refusal to even entertain the possibility.)
posted by inire at 3:56 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
the huge pushback appears to be because people recognise that pursuing (let alone proving) the lab leak hypothesis will have a lot of undesirable consequences regardless of whether it's true, and / or because a mutant strain of the hypothesis was originally proposed by lunatic republicans.
none of that is related to the likelihood of a version of the hypothesis being true, but i can see why people would like it to be not only untrue, but so obviously untrue that it merits no further discussion.
unfortunately, it's not clear that there's sufficient evidence to conclude that.
(edited to add: obviously some of the pushback is because people have made inaccurate statements or flawed arguments - but not to the point where one can conclude the lab leak hypothesis is impossible / vanishingly unlikely, and not to the point that would justify the refusal to even entertain the possibility.)
posted by inire at 3:56 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Based on five entire minutes of research it seems that ebola is also thought to come from bats but no reported cases have been the result of direct bat contact, so that plus the clearly demonstrated infectiousness in Dutch mink seems to indicate we don't need to find a literal smoking-gun bat. There were likely multiple steps in the chain of transmission between bats and the initial covid outbreak. Statements like "there were no bats in the wet market" prove nothing.
posted by GuyZero at 3:59 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by GuyZero at 3:59 PM on May 26, 2021
So what? Blaming the person who pushed the first domino is less important that understanding why there were a million dominoes all lined up net to each other in the first place.
so what? so, how would you feel if some US lab accidentally released this virus during the trump administration? and then trump officials covered it up? would that not be worth investigating either? to prevent it happening again or punish anyone who was reckless or lied about it?
nations impose sanctions and punishments on each other for far, far less than the world historic catastrophe we all just endured. if it was negligence and a cover up by the chinese govt, they should be sanctioned and ostracized.
posted by wibari at 3:59 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
so what? so, how would you feel if some US lab accidentally released this virus during the trump administration? and then trump officials covered it up? would that not be worth investigating either? to prevent it happening again or punish anyone who was reckless or lied about it?
nations impose sanctions and punishments on each other for far, far less than the world historic catastrophe we all just endured. if it was negligence and a cover up by the chinese govt, they should be sanctioned and ostracized.
posted by wibari at 3:59 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
I don't get the huge pushback on even taking this seriously as a hypothesis.
GuyZero has the more succint version, but for me, the pushback is based in a lot of the loudest voices demanding this investigation are the ones that are conflating a (wild) hypothesis with scientific theories, trying to cloak their strident demands for investigation in unearned language that makes it sound more likely than it actually is.
This is all a lot of noise and effort chasing down something that is a remarkably complexly unlikely outcome, and, given the source and the history involved, most likely in service of creating a distraction from something that could actually be true, proveable, and worth the energy to investigate: the early (lack of) response to the pandemic in America, and just how it was allowed to kill over a half million Americans. The goal of this bullshit, as has been shown in the past, is to distract and exhaust people. Give them something else to look at, move the news cycle along, and get to a point where only the fervent still demand action, while others say, "oh, that was ages ago, why are you dredging up old stuff?"
Past any sense of looking into Trump's administration, this also takes up valuable print space and sucks oxygen away from any serious inquiries into January 6th and working to prevent it again. It allows Rand Paul to grandstand and (in the eyes the right) scores points off of questioning why Biden is focusing on "less important" things.
It's just asking questions, which is, again, a smokescreen, and a naked attempt to push the overton window. And, yeah, seriously, what happens if, against all likelihood, it came from a lab? What then? Do we go to war? What concessions does anyone expect China to grant if it is somehow found culpable? That's the pushback.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:02 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
GuyZero has the more succint version, but for me, the pushback is based in a lot of the loudest voices demanding this investigation are the ones that are conflating a (wild) hypothesis with scientific theories, trying to cloak their strident demands for investigation in unearned language that makes it sound more likely than it actually is.
This is all a lot of noise and effort chasing down something that is a remarkably complexly unlikely outcome, and, given the source and the history involved, most likely in service of creating a distraction from something that could actually be true, proveable, and worth the energy to investigate: the early (lack of) response to the pandemic in America, and just how it was allowed to kill over a half million Americans. The goal of this bullshit, as has been shown in the past, is to distract and exhaust people. Give them something else to look at, move the news cycle along, and get to a point where only the fervent still demand action, while others say, "oh, that was ages ago, why are you dredging up old stuff?"
Past any sense of looking into Trump's administration, this also takes up valuable print space and sucks oxygen away from any serious inquiries into January 6th and working to prevent it again. It allows Rand Paul to grandstand and (in the eyes the right) scores points off of questioning why Biden is focusing on "less important" things.
It's just asking questions, which is, again, a smokescreen, and a naked attempt to push the overton window. And, yeah, seriously, what happens if, against all likelihood, it came from a lab? What then? Do we go to war? What concessions does anyone expect China to grant if it is somehow found culpable? That's the pushback.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:02 PM on May 26, 2021 [18 favorites]
I'd be very grateful if an actual molecular biologist would weigh in to evaluate the evidence [in Wade's now-unlinked Medium/Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article], especially regarding the "furin cleavage site" and the connection to the ongoing research in Wuhan.
I am a biochemist/molecular biologist who has kept up with this because some of the bad science has really annoyed me, but I work on weird bacteria, not weird viruses, so my opinions should be weighted accordingly. This also means that while I may be approaching the articles with more expertise, I haven't necessarily extensively vetted each of these references (in several cases I chose them solely because of figure clarity), and may not be aware of every development in the area. Those important caveats aside:
1. Furin cleavage sites are pretty common in coronaviruses, to the extent that the lack of a furin site used to be one of the unanswered questions about SARS-CoV1 (and to explain this, coronavirus researchers were studying a range of proteases that might help coronavirus Spike proteins mature, including both furin and other proteases like trypsin and cathepsin that can target simpler monobasic sites like the ones that are found in many SARS-CoV2 relatives. (The possible furin site in MERS-CoV seemed more normal!) While rarer in many of the bat coronaviruses most similar to SARS-CoV2, one relative is reported to have an insertion that is similar to the one that gives SARS-CoV2 its furin site.
2. Furin cleavage sites are non-universal in most of coronavirus subgroups, i.e. they are the kind of sequence that seems to be gained and lost a lot. See the sequence alignments in Fig. 6 in this paper by Wu and Zhao illustrating this. Some are probably passed around through homologous recombination when two different viruses are present in a host organism - a virology blog has a nice animated illustration of one of a bunch of possible mechanisms for this). The Medium article may imply that this is Really Weird And Uncommon but this sort of minor insertion/deletion is really quite common: viruses and bacteria (mostly) replicate fast and there are a lot of opportunities for evolution to happen, in the form of homologous recombination, horizontal gene transfer, "typos" by DNA and RNA polymerases, and probably other phenomena that I am forgetting. These are also the sorts of things that can cause codon distributions that vary from the rest of the genome as well - even if we rule out DNA coming from another source, which absolutely can cause this, random mutations and polymerase "typos" do not necessarily result in sequences with the same codon frequency as the overall genome, since the kinds of biochemical events that generate them have their own sequence biases. The quote from David Robertson, dismissed in the Medium article, is right on: I see this sort of gain or deletion of short sequences a lot in my own work, but if you don't work with microbes and viruses, you don't necessarily appreciate the extent to which this variability is both natural and common.
3. The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 isn't particularly great. The specific amino acids present in the SARS-CoV2 insertion are (S)PRRA(R), with the residues in parentheses present in closely related genomes, and the actual SARS-CoV2 furin cleavage site is RRAR - contra that Medium article, PRRA is neither the actual furin site in SARS-CoV2, nor, as the article even more dubiously implies, the "signature target cutting site" for furin in general, which it absolutely is not. (Whether this mistake is due to ignorance or sloppiness, it's not a good look to get this wrong when your argument hangs on this site). Rx(K/R)R is considered to be the preferred furin recognition and cleavage sequence, with "x" representing a site where more kinds of amino acids are accepted. See an early paper establishing this, and another paper with a bit more about the an extended RxRx(K/R)R 2nd motif - note that the precise distribution would no doubt look a little different if that work were re-done now, given the explosion of sequencing in the intervening years, and the validation of more furin sites in the lab, but the sequence logos in that first paper (bigger = more conserved!) are clearer to look at than huge alignments in some other papers. Commercial furin producers like NEB still consider these the canonical cleavage sequences. If I were engineering a protein to facilitate furin cleavage, I would either go with a site in the most closely related strain I could find that had previously been observed to work in at least cultured human cells in order to maximize chances of it working for my virus, or I would go with an "optimal" site. The PRRA insertion provides neither sort of site.
4. Presence of a furin cleavage site in that area of the Spike protein is not a guarantee of a virus that is more dangerous to humans, even when we are specifically talking about furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses in humans (despite the claims of the "biotech entrepreneur" quoted in the Medium article). Check out HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 in Fig. 1D in this paper (which is discussing how in SARS-CoV2 specifically, the furin site is important for some aspects of how it infects humans): The former has a non-optimal furin site like SARS-CoV2 (RRxR), the latter has a more optimal one (RxKR), but both cause mild illnesses. On the other hand, SARS-CoV1 doesn't have a furin site at all, and the RxxR site in MERS may not be super functional, per a sorta recent paper, but they are quite deadly by comparison to SARS-CoV2. Meanwhile, furin is helpful to SARS-CoV2 during infection of human cells, but it may not be essential to it - the experiments in a paper where furin production is eradicated tend to suggest there might be other proteases getting involved too, like the monobasic proteases mentioned in point 1. In other words: it's much more complicated than "add furin cleavage site to proto-SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, ...,profit bioweapon!!1!1!", and that's even with all the knowledge we have in 2021, with the whole research world focusing on SARS-CoV2.
Put all of this together, and to me, at least, the furin site in SARS-CoV2 does not particularly look like evidence of protein engineering (at least not via a targeted "let's put a furin site here" approach). That doesn't rule out evolution-based approaches, but those are both not what the "I can tell from some of the pixels!"-style Medium article is claiming happened, and they are sorta by definition pretty gonna be harder to differentiate from natural evolution. I'd also like to be clear that there could have been a totally accidental lab leak without any engineering whatsoever - bat coronaviruses were being studied in Wuhan (in part because of SARS-Cov1 and MERS-CoV - it was already quite clear it would behoove us to learn more about coronaviruses!), and it's a much more probable (if less sensational) event, because researchers are human and sometimes fuck up. But the only real way to prove that is epidemiological work + information about the strains in the lab, and the available evidence for either case isn't particularly solid (no thanks to the Chinese government, and also no thanks to the WSJ et al. for muddying the waters with a vague, dubiously sourced, and possibly politically-motivated report drafted by the State Dept. "in the final days of the [Trump] administration" with claims about researchers with "symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness" - I mean, no one's ever seen a nasty flu or cold sweep through a lab in the late fall, right?) Again: currently available data do not rule out a lab leak, particularly of the "studying a wild-type virus that got loose because someone was lax with PPE" sort, but the actual evidence for it is weak, and the evidence for active engineering of the sort discussed in the Medium article is much, much weaker than that. Absent new data, the simplest explanation is still that we lost the emerging disease lottery, just like we already did with SARS-CoV1 and MERS-CoV - but this time, as we knew would eventually happen, we lost it on an even bigger scale.
posted by ASF Tod und Schwerkraft at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [87 favorites]
I am a biochemist/molecular biologist who has kept up with this because some of the bad science has really annoyed me, but I work on weird bacteria, not weird viruses, so my opinions should be weighted accordingly. This also means that while I may be approaching the articles with more expertise, I haven't necessarily extensively vetted each of these references (in several cases I chose them solely because of figure clarity), and may not be aware of every development in the area. Those important caveats aside:
1. Furin cleavage sites are pretty common in coronaviruses, to the extent that the lack of a furin site used to be one of the unanswered questions about SARS-CoV1 (and to explain this, coronavirus researchers were studying a range of proteases that might help coronavirus Spike proteins mature, including both furin and other proteases like trypsin and cathepsin that can target simpler monobasic sites like the ones that are found in many SARS-CoV2 relatives. (The possible furin site in MERS-CoV seemed more normal!) While rarer in many of the bat coronaviruses most similar to SARS-CoV2, one relative is reported to have an insertion that is similar to the one that gives SARS-CoV2 its furin site.
2. Furin cleavage sites are non-universal in most of coronavirus subgroups, i.e. they are the kind of sequence that seems to be gained and lost a lot. See the sequence alignments in Fig. 6 in this paper by Wu and Zhao illustrating this. Some are probably passed around through homologous recombination when two different viruses are present in a host organism - a virology blog has a nice animated illustration of one of a bunch of possible mechanisms for this). The Medium article may imply that this is Really Weird And Uncommon but this sort of minor insertion/deletion is really quite common: viruses and bacteria (mostly) replicate fast and there are a lot of opportunities for evolution to happen, in the form of homologous recombination, horizontal gene transfer, "typos" by DNA and RNA polymerases, and probably other phenomena that I am forgetting. These are also the sorts of things that can cause codon distributions that vary from the rest of the genome as well - even if we rule out DNA coming from another source, which absolutely can cause this, random mutations and polymerase "typos" do not necessarily result in sequences with the same codon frequency as the overall genome, since the kinds of biochemical events that generate them have their own sequence biases. The quote from David Robertson, dismissed in the Medium article, is right on: I see this sort of gain or deletion of short sequences a lot in my own work, but if you don't work with microbes and viruses, you don't necessarily appreciate the extent to which this variability is both natural and common.
3. The furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 isn't particularly great. The specific amino acids present in the SARS-CoV2 insertion are (S)PRRA(R), with the residues in parentheses present in closely related genomes, and the actual SARS-CoV2 furin cleavage site is RRAR - contra that Medium article, PRRA is neither the actual furin site in SARS-CoV2, nor, as the article even more dubiously implies, the "signature target cutting site" for furin in general, which it absolutely is not. (Whether this mistake is due to ignorance or sloppiness, it's not a good look to get this wrong when your argument hangs on this site). Rx(K/R)R is considered to be the preferred furin recognition and cleavage sequence, with "x" representing a site where more kinds of amino acids are accepted. See an early paper establishing this, and another paper with a bit more about the an extended RxRx(K/R)R 2nd motif - note that the precise distribution would no doubt look a little different if that work were re-done now, given the explosion of sequencing in the intervening years, and the validation of more furin sites in the lab, but the sequence logos in that first paper (bigger = more conserved!) are clearer to look at than huge alignments in some other papers. Commercial furin producers like NEB still consider these the canonical cleavage sequences. If I were engineering a protein to facilitate furin cleavage, I would either go with a site in the most closely related strain I could find that had previously been observed to work in at least cultured human cells in order to maximize chances of it working for my virus, or I would go with an "optimal" site. The PRRA insertion provides neither sort of site.
4. Presence of a furin cleavage site in that area of the Spike protein is not a guarantee of a virus that is more dangerous to humans, even when we are specifically talking about furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses in humans (despite the claims of the "biotech entrepreneur" quoted in the Medium article). Check out HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 in Fig. 1D in this paper (which is discussing how in SARS-CoV2 specifically, the furin site is important for some aspects of how it infects humans): The former has a non-optimal furin site like SARS-CoV2 (RRxR), the latter has a more optimal one (RxKR), but both cause mild illnesses. On the other hand, SARS-CoV1 doesn't have a furin site at all, and the RxxR site in MERS may not be super functional, per a sorta recent paper, but they are quite deadly by comparison to SARS-CoV2. Meanwhile, furin is helpful to SARS-CoV2 during infection of human cells, but it may not be essential to it - the experiments in a paper where furin production is eradicated tend to suggest there might be other proteases getting involved too, like the monobasic proteases mentioned in point 1. In other words: it's much more complicated than "add furin cleavage site to proto-SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, ...,
Put all of this together, and to me, at least, the furin site in SARS-CoV2 does not particularly look like evidence of protein engineering (at least not via a targeted "let's put a furin site here" approach). That doesn't rule out evolution-based approaches, but those are both not what the "I can tell from some of the pixels!"-style Medium article is claiming happened, and they are sorta by definition pretty gonna be harder to differentiate from natural evolution. I'd also like to be clear that there could have been a totally accidental lab leak without any engineering whatsoever - bat coronaviruses were being studied in Wuhan (in part because of SARS-Cov1 and MERS-CoV - it was already quite clear it would behoove us to learn more about coronaviruses!), and it's a much more probable (if less sensational) event, because researchers are human and sometimes fuck up. But the only real way to prove that is epidemiological work + information about the strains in the lab, and the available evidence for either case isn't particularly solid (no thanks to the Chinese government, and also no thanks to the WSJ et al. for muddying the waters with a vague, dubiously sourced, and possibly politically-motivated report drafted by the State Dept. "in the final days of the [Trump] administration" with claims about researchers with "symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness" - I mean, no one's ever seen a nasty flu or cold sweep through a lab in the late fall, right?) Again: currently available data do not rule out a lab leak, particularly of the "studying a wild-type virus that got loose because someone was lax with PPE" sort, but the actual evidence for it is weak, and the evidence for active engineering of the sort discussed in the Medium article is much, much weaker than that. Absent new data, the simplest explanation is still that we lost the emerging disease lottery, just like we already did with SARS-CoV1 and MERS-CoV - but this time, as we knew would eventually happen, we lost it on an even bigger scale.
posted by ASF Tod und Schwerkraft at 4:04 PM on May 26, 2021 [87 favorites]
nations impose sanctions and punishments on each other for far, far less than the world historic catastrophe we all just endured. if it was negligence and a cover up by the chinese govt, they should be sanctioned and ostracized.
Who exactly are you going to "sanction and ostracize" for the 2009 swine flu pandemic?
posted by GuyZero at 4:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Who exactly are you going to "sanction and ostracize" for the 2009 swine flu pandemic?
posted by GuyZero at 4:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Nothing would make Trump happier than knowing that people decide what they personally believe to be plausible based on how it might affect Trump and company
posted by moorooka at 4:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 4:22 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Has there been any suggestion that the 2009 pandemic was an accidental escape from a biolab?
posted by Justinian at 4:22 PM on May 26, 2021
posted by Justinian at 4:22 PM on May 26, 2021
May 14, 2009 — -- An Australian researcher claims the swine flu, which has killed at least 64 people so far, might not be a mutation that occurred naturally but a man-made product of genetic experiments accidently leaked from a laboratory -- a theory the World Health Organization is taking very seriously.
There are conspiracy theories for literally everything. People have suggested it was just made up and a reason to sell Tamiflu. There has been zero evidence that those theories are correct.
posted by GuyZero at 4:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
There are conspiracy theories for literally everything. People have suggested it was just made up and a reason to sell Tamiflu. There has been zero evidence that those theories are correct.
posted by GuyZero at 4:29 PM on May 26, 2021 [10 favorites]
Virologist Dr. Angela Rasmussen retweeting pathobiologist Dr. Nsikan Akpan:
The most frustrating thing about the topic of SARS-CoV-2 origins has been the credulous way the media has treated this as a debate between 2 equally plausible hypotheses.
Nope, this is more like the debate over climate change. There’s the data and then there’s false equivalence.
[embedded retweet]
The most frustrating thing about the topic of SARS-CoV-2 origins has been the credulous way the media has treated this as a debate between 2 equally plausible hypotheses.
Nope, this is more like the debate over climate change. There’s the data and then there’s false equivalence.
[embedded retweet]
Dr. Akpanposted by spamandkimchi at 4:38 PM on May 26, 2021 [11 favorites]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change first met in 1990, where it predicted that GHGs could fuel global warming.
Even as more evidence accumulated, efforts to sow doubt delayed action.
The “natural origins” vs “lab leak” debate around COVID-19 has entered this realm...
Dr. Akpan on Wade's claims (the original tweets include screenshot images from relevant/cited articles):
Wade recently penned an op-ed in @BulletinAtomic
where he made two central claims about why SARS-CoV-2 could be bioengineered or involve gain of function research.
Both are unsupported, but the second on “serial passage” is objectively incorrect...
Serial passage is a lab method of growing a germ. Take a virus, drop it into a petri dish/beaker with some cells and let the germ infect/multiply.
Wade says this could have been done to breed SARS-CoV-2 without leaving a sign—a point opposed by multiple studies of the virus.
The takeaway is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates in predictable ways when you remove it from a body and put it into a petri dish.
These changes include genetic deletions that make the coronavirus less likely to infect humans.
posted by spamandkimchi at 4:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wade recently penned an op-ed in @BulletinAtomic
where he made two central claims about why SARS-CoV-2 could be bioengineered or involve gain of function research.
Both are unsupported, but the second on “serial passage” is objectively incorrect...
Serial passage is a lab method of growing a germ. Take a virus, drop it into a petri dish/beaker with some cells and let the germ infect/multiply.
Wade says this could have been done to breed SARS-CoV-2 without leaving a sign—a point opposed by multiple studies of the virus.
The takeaway is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates in predictable ways when you remove it from a body and put it into a petri dish.
These changes include genetic deletions that make the coronavirus less likely to infect humans.
posted by spamandkimchi at 4:41 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
so, how would you feel if some US lab accidentally released this virus during the trump administration? and then trump officials covered it up? would that not be worth investigating either?
Hmm. So in this scenario, would you welcome with open arms an international group of investigators led by China to find out what happened? Because obviously, we can't trust any Americans to tell the truth in this case.
posted by FJT at 4:42 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
Hmm. So in this scenario, would you welcome with open arms an international group of investigators led by China to find out what happened? Because obviously, we can't trust any Americans to tell the truth in this case.
posted by FJT at 4:42 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
thinking that we're going to get to the bottom of it is foolish
if the virus' emergence had nothing to do with the lab in wuhan, the chinese gov't isn't going to want the rest of the world intruding on its internal business, because in general, they don't like that
if it did have something to do with the lab, they REALLY aren't going to want to cooperate
a lot of people screwed this up, everywhere - and in fact, they're not through screwing up
posted by pyramid termite at 5:20 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
if the virus' emergence had nothing to do with the lab in wuhan, the chinese gov't isn't going to want the rest of the world intruding on its internal business, because in general, they don't like that
if it did have something to do with the lab, they REALLY aren't going to want to cooperate
a lot of people screwed this up, everywhere - and in fact, they're not through screwing up
posted by pyramid termite at 5:20 PM on May 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Trump accuses people of doing the crimes he's actually guilty of. So if anything the fact that this came from Trump suggests to me that it was a US lab accident. Suppose some moron Trump political appointee at NIH ignored safety protocols / rules, like their boss man looking at the eclipse, then they get sick and then cough on some student who heads back to Wuhan for a family visit or some NIH researchers who travel to the WIV for a meeting with the same result. The theory is just as plausible.
posted by interogative mood at 5:27 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 5:27 PM on May 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
Trump accuses people of doing the crimes he's actually guilty of.
...the whole Republican party does this. Makes me wonder which Texas or Florida hospital released this plague upon us all.
I mean, I'm just asking a question about whether a white guy in Texas or Florida murdered millions of people, what's the harm in asking? They shouldn't have a problem unless they've got something to hide. There are "labs" aplenty in both states, sounds suspicious to me!
posted by aramaic at 5:33 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
...the whole Republican party does this. Makes me wonder which Texas or Florida hospital released this plague upon us all.
I mean, I'm just asking a question about whether a white guy in Texas or Florida murdered millions of people, what's the harm in asking? They shouldn't have a problem unless they've got something to hide. There are "labs" aplenty in both states, sounds suspicious to me!
posted by aramaic at 5:33 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
This argument parallels the UFO discussions.
Just because it's true that China has a lab that studies coronaviruses doesn't imply that the viruses was created there EVEN IF it potentially escaped from that lab.
Just because it's true that we've got real evidence of UNIDENTIFIED flying objects, that does not imply the existence of aliens.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:38 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
Just because it's true that China has a lab that studies coronaviruses doesn't imply that the viruses was created there EVEN IF it potentially escaped from that lab.
Just because it's true that we've got real evidence of UNIDENTIFIED flying objects, that does not imply the existence of aliens.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:38 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
What makes liberalism different is that at some point we choose to shed our internalized oppression by doing the grownup thing. Not the internalized thing where we worry what the enemy or oppressor thinks or react.
This applies to this question. At some point, I don't care that American right wingers want to exploit this. At some point, I don't care that China has a complicated cynical politics and is taking a defensive approach. The right thing to do is to have a clear and neutral investigation, with the result being an accountable, transparent explanation for the lay person and global public. It's all the extra domestic and international politics that make this reasonable scientific and medical proposition so volatile.
posted by polymodus at 5:57 PM on May 26, 2021 [17 favorites]
This applies to this question. At some point, I don't care that American right wingers want to exploit this. At some point, I don't care that China has a complicated cynical politics and is taking a defensive approach. The right thing to do is to have a clear and neutral investigation, with the result being an accountable, transparent explanation for the lay person and global public. It's all the extra domestic and international politics that make this reasonable scientific and medical proposition so volatile.
posted by polymodus at 5:57 PM on May 26, 2021 [17 favorites]
I'm fine with scientists looking into the origins of the virus, but as a practical matter, what fucking difference does it make?
and
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
It makes a huge difference in future regulation of the study of viruses and the safety standards used by labs doing this work. It makes a huge difference in international treaties regulating the research. It makes a huge difference in how billions and billions of dollars will be invested. It will make a huge difference in whether labs like NEIDL will be approved for operation in the heart of populous cities.
There's geopolitics in this, there's racism of course, but there's also genuine public interest and public safety that's at stake. And of course, there's boatloads of money.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
and
Unless the virus was intentionally released or sent to other countries I don't feel like it matters to me whether it came from a lab or not.
It makes a huge difference in future regulation of the study of viruses and the safety standards used by labs doing this work. It makes a huge difference in international treaties regulating the research. It makes a huge difference in how billions and billions of dollars will be invested. It will make a huge difference in whether labs like NEIDL will be approved for operation in the heart of populous cities.
There's geopolitics in this, there's racism of course, but there's also genuine public interest and public safety that's at stake. And of course, there's boatloads of money.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:03 PM on May 26, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'd be very grateful if an actual molecular biologist would weigh in to evaluate the evidence [in Wade's now-unlinked Medium/Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article], especially regarding the "furin cleavage site" and the connection to the ongoing research in Wuhan.
Right, if I'd found this earlier, I could have saved, uh, a lot of text. Kristian Andersen - whose group actually studies viral genomics - has an excellent twitter thread (threadreader version) about the furin site. Commentary about the site in the protein aspects mostly tracks with my observations (yay, gratifying to see I wasn't speaking totally ex recto), but there's some more detail about the evolution too, including a bunch on the codon distribution that I did not address. (Spoiler: the data don't particularly support engineering.) Elsewhere on Twitter, a self-reported pseudonymous virologist would, like me, have gone for a better furin site (threadreader) if they were engineering things - not that that's proof of anything, mind, but they do have an even more detailed explanation of why, including a helpful diagram about the importance of various positions in the furin cleavage site that isn't 20 years old. They also provide a link or two more about the furin site and glycans, and they note that it's actually hard to keep the furin site from mutating away during passaging in cell culture rather than in live hosts (highlighting one of the other points about predictable evolutionary trends in one of spamandkimchi's comments re: passaging-based gain-of-function research.)
posted by ASF Tod und Schwerkraft at 6:11 PM on May 26, 2021 [27 favorites]
Right, if I'd found this earlier, I could have saved, uh, a lot of text. Kristian Andersen - whose group actually studies viral genomics - has an excellent twitter thread (threadreader version) about the furin site. Commentary about the site in the protein aspects mostly tracks with my observations (yay, gratifying to see I wasn't speaking totally ex recto), but there's some more detail about the evolution too, including a bunch on the codon distribution that I did not address. (Spoiler: the data don't particularly support engineering.) Elsewhere on Twitter, a self-reported pseudonymous virologist would, like me, have gone for a better furin site (threadreader) if they were engineering things - not that that's proof of anything, mind, but they do have an even more detailed explanation of why, including a helpful diagram about the importance of various positions in the furin cleavage site that isn't 20 years old. They also provide a link or two more about the furin site and glycans, and they note that it's actually hard to keep the furin site from mutating away during passaging in cell culture rather than in live hosts (highlighting one of the other points about predictable evolutionary trends in one of spamandkimchi's comments re: passaging-based gain-of-function research.)
posted by ASF Tod und Schwerkraft at 6:11 PM on May 26, 2021 [27 favorites]
It's all the extra domestic and international politics that make this reasonable scientific and medical proposition so volatile.
Point taken, but it's not merely volatile, it's literally impossible.
You cannot have an accountable, transparent investigation in the current environment. Genocide (unrelated to the plague) is being committed as we speak, before our very eyes, and some of the people who claim most frequently to care about human rights are doing nothing because they want money. "Never again" my ass.
Global plague? Literally nobody on the planet is capable of rendering a neutral verdict, or even of collecting neutral evidence. Beyond which, no matter what anybody concludes, roughly 30% of the planet will decide to willfully disagree.
The judgment of the far-distant future, after everyone now living is dead, is our only hope for an honest accounting. That, and putting random evidence into bottles we'll cast into the sea in hopes future generations find them and decipher what remains.
posted by aramaic at 6:12 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
Point taken, but it's not merely volatile, it's literally impossible.
You cannot have an accountable, transparent investigation in the current environment. Genocide (unrelated to the plague) is being committed as we speak, before our very eyes, and some of the people who claim most frequently to care about human rights are doing nothing because they want money. "Never again" my ass.
Global plague? Literally nobody on the planet is capable of rendering a neutral verdict, or even of collecting neutral evidence. Beyond which, no matter what anybody concludes, roughly 30% of the planet will decide to willfully disagree.
The judgment of the far-distant future, after everyone now living is dead, is our only hope for an honest accounting. That, and putting random evidence into bottles we'll cast into the sea in hopes future generations find them and decipher what remains.
posted by aramaic at 6:12 PM on May 26, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's always worth replacing "Wuhan" with "Atlanta" and seeing if it makes the accusation sound silly.
Like how silly would you find it if someone were like: "The CDC, an American disease research laboratory located in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday reported the existence of bubonic plague transmission in rural New Mexico, confirmed by its Atlanta laboratories. New Mexico, the site of several major US military installations which have since the 1940s hosted experimental weapons programs, has been the site of several cases of bubonic plague, despite the fact that the plague is not native to North America. The United States, which hosted not one but two of the largest bubonic plague outbreaks of the 20th century, has worked to obscure its prior plague outbreaks, and dismisses accusations that cultural practices relating to recreational hiking, wildlife photography, and rural homestead practices in rural New Mexico are responsible for the current plague outbreak. The CDC in Atlanta, which is 1300 miles from the infection site in rural New Mexico, is known to host a variety of highly-infectious human pathogens, including pathogens that have been eradicated in the wild. The CDC claims it is merely a research laboratory, but the US government is known for obscuring prior accidental releases of human pathogens, and for conducting human pathogen research both in government laboratories and via grants to private labs. It is not known whether the transportation of the disease samples from New Mexico to Atlanta were conducted in a safe manner."
There are ABSOLUTELY cases of US labs releasing pathogens through carelessness, but the level of conspiracy theorizing around Covid and Wuhan is ridiculous. Human pathogen research in highly-secure facilities is normal. Human error in those facilities is normal. Investigating whether an outbreak came from those facilities is super-normal, but the vast majority of them are studied there, but not instigated there.
When cows were dropping dead in rural Wisconsin, they brought the carcasses to Madison not because Madison is where they create cow pathogens, but because Madison is where the scientists are who can figure out the problem. Scientists cluster in cities, where there's infrastructure to support sophisticated laboratories and facilities, and people with advanced degrees. It's not weird for infectious diseases to be "discovered" or "described" in urban areas, even if the infection originated in rural areas.
(And yeah, as a lover of zoonotic disease reading, what nature can do by natural reshuffling is FULLY AS SCARY as bioweapons laboratories can do.)
Also, if you're interested in global epidemics and emerging diseases, the best US news source is CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) out of the University of Minnesota, whose mission is to interpret and distill infectious disease research for laymen, media, and policy makers. I also follow the WHO Disease Outbreak news feed, which reports very short bulletins of infections of various reportable diseases around the world. But CIDRAP is the best English-language news source about emerging diseases; they were talking about Covid in December 2019 and summarizing research papers in January 2020. CIDRAP's whole thing is that reporters/communication specialists write up summaries, and then scientists who are specialists in infectious diseases vet them for accuracy -- they work to improve science journalism by ensuring that complex science can be explained to laymen in understandable ways, rather than local randos shooting their shot and scientists raging behind the scenes that their shot was bad.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:34 PM on May 26, 2021 [41 favorites]
Like how silly would you find it if someone were like: "The CDC, an American disease research laboratory located in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday reported the existence of bubonic plague transmission in rural New Mexico, confirmed by its Atlanta laboratories. New Mexico, the site of several major US military installations which have since the 1940s hosted experimental weapons programs, has been the site of several cases of bubonic plague, despite the fact that the plague is not native to North America. The United States, which hosted not one but two of the largest bubonic plague outbreaks of the 20th century, has worked to obscure its prior plague outbreaks, and dismisses accusations that cultural practices relating to recreational hiking, wildlife photography, and rural homestead practices in rural New Mexico are responsible for the current plague outbreak. The CDC in Atlanta, which is 1300 miles from the infection site in rural New Mexico, is known to host a variety of highly-infectious human pathogens, including pathogens that have been eradicated in the wild. The CDC claims it is merely a research laboratory, but the US government is known for obscuring prior accidental releases of human pathogens, and for conducting human pathogen research both in government laboratories and via grants to private labs. It is not known whether the transportation of the disease samples from New Mexico to Atlanta were conducted in a safe manner."
There are ABSOLUTELY cases of US labs releasing pathogens through carelessness, but the level of conspiracy theorizing around Covid and Wuhan is ridiculous. Human pathogen research in highly-secure facilities is normal. Human error in those facilities is normal. Investigating whether an outbreak came from those facilities is super-normal, but the vast majority of them are studied there, but not instigated there.
When cows were dropping dead in rural Wisconsin, they brought the carcasses to Madison not because Madison is where they create cow pathogens, but because Madison is where the scientists are who can figure out the problem. Scientists cluster in cities, where there's infrastructure to support sophisticated laboratories and facilities, and people with advanced degrees. It's not weird for infectious diseases to be "discovered" or "described" in urban areas, even if the infection originated in rural areas.
(And yeah, as a lover of zoonotic disease reading, what nature can do by natural reshuffling is FULLY AS SCARY as bioweapons laboratories can do.)
Also, if you're interested in global epidemics and emerging diseases, the best US news source is CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) out of the University of Minnesota, whose mission is to interpret and distill infectious disease research for laymen, media, and policy makers. I also follow the WHO Disease Outbreak news feed, which reports very short bulletins of infections of various reportable diseases around the world. But CIDRAP is the best English-language news source about emerging diseases; they were talking about Covid in December 2019 and summarizing research papers in January 2020. CIDRAP's whole thing is that reporters/communication specialists write up summaries, and then scientists who are specialists in infectious diseases vet them for accuracy -- they work to improve science journalism by ensuring that complex science can be explained to laymen in understandable ways, rather than local randos shooting their shot and scientists raging behind the scenes that their shot was bad.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:34 PM on May 26, 2021 [41 favorites]
There's still no evidence of direct tampering with the code identified by reputable molecular biologists or others with expert domain knowledge. The arguments by the people, some of them trained scientists, that SARS-CoV-2 is *so good* at what it does that it must have been selected by a lab for study or culturing just seems like a weak argument. There's a huge selection bias: of course this virus is good at what it does, because it was successful enough to spread. We don't concern ourselves overly about all the other zoonotic virus that emerge and don't spread that much. We only concern ourselves about the effective ones. It also smacks of the argument from design loved by creationists: SARS-CoV-2 is so efficient that, like the eye, it could not simply have accreted these functions over time: it must have been created!
Just because we haven found the specific reservoir does not also mean that it was a lab leak: this is true for SARS1, Ebola, MERS, etc. SARS-CoV-1 even showed multiple crossover events from its phylogeny. We don't assume this is due to nefarious lab shenanigans. the news that in December 2019 China was testing dozens of animal species for the virus argues against that unit having first-hand lab-derived knowledge of an animal reservoir. Unless you choose to believe that *they* were testing as a smokescreen. But that's just epicycling into QAnon territory.
There was a big influenza outbreak in Wuhan before and after the first COVID-19 cases were identified so it's not surprising that people from a lab were getting sick. Lots of people were getting sick. The idea that Wuhan is so far away from the probable animal reservoirs that "it must have been transported" is belied by the spread of the virus during November and December 2019. We have retrospectively identified people were already infected in the US by December 2019, and in Italy also and possibly already in November 2019. The fact that the outbreak took hold so early in Wuhan may be simply nothing more than the bad luck of a confluence of random superspreader events. We have seen over the past year how arbitrary and weirdly localized these can sometimes be. We simply don't if someone was infected remotely and a chain transmission ended up early in Wuhan. or if a reservoir or intermediate host was transported some or all of the way to Wuhan.
I'm not saying it wasn't a lab leak. But the entire argument for this is based on speculation, without any firm evidence. So in the absence of evidence, people spin these complicated stories.
posted by meehawl at 6:39 PM on May 26, 2021 [20 favorites]
Just because we haven found the specific reservoir does not also mean that it was a lab leak: this is true for SARS1, Ebola, MERS, etc. SARS-CoV-1 even showed multiple crossover events from its phylogeny. We don't assume this is due to nefarious lab shenanigans. the news that in December 2019 China was testing dozens of animal species for the virus argues against that unit having first-hand lab-derived knowledge of an animal reservoir. Unless you choose to believe that *they* were testing as a smokescreen. But that's just epicycling into QAnon territory.
There was a big influenza outbreak in Wuhan before and after the first COVID-19 cases were identified so it's not surprising that people from a lab were getting sick. Lots of people were getting sick. The idea that Wuhan is so far away from the probable animal reservoirs that "it must have been transported" is belied by the spread of the virus during November and December 2019. We have retrospectively identified people were already infected in the US by December 2019, and in Italy also and possibly already in November 2019. The fact that the outbreak took hold so early in Wuhan may be simply nothing more than the bad luck of a confluence of random superspreader events. We have seen over the past year how arbitrary and weirdly localized these can sometimes be. We simply don't if someone was infected remotely and a chain transmission ended up early in Wuhan. or if a reservoir or intermediate host was transported some or all of the way to Wuhan.
I'm not saying it wasn't a lab leak. But the entire argument for this is based on speculation, without any firm evidence. So in the absence of evidence, people spin these complicated stories.
posted by meehawl at 6:39 PM on May 26, 2021 [20 favorites]
ASF Tod und Schwerkraft, That was excellent. thanks so much.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by bluesky43 at 7:08 PM on May 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
ASF Tod und Schwerkraft, That was excellent. thanks so much.
Seconded! I've seen a lot of responses from scientific experts in relevant fields that are something along the lines of, "I guess anything is possible, but having looked at the data, it's very unlikely the virus was engineered." It's really great to get a patient, deeper dive into why that is.
In a better world, I'd love to see an NTSB-style investigation into the chains of causality leading up to and through the pandemic, as well as an analysis of how we can somehow try to avoid repeating all of this a few or a hundred years from now. That analysis would definitely touch on the origin of the virus, but also the many human factors and government and organizational actions leading to the disease's spread and impact, not just in China, but in Italy, the UK, the US, Brazil, Tanzania, India, etc. This is a global crisis and the CCP doesn't have a monopoly on denial, CYA behavior, inaction, and bureaucratic snafus. A comprehensive assessment would cover everything from supply chain breaks, to PPE functionality, to the availability and progression of medical treatments, to public health messaging, to vaccine development and distribution, and a whole lot more.
But as this pandemic has proven time and again, we don't live in a better world. We live in this one. Given that the pandemic is still burning out of control in multiple locations around the world, I think there's a lot to be said for continuing to put our energy and resources into putting out the fire rather than diverting time and attention to investigating who started it (looking at you, Billy Joel).
It would take a miraculous confluence of ideal timing, scientific excellence, diplomatic prowess, and political will for an effective investigation to move forward, and that's just not going to happen right now. China isn't about to allow thorough fact-finding on the ground in its territory, so as others have pointed out, all of the bluster about the Wuhan lab has a near zero percent chance of obtaining facts, transparency, or accountability, but a very high likelihood of serving other political ends, distracting from other issues, and rising the tide of hate crimes against people of Asian descent. That's the primary reason why people are being so dismissive about the idea of pursuing an investigation.
On an emotional level, I feel like many if not most people in the world just went through one of the more traumatic years in their lives. People want answers, but they're also looking for catharsis. They want something concrete to which they can peg their fears, sorrow, anger, and despair. If that thing happens to be a malicious institution or person, it would also offer us an easy way to avoid future pandemics. In that case, all we have to do to prevent further global outbreaks is to constrain bad actors, rather than contend with the fact that we live in an uncaring natural universe in which tsunamis can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single day, towns are burned by forest fires and buried by volcanoes, and pathogens (some living, some not quite dead or alive) evolve at a breakneck rate. "This just kind of happens, and it will happen again," is a terrible reality, and pinning all this to a government or human agent helps edge people away from that existential cliff.
But we need to contend with the practical, political, and scientific realities before us. They are anything but comfortable, but ignoring them will only push us further from the truth of what we've gone through and where we are.
On a brighter note, as someone who used to and will likely once again work in offices, I would also like an NTSB-style investigation into why one person just does not flush the toilet. I have never gotten a satisfactory answer on that and I'm pretty sure nature isn't to blame.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
Seconded! I've seen a lot of responses from scientific experts in relevant fields that are something along the lines of, "I guess anything is possible, but having looked at the data, it's very unlikely the virus was engineered." It's really great to get a patient, deeper dive into why that is.
In a better world, I'd love to see an NTSB-style investigation into the chains of causality leading up to and through the pandemic, as well as an analysis of how we can somehow try to avoid repeating all of this a few or a hundred years from now. That analysis would definitely touch on the origin of the virus, but also the many human factors and government and organizational actions leading to the disease's spread and impact, not just in China, but in Italy, the UK, the US, Brazil, Tanzania, India, etc. This is a global crisis and the CCP doesn't have a monopoly on denial, CYA behavior, inaction, and bureaucratic snafus. A comprehensive assessment would cover everything from supply chain breaks, to PPE functionality, to the availability and progression of medical treatments, to public health messaging, to vaccine development and distribution, and a whole lot more.
But as this pandemic has proven time and again, we don't live in a better world. We live in this one. Given that the pandemic is still burning out of control in multiple locations around the world, I think there's a lot to be said for continuing to put our energy and resources into putting out the fire rather than diverting time and attention to investigating who started it (looking at you, Billy Joel).
It would take a miraculous confluence of ideal timing, scientific excellence, diplomatic prowess, and political will for an effective investigation to move forward, and that's just not going to happen right now. China isn't about to allow thorough fact-finding on the ground in its territory, so as others have pointed out, all of the bluster about the Wuhan lab has a near zero percent chance of obtaining facts, transparency, or accountability, but a very high likelihood of serving other political ends, distracting from other issues, and rising the tide of hate crimes against people of Asian descent. That's the primary reason why people are being so dismissive about the idea of pursuing an investigation.
On an emotional level, I feel like many if not most people in the world just went through one of the more traumatic years in their lives. People want answers, but they're also looking for catharsis. They want something concrete to which they can peg their fears, sorrow, anger, and despair. If that thing happens to be a malicious institution or person, it would also offer us an easy way to avoid future pandemics. In that case, all we have to do to prevent further global outbreaks is to constrain bad actors, rather than contend with the fact that we live in an uncaring natural universe in which tsunamis can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single day, towns are burned by forest fires and buried by volcanoes, and pathogens (some living, some not quite dead or alive) evolve at a breakneck rate. "This just kind of happens, and it will happen again," is a terrible reality, and pinning all this to a government or human agent helps edge people away from that existential cliff.
But we need to contend with the practical, political, and scientific realities before us. They are anything but comfortable, but ignoring them will only push us further from the truth of what we've gone through and where we are.
On a brighter note, as someone who used to and will likely once again work in offices, I would also like an NTSB-style investigation into why one person just does not flush the toilet. I have never gotten a satisfactory answer on that and I'm pretty sure nature isn't to blame.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:52 PM on May 26, 2021 [7 favorites]
Who exactly are you going to "sanction and ostracize" for the 2009 swine flu pandemic?
if anyone over the last year had compared covid to the flu on this site, they would be laughed out of here. and rightly so.
would you welcome with open arms an international group of investigators led by China to find out what happened?
hell yes. if the trump admin had been accused of accidentally releasing a virus on the world that killed hundreds of thousands in china, hell yes i would welcome chinese investigators coming to the US. hell. yes.
this pushback on investigating china on covid seems to be coming from those were MOST passionate that we take covid deadly seriously, that it was a crisis severe enough to stop everything for as long as it took to get to the bottom of it. and yet, now, because it might put us on the same side as idiots like tom cotton, we should flip and defend the chinese government? the same one perpetrating genocide against its own people in xinjiang? we should shrug and say "what's the difference?"
no.
posted by wibari at 10:27 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
if anyone over the last year had compared covid to the flu on this site, they would be laughed out of here. and rightly so.
would you welcome with open arms an international group of investigators led by China to find out what happened?
hell yes. if the trump admin had been accused of accidentally releasing a virus on the world that killed hundreds of thousands in china, hell yes i would welcome chinese investigators coming to the US. hell. yes.
this pushback on investigating china on covid seems to be coming from those were MOST passionate that we take covid deadly seriously, that it was a crisis severe enough to stop everything for as long as it took to get to the bottom of it. and yet, now, because it might put us on the same side as idiots like tom cotton, we should flip and defend the chinese government? the same one perpetrating genocide against its own people in xinjiang? we should shrug and say "what's the difference?"
no.
posted by wibari at 10:27 PM on May 26, 2021 [6 favorites]
ASF Tod und Schwerkraft, thank you very much for your thorough, kind and well sourced explainer!
As you were replying to my original request, I'd like to emphasize, that I was not "Just Asking Questions". I really didn't know what to make of those arguments and was looking for credible sources.
I also didn't expect this thread to turn into a US politics discussion.
Thank you again for your measured and clear explanation!
posted by kmt at 10:37 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
As you were replying to my original request, I'd like to emphasize, that I was not "Just Asking Questions". I really didn't know what to make of those arguments and was looking for credible sources.
I also didn't expect this thread to turn into a US politics discussion.
Thank you again for your measured and clear explanation!
posted by kmt at 10:37 PM on May 26, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is fun. I'm based in Atlanta and also Chinese so I've gotten to see our local authorities respond extremely poorly to the mass murder of APIDA women in one of the few remaining areas of northeastern Atlanta that has yet to be gentrified. Our old duplex rental was maybe a mile away from the spas on Cheshire Bridge and I know people who knew the people who worked there and who knew the mass murderer.
This idle speculation that the 'Chinese just created a plague and that's why the gov't is telling us to wear masks' is really going to make the day-to-day walks my partner (who isn't Chinese but does look East Asian) and I do very interesting. I'm definitely not a fan of COVID (who... is?) but I also don't like experiencing a persistent anxiety that I or my partner might have an, at best, unpleasant social encounter with someone who's a couple of steps removed from the high-level discussion about furin cleavage sites. So yea - I'm on the side of maybe having an investigation but also making sure the general public has no clue what's really happening and that all coverage on this topic just stops, ASAP.
And while I know it's fun to blame Trump for this shit y'all are kidding yourselves thinking that his lot is particularly responsible for the racist, anti-APIDA sentiment here in the US. Honestly, this whole bundling of modern day racism into the bogeyman vessel that is Trump is itself a white supremacist handwashing of entire centuries of violence.
Anti-APIDA violence is an American tradition, one that pretty much almost every white person I know has condoned in some way through their just complete apathy and inaction except in the rare instances when anti-racism is in the zeitgeist and confers social capital. I can count on one hand the number of white people I've known who have engaged in anti-racist organizing or action on a consistent, historical basis and that's only because I travel in those circles myself. Having a good take on Trump and his inflaming of an already existing, deeply rooted anti-APIDA racism by way of COVID is about the lowest fucking bar conceivable in terms of anti-racism.
posted by paimapi at 10:53 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
This idle speculation that the 'Chinese just created a plague and that's why the gov't is telling us to wear masks' is really going to make the day-to-day walks my partner (who isn't Chinese but does look East Asian) and I do very interesting. I'm definitely not a fan of COVID (who... is?) but I also don't like experiencing a persistent anxiety that I or my partner might have an, at best, unpleasant social encounter with someone who's a couple of steps removed from the high-level discussion about furin cleavage sites. So yea - I'm on the side of maybe having an investigation but also making sure the general public has no clue what's really happening and that all coverage on this topic just stops, ASAP.
And while I know it's fun to blame Trump for this shit y'all are kidding yourselves thinking that his lot is particularly responsible for the racist, anti-APIDA sentiment here in the US. Honestly, this whole bundling of modern day racism into the bogeyman vessel that is Trump is itself a white supremacist handwashing of entire centuries of violence.
Anti-APIDA violence is an American tradition, one that pretty much almost every white person I know has condoned in some way through their just complete apathy and inaction except in the rare instances when anti-racism is in the zeitgeist and confers social capital. I can count on one hand the number of white people I've known who have engaged in anti-racist organizing or action on a consistent, historical basis and that's only because I travel in those circles myself. Having a good take on Trump and his inflaming of an already existing, deeply rooted anti-APIDA racism by way of COVID is about the lowest fucking bar conceivable in terms of anti-racism.
posted by paimapi at 10:53 PM on May 26, 2021 [25 favorites]
This Week in Virology released an episode today where they interview Peter Daszak and members of the international team involved in the ongoing (as in has been going on for a while and is scheduled to continue into the future) investigation into the origins of the virus. Peter Daszak's area of research is viral transmission between animals and humans. Thea Kølsen Fischer is a professor of public health, virology and epidemiology, and Marion Koopmans is a virologist who studies emerging infectious disease. The people interviewing them are US-based virologists and epidemiologists.
They detail how their investigation is being performed, what information has be shared, what information is not available and why, and their conclusions so far.
Does the Biden administration plan to duplicate this work but with intelligence officers? It seems unhelpful when there is already an investigation by scientists going on. Since the lab was set up with consultation with American virologists and accredited to US standards, if the virus was being study in that lab and leaked, then we want to make sure we know what happened so that labs like this in the rest of the world can make sure their procedures are updated to prevent it. Having intelligence officers involved, I think, would reduce willingness to cooperate, and that could be terrible for all of us. If it crossed over in a wet market, then it's important to establish that and what specific conditions allowed it to help justify the closing of live animal markets if it is a substantial source. If crossover happened in the wild, again, it would be good to know where and how so that people can avoid those situations or establish guidelines around protective equipment when working in close contact with whatever wildlife was involved. Intelligence officers have no place in this, and would, imo, make the work harder.
posted by antinomia at 12:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [10 favorites]
They detail how their investigation is being performed, what information has be shared, what information is not available and why, and their conclusions so far.
Does the Biden administration plan to duplicate this work but with intelligence officers? It seems unhelpful when there is already an investigation by scientists going on. Since the lab was set up with consultation with American virologists and accredited to US standards, if the virus was being study in that lab and leaked, then we want to make sure we know what happened so that labs like this in the rest of the world can make sure their procedures are updated to prevent it. Having intelligence officers involved, I think, would reduce willingness to cooperate, and that could be terrible for all of us. If it crossed over in a wet market, then it's important to establish that and what specific conditions allowed it to help justify the closing of live animal markets if it is a substantial source. If crossover happened in the wild, again, it would be good to know where and how so that people can avoid those situations or establish guidelines around protective equipment when working in close contact with whatever wildlife was involved. Intelligence officers have no place in this, and would, imo, make the work harder.
posted by antinomia at 12:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think the Biden investigation is more political in nature, hoping to put to rest at least some of the uncertainty driving the public speculation by having completed a full investigation with a fully cooperative and transparent China. At least, that will be the narrative.
posted by xammerboy at 2:07 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 2:07 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: "and dismisses accusations that cultural practices relating to recreational hiking, wildlife photography, and rural homestead practices in rural New Mexico are responsible for the current plague outbreak."
This is excellent. Cultural practices, indeed!
kmt: *Everything* turns into a US politics discussion.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 4:14 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is excellent. Cultural practices, indeed!
kmt: *Everything* turns into a US politics discussion.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 4:14 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Personally, the aspect of all this that I just cannot wrap my head around has been what possible upside was there for so many leaders to, at first, so forcefully deny the virus' mere existence, and then just as forcefully deny its seriousness and fail to take any reasonable action on it, and in the process actively prosecute a misinformation campaign to convince their own citizens that the virus wasn't real/serious.
WTF was (and continues to be) at work there? It was so widespread and uniform it just seemed like a massive piece of organized groupthink, but with no discernible political upside or profit for those leaders that I can suss. Frankly, the political upsides to actually organizing and fighting the virus would seem to dwarf any possible upside to the path actually taken. I guess I just don't have a brain for political maneuvering, but I just don't get it.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:44 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
WTF was (and continues to be) at work there? It was so widespread and uniform it just seemed like a massive piece of organized groupthink, but with no discernible political upside or profit for those leaders that I can suss. Frankly, the political upsides to actually organizing and fighting the virus would seem to dwarf any possible upside to the path actually taken. I guess I just don't have a brain for political maneuvering, but I just don't get it.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:44 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Personally, the aspect of all this that I just cannot wrap my head around has been what possible upside was there for so many leaders to, at first, so forcefully deny the virus' mere existence, and then just as forcefully deny its seriousness and fail to take any reasonable action on it, and in the process actively prosecute a misinformation campaign to convince their own citizens that the virus wasn't real/serious.
The first rule of conservatism is that If Something Goes Wrong, It's Not Our Fault At All, It's Everyone Else's Fault.
COVID was a shot below the waterline to Trump's main "selling point" to the masses -- that he was a Business Genius who was making America's economy Great Again and making American businesses boom. So, everything turned into an extended effort by Trump in particular, and by other Republicans somewhat dependent upon Trump's success to maintain their own offices, to _deny_ that COVID was hurting the economy. Some of that was by downplaying COVID's seriousness and disparaging efforts to contain it as unnecessary. Some of that was directly accusing Democrats of deliberately overplaying containment efforts "because it would hurt Trump." Some of that was blaming China as loudly as possible, so as to promote the Great Enemy that Only Trump Could Defeat.
And some of it was simple acknowledgement that mitigation efforts _would_ cause some economic pain, _would_ be uncomfortable for most citizens in one way or another, _would_ involve people thinking about others besides themselves. To back that is to own that pain to some extent, to tell the faithful that "yes, this sucks, but it is necessary." But they didn't get into office in the first place by telling the truth; they got there by telling their base precisely what they want to hear, which is that Other People Are To Blame.
Trump kept praying that some wonder drug or UV light injection or bleach enemas or SOMETHING would emerge and magically transform the playing field back to "normal," to restore his Business Genius aura without him having to own any of the pain involved in the fight against COVID. It didn't. But for him to declare, "Actually, the liberals are right on this one, we need to work together to contain this" would've turned much of his base against him, because Cooperating With Liberals is an unforgivable sin in conservative talk radio land. And keeping the base happy was more important to him than keeping the base alive.
posted by delfin at 6:08 AM on May 27, 2021 [17 favorites]
The first rule of conservatism is that If Something Goes Wrong, It's Not Our Fault At All, It's Everyone Else's Fault.
COVID was a shot below the waterline to Trump's main "selling point" to the masses -- that he was a Business Genius who was making America's economy Great Again and making American businesses boom. So, everything turned into an extended effort by Trump in particular, and by other Republicans somewhat dependent upon Trump's success to maintain their own offices, to _deny_ that COVID was hurting the economy. Some of that was by downplaying COVID's seriousness and disparaging efforts to contain it as unnecessary. Some of that was directly accusing Democrats of deliberately overplaying containment efforts "because it would hurt Trump." Some of that was blaming China as loudly as possible, so as to promote the Great Enemy that Only Trump Could Defeat.
And some of it was simple acknowledgement that mitigation efforts _would_ cause some economic pain, _would_ be uncomfortable for most citizens in one way or another, _would_ involve people thinking about others besides themselves. To back that is to own that pain to some extent, to tell the faithful that "yes, this sucks, but it is necessary." But they didn't get into office in the first place by telling the truth; they got there by telling their base precisely what they want to hear, which is that Other People Are To Blame.
Trump kept praying that some wonder drug or UV light injection or bleach enemas or SOMETHING would emerge and magically transform the playing field back to "normal," to restore his Business Genius aura without him having to own any of the pain involved in the fight against COVID. It didn't. But for him to declare, "Actually, the liberals are right on this one, we need to work together to contain this" would've turned much of his base against him, because Cooperating With Liberals is an unforgivable sin in conservative talk radio land. And keeping the base happy was more important to him than keeping the base alive.
posted by delfin at 6:08 AM on May 27, 2021 [17 favorites]
I'd need to see a real smoking gun to believe this was a lab leak because the lab leak narrative is so convenient for US interests - we've been trying to gin up a new cold war with China for years, particularly under Trump, and as a result, many Americans are socialized to have a deep distrust of China in a way that far exceeds their feelings about other countries with ethically dubious governments. "China did it" would unite this country and produce god knows what horrible geopolitical and internal consequences. We've been wishing for a new cold war ever since the old one ended.
Also, for many years I was an admin in a virology lab and as a result met a lot of Chinese virologists, both visiting and permanent hires. This doesn't give me any actual virology expertise, of course, but it does mean that "Chinese virology lab" doesn't have a lot of the weird, racist associations for me that it does for many Americans. If there were a lab leak, it would be a terrible, terrible tragedy that happened in spite of lab protocols and that, frankly, could have happened anywhere with a sufficiently advanced virology program. Lab leaks and mistakes do happen all around the world because people are human and they sometimes work when they are tired, distracted, sick, etc.
In my heart even if it was a lab leak I am not sure I'd want to know because it won't put the virus back in the bottle and it would be unbearable for the lab in question. The Wuhan lab isn't full of careless people; I'm not, personally, worried about repeats. It would be suicide-inducing to know that you had caused the pandemic. It would probably result in people's families being ostracized or attacked and family members would undoubtedly face education and career consequences.
Virologists I have known have been predicting something like this for the past twelve or fourteen years anyway.
The thing with China is that it's always figured as simultaneously ultra-modern/powerful and sort of Orientalized/old/impoverished. It's far enough away that most Americans will never go there or even know someone who has gone. (This is v. different if you're Australian, for instance - people pop over to China on two-week work contracts, etc and were doing this even in the nineties.) It's not viscerally real and that makes it ideal for racist politics. (Like, if there were the suspicion that this had escaped from a UK virology lab, it would probably be in the news as a terrible tragedy and there wouldn't be calls for sanctions, etc.)
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on May 27, 2021 [27 favorites]
Also, for many years I was an admin in a virology lab and as a result met a lot of Chinese virologists, both visiting and permanent hires. This doesn't give me any actual virology expertise, of course, but it does mean that "Chinese virology lab" doesn't have a lot of the weird, racist associations for me that it does for many Americans. If there were a lab leak, it would be a terrible, terrible tragedy that happened in spite of lab protocols and that, frankly, could have happened anywhere with a sufficiently advanced virology program. Lab leaks and mistakes do happen all around the world because people are human and they sometimes work when they are tired, distracted, sick, etc.
In my heart even if it was a lab leak I am not sure I'd want to know because it won't put the virus back in the bottle and it would be unbearable for the lab in question. The Wuhan lab isn't full of careless people; I'm not, personally, worried about repeats. It would be suicide-inducing to know that you had caused the pandemic. It would probably result in people's families being ostracized or attacked and family members would undoubtedly face education and career consequences.
Virologists I have known have been predicting something like this for the past twelve or fourteen years anyway.
The thing with China is that it's always figured as simultaneously ultra-modern/powerful and sort of Orientalized/old/impoverished. It's far enough away that most Americans will never go there or even know someone who has gone. (This is v. different if you're Australian, for instance - people pop over to China on two-week work contracts, etc and were doing this even in the nineties.) It's not viscerally real and that makes it ideal for racist politics. (Like, if there were the suspicion that this had escaped from a UK virology lab, it would probably be in the news as a terrible tragedy and there wouldn't be calls for sanctions, etc.)
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on May 27, 2021 [27 favorites]
There's also LBJ's famed "my opponent enjoys carnal activities with sows" notion; an accusation doesn't have to be true to be effective, if you can make your opponent have to deny it publically. And the "it leaked from a Wuhan lab" conspiracy theory is slowly becoming the MODERATE position amongst the hard right.
(X) insisted that the Chinese researchers were engineering a "super virus" on Tuesday. He said that Fauci "downplays" his own role in the supposed research and suggested that he was trying to hide the truth over concerns that it may be determined that SARS-CoV-2 was created with lab manipulation.
"Scientists from other places have said, 'Yes, it was gain-of-function. They were making a super virus,'" (X) said. "And so then you have Dr. Fauci saying, 'Oh no, it didn't happen.' I think he's concerned that if it's discovered that it ultimately came from the Wuhan lab it will boomerang and come back to him."
So who is (X), moving on to direct insinuation that COVID was deliberately lab-synthesized, tuned for maximum infection and killing capacity, and that Fauci (the public face of the COVID Is Serious and Americans Need To Take It Seriously movement) bears some direct personal responsibility in its creation? Alex Jones? Candace Owens? Dinesh D'Shithead? Some guy with a political blog with 14 subscribers? A D-list radio host? Tucker Carlson?
No, a United States Senator, Rand Paul.
Does Paul actually believe this? I have no idea. But he does have a direct financial and influential incentive to have gullible Kentuckians believe this.
posted by delfin at 6:32 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
(X) insisted that the Chinese researchers were engineering a "super virus" on Tuesday. He said that Fauci "downplays" his own role in the supposed research and suggested that he was trying to hide the truth over concerns that it may be determined that SARS-CoV-2 was created with lab manipulation.
"Scientists from other places have said, 'Yes, it was gain-of-function. They were making a super virus,'" (X) said. "And so then you have Dr. Fauci saying, 'Oh no, it didn't happen.' I think he's concerned that if it's discovered that it ultimately came from the Wuhan lab it will boomerang and come back to him."
So who is (X), moving on to direct insinuation that COVID was deliberately lab-synthesized, tuned for maximum infection and killing capacity, and that Fauci (the public face of the COVID Is Serious and Americans Need To Take It Seriously movement) bears some direct personal responsibility in its creation? Alex Jones? Candace Owens? Dinesh D'Shithead? Some guy with a political blog with 14 subscribers? A D-list radio host? Tucker Carlson?
No, a United States Senator, Rand Paul.
Does Paul actually believe this? I have no idea. But he does have a direct financial and influential incentive to have gullible Kentuckians believe this.
posted by delfin at 6:32 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don't think the failure to act immediately or take the virus seriously splits that easily across political lines. My very liberal mayor initially urged people to keep going out at night, and fucked off to the gym even after announcing closures. My governor, the Patron Saint of COVID Briefings, delayed our shutdown because he didn't think it was necessary.
People didn't want to break from normalcy and they did a terrible job of wrapping their heads around the scope of the problem. Their personal, lived experience with infectious disease was based on cold and flu seasons, and it was hard for people to instinctively understand the imminence and scale of COVID's threat. Conservatives who engaged in long-term grandstanding and denialism should be called out for it, but there was a whole lot of magical thinking in the early days and weeks of the pandemic, and it cost us tens of thousands of lives. It wasn't limited to a single political party, and overcoming that hesitancy and fine tuning our ability to know when to respond is a key part of preventing this from happening again.
Also, I don't see anyone "flipping and defending the Chinese government." I see people patiently explaining virology, questioning the motivations of people leading the charge for an investigation of the lab, and worrying about the very real impact that a likely fruitless investigation would have on people who aren't even in China. A politicized investigation that zeroes in on an unlikely source, ignoring other options and likely preventing itself from gaining physical access to the lab or anything else in the process, isn't going to get us answers or accountability. It won't help us get closer to the truth, and if anything, it will distract from the very real atrocities in Xinjiang. It will, however, get people attacked in the street who have fuck all to do with virology and are just trying to buy groceries or walk to work.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:03 AM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
People didn't want to break from normalcy and they did a terrible job of wrapping their heads around the scope of the problem. Their personal, lived experience with infectious disease was based on cold and flu seasons, and it was hard for people to instinctively understand the imminence and scale of COVID's threat. Conservatives who engaged in long-term grandstanding and denialism should be called out for it, but there was a whole lot of magical thinking in the early days and weeks of the pandemic, and it cost us tens of thousands of lives. It wasn't limited to a single political party, and overcoming that hesitancy and fine tuning our ability to know when to respond is a key part of preventing this from happening again.
Also, I don't see anyone "flipping and defending the Chinese government." I see people patiently explaining virology, questioning the motivations of people leading the charge for an investigation of the lab, and worrying about the very real impact that a likely fruitless investigation would have on people who aren't even in China. A politicized investigation that zeroes in on an unlikely source, ignoring other options and likely preventing itself from gaining physical access to the lab or anything else in the process, isn't going to get us answers or accountability. It won't help us get closer to the truth, and if anything, it will distract from the very real atrocities in Xinjiang. It will, however, get people attacked in the street who have fuck all to do with virology and are just trying to buy groceries or walk to work.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:03 AM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
The thing with China is that it's always figured as simultaneously ultra-modern/powerful and sort of Orientalized/old/impoverished. It's far enough away that most Americans will never go there or even know someone who has gone
I should correct myself - most non-Chinese-Americans. Obviously Chinese-Americans are much more likely to know people who live or have lived in China, to have visited China, etc.
This whole thing gets me down so much. I really hate seeing US-China relations deteriorate, I hate the stupidity of the whole thing, I hate how we learned absolutely nothing, morally speaking, from the first cold war except that having a cold war is wonderfully convenient. I worked in coastal China for a couple of years and that has made me aware that to most non-Chinese Americans China isn't a real place - the things people say, the questions they ask. I'm not some kind of area studies genius here but, like, I've met people from Wuhan, I can imagine Wuhan.
None of this has anything to do with "defending the Chinese government" - it has to do with recognizing that your average Chinese virologist isn't the Chinese government. Your average American virologist isn't the US government, either, even though they generally get their funding from NIH or NSF. Virologists in general, IME, are a fairly internationally-minded bunch of people.
posted by Frowner at 7:19 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
I should correct myself - most non-Chinese-Americans. Obviously Chinese-Americans are much more likely to know people who live or have lived in China, to have visited China, etc.
This whole thing gets me down so much. I really hate seeing US-China relations deteriorate, I hate the stupidity of the whole thing, I hate how we learned absolutely nothing, morally speaking, from the first cold war except that having a cold war is wonderfully convenient. I worked in coastal China for a couple of years and that has made me aware that to most non-Chinese Americans China isn't a real place - the things people say, the questions they ask. I'm not some kind of area studies genius here but, like, I've met people from Wuhan, I can imagine Wuhan.
None of this has anything to do with "defending the Chinese government" - it has to do with recognizing that your average Chinese virologist isn't the Chinese government. Your average American virologist isn't the US government, either, even though they generally get their funding from NIH or NSF. Virologists in general, IME, are a fairly internationally-minded bunch of people.
posted by Frowner at 7:19 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
what possible upside was there for so many leaders to, at first, so forcefully deny the virus' mere existence, and then just as forcefully deny its seriousness and fail to take any reasonable action on it, and in the process actively prosecute a misinformation campaign to convince their own citizens that the virus wasn't real/serious ... it just seemed like a massive piece of organized groupthink
It was :)
Like you say, a rational response to a global, highly infectious plague is immediate quarantining measures, a rededication of government resources to enabling the survival of its population, cooperation among all concerned citizens, and a culture of general respect and educational moments on the most up-to-date public health measures.
Thing is, the above costs money and it costs standing in a geopolitical landscape where production and value and trade is everything - it determines electability, future trade deals, high-level policy decisions, power, etc. And domestically our post-Citizen's United society of more than a decade feels the same pressures of competition - letting your workers quarantine / go full remote translates into losing market share, investors - sets you back a few years on your arbitrary goal of reaching some level of revenue and profit. After all, you don't want to be the only ones making rational decisions prioritizing worker health since the businesses who don't do that will eat your lunch. And if you're a politician downstream of all of this, you're sure as shit not going to piss off major campaign funders by forcing them at a federal, local, municipal, county level to do the responsible thing that results in their losing market share.
The groupthink is capitalism, baby. We're so far into it that we don't even have the ability to recognize a reality not founded on its paradigms, and likely won't for many years afterwards when all of the retrospectives come out on the what will then be seen as just atrocious amounts of negligence for the pursuit of capital.
posted by paimapi at 7:24 AM on May 27, 2021
It was :)
Like you say, a rational response to a global, highly infectious plague is immediate quarantining measures, a rededication of government resources to enabling the survival of its population, cooperation among all concerned citizens, and a culture of general respect and educational moments on the most up-to-date public health measures.
Thing is, the above costs money and it costs standing in a geopolitical landscape where production and value and trade is everything - it determines electability, future trade deals, high-level policy decisions, power, etc. And domestically our post-Citizen's United society of more than a decade feels the same pressures of competition - letting your workers quarantine / go full remote translates into losing market share, investors - sets you back a few years on your arbitrary goal of reaching some level of revenue and profit. After all, you don't want to be the only ones making rational decisions prioritizing worker health since the businesses who don't do that will eat your lunch. And if you're a politician downstream of all of this, you're sure as shit not going to piss off major campaign funders by forcing them at a federal, local, municipal, county level to do the responsible thing that results in their losing market share.
The groupthink is capitalism, baby. We're so far into it that we don't even have the ability to recognize a reality not founded on its paradigms, and likely won't for many years afterwards when all of the retrospectives come out on the what will then be seen as just atrocious amounts of negligence for the pursuit of capital.
posted by paimapi at 7:24 AM on May 27, 2021
NPR's morning edition had a piece on the Covid-19 origin question this morning. They framed the question as "lab leak" versus "zoonotic transmission". They did not mention the possibility of the virus being artificial; that wasn't part of the discussion.
The people they spoke with stated that going by history, zoonotic transmission is vastly more likely. But they said there are policy implications of the answer, in terms of regulation of labs, wet markets, etc. Knowing the source of this outbreak, they said, could help prevent future outbreaks.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:34 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
The people they spoke with stated that going by history, zoonotic transmission is vastly more likely. But they said there are policy implications of the answer, in terms of regulation of labs, wet markets, etc. Knowing the source of this outbreak, they said, could help prevent future outbreaks.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:34 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
The Lab-Leak Theory, an explainer from this morning's NYTimes email briefing. It's not a bad overview of where we are and how we got there, but it's opinionated.
One new-to-me thing in that is a short paper from February 2020 written by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, two scientists from Wuhan. They write about two labs in Wuhan near the fish market where the outbreak was first centered. Both were doing Coronavirus research. That's all, just some circumstantial evidence. What I found most remarkable is two Chinese citizens wrote and published this at some risk to themselves. Anyway it's hardly proof that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab but it does explain some of the early suspicion.
posted by Nelson at 7:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
One new-to-me thing in that is a short paper from February 2020 written by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, two scientists from Wuhan. They write about two labs in Wuhan near the fish market where the outbreak was first centered. Both were doing Coronavirus research. That's all, just some circumstantial evidence. What I found most remarkable is two Chinese citizens wrote and published this at some risk to themselves. Anyway it's hardly proof that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab but it does explain some of the early suspicion.
posted by Nelson at 7:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
The thing here is that the Trump supporters are going to keep this up forever. No conspiracy theory dies. There is not going to be any credible evidence of a lab leak found, and they’re going to keep playing this story up and making it resurface from time to time as they have already been doing. If the GOP takes a house of Congress, there will be endless Benghazi style committees on it. If they take the WH, they’re going to use that to keep the narrative alive at the highest levels. You need to realize what we’re looking at. It’s their playbook. The whole bits of evidence being rearranged into the conclusion they want and revived when they don’t get the answer they want - it’s their pattern. They do this over and over. It’s not about a potential lab leak. It’s about defending their party and their leader. I’m so tired of this, and yet we’re doomed to repeat it until the end of the world.
posted by azpenguin at 7:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 7:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
could help prevent future outbreaks
I think this is the biggest selling point for me. The best way to contain an outbreak is to not have one in the first place. The more we know about the exact origin of COVID, the better chance we have at avoiding a future pandemic.
posted by gwint at 7:42 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think this is the biggest selling point for me. The best way to contain an outbreak is to not have one in the first place. The more we know about the exact origin of COVID, the better chance we have at avoiding a future pandemic.
posted by gwint at 7:42 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
excellent TWiV, posted by antinomia, above. with the furin articles and threadreaders, as well as relative expert insights, provided above, very informative, increasing my comfort that the parties best situated to investigate are assiduously pursuing that investigation. key takeaways: the noted WHO report from this past spring was the result of phase one of ongoing investigation. WHO investigation team members note the current focus/outraged pearl clutching over hypothesized lab leak is interfering with necessary pursuit of actual scientific leads produced in investigation to date. joyful quip: "when you mix science with politics, you get politics."
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:18 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 8:18 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think it might be worth differentiating between truth and accountability because this feels like an instance where, in the near term, we might have to choose between the two.
Getting at the truth and preventing future pandemics is going to involve a serious, thorough, unbiased, scientific investigation into not just the source of the virus but how the outbreak was managed. That investigation is going to require openness, access, and people acting in good faith.
It's already a long shot. I feel like it becomes a complete nonstarter unless the process is driven by people without ulterior motives and the international community somehow engineers a diplomatic solution in which the Chinese government is allowed to save face, as galling as that may be. If we go into Old Testament god mode and assign blame and attempt to extract consequences based on a paucity of evidence, we may never have the opportunity to obtain that evidence or use it to prevent future disasters.
So which is it? Truth or consequences?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:21 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
Getting at the truth and preventing future pandemics is going to involve a serious, thorough, unbiased, scientific investigation into not just the source of the virus but how the outbreak was managed. That investigation is going to require openness, access, and people acting in good faith.
It's already a long shot. I feel like it becomes a complete nonstarter unless the process is driven by people without ulterior motives and the international community somehow engineers a diplomatic solution in which the Chinese government is allowed to save face, as galling as that may be. If we go into Old Testament god mode and assign blame and attempt to extract consequences based on a paucity of evidence, we may never have the opportunity to obtain that evidence or use it to prevent future disasters.
So which is it? Truth or consequences?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:21 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
The thing here is that the Trump supporters are going to keep this up forever.
Versus the reality where there definitely wouldn't be any white supremacist blowback against APIDA without Trump? Just like how there definitely weren't rampant and persistent attacks on Muslims and even Sikhs after 9/11? Or how Vincent Chin was murdered not because some auto-workers thought he, a Chinese dude, was responsible for the Japanese auto industry taking away jobs but because they were... Trump supporters?
I am so fucking tired of this ahistorical focus on Trump. Give it a fucking rest, thanks.
posted by paimapi at 8:22 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Versus the reality where there definitely wouldn't be any white supremacist blowback against APIDA without Trump? Just like how there definitely weren't rampant and persistent attacks on Muslims and even Sikhs after 9/11? Or how Vincent Chin was murdered not because some auto-workers thought he, a Chinese dude, was responsible for the Japanese auto industry taking away jobs but because they were... Trump supporters?
I am so fucking tired of this ahistorical focus on Trump. Give it a fucking rest, thanks.
posted by paimapi at 8:22 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
I've seen enough decently authoritative (imo) sources weigh in on this to have absolutely no tolerance for the Find the Origin impulse. There are enough comments here suggesting it's a valid question: "we need to learn to prevent this from happening" and similar. I don't buy it, I don't think you should buy it, this has nothing to do with preventing anything. We aren't out of the pandemic yet, and this is noise. This is a politicized piece of nastiness and what some here are presenting as a valid question, a question separated from a massive and toxic campaign to deflect attention from other issues, is devoid of validity at this time.
If any lesson can emerge, it is clear that thousands of experts across the globe tried hard to understand things and mobilize to respond. Some miscues, some mistakes, but here we are with a vaccination program rolling out: amazing. We would be in a much better position had our populations listened and acted accordingly, had our elected leaders listened and acted accordingly. For the most part, that is not the story of the pandemic in many nations and jurisdictions.
And the question as to "Did this virus originate in a Chinese lab?" is touted with any measure of innocence? No.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:37 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
If any lesson can emerge, it is clear that thousands of experts across the globe tried hard to understand things and mobilize to respond. Some miscues, some mistakes, but here we are with a vaccination program rolling out: amazing. We would be in a much better position had our populations listened and acted accordingly, had our elected leaders listened and acted accordingly. For the most part, that is not the story of the pandemic in many nations and jurisdictions.
And the question as to "Did this virus originate in a Chinese lab?" is touted with any measure of innocence? No.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:37 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
Zeynep Tufecki takes a look at "How the Twitter/Media Feedback Loop Can Work to Undermine Our Understanding" of the lab leak hypothesis.
...for most of the traditional media to ignore or dismiss an important issue for a whole year is exactly what fuels the racism and the conspiracies, because a mass media blackout of a topic is essentially a conspiracy, and one that concedes discussion of key points and facts to the racists.posted by PhineasGage at 8:38 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
The idea that the covid-19 virus escaped from some Chinese lab is still anti-Chinese racism, no matter how it's dressed up with statistics and scientific sounding theories.
'Nuff said.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
'Nuff said.
posted by MartinWisse at 8:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think there's a pretty huge difference between asking, "How did this happen and can we do anything to mitigate this in the future?" and "Did this virus originate in a Chinese lab?"
I think the former question is constructive in a way that the latter isn't. I also think that the politicians and pundits pushing the latter, leading question will get in the way of our ever pursing the former one, and that, either way, now isn't the moment, especially since we're still in the middle of a crisis. The pandemic isn't exactly over.
I'd also hope there's a way to both acknowledge the foundational and enduring role of white supremacy in the US while also calling out politicians and other leaders who promote and inflame hatred in order to further themselves and their goals, even if the problem doesn't begin and end with individuals.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:48 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think the former question is constructive in a way that the latter isn't. I also think that the politicians and pundits pushing the latter, leading question will get in the way of our ever pursing the former one, and that, either way, now isn't the moment, especially since we're still in the middle of a crisis. The pandemic isn't exactly over.
I'd also hope there's a way to both acknowledge the foundational and enduring role of white supremacy in the US while also calling out politicians and other leaders who promote and inflame hatred in order to further themselves and their goals, even if the problem doesn't begin and end with individuals.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:48 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
The best way to contain an outbreak is to not have one in the first place. The more we know about the exact origin of COVID, the better chance we have at avoiding a future pandemic.
The first sentence is absolutely correct. But the thing is, (as I understand it) we already know an awful lot about the most likely sources of risk for future pandemics or novel diseases. (As other commenters posted way above, there was a whole pandemic response playbook developed in the US several years ago, with a whole monitoring system that the US was a part of along with China, that we maybe forget about because the Trump administration threw it all out and had such an incompetent response.) Determining a definitively exact origin of COVID-19 will almost surely be a very marginal improvement of our knowledge of these risk factors.
No doubt biosafety measures at virus research labs could be improved, with maybe even more checks like airlines have in place to help avoid human error. Humans will always find novel ways to accidentally break safety measures for any system, I fear, so even though I know little about the specific details of virology lab biosafety measures, I feel confident in prognosticating that there will always be room for improvement. And of course if there has been an accidental failure in safety systems, understanding that failure enables us to patch it. But such patches, I want to emphasize, are generally going to result in only very, very marginal reductions in risk of new pandemics. The vastly larger risk is from diseases of zoonotic origin jumping to humans in uncontrolled, non-lab settings. (For a variety of reasons. One of which that is perhaps relevant to the current discussion but hasn't been mentioned yet is that an accidental lab leak would be a single infection point, while a novel disease jumping to humans from another animal species tends to happen multiple times, making it much much harder to detect and contain, and thus much more likely to cause an epidemic or pandemic rather than a small, localized outbreak.)
And in a situation like our present political context, unfortunately the investigation of any potential accidental failures of such lab safety measures comes with its own set of other risks to health and safety of some humans, as other commenters have pointed out, so a balance of risk calculation likely actually weighs against an investigation, at least at the present political moment.
posted by eviemath at 8:51 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
The first sentence is absolutely correct. But the thing is, (as I understand it) we already know an awful lot about the most likely sources of risk for future pandemics or novel diseases. (As other commenters posted way above, there was a whole pandemic response playbook developed in the US several years ago, with a whole monitoring system that the US was a part of along with China, that we maybe forget about because the Trump administration threw it all out and had such an incompetent response.) Determining a definitively exact origin of COVID-19 will almost surely be a very marginal improvement of our knowledge of these risk factors.
No doubt biosafety measures at virus research labs could be improved, with maybe even more checks like airlines have in place to help avoid human error. Humans will always find novel ways to accidentally break safety measures for any system, I fear, so even though I know little about the specific details of virology lab biosafety measures, I feel confident in prognosticating that there will always be room for improvement. And of course if there has been an accidental failure in safety systems, understanding that failure enables us to patch it. But such patches, I want to emphasize, are generally going to result in only very, very marginal reductions in risk of new pandemics. The vastly larger risk is from diseases of zoonotic origin jumping to humans in uncontrolled, non-lab settings. (For a variety of reasons. One of which that is perhaps relevant to the current discussion but hasn't been mentioned yet is that an accidental lab leak would be a single infection point, while a novel disease jumping to humans from another animal species tends to happen multiple times, making it much much harder to detect and contain, and thus much more likely to cause an epidemic or pandemic rather than a small, localized outbreak.)
And in a situation like our present political context, unfortunately the investigation of any potential accidental failures of such lab safety measures comes with its own set of other risks to health and safety of some humans, as other commenters have pointed out, so a balance of risk calculation likely actually weighs against an investigation, at least at the present political moment.
posted by eviemath at 8:51 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
That the Chinese government was claiming in early 2020 that it had things under control, and that Trump took them at their word despite this being obvious self-serving bullshit, is about 1000 times more relevant, impactful, and damning to all parties than the question of how exactly the virus entered the human population.
posted by bjrubble at 9:13 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by bjrubble at 9:13 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
The idea that the covid-19 virus escaped from some Chinese lab is still anti-Chinese racism...
Sorry, continuing to say that doesn't make it true. Yes, racist assholes are trying to weaponize the situation, but as has been pointed out by many in comments above, there's no requirement for anyone here to imitate those racist assholes by conflating the Chinese government with the Chinese people, nor conflate the literal, geographic location of a scientific laboratory where this virus was first identified with the Chinese people.
Racists gonna racist, but that doesn't mean we therefore shouldn't have responsible experts investigate and understand the origin of what became a global pandemic. Getting the actual facts won't persuade the loonies, but it will give the rational members of humanity some of the information we need to try to prevent such horrors in the future.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2021 [18 favorites]
Sorry, continuing to say that doesn't make it true. Yes, racist assholes are trying to weaponize the situation, but as has been pointed out by many in comments above, there's no requirement for anyone here to imitate those racist assholes by conflating the Chinese government with the Chinese people, nor conflate the literal, geographic location of a scientific laboratory where this virus was first identified with the Chinese people.
Racists gonna racist, but that doesn't mean we therefore shouldn't have responsible experts investigate and understand the origin of what became a global pandemic. Getting the actual facts won't persuade the loonies, but it will give the rational members of humanity some of the information we need to try to prevent such horrors in the future.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2021 [18 favorites]
I'm not exactly sure of the sample collection procedure, but isn't another, less salacious possibility that he virus was initially brought to Wuhan by one of the researchers out collecting samples? In which case pressuring China to "prove the origin" by sending even more researchers out into the places where they think there might be animal populations with dangerous viruses may not be the greatest idea?
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2021
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:23 AM on May 27, 2021
Racists gonna racist, but that doesn't mean we therefore shouldn't have responsible experts investigate and understand the origin of what became a global pandemic. Getting the actual facts won't persuade the loonies, but it will give the rational members of humanity some of the information we need to try to prevent such horrors in the future.
If this is the case, then stuff like this 90-day review by intelligence officers that Biden is talking up should really be taken off the table immediately. It has taken years or even decades for dedicated teams of the top infectious disease experts in the entire world to determine the precise origin of major outbreaks like SARS and hantavirus. There will be blood in the streets if the intelligence community, which isn't exactly a bastion of support for AAPI in the first place (and in many cases are actively hostile), comes back in three months with a verdict that this came from a lab in China.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
If this is the case, then stuff like this 90-day review by intelligence officers that Biden is talking up should really be taken off the table immediately. It has taken years or even decades for dedicated teams of the top infectious disease experts in the entire world to determine the precise origin of major outbreaks like SARS and hantavirus. There will be blood in the streets if the intelligence community, which isn't exactly a bastion of support for AAPI in the first place (and in many cases are actively hostile), comes back in three months with a verdict that this came from a lab in China.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 9:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
The thing here is that the Trump supporters are going to keep this up forever.
Versus the reality where there definitely wouldn't be any white supremacist blowback against APIDA without Trump? Just like how there definitely weren't rampant and persistent attacks on Muslims and even Sikhs after 9/11? Or how Vincent Chin was murdered not because some auto-workers thought he, a Chinese dude, was responsible for the Japanese auto industry taking away jobs but because they were... Trump supporters?
I am so fucking tired of this ahistorical focus on Trump. Give it a fucking rest, thanks.
I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. Show me where in my comment I addressed the plague of anti-Asian sentiment. I addressed the lab conspiracy and the fact that this is a recurring playbook. Simple matter is that there's one group that keeps resurrecting the conspiracy of a lab leak, and will continue to do so ad nauseam. It's the Trump supporters. They have been circulating that crap again on Fox et al for the last several weeks. They will continue bringing it up. Your comment has absolutely zero relation to mine.
posted by azpenguin at 9:51 AM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
Versus the reality where there definitely wouldn't be any white supremacist blowback against APIDA without Trump? Just like how there definitely weren't rampant and persistent attacks on Muslims and even Sikhs after 9/11? Or how Vincent Chin was murdered not because some auto-workers thought he, a Chinese dude, was responsible for the Japanese auto industry taking away jobs but because they were... Trump supporters?
I am so fucking tired of this ahistorical focus on Trump. Give it a fucking rest, thanks.
I have no idea what on earth you're going on about. Show me where in my comment I addressed the plague of anti-Asian sentiment. I addressed the lab conspiracy and the fact that this is a recurring playbook. Simple matter is that there's one group that keeps resurrecting the conspiracy of a lab leak, and will continue to do so ad nauseam. It's the Trump supporters. They have been circulating that crap again on Fox et al for the last several weeks. They will continue bringing it up. Your comment has absolutely zero relation to mine.
posted by azpenguin at 9:51 AM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
A. Manufactured in and willfully released a lab, Chinese or otherwise - almost certainly pernicious bullshit.
B. Being studied in and accidentally released from a lab, Chinese or otherwise - unlikely but possible, and needs to be investigated for all kinds of important science/future safety reasons noted by many MeFites above.
C. Zootic source - probable but not yet certain, so let's confirm it if true!
Covering our ears and going "lalalalalala" won't stop anti-AAPI hate. And as Zeynep Tufecki and others right here have made clear, actively avoiding investigation of the facts about the origin of the worst pandemic in a century (which might even have been Italy! Let's investigate!) just fuels conspiracy theories and therefore more racist hatred.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:53 AM on May 27, 2021 [13 favorites]
B. Being studied in and accidentally released from a lab, Chinese or otherwise - unlikely but possible, and needs to be investigated for all kinds of important science/future safety reasons noted by many MeFites above.
C. Zootic source - probable but not yet certain, so let's confirm it if true!
Covering our ears and going "lalalalalala" won't stop anti-AAPI hate. And as Zeynep Tufecki and others right here have made clear, actively avoiding investigation of the facts about the origin of the worst pandemic in a century (which might even have been Italy! Let's investigate!) just fuels conspiracy theories and therefore more racist hatred.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:53 AM on May 27, 2021 [13 favorites]
This comment by Delfin explains exactly how I see this whole mess (here in the US). Trump and his shitshow administration turned the US response into a tragedy. All so he could get reelected. That is all that mattered to him.
posted by sundrop at 9:53 AM on May 27, 2021
posted by sundrop at 9:53 AM on May 27, 2021
Nature is a furiously productive laboratory that is constantly at work on viral evolution, running experiments in trillions of animals in parallel and in serial, all over the world, all the time. By contrast, we humans are so profoundly ignorant about SARS-CoV-2 that we still don’t know what all of its proteins do. We aren’t even able to make informed guesses in some cases. Its biology is enough of a black box that intentionally and meaningfully altering that biology would be quite difficult (even now, after the entire world’s attention has been laser-focused on it for a year).
I’m putting my money on this virus cropping up in nature and, through a confluence of unfortunate events, arriving in a city where it gained a generous toehold in the human population. This kind of thing happens all the time and can result in fantastic entities; a recent paper described a coronavirus containing proteins cobbled together from pig, dog and cat coronaviruses, which was found in villagers with pneumonia. No one’s blaming that Frankenstein’s monster on a mad scientist (yet).
But what if this virus was found in the wild and brought to a lab, from which it subsequently escaped to spread amongst humans? Well, what if that’s not what happened? You can’t prove a negative, and it doesn’t do anyone any good—but may cause substantial harm—to point fingers like that. What we can and should do is acknowledge the possibility that something like that could happen and then devise ways to ensure that it doesn’t… which is something we probably ought to be doing anyhow.
posted by disentir at 9:55 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I’m putting my money on this virus cropping up in nature and, through a confluence of unfortunate events, arriving in a city where it gained a generous toehold in the human population. This kind of thing happens all the time and can result in fantastic entities; a recent paper described a coronavirus containing proteins cobbled together from pig, dog and cat coronaviruses, which was found in villagers with pneumonia. No one’s blaming that Frankenstein’s monster on a mad scientist (yet).
But what if this virus was found in the wild and brought to a lab, from which it subsequently escaped to spread amongst humans? Well, what if that’s not what happened? You can’t prove a negative, and it doesn’t do anyone any good—but may cause substantial harm—to point fingers like that. What we can and should do is acknowledge the possibility that something like that could happen and then devise ways to ensure that it doesn’t… which is something we probably ought to be doing anyhow.
posted by disentir at 9:55 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've seen enough decently authoritative (imo) sources weigh in on this to have absolutely no tolerance for the Find the Origin impulse. There are enough comments here suggesting it's a valid question: "we need to learn to prevent this from happening" and similar. I don't buy it, I don't think you should buy it, this has nothing to do with preventing anything. We aren't out of the pandemic yet, and this is noise. This is a politicized piece of nastiness and what some here are presenting as a valid question, a question separated from a massive and toxic campaign to deflect attention from other issues, is devoid of validity at this time.
given that there are also decently authoritative sources saying it's not only valid but imperative to identify the origin in order to prevent the next pandemic, i'm probably going to go with "it is in fact a valid question".
for example: The vitriol also obscures a broader imperative, Relman says, which is that uncovering the virus’s origins is crucial to stopping the next pandemic. Threats from both lab accidents and natural spillovers are growing simultaneously as humans move steadily into wild places and new biosafety labs grow in number around the world. “This is why the origins question is so important,” Relman says.
“We need a much better sense about where to place our resources and effort,” he adds. And if a lab release for SARS-CoV-2 looks plausible, Relman says, “then it absolutely deserves a whole lot more attention.”
posted by inire at 10:10 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
given that there are also decently authoritative sources saying it's not only valid but imperative to identify the origin in order to prevent the next pandemic, i'm probably going to go with "it is in fact a valid question".
for example: The vitriol also obscures a broader imperative, Relman says, which is that uncovering the virus’s origins is crucial to stopping the next pandemic. Threats from both lab accidents and natural spillovers are growing simultaneously as humans move steadily into wild places and new biosafety labs grow in number around the world. “This is why the origins question is so important,” Relman says.
“We need a much better sense about where to place our resources and effort,” he adds. And if a lab release for SARS-CoV-2 looks plausible, Relman says, “then it absolutely deserves a whole lot more attention.”
posted by inire at 10:10 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
it's not only valid but imperative to identify the origin in order to prevent the next pandemic
Is it though? This is a bit like thinking that because one wildfire was started by a gender reveal party that understanding gender reveal parties is critical to managing wildfires.
posted by Pyry at 10:15 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
Is it though? This is a bit like thinking that because one wildfire was started by a gender reveal party that understanding gender reveal parties is critical to managing wildfires.
posted by Pyry at 10:15 AM on May 27, 2021 [7 favorites]
The next pandemic will come from a different origin than this pandemic. Response is what is critical.
posted by GuyZero at 10:16 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 10:16 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
I think this is the biggest selling point for me. The best way to contain an outbreak is to not have one in the first place. The more we know about the exact origin of COVID, the better chance we have at avoiding a future pandemic.
I really just want to know, from those of you who are thinking like this - what results do you imagine an investigation would turn up, that would be useful for preventing future pandemics? Honest, sincere question.
Because (and here I will encourage folks to take a minute to actually read some of that list of pre-pandemic "pandemic warning" articles I posted upthread) we already know a lot about the risks and dangers of pandemics, and the mechanisms by which they come about, and we already knew we were vulnerable to one, and why we were vulnerable, and we were still doing juuuust north of absolutely zilch about it. I just can't envision an investigation into this particular pandemic changing any part of that. (Whereas I can easily imagine it having profoundly negative socio/geopolitical ramifications.) So I would just love to know how you more optimistic folks are imagining an investigation playing out. What do you imagine could we possibly learn here, that we didn't already know, that would help prevent future pandemics?
posted by mstokes650 at 10:19 AM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
I really just want to know, from those of you who are thinking like this - what results do you imagine an investigation would turn up, that would be useful for preventing future pandemics? Honest, sincere question.
Because (and here I will encourage folks to take a minute to actually read some of that list of pre-pandemic "pandemic warning" articles I posted upthread) we already know a lot about the risks and dangers of pandemics, and the mechanisms by which they come about, and we already knew we were vulnerable to one, and why we were vulnerable, and we were still doing juuuust north of absolutely zilch about it. I just can't envision an investigation into this particular pandemic changing any part of that. (Whereas I can easily imagine it having profoundly negative socio/geopolitical ramifications.) So I would just love to know how you more optimistic folks are imagining an investigation playing out. What do you imagine could we possibly learn here, that we didn't already know, that would help prevent future pandemics?
posted by mstokes650 at 10:19 AM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
Thank you GuyZero.
Comments here.. it's like, you really think there isn't investigation into origin, vectors of infection, etc? No matter what you or I think, the pandemic is a subject of study. This is an area of research, regardless of our own views. I absolutely don't think the question of origin needs our focus, as much as response. And it's not an either/or thing.. So take a moment, look at the context surrounding the origin question, and maybe btfo.
Like it needs repeating: we aren't out of it yet. Question of origin is not the most important thing right now, and its presence in discourse--here, clearly--is a stinking pile of You're Missing the Point.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
Comments here.. it's like, you really think there isn't investigation into origin, vectors of infection, etc? No matter what you or I think, the pandemic is a subject of study. This is an area of research, regardless of our own views. I absolutely don't think the question of origin needs our focus, as much as response. And it's not an either/or thing.. So take a moment, look at the context surrounding the origin question, and maybe btfo.
Like it needs repeating: we aren't out of it yet. Question of origin is not the most important thing right now, and its presence in discourse--here, clearly--is a stinking pile of You're Missing the Point.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think if and when whatever investigation team does come together to take a look at this, they should repeatedly emphasize that their objective is NOT to find fault or to lay blame on any single party for the origin of the coronavirus. This would hopefully get other countries and groups to release more information that would provide a fuller picture into what happened. In addition, this would also help a little bit in reducing the problem of anti-Asian racism if it's origins are traced to a Chinese lab leak or something similar.
I would even go as far as to have other countries promise to not formally sanction or punish any other countries over the eventual findings of the investigation. Because these punishments tend to just fall on the innocent and also again end up emboldening racists. In addition, it's probably a good idea to not repeat the Treaty of Versailles.
Other than finding out what happened, the main objective of the investigation should be how to best prepare for the next pandemic. Honestly, we kind of already know the answer this: more transnational communication, coordination, and cooperation. But sometimes the only way for the obvious to get into the right people's heads is for someone to speak at a podium waving a thick report.
posted by FJT at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
I would even go as far as to have other countries promise to not formally sanction or punish any other countries over the eventual findings of the investigation. Because these punishments tend to just fall on the innocent and also again end up emboldening racists. In addition, it's probably a good idea to not repeat the Treaty of Versailles.
Other than finding out what happened, the main objective of the investigation should be how to best prepare for the next pandemic. Honestly, we kind of already know the answer this: more transnational communication, coordination, and cooperation. But sometimes the only way for the obvious to get into the right people's heads is for someone to speak at a podium waving a thick report.
posted by FJT at 10:27 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
saying that the origin must be investigated elides that the origin is being investigated: the investigation is underway and continuing. it is being conducted by the world health organization according to "terms of references for the china part" published in July 2020. phase one has been completed and its results were published in march 2021. among its results were the determination that the lab origin is extremely unlikely; it found no scientific evidence supporting that hypothesis and has no scientific leads barring full audit of the lab, so far unjustified on the basis of information uncovered to date. phase two is longer-term epidemiologic, virologic and serologic studies building on results of phase one.
so, what course of action -- what investigation -- is preferable to what the WHO-convened international team of qualified experts are already doing?
is there good reason to distrust the WHO and the team it has convened?
who is better situated to investigate?
here, in the US, "we" (pundit/legislator, generally T***pist, values of "we") began attacking and undermining the WHO, as complicit in the "chinese communist party's" putative minimization and coverup of the outbreak, from the outset. those attacks on the WHO clearly began as part of the malministration's effort to deflect from their own bungled national response, and have relied heavily on, inculcated and fomented suspicion of communists, chinese persons, and chinese communists. much of this antipathy, both as to communists and to chinese persons, was present if not already virulent in the background culture.
just yesterday senator kennedy asked dr. fauci, "can we agree that if you took xi jenping...held him upside down and shook him, the world health organization would fall out of his pocket?" dr. fauci laughed and declined to agree. the implication is that we can't trust the WHO because they're controlled by china, which, as you know, is both communist and chinese. we don't have to be racists to hate communists, but it doesn't hurt, and, if we are racists, the communist part provides a plausible, and culturally acceptable (?) cover for that antisinotism.
so, again, should an investigation other than that currently being conducted by the WHO be undertaken?
who should conduct that investigation?
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:31 AM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
so, what course of action -- what investigation -- is preferable to what the WHO-convened international team of qualified experts are already doing?
is there good reason to distrust the WHO and the team it has convened?
who is better situated to investigate?
here, in the US, "we" (pundit/legislator, generally T***pist, values of "we") began attacking and undermining the WHO, as complicit in the "chinese communist party's" putative minimization and coverup of the outbreak, from the outset. those attacks on the WHO clearly began as part of the malministration's effort to deflect from their own bungled national response, and have relied heavily on, inculcated and fomented suspicion of communists, chinese persons, and chinese communists. much of this antipathy, both as to communists and to chinese persons, was present if not already virulent in the background culture.
just yesterday senator kennedy asked dr. fauci, "can we agree that if you took xi jenping...held him upside down and shook him, the world health organization would fall out of his pocket?" dr. fauci laughed and declined to agree. the implication is that we can't trust the WHO because they're controlled by china, which, as you know, is both communist and chinese. we don't have to be racists to hate communists, but it doesn't hurt, and, if we are racists, the communist part provides a plausible, and culturally acceptable (?) cover for that antisinotism.
so, again, should an investigation other than that currently being conducted by the WHO be undertaken?
who should conduct that investigation?
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:31 AM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
This is a bit like thinking that because one wildfire was started by a gender reveal party that understanding gender reveal parties is critical to managing wildfires.
First we do an investigation into the cause of the fire and then we learn what caused it. Perhaps the fire was started by an individual act of carelessness or maybe it was a failure by the power company to remove brush and tree limbs from high voltage power lines and if this isn’t remedied we will see a lot more fires.
posted by interogative mood at 10:38 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
First we do an investigation into the cause of the fire and then we learn what caused it. Perhaps the fire was started by an individual act of carelessness or maybe it was a failure by the power company to remove brush and tree limbs from high voltage power lines and if this isn’t remedied we will see a lot more fires.
posted by interogative mood at 10:38 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
is there good reason to distrust the WHO
Well, there's really no good reason for the WHO to completely exclude Taiwan. And it's not even because it's not recognized as a nation-state, because Puerto Rico is an associate member of the WHO. Taiwan is only excluded because China doesn't want it there.
posted by FJT at 10:52 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
Well, there's really no good reason for the WHO to completely exclude Taiwan. And it's not even because it's not recognized as a nation-state, because Puerto Rico is an associate member of the WHO. Taiwan is only excluded because China doesn't want it there.
posted by FJT at 10:52 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think if and when whatever investigation team does come together to take a look at this, they should repeatedly emphasize that their objective is NOT to find fault or to lay blame on any single party for the origin of the coronavirus.
I think if there was much evidence that the lab was responsible, China would have already delt with every member of that staff. All these conspiracies act like they had nothing to lose by hiding and something to gain - but none of that seems to be true.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:53 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think if there was much evidence that the lab was responsible, China would have already delt with every member of that staff. All these conspiracies act like they had nothing to lose by hiding and something to gain - but none of that seems to be true.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:53 AM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
oh no!
my links appear to be borked. mea culpa.
please try "terms of reference" and "results were published," and disregard erroneous local links to downloaded pdfs. grr.
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:00 AM on May 27, 2021
my links appear to be borked. mea culpa.
please try "terms of reference" and "results were published," and disregard erroneous local links to downloaded pdfs. grr.
posted by 20 year lurk at 11:00 AM on May 27, 2021
is there good reason to distrust the WHO and the team it has convened?
People absolutely love to do stuff for stupid & bad reasons.
For conspiracy theorists the WHO is up there with the World Bank, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (you can take a guess at the religious beliefs of conspiracy theorists, if only by the process of elimination), the Federal Reserve, Area 51 and mystery election fraud.
China itself has pushed covid-19 conspiracy theories:
The Communist Party sees the WHO investigation as a political risk because it focuses attention on China’s response, said Jacob Wallis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute...
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying got the ball rolling last week by reviving earlier Chinese calls for a WHO investigation of the U.S. military lab.
But of course, yes, they're highly trained professional and are as unbiased as anyone is capable of being, so they're the best organization to do such an investigation. The US should let the WHO go through Fort Detrick with a fine-tooth comb just to make China's own diplomatic response look bad (because it is bad).
posted by GuyZero at 11:17 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
People absolutely love to do stuff for stupid & bad reasons.
For conspiracy theorists the WHO is up there with the World Bank, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (you can take a guess at the religious beliefs of conspiracy theorists, if only by the process of elimination), the Federal Reserve, Area 51 and mystery election fraud.
China itself has pushed covid-19 conspiracy theories:
The Communist Party sees the WHO investigation as a political risk because it focuses attention on China’s response, said Jacob Wallis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute...
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying got the ball rolling last week by reviving earlier Chinese calls for a WHO investigation of the U.S. military lab.
But of course, yes, they're highly trained professional and are as unbiased as anyone is capable of being, so they're the best organization to do such an investigation. The US should let the WHO go through Fort Detrick with a fine-tooth comb just to make China's own diplomatic response look bad (because it is bad).
posted by GuyZero at 11:17 AM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
saying that the origin must be investigated elides that the origin is being investigated: the investigation is underway and continuing. it is being conducted by the world health organization according to "terms of references for the china part" published in July 2020. phase one has been completed and its results were published in march 2021. among its results were the determination that the lab origin is extremely unlikely; it found no scientific evidence supporting that hypothesis and has no scientific leads barring full audit of the lab, so far unjustified on the basis of information uncovered to date. phase two is longer-term epidemiologic, virologic and serologic studies building on results of phase one.
so, what course of action -- what investigation -- is preferable to what the WHO-convened international team of qualified experts are already doing?
well, for a start i'm pleased we can now all agree that the origin of the virus is in fact worth investigating, unless anyone's eager to tell the who that they've been wasting their time, missing the point, etc...?
second, i have no problem with the who conducting the investigation, provided they're allowed to actually, you know, investigate. the report from the initial phase was derived from the limited information and access made available to the who team by the chinese government, the head of the who stated shortly after the report that there were issues with data access, that the assessment wasn't sufficiently extensive, that further investigation was needed re the lab leak hypothesis (while noting it remained the least likely of the hypotheses), and that all hypotheses remained on the table.
so i suppose the preferable course of action would be for the chinese government to engage fully and transparently with the current investigation, and generally give some indication that they're interested in finding out where the virus originated rather than being obstructive. to the extent they don't, they bear part of the blame for the lab leak hypothesis continuing to be a live issue among people other than right wing lunatics.
posted by inire at 11:21 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
so, what course of action -- what investigation -- is preferable to what the WHO-convened international team of qualified experts are already doing?
well, for a start i'm pleased we can now all agree that the origin of the virus is in fact worth investigating, unless anyone's eager to tell the who that they've been wasting their time, missing the point, etc...?
second, i have no problem with the who conducting the investigation, provided they're allowed to actually, you know, investigate. the report from the initial phase was derived from the limited information and access made available to the who team by the chinese government, the head of the who stated shortly after the report that there were issues with data access, that the assessment wasn't sufficiently extensive, that further investigation was needed re the lab leak hypothesis (while noting it remained the least likely of the hypotheses), and that all hypotheses remained on the table.
so i suppose the preferable course of action would be for the chinese government to engage fully and transparently with the current investigation, and generally give some indication that they're interested in finding out where the virus originated rather than being obstructive. to the extent they don't, they bear part of the blame for the lab leak hypothesis continuing to be a live issue among people other than right wing lunatics.
posted by inire at 11:21 AM on May 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
(i realise the lack of capitalisation above makes it sound as though roger daltrey and pete townshend have been puttering round china in a tour bus poking their noses into virology labs, which i think is an option worth considering)
posted by inire at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by inire at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
The idea that understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unimportant for addressing the current pandemic or preventing and mitigating future ones is absurd. Of course this is an important question, from the perspective of virology, epidemiology, and public health policy.
The idea that the virus was specifically engineered by humans to be more infectious is, while not totally impossible, pretty outlandish, and, as numerous people here have pointed out, not very compatible with the evidence we have. It also seems to be at least partly based on a misunderstanding of what exactly approaches like gain-of-function research are and how they contribute to our ability to fight viruses. And of course the idea is appealing to racists and warmongers who would like to blame the Chinese government and/or people for the pandemic instead of their own personal and governmental failures, but people who deal in hate will always find something to justify their poison. Letting the people who would use this to push an anti-Chinese agenda define the terms of the conversation is granting them a victory: we need to be vocal and clear that if it does in fact turn out that the pandemic has its origins in a research lab, this is something that could have happened anywhere, and preventing a repetition is a matter of global research policy that will require increased transparency and openness for everyone.
The idea that the virus was unintentionally released from a research lab also seems unlikely but more plausible than the bioweapon hypothesis. At the moment, it seems like most virologists think that SARS-CoV-2 looks entirely natural, suggesting that if it did escape from a lab, its biology was not affected by its time there. The question is then whether this has epidemiological significance: did the nature of the early spread of the disease change because the outbreak began at a research lab, or was the virus already present in animal populations that humans were interacting with, and its introduction to humans was only a matter of time regardless of whether it had escaped from the lab? Knowing this is essential to understanding the early spread of new zoonoses, and has clear policy implications for what viruses get studied in what research labs at what times using what methods.
Finally, as has been pointed out here, we don't even know for sure that the virus originated in Wuhan. It's entirely possible that early human-transmitted variants of SARS-CoV-2 evolved elsewhere and spread undetected, perhaps due to lower virulence or morbidity, before the first detection in Wuhan. It should be really obvious why this is important to know: if we can find ways to identify emerging diseases like COVID earlier, we have a greater chance of containing them and preventing them from evolving into new, more virulent strains.
posted by biogeo at 11:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
The idea that the virus was specifically engineered by humans to be more infectious is, while not totally impossible, pretty outlandish, and, as numerous people here have pointed out, not very compatible with the evidence we have. It also seems to be at least partly based on a misunderstanding of what exactly approaches like gain-of-function research are and how they contribute to our ability to fight viruses. And of course the idea is appealing to racists and warmongers who would like to blame the Chinese government and/or people for the pandemic instead of their own personal and governmental failures, but people who deal in hate will always find something to justify their poison. Letting the people who would use this to push an anti-Chinese agenda define the terms of the conversation is granting them a victory: we need to be vocal and clear that if it does in fact turn out that the pandemic has its origins in a research lab, this is something that could have happened anywhere, and preventing a repetition is a matter of global research policy that will require increased transparency and openness for everyone.
The idea that the virus was unintentionally released from a research lab also seems unlikely but more plausible than the bioweapon hypothesis. At the moment, it seems like most virologists think that SARS-CoV-2 looks entirely natural, suggesting that if it did escape from a lab, its biology was not affected by its time there. The question is then whether this has epidemiological significance: did the nature of the early spread of the disease change because the outbreak began at a research lab, or was the virus already present in animal populations that humans were interacting with, and its introduction to humans was only a matter of time regardless of whether it had escaped from the lab? Knowing this is essential to understanding the early spread of new zoonoses, and has clear policy implications for what viruses get studied in what research labs at what times using what methods.
Finally, as has been pointed out here, we don't even know for sure that the virus originated in Wuhan. It's entirely possible that early human-transmitted variants of SARS-CoV-2 evolved elsewhere and spread undetected, perhaps due to lower virulence or morbidity, before the first detection in Wuhan. It should be really obvious why this is important to know: if we can find ways to identify emerging diseases like COVID earlier, we have a greater chance of containing them and preventing them from evolving into new, more virulent strains.
posted by biogeo at 11:41 AM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
If you weren't super into Chinese public health policy in early 2019 it seems kinda suspect to start now.
I can confidently say my interest in Chinese public health policy, bats, viruses, video calling and a number of other things has reached an all-time high. I'm hard pressed to consider that suspicious.
posted by Wood at 12:02 PM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
I can confidently say my interest in Chinese public health policy, bats, viruses, video calling and a number of other things has reached an all-time high. I'm hard pressed to consider that suspicious.
posted by Wood at 12:02 PM on May 27, 2021 [9 favorites]
There are a lot of bad motives being unfairly posited here, and not just of the US government. Given recent history like the Iraq War/NY Times debacle, or the entire last 4 years, it's totally reasonable to distrust US motives. If you are Chinese or Chinese-American there's the added trauma of past and anticipated racism as well. My perspective is from a science and problem-solving background (software, not viruses):
For people who work in data-driven fields, it's mind-blowing that someone would think we shouldn't determine causes of problems. That's something you always do, and it doesn't matter (from a cold data perspective) whether it makes someone look bad or feel bad. You have to get the problem under control and then do a meticulous root cause analysis (RCA). In the case of COVID-19, where thousands if not millions of people are already working to create and administer vaccines, give health care, develop treatments, and limit spread, it seems like devoting some small number of resources to finding the origin is not going to detract from anything.
In the "gender reveal starts forest fire" example, of COURSE you need to know that's what started it. They do that for every fire. Learning that 1) we should probably ban gender reveal parties with pyrotechnics, and 2) we're badly underprepared to fight fires of any origin - those are two different useful conclusions. If COVID-19 was spread via a lab accident, there are lots of measures you'd take to keep it from happening again. You don't just say, "well, we have a great response plan now, so lab away! Throw away that PPE, lab workers! Study viruses at home - they are inevitable in nature anyway!"
Of course, the rub is in the political realities of the world. Who's doing the investigation? Who might get sued? What is the impact on US/China relations and treatment of Asian-Americans? What if some annoying Trumpists were partly right, but for the wrong reasons? How will the outcomes get used?
In IT we use a thing called a blameless retrospective. First you reconstruct a timeline in as much detail as possible, to create a shared set of facts. Then you analyze four areas to talk about how you did, and how you could do better next time:
1. DETECT - How could we detect this sooner next time?
2. REACT - How could we react faster next time?
3. QUICK FIX - How quickly did we do initial emergency triage, and how can we do better?
4. PREVENT - How can we prevent this from happening next time?
You don't fire people or chastise them; you assume it's the system that needs improvement. So in the case of COVID-19, let's say it really was being studied in the Wuhan lab and escaped due to a random mistake. In that case, we may say that we need to improve the system of notifications when there's a suspected leak. Given how secretive the Chinese government has been, and the misdirection they've spread at times, and how horribly Trump talked about China, it's not crazy to think that they may not want to just ring up WHO and the US on the red phone like "Uh ... hey, we fucked up. Here's what we know. Can we set up a Zoom call to brainstorm how to contain this thing?"
What is hardest for anyone not directly involved to know is what the facts are, and how different parties are trying to spin things. From mainstream sources (NYT from yesterday) there seems to be a lot of doubt over whether it was spread from a wet market, lab, or some other source:
From the earliest weeks of the outbreak, the Chinese government has worked to delay, deflect or block independent investigation of the virus’s origins.
Chinese officials said in early 2020 that the outbreak began at a Wuhan market, and they blamed illegal wildlife sales there. They did so despite having evidence that undermined that theory: Early data showed that four of the first five coronavirus patients had no clear links to the market. The government resisted accepting an international scientific mission.
The World Health Organization gave early cover to China’s dissembling, incorrectly praising Chinese disease surveillance with spotting an outbreak that it had actually missed. The health organization publicly announced that China had agreed to share biological samples — but never followed up to say that the government had failed to deliver on that promise.
I mean is this propaganda fed to the NYT by the CIA? Did China really cooperate fully from day 1? If any of that quote is true, it would make any reasonable person *more* likely to pursue the lab leak theory.
(I left out all the Republican blame-game and bioweapon bullshit because it clouds the issue, but obviously that did and does affect the players' moods and willingness to be forthright)
posted by freecellwizard at 12:14 PM on May 27, 2021 [15 favorites]
For people who work in data-driven fields, it's mind-blowing that someone would think we shouldn't determine causes of problems. That's something you always do, and it doesn't matter (from a cold data perspective) whether it makes someone look bad or feel bad. You have to get the problem under control and then do a meticulous root cause analysis (RCA). In the case of COVID-19, where thousands if not millions of people are already working to create and administer vaccines, give health care, develop treatments, and limit spread, it seems like devoting some small number of resources to finding the origin is not going to detract from anything.
In the "gender reveal starts forest fire" example, of COURSE you need to know that's what started it. They do that for every fire. Learning that 1) we should probably ban gender reveal parties with pyrotechnics, and 2) we're badly underprepared to fight fires of any origin - those are two different useful conclusions. If COVID-19 was spread via a lab accident, there are lots of measures you'd take to keep it from happening again. You don't just say, "well, we have a great response plan now, so lab away! Throw away that PPE, lab workers! Study viruses at home - they are inevitable in nature anyway!"
Of course, the rub is in the political realities of the world. Who's doing the investigation? Who might get sued? What is the impact on US/China relations and treatment of Asian-Americans? What if some annoying Trumpists were partly right, but for the wrong reasons? How will the outcomes get used?
In IT we use a thing called a blameless retrospective. First you reconstruct a timeline in as much detail as possible, to create a shared set of facts. Then you analyze four areas to talk about how you did, and how you could do better next time:
1. DETECT - How could we detect this sooner next time?
2. REACT - How could we react faster next time?
3. QUICK FIX - How quickly did we do initial emergency triage, and how can we do better?
4. PREVENT - How can we prevent this from happening next time?
You don't fire people or chastise them; you assume it's the system that needs improvement. So in the case of COVID-19, let's say it really was being studied in the Wuhan lab and escaped due to a random mistake. In that case, we may say that we need to improve the system of notifications when there's a suspected leak. Given how secretive the Chinese government has been, and the misdirection they've spread at times, and how horribly Trump talked about China, it's not crazy to think that they may not want to just ring up WHO and the US on the red phone like "Uh ... hey, we fucked up. Here's what we know. Can we set up a Zoom call to brainstorm how to contain this thing?"
What is hardest for anyone not directly involved to know is what the facts are, and how different parties are trying to spin things. From mainstream sources (NYT from yesterday) there seems to be a lot of doubt over whether it was spread from a wet market, lab, or some other source:
From the earliest weeks of the outbreak, the Chinese government has worked to delay, deflect or block independent investigation of the virus’s origins.
Chinese officials said in early 2020 that the outbreak began at a Wuhan market, and they blamed illegal wildlife sales there. They did so despite having evidence that undermined that theory: Early data showed that four of the first five coronavirus patients had no clear links to the market. The government resisted accepting an international scientific mission.
The World Health Organization gave early cover to China’s dissembling, incorrectly praising Chinese disease surveillance with spotting an outbreak that it had actually missed. The health organization publicly announced that China had agreed to share biological samples — but never followed up to say that the government had failed to deliver on that promise.
I mean is this propaganda fed to the NYT by the CIA? Did China really cooperate fully from day 1? If any of that quote is true, it would make any reasonable person *more* likely to pursue the lab leak theory.
(I left out all the Republican blame-game and bioweapon bullshit because it clouds the issue, but obviously that did and does affect the players' moods and willingness to be forthright)
posted by freecellwizard at 12:14 PM on May 27, 2021 [15 favorites]
(i realise the lack of capitalisation above makes it sound as though roger daltrey and pete townshend have been puttering round china in a tour bus poking their noses into virology labs, which i think is an option worth considering)
This thread has been rather unpleasant and upsetting. Thank you for that smile -- I didn't realize how much I needed it!
posted by treepour at 12:38 PM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
This thread has been rather unpleasant and upsetting. Thank you for that smile -- I didn't realize how much I needed it!
posted by treepour at 12:38 PM on May 27, 2021 [2 favorites]
roger daltrey and pete townshend have been puttering round china in a tour bus poking their noses into virology labs, which i think is an option worth considering
I feel confident they won't get fooled again.
posted by GuyZero at 1:01 PM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
I feel confident they won't get fooled again.
posted by GuyZero at 1:01 PM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
The idea that the covid-19 virus escaped from some Chinese lab is still anti-Chinese racism...
What if this idea is being studied in South Korea? How about in China, where many people also believe the Wuhan lab is responsible for the outbreak? Are those people also anti-Chinese racists (against themselves??)
The insistence on seeing the entire world through the US racial lens gets very tiresome, especially for people from other countries.
Hollywood has been doing racist caricatures of Asian people for decades and decades, Asian hate has been normalized in many aspects of society, becoming (along with Islamaphobia) an "acceptable" type of bias and racism for years It's still extremely common to hear white Americans opine in public about the various Asian physiologies as if describing an anthropology paper from the 1950s!
But "China" is a not a race. It's a place with a much longer history, and far more rich and detailed culture than the USA. it's also a nation which has many, many problems, which are worth pointing out regardless of how it will be twisted by the US racists. Defending China on grounds of protecting it from US racists is absurd; defending Asian Americans or Asians in America from racism is a completely distinct project.
posted by chaz at 1:03 PM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
What if this idea is being studied in South Korea? How about in China, where many people also believe the Wuhan lab is responsible for the outbreak? Are those people also anti-Chinese racists (against themselves??)
The insistence on seeing the entire world through the US racial lens gets very tiresome, especially for people from other countries.
Hollywood has been doing racist caricatures of Asian people for decades and decades, Asian hate has been normalized in many aspects of society, becoming (along with Islamaphobia) an "acceptable" type of bias and racism for years It's still extremely common to hear white Americans opine in public about the various Asian physiologies as if describing an anthropology paper from the 1950s!
But "China" is a not a race. It's a place with a much longer history, and far more rich and detailed culture than the USA. it's also a nation which has many, many problems, which are worth pointing out regardless of how it will be twisted by the US racists. Defending China on grounds of protecting it from US racists is absurd; defending Asian Americans or Asians in America from racism is a completely distinct project.
posted by chaz at 1:03 PM on May 27, 2021 [11 favorites]
Amy Maxmen, PhD @amymaxmen
"More studies needed" is a constant refrain in science. But this debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.
“We need to look at the big picture and focus on incentives that get us where we want to go," says @glassmanamanda
By me @Nature
The article (emphasis added):
More is at stake than the discovery of COVID-19’s origins, however. Global health-policy analysts argue that it’s crucial for countries to work together to curb the pandemic and prepare the world for future outbreaks. Actions needed, they say, include expanding the distribution of vaccines and reforming biosecurity rules, such as standards for reporting virus-surveillance data. But such measures require a broad consensus among powerful countries, says Amanda Glassman, a global-health specialist at the Center for Global Development in Washington DC. “We need to look at the big picture and focus on incentives that get us where we want to go,” she says. “A confrontational approach will make things worse.”
He [David Fidler, a global-health researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations] says that the escalating demands and allegations are contributing to a geopolitical rift at a moment when solidarity is needed. “The United States continues to poke China in the eye on this issue of an investigation,” he says.
Even if COVID-19 origin investigations move forward, Fidler doesn’t expect them to reveal the definitive data that scientists seek any time soon. The origins of most Ebola outbreaks remain mysterious, for example, and researchers spent 14 years nailing down evidence that the 2002-2004 epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was caused by a virus transmitted from bats to civets to humans.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:21 PM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
"More studies needed" is a constant refrain in science. But this debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.
“We need to look at the big picture and focus on incentives that get us where we want to go," says @glassmanamanda
By me @Nature
The article (emphasis added):
More is at stake than the discovery of COVID-19’s origins, however. Global health-policy analysts argue that it’s crucial for countries to work together to curb the pandemic and prepare the world for future outbreaks. Actions needed, they say, include expanding the distribution of vaccines and reforming biosecurity rules, such as standards for reporting virus-surveillance data. But such measures require a broad consensus among powerful countries, says Amanda Glassman, a global-health specialist at the Center for Global Development in Washington DC. “We need to look at the big picture and focus on incentives that get us where we want to go,” she says. “A confrontational approach will make things worse.”
He [David Fidler, a global-health researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations] says that the escalating demands and allegations are contributing to a geopolitical rift at a moment when solidarity is needed. “The United States continues to poke China in the eye on this issue of an investigation,” he says.
Even if COVID-19 origin investigations move forward, Fidler doesn’t expect them to reveal the definitive data that scientists seek any time soon. The origins of most Ebola outbreaks remain mysterious, for example, and researchers spent 14 years nailing down evidence that the 2002-2004 epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was caused by a virus transmitted from bats to civets to humans.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:21 PM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
I've started thinking about public policy in terms of does this action reinforce a problematic system, even if the thing itself is reasonable?* Does it frame the public debate in ways that focus attention away from the most dire problems?
When virologists, public health experts, etc, are making analogies to climate change denialism (yes, it's good to understand non-anthropogenic climate change mechanisms, but not if it is used to manipulate a political debate and provide cover for climate change denialists), then I beg of you to think about what needs attention right now. Investigations into the origins of covid-19 are ongoing, but as scientists have pointed out, these do not yield quick or definitive answers.
The 90-day review by intelligence officers is fuel for the xenophobia and racist dumpster fire.
*This is the Critical Resistance stance about which reforms are worth pursuing (pdf): "reformist reforms which continue or expand the reach of policing" (like body cams) vs. "abolitionist steps that work to chip away and reduce its overall impact" (like getting rid of money bail). I have also used this to assess local housing policy, and why the almost single-minded (state/local) political attention to supply issues (reduce barriers to development) is deeply problematic without even more attention to issues around financialization, eviction, etc) even though increasing affordable units is by itself is a good thing.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:41 PM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
When virologists, public health experts, etc, are making analogies to climate change denialism (yes, it's good to understand non-anthropogenic climate change mechanisms, but not if it is used to manipulate a political debate and provide cover for climate change denialists), then I beg of you to think about what needs attention right now. Investigations into the origins of covid-19 are ongoing, but as scientists have pointed out, these do not yield quick or definitive answers.
The 90-day review by intelligence officers is fuel for the xenophobia and racist dumpster fire.
*This is the Critical Resistance stance about which reforms are worth pursuing (pdf): "reformist reforms which continue or expand the reach of policing" (like body cams) vs. "abolitionist steps that work to chip away and reduce its overall impact" (like getting rid of money bail). I have also used this to assess local housing policy, and why the almost single-minded (state/local) political attention to supply issues (reduce barriers to development) is deeply problematic without even more attention to issues around financialization, eviction, etc) even though increasing affordable units is by itself is a good thing.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:41 PM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
I hope it wasn't a leak from a lab. I work on Fort Detrick in a BSL-3 facility, and it makes me nervous to think about it.
posted by acrasis at 2:34 PM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by acrasis at 2:34 PM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'd like to point out that, because of how fast COVID-19 spreads, any attempt by the Chinese government to cover up the problem instead of deal with it would have had to be extremely perfunctory and short-lived. Now, that's not to say they didn't cover anything up, but they must have been taking swift and effective action at the same time.
The uncontrolled spread of COVID is terrifyingly fast. We saw country after country, and state after state get caught off guard by this - going from "Coronavirus? Oh that thing in China?" to having overflowing morgues in a matter of weeks. In many places, cases (and deaths) doubled every 2 or 3 days until people started to restrict contact and get things under control. That's a growth rate that makes it very difficult to react fast enough. It's something near a 10 fold increase in cases and deaths every week.
What that means is, even in a country as large as China, you are defaulting to a "herd immunity" strategy inside of two months if you don't take effective measures. Let the virus spread for two months, and most people end up exposed to the virus, even in a country of a billion people. In a country the size of China, that would result in millions if not tens of millions of deaths. With the speed of growth shown by COVID, any misinformation campaign would be very rapidly overwhelmed by conditions on the ground. Even some wildly fantastical level of information control that would let the Chinese government hide 99% of cases and deaths without anyone noticing would change the apparent timeline by about... two weeks.
China had to have gone from zero to mounting an effective response to COVID with great speed. Because if they hadn't, the casualties would have been too many to hide. COVID just spreads that fast when no one is doing anything about it.
Honestly, my read is that even scientists and researches sounding the alarm in Western countries bought into the assumption that, because China's government is authoritarian and bad, then they must also have been incompetent and bad at handling the coronavirus outbreak. I remember reading more than one post by doctors and epidemiologists citing that they thought an outbreak would double every 5-6 days. The Imperial College paper in March 2020 that showed that basically, we needed to do everything possible to "flatten the curve" or run out of hospital beds guessed a doubling time of 5 days for their simulations. Admittedly these were educated guesses more than rigorous studies of the rate of spread, but they lowballed the spread of the actual virus by a factor of two. I can't help but think that's because even scientists who were worried about the virus subconsciously bought into the anti-Chinese propaganda and assigned too much of the blame of the outbreak to the Chinese government, and not enough to the fact that the virus might be just that contagious. And that may well have cost people's lives.
posted by Zalzidrax at 3:41 PM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
The uncontrolled spread of COVID is terrifyingly fast. We saw country after country, and state after state get caught off guard by this - going from "Coronavirus? Oh that thing in China?" to having overflowing morgues in a matter of weeks. In many places, cases (and deaths) doubled every 2 or 3 days until people started to restrict contact and get things under control. That's a growth rate that makes it very difficult to react fast enough. It's something near a 10 fold increase in cases and deaths every week.
What that means is, even in a country as large as China, you are defaulting to a "herd immunity" strategy inside of two months if you don't take effective measures. Let the virus spread for two months, and most people end up exposed to the virus, even in a country of a billion people. In a country the size of China, that would result in millions if not tens of millions of deaths. With the speed of growth shown by COVID, any misinformation campaign would be very rapidly overwhelmed by conditions on the ground. Even some wildly fantastical level of information control that would let the Chinese government hide 99% of cases and deaths without anyone noticing would change the apparent timeline by about... two weeks.
China had to have gone from zero to mounting an effective response to COVID with great speed. Because if they hadn't, the casualties would have been too many to hide. COVID just spreads that fast when no one is doing anything about it.
Honestly, my read is that even scientists and researches sounding the alarm in Western countries bought into the assumption that, because China's government is authoritarian and bad, then they must also have been incompetent and bad at handling the coronavirus outbreak. I remember reading more than one post by doctors and epidemiologists citing that they thought an outbreak would double every 5-6 days. The Imperial College paper in March 2020 that showed that basically, we needed to do everything possible to "flatten the curve" or run out of hospital beds guessed a doubling time of 5 days for their simulations. Admittedly these were educated guesses more than rigorous studies of the rate of spread, but they lowballed the spread of the actual virus by a factor of two. I can't help but think that's because even scientists who were worried about the virus subconsciously bought into the anti-Chinese propaganda and assigned too much of the blame of the outbreak to the Chinese government, and not enough to the fact that the virus might be just that contagious. And that may well have cost people's lives.
posted by Zalzidrax at 3:41 PM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
Defending China on grounds of protecting it from US racists is absurd; defending Asian Americans or Asians in America from racism is a completely distinct project.
First, just because someone concurs with the Chinese Communist Party that the virus arose from zoonotic origins doesn't mean they are defending China. I haven't yet seen anyone in this thread also think the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands rightfully belong to China or insisting that Uighurs in Xinjiang are simply taking advantage of free career training centers.
Second, there are news reports of rising anti-Asian racism and anti-Chinese sentiment* throughout the West and not only in the US. And anti-Chinese sentiment IS a problem that goes beyond the US and isn't just limited to a "US racial lens" view, because we're not really that far away from the time period when European imperialists had concession territories in China and exploited Chinese labor for their own benefit throughout the world.
*To be accurate: Yes, anti-Asian racism and anti-Chinese sentiment are not the same, but I would say they DO overlap.
posted by FJT at 3:53 PM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
First, just because someone concurs with the Chinese Communist Party that the virus arose from zoonotic origins doesn't mean they are defending China. I haven't yet seen anyone in this thread also think the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands rightfully belong to China or insisting that Uighurs in Xinjiang are simply taking advantage of free career training centers.
Second, there are news reports of rising anti-Asian racism and anti-Chinese sentiment* throughout the West and not only in the US. And anti-Chinese sentiment IS a problem that goes beyond the US and isn't just limited to a "US racial lens" view, because we're not really that far away from the time period when European imperialists had concession territories in China and exploited Chinese labor for their own benefit throughout the world.
*To be accurate: Yes, anti-Asian racism and anti-Chinese sentiment are not the same, but I would say they DO overlap.
posted by FJT at 3:53 PM on May 27, 2021 [4 favorites]
Even if COVID-19 origin investigations move forward, Fidler doesn’t expect them to reveal the definitive data that scientists seek any time soon. The origins of most Ebola outbreaks remain mysterious, for example, and researchers spent 14 years nailing down evidence that the 2002-2004 epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was caused by a virus transmitted from bats to civets to humans.
A thousand times this. This is why it's important to spend most of the energy on just prepping for the next pandemic, regardless of the source. We don't know where the last two extremely dangerous diseases came from, except in sweeping generalities. The fixation on a lab outbreak is the search for some sort of absolute truth that doesn't actually exist in the world. It's a grail quest. The only things you find are the things that you brought with you.
posted by GuyZero at 3:57 PM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
A thousand times this. This is why it's important to spend most of the energy on just prepping for the next pandemic, regardless of the source. We don't know where the last two extremely dangerous diseases came from, except in sweeping generalities. The fixation on a lab outbreak is the search for some sort of absolute truth that doesn't actually exist in the world. It's a grail quest. The only things you find are the things that you brought with you.
posted by GuyZero at 3:57 PM on May 27, 2021 [8 favorites]
Honestly, my read is that even scientists and researches sounding the alarm in Western countries bought into the assumption that, because China's government is authoritarian and bad, then they must also have been incompetent and bad at handling the coronavirus outbreak.
That's interesting, my impression is actually the opposite. I recall many people pointing out that China's aggressive quarantine in Wuhan in January of 2020, which employed measures that in the West would be considered unacceptable rights violations and which prompted criticism from human rights activists within China, was likely to be more effective at slowing or stopping the spread of the illness than the quarantine measures available in less authoritarian regimes.
posted by biogeo at 5:09 PM on May 27, 2021 [5 favorites]
I might be off base with with this, but characterizing WIV as a "Chinese lab" might be true in a literal sense, but it kind of obscures the international nature of scientific funding and collaboration. For instance, one of the reasons the lab leak hypothesis became of fixture of right wing mythology in the US was because Trump made a big deal out of cancelling NIH funding that found its way to research conducted at WIV through international nonprofits. Some of the scientists who worked at and ran WIV were trained alongside researchers from other countries, including the US. Framing it as a "Chinese Lab" might be true in the sense that it was set up and run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but that underplays the international nature of scientific research and makes it sound like the lab was some CCP facility.
If it does turn out turn out the SARS COV 2 somehow escaped through a lab accident, its the type of thing that really could have happened anywhere, and that has happened in the past. This Vox article from the Spring before the pandemic summarizes lab escapes and near misses, many fairly recently in the US. It's wouldn't be a uniquely Chinese problem or indicative of uniquely poor practices in China.
That being said, I'm not try to argue it was a lab escape. We've had countless pandemics since before we even knew viruses or bacteria existed. Considering the existence of climate change and our accelerating destruction of and encroachment on natural habitats of animals harboring diseases that might jump to human populations, you could say it was a just a matter of time. Since the start of the pandemic, I've been fascinated by the idea that the "Russian flu" of 1890 might actually have been one of the coronaviruses now causing the common cold in humans emerging into the human population. Either way, the four (or is it six) coronavirus known to cause human colds have to have come from somewhere. Species jumps have happened before without the existence of labs from which they could escape. If there is a host species out there, it likely will take some time to find it, as pointed out upthread.
posted by eagles123 at 5:43 PM on May 27, 2021 [10 favorites]
If it does turn out turn out the SARS COV 2 somehow escaped through a lab accident, its the type of thing that really could have happened anywhere, and that has happened in the past. This Vox article from the Spring before the pandemic summarizes lab escapes and near misses, many fairly recently in the US. It's wouldn't be a uniquely Chinese problem or indicative of uniquely poor practices in China.
That being said, I'm not try to argue it was a lab escape. We've had countless pandemics since before we even knew viruses or bacteria existed. Considering the existence of climate change and our accelerating destruction of and encroachment on natural habitats of animals harboring diseases that might jump to human populations, you could say it was a just a matter of time. Since the start of the pandemic, I've been fascinated by the idea that the "Russian flu" of 1890 might actually have been one of the coronaviruses now causing the common cold in humans emerging into the human population. Either way, the four (or is it six) coronavirus known to cause human colds have to have come from somewhere. Species jumps have happened before without the existence of labs from which they could escape. If there is a host species out there, it likely will take some time to find it, as pointed out upthread.
posted by eagles123 at 5:43 PM on May 27, 2021 [10 favorites]
@biogeo, that's an impression I am left with also. A couple nights ago I was listening to an older New Yorker podcast episode, the name of the interviewee escapes me, but someone living in China, kids are attending school in China. The pandemic response was dramatically different than anything we've seen in North America. People were forcibly relocated in some cases. Not something I'd want to experience personally, but I look at my situation and my country and I feel we really screwed up a lot of things in our own special way.
posted by elkevelvet at 5:57 PM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by elkevelvet at 5:57 PM on May 27, 2021 [1 favorite]
In IT we use a thing called a blameless retrospective. First you reconstruct a timeline in as much detail as possible, to create a shared set of facts. Then you analyze four areas to talk about how you did, and how you could do better next time:
If you want to use that sort of framework you'd probably start by declining to waste resources investigating the lab-leak theory. If we're asking “how did this happen and how should we have reacted” then the possibility that there was a Chinese lab leak is almost irrelevant: new viruses crop up all the time, without passing through laboratories; and lab errors also occur all the time. We can do better with lab safety, but that's not why this epidemic has been such a disaster: it has almost all been self–inflicted damage. It wasn't a Chinese lab that stripped us of PPE stockpiles; it wasn't a Chinese lab that refused lockdowns or compulsory mask wearing; it wasn't a Chinese lab that kept borders open. These were political decisions, made for temporary and trivial political advantage. Those are the things that should be investigated, because we can actually do something about them. In contrast, if we closed down every single laboratory in China we would be no safer, because other viruses and their vectors will still be out there.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:39 PM on May 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
If you want to use that sort of framework you'd probably start by declining to waste resources investigating the lab-leak theory. If we're asking “how did this happen and how should we have reacted” then the possibility that there was a Chinese lab leak is almost irrelevant: new viruses crop up all the time, without passing through laboratories; and lab errors also occur all the time. We can do better with lab safety, but that's not why this epidemic has been such a disaster: it has almost all been self–inflicted damage. It wasn't a Chinese lab that stripped us of PPE stockpiles; it wasn't a Chinese lab that refused lockdowns or compulsory mask wearing; it wasn't a Chinese lab that kept borders open. These were political decisions, made for temporary and trivial political advantage. Those are the things that should be investigated, because we can actually do something about them. In contrast, if we closed down every single laboratory in China we would be no safer, because other viruses and their vectors will still be out there.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:39 PM on May 27, 2021 [12 favorites]
> Humans being humans, I don't think the two are actually mutually exclusive. There's a difference between knowing something intellectually and believing it intuitively. I could certainly see myself readily admitting that maybe an authoritarian response could possibly be better than one that respects people's freedom more, but I know I'd balk at actually factoring something that seems to say "authoritarianism is good, actually" into an educated guess. Mentally, I'd be going "well, maybe a drastic response like that could have it's advantages, but I don't think it's that much better than a modern medical system and a society with free flow of information. Let's say they're about the same, absent more evidence." Or "Clearly, drastic measures work, but authoritarianism is bad, so the benefit probably gets partially countered for by authoritarian regimes hiding problems more than solving them, so they probably had a worse initial response and it probably cancels out."
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:55 PM on May 27, 2021
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:55 PM on May 27, 2021
If you want to use that sort of framework you'd probably start by declining to waste resources investigating the lab-leak theory. . . . lab errors also occur all the time.
If you found out it was a lab leak, in addition to the nebulous goal of improving lab safety, you could try to put things in place to more quickly and transparently identify and respond to an accident. This might include guidelines that take responsibility away from individual lab workers and their supervisors so actions are not taken, as you say "for temporary and trivial advantage." These are changes that certainly won't happen spontaneously.
If you investigated thoroughly and didn't find a definitive answer, because the records were unclear, you might propose things like mandatory registries of sample sequences so these things aren't a mystery in the future.
Results from a thorough investigation might absolutely turn up recommendations that go far beyond "don't be clumsy" and could lead to changes in US practices too.
None of this is instead of reckoning with the US response. Thinking back, under the last administration, we could have had an extra month to prepare and I don't think a damn thing would have changed.
But there just seems to be a lot of energy on this thread trying to convince people that caring about the truth isn't going to help anyone, I guess because the truth might be inconvenient. Talk about a waste of resources.
posted by mark k at 10:06 PM on May 27, 2021 [15 favorites]
If you found out it was a lab leak, in addition to the nebulous goal of improving lab safety, you could try to put things in place to more quickly and transparently identify and respond to an accident. This might include guidelines that take responsibility away from individual lab workers and their supervisors so actions are not taken, as you say "for temporary and trivial advantage." These are changes that certainly won't happen spontaneously.
If you investigated thoroughly and didn't find a definitive answer, because the records were unclear, you might propose things like mandatory registries of sample sequences so these things aren't a mystery in the future.
Results from a thorough investigation might absolutely turn up recommendations that go far beyond "don't be clumsy" and could lead to changes in US practices too.
None of this is instead of reckoning with the US response. Thinking back, under the last administration, we could have had an extra month to prepare and I don't think a damn thing would have changed.
But there just seems to be a lot of energy on this thread trying to convince people that caring about the truth isn't going to help anyone, I guess because the truth might be inconvenient. Talk about a waste of resources.
posted by mark k at 10:06 PM on May 27, 2021 [15 favorites]
I am going to be SUPER pissed if my dad gets to say "I told you so."On the upside, he doesn’t either way. Your dad certainly didn’t (and doesn’t) have any superior knowledge to all of the people who are trained for and directly involved in this, who didn’t see evidence of the virus being a laboratory product at the time, and neither did the racist and politically-motivated blowhards he presumably got his “information” from. At the time, he was only telling you what he wanted to be true. Nobody gets to “I told you so” when they weren’t following the evidence at any point.
posted by gelfin at 7:39 AM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
If you found out it was a lab leak, in addition to the nebulous goal of improving lab safety, you could try to put things in place to more quickly and transparently identify and respond to an accident. This might include guidelines that take responsibility away from individual lab workers and their supervisors so actions are not taken, as you say "for temporary and trivial advantage." These are changes that certainly won't happen spontaneously.
If you investigated thoroughly and didn't find a definitive answer, because the records were unclear, you might propose things like mandatory registries of sample sequences so these things aren't a mystery in the future.
If an investigation finds that the origin was natural transmission, should the response be then that the status quo of lab practices and record keeping is perfectly fine? Or is the argument that an investigation could provide the political leverage to institute changes that ought to be made anyway?
posted by Pyry at 8:17 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you investigated thoroughly and didn't find a definitive answer, because the records were unclear, you might propose things like mandatory registries of sample sequences so these things aren't a mystery in the future.
If an investigation finds that the origin was natural transmission, should the response be then that the status quo of lab practices and record keeping is perfectly fine? Or is the argument that an investigation could provide the political leverage to institute changes that ought to be made anyway?
posted by Pyry at 8:17 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you investigated thoroughly and didn't find a definitive answer, because the records were unclear, you might propose things like mandatory registries of sample sequences so these things aren't a mystery in the future.
You know you can propose a change like this without doing an investigation first, right?
I guess because the truth might be inconvenient.
"Stoking tensions between two nuclear powers" has historically been regarded by many folks as "inconvenient", yes. The Cold War was terribly inconvenient for a lot of people (although terribly convenient for a small few who have wanted to have another one ever since it ended). Keeping "Chinese lab leak" in the news cycles for weeks or months is also likely to be very "inconvenient" for the Asian-Americans who've been hit by the surge of hate crimes.
Much of the pandemic was worse than it needed to be simply because humans are often profoundly bad at risk vs. reward calculations. There are risks to pushing this investigation, and there are potential rewards. Acting like people whose analysis of whether the risks are worth the rewards came up with "no" as the answer simply "don't care about the truth" is absolutely pompous and asinine. I'd love to know how the pandemic started! But I have looked at the situation and judged that adding fuel to ongoing efforts to start a Cold War between China and the US, and keeping "Chinese lab leak" in the news cycles (with all the associated racism against Asian-Americans that will fuel), is not worth the benefits of investigating the possibility of a lab leak. Meanwhile, the folks in this thread pushing for an investigation and pretending that doing so has only upsides, and there's no risk vs. reward calculation to even make, are not compelling me to believe that y'all have calculated the risks vs. rewards in this situation correctly.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:32 AM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
You know you can propose a change like this without doing an investigation first, right?
I guess because the truth might be inconvenient.
"Stoking tensions between two nuclear powers" has historically been regarded by many folks as "inconvenient", yes. The Cold War was terribly inconvenient for a lot of people (although terribly convenient for a small few who have wanted to have another one ever since it ended). Keeping "Chinese lab leak" in the news cycles for weeks or months is also likely to be very "inconvenient" for the Asian-Americans who've been hit by the surge of hate crimes.
Much of the pandemic was worse than it needed to be simply because humans are often profoundly bad at risk vs. reward calculations. There are risks to pushing this investigation, and there are potential rewards. Acting like people whose analysis of whether the risks are worth the rewards came up with "no" as the answer simply "don't care about the truth" is absolutely pompous and asinine. I'd love to know how the pandemic started! But I have looked at the situation and judged that adding fuel to ongoing efforts to start a Cold War between China and the US, and keeping "Chinese lab leak" in the news cycles (with all the associated racism against Asian-Americans that will fuel), is not worth the benefits of investigating the possibility of a lab leak. Meanwhile, the folks in this thread pushing for an investigation and pretending that doing so has only upsides, and there's no risk vs. reward calculation to even make, are not compelling me to believe that y'all have calculated the risks vs. rewards in this situation correctly.
posted by mstokes650 at 8:32 AM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
As an Asian American, I actually find it the exact sort of patronizing Northern American Subtle Racist messaging to be gate-kept on the right attitude on lab hypothesis. As liberals and progressives we can demand transparency and accountability in a way that does not portray asking valid scientific questions as adding fuel to racism; rather, it is the racists and jingoists (such as Trump's stooges) who are adding fuel, not other leftists/liberals/progressives who are adding this fuel. Chinese dissidents and Asian Americans speaking up about accountability and transparency is not adding fuel; that is a subtle form of victim blaming.
People seem unaware the WHO scientists themselves have been totally open about this issue and continue to list the laboratory hypothesis(es) as the #4 valid pathway of investigation, not the top priority but not at all off the table. So let's not misrepresent their position either. They went on Racaniello's interview and are now on record for being supportive of scientific study of the lab hypothesis (watch this segment of the interview for full context), basically saying it's not an either-or situation with respect to resources and attention (one of them during the interview says ideally they would splinter the investigation and devote appropriate energy to each). Further, authoritative people like Tufekci and Racaniello themselves have openly discussed the lab hypothesis controversy.
So it is discourse gatekeeping to say that regular people can't even begin to contemplate any of this is science elitism. Leave it to the professionals, regular folks should not be empowered to ask questions too? There's a name for that. And again, it is also a higher-order form of racism, that this internalized fear of hatred makes people decide for Asian Americans what is/isn't worth doing. As Tufekci says:
I believe that working to answer key questions that otherwise would be monopolized by racists is core to practicing antiracism. I also believe that equating criticism of the Chinese government with racism against Chinese people is, to put it bluntly, is, indeed, racist. The government is not the people, and like all authoritarian countries, China has great many dissidents. Some dissidents we know of, and there are many others who cannot speak out freely, including some who risked everything to warn us about the pandemic early on and were punished by their government. We should honor and highlight their work, not bury them by acting like criticizing a government — any government, to be honest, but especially unelected, authoritarian ones — means we’re somehow being racist against a billion of people who just happen to live there, or people of that descent. These people are not puppets of a singular government, and criticizing a government is not racism; rather, it’s often a requirement of antiracism.
The fact is that a proper investigation by all stakeholders was not what happened. The WHO COVID origin lead scientists (in the interview) who visited China this year did not have the power to run such an investigation, so they had to and are having to work within their circumscribed roles (and e.g. accept and work with the kind of data made available to them). An actual international investigation is what needed to have happened, but didn't for political reasons. But let's not normalize that, because that shouldn't have been the original premise. What happened instead is a year went by, the clock is still ticking, and now these WHO experts tasked to study the origin are left with a task that only gets harder (i.e., the idea that importance and urgency are not mutually independent variables).
posted by polymodus at 9:25 AM on May 28, 2021 [19 favorites]
People seem unaware the WHO scientists themselves have been totally open about this issue and continue to list the laboratory hypothesis(es) as the #4 valid pathway of investigation, not the top priority but not at all off the table. So let's not misrepresent their position either. They went on Racaniello's interview and are now on record for being supportive of scientific study of the lab hypothesis (watch this segment of the interview for full context), basically saying it's not an either-or situation with respect to resources and attention (one of them during the interview says ideally they would splinter the investigation and devote appropriate energy to each). Further, authoritative people like Tufekci and Racaniello themselves have openly discussed the lab hypothesis controversy.
So it is discourse gatekeeping to say that regular people can't even begin to contemplate any of this is science elitism. Leave it to the professionals, regular folks should not be empowered to ask questions too? There's a name for that. And again, it is also a higher-order form of racism, that this internalized fear of hatred makes people decide for Asian Americans what is/isn't worth doing. As Tufekci says:
I believe that working to answer key questions that otherwise would be monopolized by racists is core to practicing antiracism. I also believe that equating criticism of the Chinese government with racism against Chinese people is, to put it bluntly, is, indeed, racist. The government is not the people, and like all authoritarian countries, China has great many dissidents. Some dissidents we know of, and there are many others who cannot speak out freely, including some who risked everything to warn us about the pandemic early on and were punished by their government. We should honor and highlight their work, not bury them by acting like criticizing a government — any government, to be honest, but especially unelected, authoritarian ones — means we’re somehow being racist against a billion of people who just happen to live there, or people of that descent. These people are not puppets of a singular government, and criticizing a government is not racism; rather, it’s often a requirement of antiracism.
The fact is that a proper investigation by all stakeholders was not what happened. The WHO COVID origin lead scientists (in the interview) who visited China this year did not have the power to run such an investigation, so they had to and are having to work within their circumscribed roles (and e.g. accept and work with the kind of data made available to them). An actual international investigation is what needed to have happened, but didn't for political reasons. But let's not normalize that, because that shouldn't have been the original premise. What happened instead is a year went by, the clock is still ticking, and now these WHO experts tasked to study the origin are left with a task that only gets harder (i.e., the idea that importance and urgency are not mutually independent variables).
posted by polymodus at 9:25 AM on May 28, 2021 [19 favorites]
As liberals and progressives we can demand transparency and accountability in a way that does not portray asking valid scientific questions as adding fuel to racism;
I suspect, as liberals and progressives, if the lab leak turned out to be true, it would help Republicans much more so in the upcoming midterms and Trump in the next reelection and that is a reason this is not being pursued in earnest.
posted by asra at 9:59 AM on May 28, 2021
I suspect, as liberals and progressives, if the lab leak turned out to be true, it would help Republicans much more so in the upcoming midterms and Trump in the next reelection and that is a reason this is not being pursued in earnest.
posted by asra at 9:59 AM on May 28, 2021
As an Asian American, I actually find it the exact sort of patronizing Northern American Subtle Racist messaging to be gate-kept on the right attitude on lab hypothesis.
It's a neat rhetorical trick, how my post about evaluating risk vs. reward calculations is gatekeeping for the "right attitude" while you or mark k (for example) somehow aren't. Bonus points for implying I'm engaging in subtle racism, instead of that I'm simply applying some of the lessons in how racist violence is provoked that I thought we'd all learned during the Trump years if not before. It's a fine distinction to say that Trump and his cronies talking about Chinese lab leaks are fueling hate crimes but scientists or Chinese dissidents calling for an investigation are not; and if the effects of speech were limited by the intent behind that speech, you might have a point. But at the end of the day, it's "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" that are talking about Chinese lab leaks, and I'm afraid the distinction you want to make is going to be quite lost on those hateful, fearful people who are acting out those hates and fears on innocent targets of opportunity.
Meanwhile, the investigation itself that you're calling for, what happens with that, exactly?
An actual international investigation is what needed to have happened, but didn't for political reasons.
Which of those political reasons have changed since then? If we want to launch an international investigation and the Chinese government says "Nah, we're not interested, pound sand", what's the next step supposed to be, exactly?
posted by mstokes650 at 10:16 AM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's a neat rhetorical trick, how my post about evaluating risk vs. reward calculations is gatekeeping for the "right attitude" while you or mark k (for example) somehow aren't. Bonus points for implying I'm engaging in subtle racism, instead of that I'm simply applying some of the lessons in how racist violence is provoked that I thought we'd all learned during the Trump years if not before. It's a fine distinction to say that Trump and his cronies talking about Chinese lab leaks are fueling hate crimes but scientists or Chinese dissidents calling for an investigation are not; and if the effects of speech were limited by the intent behind that speech, you might have a point. But at the end of the day, it's "The Washington Post" and "The New York Times" that are talking about Chinese lab leaks, and I'm afraid the distinction you want to make is going to be quite lost on those hateful, fearful people who are acting out those hates and fears on innocent targets of opportunity.
Meanwhile, the investigation itself that you're calling for, what happens with that, exactly?
An actual international investigation is what needed to have happened, but didn't for political reasons.
Which of those political reasons have changed since then? If we want to launch an international investigation and the Chinese government says "Nah, we're not interested, pound sand", what's the next step supposed to be, exactly?
posted by mstokes650 at 10:16 AM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
Flagged polymodus' comment as fantastic. The right approach is not to reflexively plug our ears just because someone on the other side of the political divide said something, which is what even our "mainstream" media did. Abandoning empiricism and intellectual honesty just because the other side might make political use of what we find is exactly the wrong mindset. The only correct approach is to do what we can to ascertain the truth in the first place. Otherwise we're no better than the conspiratorial crazies.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:19 AM on May 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 10:19 AM on May 28, 2021 [4 favorites]
So it is discourse gatekeeping to say that regular people can't even begin to contemplate any of this is science elitism.
The reason that the lab leak hypothesis exists and is fed and nurtured in the public sphere (outside of people shooting the breeze on Metafilter) is to generate speculation that it was engineered. And virologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticists can — and do — and repeatedly — provide strong evidence that it was not. This hypothesis is not being fed and nurtured out of good faith inquiry or abstract desire for lab safety. So it isn't scientific elitism to fight back at disinformation campaigns, but I can see why professionals like Fauci get exhausted when they get pushback on this stuff, time and time again.
As liberals and progressives we can demand transparency and accountability in a way that does not portray asking valid scientific questions as adding fuel to racism
The only people who can do anything real about investigating this operate officially, at a state level.
So far, organized attempts at this have either been conducted by those with a vested interest in shifting blame and stoking racism and social discord (populist right-wing governments and their backers, generally), or by those who don't want to invoke the ire of a superpower because they have a larger public health mission (WHO and any other health organization that has to work with a superpower like China).
Outside of casual conversion on Metafilter, how do you get us to transparency and accountability, when everyone with real political capital to spend on this has so far demonstrated no genuine interest in either?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 AM on May 28, 2021 [6 favorites]
The reason that the lab leak hypothesis exists and is fed and nurtured in the public sphere (outside of people shooting the breeze on Metafilter) is to generate speculation that it was engineered. And virologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticists can — and do — and repeatedly — provide strong evidence that it was not. This hypothesis is not being fed and nurtured out of good faith inquiry or abstract desire for lab safety. So it isn't scientific elitism to fight back at disinformation campaigns, but I can see why professionals like Fauci get exhausted when they get pushback on this stuff, time and time again.
As liberals and progressives we can demand transparency and accountability in a way that does not portray asking valid scientific questions as adding fuel to racism
The only people who can do anything real about investigating this operate officially, at a state level.
So far, organized attempts at this have either been conducted by those with a vested interest in shifting blame and stoking racism and social discord (populist right-wing governments and their backers, generally), or by those who don't want to invoke the ire of a superpower because they have a larger public health mission (WHO and any other health organization that has to work with a superpower like China).
Outside of casual conversion on Metafilter, how do you get us to transparency and accountability, when everyone with real political capital to spend on this has so far demonstrated no genuine interest in either?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 AM on May 28, 2021 [6 favorites]
They went on Racaniello's interview and are now on record for being supportive of scientific study of the lab hypothesis (watch this segment of the interview for full context), basically saying it's not an either-or situation with respect to resources and attention (one of them during the interview says ideally they would splinter the investigation and devote appropriate energy to each).
that is not quite what i heard them say. i heard them say that the two-phase investigation did, in phase one, interview the lab personnel, finding nothing out of the ordinary and no scientific evidence supporting the lab origin or supporting a full laboratory audit/inspection, and that the studies of the second phase will pursue scientific leads developed in the first phase. the only evidence they acknowledged as to that hypothesis has been political or intelligence evidence alluded to in a dubious report and the popular press, and which has not, despite their requests, been provided to them to investigate scientifically. i took the bifurcation suggestion to mean that those seeking to pursue the (scientifically, or, at least scientifically by the WHO investigators) unsubstantiated intelligence leads should pursue them themselves (or provide that scientific evidence they have), and leave the WHO team to pursue its scientific investigation without political interference, which, it may have been implied, is occurring at the diplomatic level among WHO member states as to the development and authorization of phase ii. i have, further, found racaniello to be consistently skeptical of and frustrated with the lab origin hypothesis, or at least with its proponents' consistent assertion of unsubstantiated and often discredited theories.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:53 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
that is not quite what i heard them say. i heard them say that the two-phase investigation did, in phase one, interview the lab personnel, finding nothing out of the ordinary and no scientific evidence supporting the lab origin or supporting a full laboratory audit/inspection, and that the studies of the second phase will pursue scientific leads developed in the first phase. the only evidence they acknowledged as to that hypothesis has been political or intelligence evidence alluded to in a dubious report and the popular press, and which has not, despite their requests, been provided to them to investigate scientifically. i took the bifurcation suggestion to mean that those seeking to pursue the (scientifically, or, at least scientifically by the WHO investigators) unsubstantiated intelligence leads should pursue them themselves (or provide that scientific evidence they have), and leave the WHO team to pursue its scientific investigation without political interference, which, it may have been implied, is occurring at the diplomatic level among WHO member states as to the development and authorization of phase ii. i have, further, found racaniello to be consistently skeptical of and frustrated with the lab origin hypothesis, or at least with its proponents' consistent assertion of unsubstantiated and often discredited theories.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:53 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
On a practical level, evaluating and improving lab security now, while people actually care, seems like a great investment. This source of risk is a lot easier to manage than all the places in the world where bats and humans may interact. Investigating the lab leak possibility while also evaluating all labs that work with pathogens might make it clearer that it is motivated by a desire for security, not simply a search for someone to blame.
posted by snofoam at 11:11 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 11:11 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
The reason that the lab leak hypothesis exists and is fed and nurtured in the public sphere (outside of people shooting the breeze on Metafilter) is to generate speculation that it was engineered. And virologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticists can — and do — and repeatedly — provide strong evidence that it was not.
This is factually incorrect. Multiple links have been provided above regarding WHO and many other reputable scientists who are moving ahead with further investigations in entirely good faith inquiries.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:31 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is factually incorrect. Multiple links have been provided above regarding WHO and many other reputable scientists who are moving ahead with further investigations in entirely good faith inquiries.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:31 AM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
I also believe that equating criticism of the Chinese government with racism against Chinese people is, to put it bluntly, is, indeed, racist.
For me, it's recognizing that we are in a very fragile and unstable period. The relationship between the US and China has deteriorated to the point where both sides are unsure of what the paradigm is and are basically walking around blindfolded trying to form a new one. This is an environment ripe for misunderstanding and for new disagreements to emerge. And there are hardline and patriotic elements in both US and Chinese societies that have gained power in the last few years and would exploit any misunderstanding or disagreement between the countries as a way to gain further power.
So, I interpret everyone's unease at an investigation as as warning to proceed with caution and care, and not that they are racist.
posted by FJT at 12:00 PM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
For me, it's recognizing that we are in a very fragile and unstable period. The relationship between the US and China has deteriorated to the point where both sides are unsure of what the paradigm is and are basically walking around blindfolded trying to form a new one. This is an environment ripe for misunderstanding and for new disagreements to emerge. And there are hardline and patriotic elements in both US and Chinese societies that have gained power in the last few years and would exploit any misunderstanding or disagreement between the countries as a way to gain further power.
So, I interpret everyone's unease at an investigation as as warning to proceed with caution and care, and not that they are racist.
posted by FJT at 12:00 PM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think one of many great failures of US politics over the past few years has been the willingness of anyone left-of-center to let the Republican party frame and lead conversations in bad faith.
"How did the pandemic start and spread and how did we prevent another one?" is a different question than "Did the pandemic leak from a lab in Wuhan?" which is in turn different from "Did the Chinese government intentionally develop this virus and unleash it upon the world, making everything you've gone through over the past year their fault?"
The latter question is being pushed in the US. The middle question is part of the WHO inquiry, but isn't the top priority, and is merely a piece of the puzzle presented by the first question. The first question is the most important one, by far, but it's wide-ranging and isn't limited to the origin of the virus. The origin of the outbreak matters, but if the initial outbreak in Wuhan had been contained, we wouldn't be where we are today. If other countries had reacted faster and done a better job of stopping the spread (Italy, the UK, and the US come to mind), we wouldn't be where we are. But despite everything we know about virology and epidemiology, and all of our public health playbooks, and despite the fact that we're talking about some of the most technologically advanced countries in the world with some of the best medical systems, country after country and municipality after municipality failed.
The origin of the virus is a key piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the entire puzzle. But public attention has, for political reasons, been zeroed in on the origin, and not just the origin but the potential for a lab leak, and not just the potential for a lab leak, but whether the Chinese government engineered COVID-19 through gain of function research. That narrow framing erases the bigger picture, including, conveniently, the failure of the elected officials pushing this narrative to do a decent job of protecting the people they represent.
The push to conflate things also enables people to call for an investigation into the latter claim ("malicious and/or inept China made COVID in a lab"), but then suggest, when people object, that the objectors are opposed to looking into the first question whatsoever (i.e., "How did this start and spread and how can we do better?"). So if someone says, "Stop pushing the almost certainly false narrative that China engineered the virus," it can be shut down with, "Don't you think we should investigate the origin of COVID? I guess you don't believe in science after all."
I'm not saying anyone here is doing that on purpose, but people have definitely been talking past each other or interpreting the question differently, and I feel like the framing of the debate in the press kind of facilitates the rhetorical chaos.
I think talking about an investigation only in terms of a single lab is a trap. That doesn't mean there should never be an investigation into how we ended up in this mess, or that one isn't ongoing, or that an assessment of the lab shouldn't be one piece of that investigation (though that seems pretty infeasible at the moment). But it seems very intentional that we're being driven to focus the conversation on this one thing to the exclusion of everything else, and to conflate "investigating whether this is a Chinese lab's fault" with investigating the origin and spread of COVID-19 whatsoever, as if that's the only or most important thing to consider.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:05 PM on May 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
"How did the pandemic start and spread and how did we prevent another one?" is a different question than "Did the pandemic leak from a lab in Wuhan?" which is in turn different from "Did the Chinese government intentionally develop this virus and unleash it upon the world, making everything you've gone through over the past year their fault?"
The latter question is being pushed in the US. The middle question is part of the WHO inquiry, but isn't the top priority, and is merely a piece of the puzzle presented by the first question. The first question is the most important one, by far, but it's wide-ranging and isn't limited to the origin of the virus. The origin of the outbreak matters, but if the initial outbreak in Wuhan had been contained, we wouldn't be where we are today. If other countries had reacted faster and done a better job of stopping the spread (Italy, the UK, and the US come to mind), we wouldn't be where we are. But despite everything we know about virology and epidemiology, and all of our public health playbooks, and despite the fact that we're talking about some of the most technologically advanced countries in the world with some of the best medical systems, country after country and municipality after municipality failed.
The origin of the virus is a key piece of the puzzle, but it isn't the entire puzzle. But public attention has, for political reasons, been zeroed in on the origin, and not just the origin but the potential for a lab leak, and not just the potential for a lab leak, but whether the Chinese government engineered COVID-19 through gain of function research. That narrow framing erases the bigger picture, including, conveniently, the failure of the elected officials pushing this narrative to do a decent job of protecting the people they represent.
The push to conflate things also enables people to call for an investigation into the latter claim ("malicious and/or inept China made COVID in a lab"), but then suggest, when people object, that the objectors are opposed to looking into the first question whatsoever (i.e., "How did this start and spread and how can we do better?"). So if someone says, "Stop pushing the almost certainly false narrative that China engineered the virus," it can be shut down with, "Don't you think we should investigate the origin of COVID? I guess you don't believe in science after all."
I'm not saying anyone here is doing that on purpose, but people have definitely been talking past each other or interpreting the question differently, and I feel like the framing of the debate in the press kind of facilitates the rhetorical chaos.
I think talking about an investigation only in terms of a single lab is a trap. That doesn't mean there should never be an investigation into how we ended up in this mess, or that one isn't ongoing, or that an assessment of the lab shouldn't be one piece of that investigation (though that seems pretty infeasible at the moment). But it seems very intentional that we're being driven to focus the conversation on this one thing to the exclusion of everything else, and to conflate "investigating whether this is a Chinese lab's fault" with investigating the origin and spread of COVID-19 whatsoever, as if that's the only or most important thing to consider.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:05 PM on May 28, 2021 [9 favorites]
I guess the other thing we're conflating is, "Should scientific and medical institutions investigate the origin of COVID-19?" with "Should US intelligence agencies lead the conversation and investigation into the origin of COVID-19?"
I think it's possible to be incredibly wary of one without being opposed to the other.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:16 PM on May 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
I think it's possible to be incredibly wary of one without being opposed to the other.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:16 PM on May 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
Leave it to the professionals, regular folks should not be empowered to ask questions too?
No. Personally, my stance in not being interested in anything other than the resulting conclusions is that Republicans are throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to distract from attacking the government and helping to kill a half-million Americans.
Steele-dossier'ing the origins of COVID when we're still in the middle of it is just not something I as a layperson feel is important, that's all. Put it this way: we find out the origin tomorrow, then what? Part of what I'm inferring is that the important part of this is a hypervigilance against Republicans being able to use one specific origin to their own benefit. That may happen, it may not. At #4 on Dr. Kasem's Global Top 40 (sorry...) of origin possibilities tells me my energy is being wasted if I'm paying attention to the contours of the process of investigation and discovery.
And so what if "lab leak" wins the prize? For all the reasons above, the Republicans hungry for this eventuality can be defused by going "whoopsy" the same fucking way they paper over their own misapprehensions. Don't engage their stunts and distractions. And everything they talk about that isn't COVID or 1/6 is a distraction, because they don't do anything and don't want to do anything, legislatively.
I've been thinking of actually studying the viciously bad-faith techniques of Republicans and evangelicals to use them against their own arguments (with what I think are constructive ethics). Abortion, trans bathrooms, the 2nd Amendment, textbook fuckery...all of it turned against them. Ressentiment is a ruling principle of the lowest sort, but at the same time all's fair in love and war. It's not an abyss, I'm not afraid to call Republicans teen-fuckers or to be otherwise dismissive. The US left's hippie PTSD that love is all you need is not working, while hippie-punching by Dem leadership continues.
posted by rhizome at 12:17 PM on May 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
No. Personally, my stance in not being interested in anything other than the resulting conclusions is that Republicans are throwing EVERYTHING at the wall to distract from attacking the government and helping to kill a half-million Americans.
Steele-dossier'ing the origins of COVID when we're still in the middle of it is just not something I as a layperson feel is important, that's all. Put it this way: we find out the origin tomorrow, then what? Part of what I'm inferring is that the important part of this is a hypervigilance against Republicans being able to use one specific origin to their own benefit. That may happen, it may not. At #4 on Dr. Kasem's Global Top 40 (sorry...) of origin possibilities tells me my energy is being wasted if I'm paying attention to the contours of the process of investigation and discovery.
And so what if "lab leak" wins the prize? For all the reasons above, the Republicans hungry for this eventuality can be defused by going "whoopsy" the same fucking way they paper over their own misapprehensions. Don't engage their stunts and distractions. And everything they talk about that isn't COVID or 1/6 is a distraction, because they don't do anything and don't want to do anything, legislatively.
I've been thinking of actually studying the viciously bad-faith techniques of Republicans and evangelicals to use them against their own arguments (with what I think are constructive ethics). Abortion, trans bathrooms, the 2nd Amendment, textbook fuckery...all of it turned against them. Ressentiment is a ruling principle of the lowest sort, but at the same time all's fair in love and war. It's not an abyss, I'm not afraid to call Republicans teen-fuckers or to be otherwise dismissive. The US left's hippie PTSD that love is all you need is not working, while hippie-punching by Dem leadership continues.
posted by rhizome at 12:17 PM on May 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
How did this start and spread and how can we do better?
That's a legitimate question — absolutely. Improving the safety of research into deadly pathogens is one of many legitimate concerns, generally, along with how we and our institutions responded — and failed — to meet common needs in the face of a deadly global emergency.
One way to go from here is to be honest and acknowledge that good faith inquiry is not currently a priority for those who are "just asking questions", who are in positions of state-level power, who have obviously disreputable intent and little or no scientific literacy, but have yet still inexplicably been given a soapbox that drowns out these and other real concerns. Another way is to let these types keep sucking all the oxygen out of the room. These are all just choices, and ones which even regular people can join in on, by consuming and amplifying media that nurture this malicious behavior.
Still, slapping a veneer of "jes'-folks" innocence on inquiries based on a foundation of conspiracy theorizing is probably not going to move the needle forwards on the kinds of scientific cooperation and collaboration efforts that will be needed to limit future outbreaks. Maybe stomping feet and burning bridges will help with shifting the blame around for some bad choices, but that stuff probably won't help the experts be able to more easily get together and fight tomorrow's pandemic. Guess we'll see.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on May 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
That's a legitimate question — absolutely. Improving the safety of research into deadly pathogens is one of many legitimate concerns, generally, along with how we and our institutions responded — and failed — to meet common needs in the face of a deadly global emergency.
One way to go from here is to be honest and acknowledge that good faith inquiry is not currently a priority for those who are "just asking questions", who are in positions of state-level power, who have obviously disreputable intent and little or no scientific literacy, but have yet still inexplicably been given a soapbox that drowns out these and other real concerns. Another way is to let these types keep sucking all the oxygen out of the room. These are all just choices, and ones which even regular people can join in on, by consuming and amplifying media that nurture this malicious behavior.
Still, slapping a veneer of "jes'-folks" innocence on inquiries based on a foundation of conspiracy theorizing is probably not going to move the needle forwards on the kinds of scientific cooperation and collaboration efforts that will be needed to limit future outbreaks. Maybe stomping feet and burning bridges will help with shifting the blame around for some bad choices, but that stuff probably won't help the experts be able to more easily get together and fight tomorrow's pandemic. Guess we'll see.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:36 PM on May 28, 2021 [5 favorites]
Perhaps stating the obvious, but the methods by which an intelligence service would investigate whether Covid-19 originated in a lab leak are completely different from the methods a group of scientists would use to investigate that question.
The intelligence investigation will focus on uncovering actions, documents, data, and events that the Chinese government has attempted to keep hidden. They'll do this by looking for sympathetic insiders, analyzing communications, hacking Chinese government communication systems, along with analyzing publicly available data.
I put this out because a lot of people are scoffing at the 90-day timeframe as being completely impossible to meet. That might be true for a scientific investigation, but not necessarily true for intelligence research, analysis, and reporting.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 12:48 PM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
The intelligence investigation will focus on uncovering actions, documents, data, and events that the Chinese government has attempted to keep hidden. They'll do this by looking for sympathetic insiders, analyzing communications, hacking Chinese government communication systems, along with analyzing publicly available data.
I put this out because a lot of people are scoffing at the 90-day timeframe as being completely impossible to meet. That might be true for a scientific investigation, but not necessarily true for intelligence research, analysis, and reporting.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 12:48 PM on May 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
Right, a lot of the intelligence will have already been gathered and is waiting to be analyzed. I'm sure they're pushing for new sources, SIGINT, and data but there is undoubtedly mountains of stuff sitting around waiting to be looked at.
posted by Justinian at 12:54 PM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 12:54 PM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
No matter the timeline, an intelligence investigation, and its outcomes, will be framed around the motives and objectives of that intelligence agency rather than accuracy, thoroughness, or scientific importance.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 3:17 PM on May 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by evidenceofabsence at 3:17 PM on May 28, 2021 [2 favorites]
The Trump administration had about 10 months to find something. And it's no exaggeration that they were extremely motivated to find anything and publicize it, for many reasons: They saw China as an existential threat, it would have deflected attention from their own mishandling of Covid, and it would have proved Trump correct (especially important if it was released before the election). And yet nothing.
That probably the most motivated administration that already had preconceived notions of COVID-19's nefarious Chinese origins with a penchant to take any shred of "evidence" and spin multiple stories from it did not release anything of substance is telling. But I admit that this is just my own speculation that I'm just adding to the mix.
posted by FJT at 3:44 PM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
That probably the most motivated administration that already had preconceived notions of COVID-19's nefarious Chinese origins with a penchant to take any shred of "evidence" and spin multiple stories from it did not release anything of substance is telling. But I admit that this is just my own speculation that I'm just adding to the mix.
posted by FJT at 3:44 PM on May 28, 2021 [1 favorite]
One reason there needs to be an investigation is that many people in the intelligence community believe that China may not know whether or not there was a lab leak. Would you report a lab leak to your government if the punishment for reporting the leak was potentially death?
We now know that China covered up the initial outbreak, silenced doctors, jailed journalists, scrubbed the internet of references to Covid, and slow rolled the release of its genome, all while the World Health Organization was lauding them for their transparency and quick work. We only know some of this because Chinese dissidents posted the truth in braille on the internet to avoid government censorship.
All of this begs the question as to whether or not a government as secretive and repressive as China's can securely run a lab, or if their policies present their own security issues. It seems a lot like Chernobyl where Russia's inability to tell the world what was going on and ask for help put the entire planet in jeopardy.
As far as criticism potentially fanning the flames of racism is concerned it is troubling, but it cannot keep us from criticizing the Chinese government or exposing the truth of Covid's origins. The actions of China's government do not reflect on its citizens, some of whom risked death just so these truths could be exposed.
posted by xammerboy at 8:21 PM on May 28, 2021 [11 favorites]
We now know that China covered up the initial outbreak, silenced doctors, jailed journalists, scrubbed the internet of references to Covid, and slow rolled the release of its genome, all while the World Health Organization was lauding them for their transparency and quick work. We only know some of this because Chinese dissidents posted the truth in braille on the internet to avoid government censorship.
All of this begs the question as to whether or not a government as secretive and repressive as China's can securely run a lab, or if their policies present their own security issues. It seems a lot like Chernobyl where Russia's inability to tell the world what was going on and ask for help put the entire planet in jeopardy.
As far as criticism potentially fanning the flames of racism is concerned it is troubling, but it cannot keep us from criticizing the Chinese government or exposing the truth of Covid's origins. The actions of China's government do not reflect on its citizens, some of whom risked death just so these truths could be exposed.
posted by xammerboy at 8:21 PM on May 28, 2021 [11 favorites]
As U.S. calls for focus on covid origins, China repeats speculation about U.S. military base
posted by chavenet at 2:37 AM on May 29, 2021
posted by chavenet at 2:37 AM on May 29, 2021
i took the bifurcation suggestion to mean that those seeking to pursue the (scientifically, or, at least scientifically by the WHO investigators) unsubstantiated intelligence leads should pursue them themselves (or provide that scientific evidence they have), and leave the WHO team to pursue its scientific investigation without political interference,
I didn't interpret their conversation that way. They laid out pathway #4 at the outset, so it's not consistent with that to then say the bifurcation should be handed off to nonscientific study; a splinter group working on #4 must nevertheless be a scientific project in its own right, because that is what the Phase 1 roadmap has laid out. It's just that the trail, as the saw, went pretty cold relative to their positionality as WHO scientists. They went at length saying it felt rude to interrogate further, etc.; so they too are practicing a politics.
Racaniello as the mainstream journalism gadfly makes his personal credence on #4 clear (and the interviewees also believe #4 is a vanishingly small probability). But that's part of the discourse, and as an academic, freedom of inquiry is probably in his blood, it's just tacitly there, and he demonstrates it. It's what enables his critiques in the first place. That's the broader point I was making when referencing him in relation to gatekeeping discourses.
posted by polymodus at 4:59 AM on May 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
I didn't interpret their conversation that way. They laid out pathway #4 at the outset, so it's not consistent with that to then say the bifurcation should be handed off to nonscientific study; a splinter group working on #4 must nevertheless be a scientific project in its own right, because that is what the Phase 1 roadmap has laid out. It's just that the trail, as the saw, went pretty cold relative to their positionality as WHO scientists. They went at length saying it felt rude to interrogate further, etc.; so they too are practicing a politics.
Racaniello as the mainstream journalism gadfly makes his personal credence on #4 clear (and the interviewees also believe #4 is a vanishingly small probability). But that's part of the discourse, and as an academic, freedom of inquiry is probably in his blood, it's just tacitly there, and he demonstrates it. It's what enables his critiques in the first place. That's the broader point I was making when referencing him in relation to gatekeeping discourses.
posted by polymodus at 4:59 AM on May 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
So, I interpret everyone's unease at an investigation as as warning to proceed with caution and care, and not that they are racist.
Tufekci has her way with words, which I am coming to admire greatly, but I'll suggest as an alternative the well-understood progressive idea that when one starts defending their non-racism, that is precisely when to start reviewing White Fragility, concepts like the well-meaning racist, and so forth.
posted by polymodus at 5:15 AM on May 29, 2021
Tufekci has her way with words, which I am coming to admire greatly, but I'll suggest as an alternative the well-understood progressive idea that when one starts defending their non-racism, that is precisely when to start reviewing White Fragility, concepts like the well-meaning racist, and so forth.
posted by polymodus at 5:15 AM on May 29, 2021
Stanching the open ended speculation on the origins of Covid that have been weaponized by those who want to promote a racist agenda may only be possible by establishing a clear, evidence based narrative around which there is general consensus. I don't think we get there until the public feels the matter has been responsibly and thoroughly investigated. Republicans have laced their mischaracterization of the science with racist invective, and China has repeatedly made the truth almost impossible to uncover, but the investigation, I think, is an attempt to rectify matters as best as is possible. I worry more about the long term racist outcomes resulting from not having an investigation than from having one.
posted by xammerboy at 10:57 AM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 10:57 AM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
polymodus, I agree that it's appropriate to investigate whether there was a lab leak. I'm not at all sure that the pressure to not look into it is racist. A thing can be very bad (authoritarian, or wrong, or whatever) without being racist.
I can see the case for investigating why the US and a number of other countries did so badly, except that I'm not sure there's anything to investigate. The mistakes seem to be pretty public, but maybe I'm missing something.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:40 PM on May 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
I can see the case for investigating why the US and a number of other countries did so badly, except that I'm not sure there's anything to investigate. The mistakes seem to be pretty public, but maybe I'm missing something.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:40 PM on May 29, 2021 [1 favorite]
Not sure why my comment got deleted, but I'll try re-phrasing. xammerboy (or anyone, really), can you point me toward any references that can help me to also have some nonzero confidence that Republicans at the policy-making or influencing-others level might accept the results of a Biden administration inquiry into the origins of covid-19 if those results don't align with what they want to hear or is politically expedient for them?
posted by eviemath at 12:58 PM on May 29, 2021
posted by eviemath at 12:58 PM on May 29, 2021
(That is, what is the evidence that those who have weaponized discussion over the origins of covid-19 to promote a racist agenda are acting in good enough faith that the outcome of a Biden administration report will make a difference for them or their followers?)
posted by eviemath at 1:01 PM on May 29, 2021
posted by eviemath at 1:01 PM on May 29, 2021
If the investigation’s primary purpose is to find out what can be known about the origination of the outbreak, rather than to placate the U.S. right wing, then whether or not the right wing will be satisfied is not really important. Is anyone suggesting that this needs to be done to satisfy trumpists?
posted by skewed at 1:13 PM on May 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by skewed at 1:13 PM on May 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
Is anyone suggesting that this needs to be done to satisfy trumpists?
Such a suggestion is what I was replying to, at least.
posted by eviemath at 2:07 PM on May 29, 2021
Such a suggestion is what I was replying to, at least.
posted by eviemath at 2:07 PM on May 29, 2021
Is anyone suggesting that this needs to be done to satisfy trumpists?
As far as United States politics go, specifically, right-wing extremists put pressure on the Biden administration and government scientists:
As far as United States politics go, specifically, right-wing extremists put pressure on the Biden administration and government scientists:
Seizing a lull on the Senate floor on Wednesday night, Senators Mike Braun of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, both Republicans, passed their bill to declassify intelligence related to any potential links between the Chinese lab and the origins of the pandemic through unanimous consent. It came after the Senate on Tuesday unanimously agreed to include two Republican provisions to a huge package of China legislation aimed at prohibiting sending American funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or to China-based “gain of function” research, in which scientists intentionally try to make a pathogen more powerful.posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:12 PM on May 29, 2021 [5 favorites]
“For over a year, anyone asking questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been branded as a conspiracy theorist,” Mr. Hawley said. “The world needs to know if this pandemic was the product of negligence at the Wuhan lab, but the C.C.P. has done everything it can to block a credible investigation.”...
Some scientists attributed the [shift in policy] in part to the fact that the more extreme proponents of a lab leak hypothesis, like Mr. Navarro, had drowned out the more measured discussions of how lab workers could have accidentally carried the virus outside.
Which is to say that Trumpists are indeed very much behind this disinformation campaign, whether or not they will be satisfied by whatever answer Biden's people find, if any.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:36 PM on May 29, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:36 PM on May 29, 2021 [5 favorites]
I understand that you think it’s been established that the only reason there is substantial interest in the subject right now is because of trumpist influences. However, if I stipulate that I’ve been duped by the propaganda, is it okay still to talk about here on metafilter?
posted by skewed at 3:01 PM on May 29, 2021
posted by skewed at 3:01 PM on May 29, 2021
Die hard conspiracy theorists will believe what they want, and Fox News will report whatever is politically useful regardless of the investigation's outcome. However, credible scientists and news journalists may stop saying that Covid's origins were never thoroughly and responsibly investigated. Right now, those accusations have some merit, and are providing a lot of fuel to conspiracy theorist speculation. I also think an investigation where the investigators are able to go where they want to, speak with all the people they want to, and have the freedom to look over all the data they want to will better help put the public's mind at ease. It also gives the Biden administration a second chance to state their case that Covid could not have been engineered and is extremely unlikely to have been released from a lab freshly and in more detail.
posted by xammerboy at 3:09 PM on May 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 3:09 PM on May 29, 2021 [3 favorites]
Personally, I think if someone has good reason to believe Covid may have been engineered or lab leaked they should be able to present those reasons here without fear they will be labeled a Republican dupe or racist.
posted by xammerboy at 3:12 PM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 3:12 PM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
Hmm, I don't get then why on one hand it's not okay to dismiss the lab leak theory just because racists believe it and are pushing it, yet it's also okay to dismiss folks who are skeptical of the same theory and investigation because they are being racist by doing this?
posted by FJT at 3:36 PM on May 29, 2021
posted by FJT at 3:36 PM on May 29, 2021
FJT, If you have any concerns, I'm sure the eventual publication of the CIA's epidemiological findings in Nature will clear everything up. Until then, let's not prejudge the fantasies of Sen. Tom Cotton and assorted disgraced former NYT reporters.
posted by figurant at 4:16 PM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by figurant at 4:16 PM on May 29, 2021 [2 favorites]
Personally, I think if someone has good reason to believe Covid may have been engineered or lab leaked they should be able to present those reasons here without fear they will be labeled a Republican dupe or racist.
Thing is, though, while it's possible that sars-cov-2 is a naturally occurring virus that was being studied in the Wuhan lab and then accidentally leaked from the lab, single-handedly setting off the current pandemic, that's a fairly low probability event, as has been described with citation in the comment thread above. And there are definitely no scientific or factually based reasons for anyone to believe that it was engineered, as the links to expert refutation of this idea that other commenters have posted above make clear. Of course, the vast majority of people in the US don't read metafilter and may not have media environments where they've seen the links presented here. But if, due to the information that has been presented to them by sources they trust, someone believes something that is factually incorrect or mistakenly believes a low probability event to be high probability, how would you describe that if not as being duped?
posted by eviemath at 7:01 PM on May 29, 2021 [4 favorites]
Thing is, though, while it's possible that sars-cov-2 is a naturally occurring virus that was being studied in the Wuhan lab and then accidentally leaked from the lab, single-handedly setting off the current pandemic, that's a fairly low probability event, as has been described with citation in the comment thread above. And there are definitely no scientific or factually based reasons for anyone to believe that it was engineered, as the links to expert refutation of this idea that other commenters have posted above make clear. Of course, the vast majority of people in the US don't read metafilter and may not have media environments where they've seen the links presented here. But if, due to the information that has been presented to them by sources they trust, someone believes something that is factually incorrect or mistakenly believes a low probability event to be high probability, how would you describe that if not as being duped?
posted by eviemath at 7:01 PM on May 29, 2021 [4 favorites]
A lot of scientists have retracted their assessment that there is a low probability of a lab leak, because the information they were given by China was found to be full of holes and inaccuracies. Journalists have rightly reported this means there is a higher chance the lab leak hypothesis is correct, and questioned the importance of facts that have been revised. This has given a lot of the public the perception that the chances of a lab leak have greatly changed, though everything I am reading still suggests the chances remain extremely low. There is though some honest debate to be had, especially as we keep finding out new information.
posted by xammerboy at 12:39 AM on May 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 12:39 AM on May 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
Just chiming in to say (like many others probably have) that regardless of origin, the fact that COVID got rampant elsewhere besides China is an indictment of just about all of those countries and their lack of preparadness and/or hesitation to use what little preparations they had. So, origins-hunting right now is little more than deflection and scapegoating.
At some point, we need to have a better idea of how/where this little nuisance came from. But that's NOT job 1 at the moment.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:03 AM on May 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
At some point, we need to have a better idea of how/where this little nuisance came from. But that's NOT job 1 at the moment.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:03 AM on May 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
I do not understand why so many here state that humanity can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Deflection? Saying some experts can't be researching the origins of a global pandemic while many others are working to mitigate and stop its brutal effects on humanity is by definition deflecting attention from one of the vital aspects we need to be addressing right now.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:20 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:20 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Saying some experts can't be researching the origins of a global pandemic while many others are working to mitigate and stop its brutal effects on humanity
A link was posted upthread to an ongoing WHO investigation by qualified experts (scientists) that is doing exactly that. The issue is whether a political investigation by US intelligence services is a necessary or even useful additional effort, as I understand it?
posted by eviemath at 9:28 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
A link was posted upthread to an ongoing WHO investigation by qualified experts (scientists) that is doing exactly that. The issue is whether a political investigation by US intelligence services is a necessary or even useful additional effort, as I understand it?
posted by eviemath at 9:28 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Why is it so vital to nail the origins of SARS-CoV-2 right now? What will that achieve that would be genuinely helpful NOW? [popcorn]
If asked, I would say the most important thing to be doing now would be to get as much vaccine as possible produced, delivered and stuck into arms, especially in the poorer countries where COVID is wreaking havoc right now. But I guess that's just me being partisan, or something.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:29 AM on May 30, 2021
If asked, I would say the most important thing to be doing now would be to get as much vaccine as possible produced, delivered and stuck into arms, especially in the poorer countries where COVID is wreaking havoc right now. But I guess that's just me being partisan, or something.
posted by Artful Codger at 9:29 AM on May 30, 2021
A lot of scientists have retracted their assessment that there is a low probability of a lab leak
Again, xammerboy, do you have sources for that? Because it seems to contradict other sources other commenters have posted in this thread.
posted by eviemath at 9:30 AM on May 30, 2021
Again, xammerboy, do you have sources for that? Because it seems to contradict other sources other commenters have posted in this thread.
posted by eviemath at 9:30 AM on May 30, 2021
Here's an actual sustained, backed-with-facts-and-citations argument for Why the Lab Leak Theory Matters.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:45 AM on May 30, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 9:45 AM on May 30, 2021
From PhineasGage's link,
A discussion of the likelihood of a lab leak source, referencing scientific experts, it is not. Though perhaps this was not intended to be a response to my request, and we're just talking past each other?
posted by eviemath at 9:58 AM on May 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
On Long Bets, a website where prognosticators test their mettle by playing for real (or at least proceeds-donated-to-charity) stakes, there is an open bet between the British astrophysicist Martin Rees, a noted worrier over apocalyptic possibilities, and Harvard University’s Steven Pinker, famous for his vaulting optimism. For Rees to win, the following prediction must be vindicated: “A bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event within a six-month period starting no later than Dec 31 2020.”It's a catchy, if flippant, intro. The rest of the article summarizes more serious arguments that have been made for why the source of the pandemic could be politically important, citing other journalists and political commentators. (Most of the points made have been discussed in this thread. It does lay out the arguments in favor of a political investigation in a more organized manner than a metafilter thread. Though is a bit misleading in the implication that there isn't currently much international cooperation among labs or international biosafety standards.)
The bet was made for the 2017-20 period; you will notice that its time frame has expired. And yet it remains unsettled, pending a resolution of the question that the Western media has finally decided to take seriously: Did Covid-19 somehow escape accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than leaping from bats or pangolins to its human Patient Zero?
So if you’re wondering how much the so-called lab leak hypothesis really matters, and what’s actually at stake, there’s one answer: The $400 that Rees bet against Pinker on the self-destructive capacities of the human race.
A discussion of the likelihood of a lab leak source, referencing scientific experts, it is not. Though perhaps this was not intended to be a response to my request, and we're just talking past each other?
posted by eviemath at 9:58 AM on May 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Last week, 18 leading scientists published a letter in the academic journal Science calling for further investigation to determine the origin of the pandemic..." (quote from Politico)
posted by PhineasGage at 10:08 AM on May 30, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 10:08 AM on May 30, 2021
Whether COVID came from wet-markets and bushmeat, or from a containment mistake at a research facility... with hindsight, they're both dumb, preventable human errors, no? Fix both: clean up or end wet-markets, and up the rigour of pathogen research labs.
Now, if this was some sort of deliberate release, that's a different story... bit since even the dumbest evil mastermind usually knows enough to not drop bombs in their own backyard, it's much less likely (other than the actions of a disgruntled or ethically challenged individual). Time to watch 12 Monkeys again.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:09 AM on May 30, 2021
Now, if this was some sort of deliberate release, that's a different story... bit since even the dumbest evil mastermind usually knows enough to not drop bombs in their own backyard, it's much less likely (other than the actions of a disgruntled or ethically challenged individual). Time to watch 12 Monkeys again.
posted by Artful Codger at 10:09 AM on May 30, 2021
Again, PhineasGage, looking at the text of your link is instructive. The scientists are calling for a continuation of the ongoing WHO study, led by scientists with relevant expertise, independent of any country or political group (so, not the proposed US intelligence investigation). They believe that the first stage of the WHO study gave insufficient attention to the accidental lab leak theory, but do not say that they think it is an actually likely source. As the FPP we're discussing clearly notes, "Scientists are ... also being careful to point out that while a leak is a possibility, the most likely origin remains a natural one."
posted by eviemath at 10:48 AM on May 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
On 30 December 2019, the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases notified the world about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (1). Since then, scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), its transmission, pathogenesis, and mitigation by vaccines, therapeutics, and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.In summary, this also doesn't show that scientists with relevant expertise have changed their estimation of the relative likelihood of zoonotic versus accidental lab leak source for the pandemic.
In May 2020, the World Health Assembly requested that the World Health Organization (WHO) director-general work closely with partners to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (2). In November, the Terms of Reference for a China–WHO joint study were released (3). The information, data, and samples for the study's first phase were collected and summarized by the Chinese half of the team; the rest of the team built on this analysis. Although there were no findings in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident, the team assessed a zoonotic spillover from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely,” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely” [(4), p. 9]. Furthermore, the two theories were not given balanced consideration. Only 4 of the 313 pages of the report and its annexes addressed the possibility of a laboratory accident (4). Notably, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus commented that the report's consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and offered to provide additional resources to fully evaluate the possibility (5).
As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts.
Finally, in this time of unfortunate anti-Asian sentiment in some countries, we note that at the beginning of the pandemic, it was Chinese doctors, scientists, journalists, and citizens who shared with the world crucial information about the spread of the virus—often at great personal cost (8, 9). We should show the same determination in promoting a dispassionate science-based discourse on this difficult but important issue.
posted by eviemath at 10:48 AM on May 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
Eviemath I am not sure what point you are making. There are many here who are questioning the political and/or scientific justification for investigating the lab leak hypothesis now (or ever). I posted links to relevant arguments in favor of the political and scientific arguments to do so now. Anyone who remains unpersuaded has motivations or logic that eludes me. I won't take up any more space in this thread.
posted by PhineasGage at 11:23 AM on May 30, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 11:23 AM on May 30, 2021
Again, xammerboy, do you have sources for that?
I, too, would be interested to see citations. The part of the scientific community I'm in believes this virus to have natural origin. I'm not aware of a large shift towards other opinions.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:53 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
I, too, would be interested to see citations. The part of the scientific community I'm in believes this virus to have natural origin. I'm not aware of a large shift towards other opinions.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:53 AM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Again, PhineasGage, maybe we're talking past each other. You posted you links after I asked for references in relation to xammerboy's claim that "a lot of scientists have retracted their assessment that there is a low probability of a lab leak." I asked initially if you were responding to me or if the timing was just coincidental, but you didn't reply, so I guess I assumed that you were responding to me. I gather that's not the case?
posted by eviemath at 3:29 PM on May 30, 2021
posted by eviemath at 3:29 PM on May 30, 2021
The scientists who wrote that letter in Science undoubtedly know a lot more about both the science and the politics of this whole situation than me. Here's how I'm understanding and interpreting things at present, however:
There are two main reasons why one might want to know the origin of the pandemic:
I. Assigning culpability or responsibility
II. Lowering the risks of future pandemics
In both cases, "where did the virus come from?" is only one sub-question of a broader question.
I: The broader question is one of assigning culpability or responsibility for the pandemic as a whole. This is more of a political question than a scientific one. I think it will at some point be important to look at various systems failures that contributed to our present situation, as part of part II (below). I can also see an argument from the perspective of smaller countries that the inaction of larger countries that contributed to the spread of the pandemic put them at risk in ways that they weren't responsible for and didn't have any control over, and thus perhaps some restitution is owed. Apart from that, I, personally, don't believe that assigning culpability or blame is useful, at least not in the present political situation. That's a value judgement, though, so I'm not going to convince folks with different values otherwise with any arguments of facts or data.
II: The broader question is one of preventing future pandemics. This includes multiple stages: preventing initial transmission to humans of novel infectious diseases, preventing sufficient spread to create a localized epidemic, and preventing sufficient spread to create a global pandemic. The question of the origins of the sars-cov2 virus only relate to the first stage, as I understand it. The second and third stages are more about human systems than virology, but that is part of what public health experts and epidemiologists work together to study.
The subsidiary questions in the second and third stages can be grouped in the following categories.
A. Spread from initial infection to epidemic
1. Did current early detection systems fail from how they were intended to work? If so, how can we prevent future failures?
2. In general, how can early detection systems be improved?
My understanding so far is that there are a number of components to this, including deteriorating international cooperation, given that the early detection systems rely on a combination of individual country and international WHO measures, and require cooperation rather than political conflict between major players (such as the Chinese and US governments). Diminished funding of the WHO by major funders (eg. the US Trump administration) likely didn't help. Determining adequate funding levels and making these early detection systems more robust against political conflict between states or political concerns within a single state's bureaucracy would be an important part of an investigation.
B. Spread from localized epidemic to global pandemic
1. Did early containment procedures fail from how they were intended to work? If so, how can we prevent future failures?
2. In general, how can early containment procedures be improved?
This is in many ways an internal issue within countries. Chinese citizens should definitely be asking this of their government (and have, to the best of my understanding, though perhaps with limited results), just as US citizens should be asking it of theirs (and have, though we also do not yet have an investigative commission within the US). One of the issues to look into here is, why were recommendations from similar investigations from previous pandemics or near-pandemics (the first SARS, MERS) not followed by some major countries? (In the US, we informally know that this relates to Trump's ego and the fact that the previous recommendations were associated with the Obama administration, but I think it would still be helpful to have an official investigation with officially documented findings - perhaps after the pandemic is over, given potential concerns about resource allocation.) Although I can definitely see an argument from the perspective of smaller countries that the inaction of larger countries that contributed to the spread put them at risk in ways that they weren't responsible for and didn't have any control over, and thus perhaps some restitution is owed.
The proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't sound like it will look at any of the above questions, however.
C. First stage: initial transmission to humans
1. The most likely event, both for the current pandemic and in general, is that a virus of zoonotic origin jumped to humans on enough separate occasions that it eventually spread beyond the first human to other humans. Understanding how and where is super important, since it would lead to significant and actionable improvements in scientific understanding. But such an investigation is also rather complicated, and has taken years of work by experts in the case of past epidemics or pandemics. In other words, the proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't have the proper composition, time, frame, access, or other structural needs to conduct this type of an investigation - if, as seems most likely, covid-19 is of zoonotic origin, the proposed US intelligence investigation will not be able to establish this.
2. As the letter in Science says, the possibility that the covid-19 pandemic was touched off due to a naturally occurring virus accidentally leaking from a lab is still low probability, but can't yet be discounted. The only way I see knowing for sure if this was the case being helpful in preventing future pandemics is that it rules out the first, more likely scenario, which then allows the WHO to not spend time and money on investigating possible zoonotic origins, which means that time and money can be better spent on future pandemic prevention in another manner. Otherwise, as I understand it, biosafety procedures for infectious disease labs are in many ways a simpler and more controlled system, that is entirely under human design and control, which means that if the source of the pandemic was an accidental lab leak, then knowing exactly how it happened doesn't give us any necessary additional and actionable information. To explain further, consider the two possible scenarios for an accidental lab leak:
(a) Current biosafety standards at infections disease labs might be insufficient.
It seems to me that we (where "we" in this case means scientists with relevant expertise, not, like, me personally) can, and should, review current biosafety standards in light of what we have learned over the past year about airborne viral transmission and make improvements. We don't need to know the exact origin of the pandemic to do this, however. Rather, it might instead cause reviewers to focus too much on the one failure and do an incomplete job considering additional improvements that could prevent future accidents. Arguably, we should be reviewing biosafety standards regularly - and I'm pretty sure I recall reading that this is already done regularly - anyway, regardless of the origin of this particular pandemic. I don't see any reason to expect that a conclusive finding that an accidental lab leak was the source of the accident would give additional information for such a review. There is an economic argument against balancing risk with cost of safety measures, and I can see why some folks might think that a definitive finding would affect decision-making in this respect. But I think that a change in public risk tolerance in this area should be sufficient to change this balance, regardless of the actual origin of this particular pandemic. So I see this as being an independent issue from any investigation of how the pandemic happened.
(b) Current biosafety standards at infectious disease labs might be sufficient in theory, but not actually followed sufficiently well.
An audit of how well biosafety procedures are followed at infectious disease labs could be helpful in assuaging public worry, again regardless of the actual origin of the current pandemic. As I understand it, such audits do already occur on a regular schedule. Possibly a review of the audit procedures would be included in the overall review of biosafety standards in item (a). Unless we're specifically trying to assign blame, I don't see a use in focusing exclusively on the specific lab in Wuhan for such an audit, however - why not audit safety practices at all similar infectious disease labs across the board (and around the world)? And audit only of biosafety practices at the Wuhan lab is not a systems level consideration, so is a level of detail of culpability or responsibility that I don't think is useful at the present political moment. But also, focusing just on the one lab means that any potential risk from other labs would be ignored.
Summary: there are important questions to ask, but a focus just on the specific origins of covid-19 (rather than also looking at the systemic failures that enabled initial transmission in humans to become a local epidemic, and then a pandemic) and just on the Wuhan lab is likely to be harmful (in ignoring potential risks for future pandemics, or giving us false confidence) rather than helpful in preventing future pandemics. The proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't sound to me like it has the right expertise, scope, resources, or time frame to answer the most important questions. In that sense, that specific investigation seems to me to also be likely to be more harmful than helpful.
posted by eviemath at 3:57 PM on May 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
There are two main reasons why one might want to know the origin of the pandemic:
I. Assigning culpability or responsibility
II. Lowering the risks of future pandemics
In both cases, "where did the virus come from?" is only one sub-question of a broader question.
I: The broader question is one of assigning culpability or responsibility for the pandemic as a whole. This is more of a political question than a scientific one. I think it will at some point be important to look at various systems failures that contributed to our present situation, as part of part II (below). I can also see an argument from the perspective of smaller countries that the inaction of larger countries that contributed to the spread of the pandemic put them at risk in ways that they weren't responsible for and didn't have any control over, and thus perhaps some restitution is owed. Apart from that, I, personally, don't believe that assigning culpability or blame is useful, at least not in the present political situation. That's a value judgement, though, so I'm not going to convince folks with different values otherwise with any arguments of facts or data.
II: The broader question is one of preventing future pandemics. This includes multiple stages: preventing initial transmission to humans of novel infectious diseases, preventing sufficient spread to create a localized epidemic, and preventing sufficient spread to create a global pandemic. The question of the origins of the sars-cov2 virus only relate to the first stage, as I understand it. The second and third stages are more about human systems than virology, but that is part of what public health experts and epidemiologists work together to study.
The subsidiary questions in the second and third stages can be grouped in the following categories.
A. Spread from initial infection to epidemic
1. Did current early detection systems fail from how they were intended to work? If so, how can we prevent future failures?
2. In general, how can early detection systems be improved?
My understanding so far is that there are a number of components to this, including deteriorating international cooperation, given that the early detection systems rely on a combination of individual country and international WHO measures, and require cooperation rather than political conflict between major players (such as the Chinese and US governments). Diminished funding of the WHO by major funders (eg. the US Trump administration) likely didn't help. Determining adequate funding levels and making these early detection systems more robust against political conflict between states or political concerns within a single state's bureaucracy would be an important part of an investigation.
B. Spread from localized epidemic to global pandemic
1. Did early containment procedures fail from how they were intended to work? If so, how can we prevent future failures?
2. In general, how can early containment procedures be improved?
This is in many ways an internal issue within countries. Chinese citizens should definitely be asking this of their government (and have, to the best of my understanding, though perhaps with limited results), just as US citizens should be asking it of theirs (and have, though we also do not yet have an investigative commission within the US). One of the issues to look into here is, why were recommendations from similar investigations from previous pandemics or near-pandemics (the first SARS, MERS) not followed by some major countries? (In the US, we informally know that this relates to Trump's ego and the fact that the previous recommendations were associated with the Obama administration, but I think it would still be helpful to have an official investigation with officially documented findings - perhaps after the pandemic is over, given potential concerns about resource allocation.) Although I can definitely see an argument from the perspective of smaller countries that the inaction of larger countries that contributed to the spread put them at risk in ways that they weren't responsible for and didn't have any control over, and thus perhaps some restitution is owed.
The proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't sound like it will look at any of the above questions, however.
C. First stage: initial transmission to humans
1. The most likely event, both for the current pandemic and in general, is that a virus of zoonotic origin jumped to humans on enough separate occasions that it eventually spread beyond the first human to other humans. Understanding how and where is super important, since it would lead to significant and actionable improvements in scientific understanding. But such an investigation is also rather complicated, and has taken years of work by experts in the case of past epidemics or pandemics. In other words, the proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't have the proper composition, time, frame, access, or other structural needs to conduct this type of an investigation - if, as seems most likely, covid-19 is of zoonotic origin, the proposed US intelligence investigation will not be able to establish this.
2. As the letter in Science says, the possibility that the covid-19 pandemic was touched off due to a naturally occurring virus accidentally leaking from a lab is still low probability, but can't yet be discounted. The only way I see knowing for sure if this was the case being helpful in preventing future pandemics is that it rules out the first, more likely scenario, which then allows the WHO to not spend time and money on investigating possible zoonotic origins, which means that time and money can be better spent on future pandemic prevention in another manner. Otherwise, as I understand it, biosafety procedures for infectious disease labs are in many ways a simpler and more controlled system, that is entirely under human design and control, which means that if the source of the pandemic was an accidental lab leak, then knowing exactly how it happened doesn't give us any necessary additional and actionable information. To explain further, consider the two possible scenarios for an accidental lab leak:
(a) Current biosafety standards at infections disease labs might be insufficient.
It seems to me that we (where "we" in this case means scientists with relevant expertise, not, like, me personally) can, and should, review current biosafety standards in light of what we have learned over the past year about airborne viral transmission and make improvements. We don't need to know the exact origin of the pandemic to do this, however. Rather, it might instead cause reviewers to focus too much on the one failure and do an incomplete job considering additional improvements that could prevent future accidents. Arguably, we should be reviewing biosafety standards regularly - and I'm pretty sure I recall reading that this is already done regularly - anyway, regardless of the origin of this particular pandemic. I don't see any reason to expect that a conclusive finding that an accidental lab leak was the source of the accident would give additional information for such a review. There is an economic argument against balancing risk with cost of safety measures, and I can see why some folks might think that a definitive finding would affect decision-making in this respect. But I think that a change in public risk tolerance in this area should be sufficient to change this balance, regardless of the actual origin of this particular pandemic. So I see this as being an independent issue from any investigation of how the pandemic happened.
(b) Current biosafety standards at infectious disease labs might be sufficient in theory, but not actually followed sufficiently well.
An audit of how well biosafety procedures are followed at infectious disease labs could be helpful in assuaging public worry, again regardless of the actual origin of the current pandemic. As I understand it, such audits do already occur on a regular schedule. Possibly a review of the audit procedures would be included in the overall review of biosafety standards in item (a). Unless we're specifically trying to assign blame, I don't see a use in focusing exclusively on the specific lab in Wuhan for such an audit, however - why not audit safety practices at all similar infectious disease labs across the board (and around the world)? And audit only of biosafety practices at the Wuhan lab is not a systems level consideration, so is a level of detail of culpability or responsibility that I don't think is useful at the present political moment. But also, focusing just on the one lab means that any potential risk from other labs would be ignored.
Summary: there are important questions to ask, but a focus just on the specific origins of covid-19 (rather than also looking at the systemic failures that enabled initial transmission in humans to become a local epidemic, and then a pandemic) and just on the Wuhan lab is likely to be harmful (in ignoring potential risks for future pandemics, or giving us false confidence) rather than helpful in preventing future pandemics. The proposed US intelligence investigation doesn't sound to me like it has the right expertise, scope, resources, or time frame to answer the most important questions. In that sense, that specific investigation seems to me to also be likely to be more harmful than helpful.
posted by eviemath at 3:57 PM on May 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
Fantastic comment, eviemath.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:18 PM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:18 PM on May 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
A link was posted upthread to an ongoing WHO investigation by qualified experts (scientists) that is doing exactly that. The issue is whether a political investigation by US intelligence services is a necessary or even useful additional effort, as I understand it?
I don't think so? There are a lot of perspectives on this thread, but for the first 100+ comments or so "intelligence" appears once. I saw a lot of posts opposed to taking the question seriously in that stretch. No one was saying "Of course we need a through scientific investigation, just not the US intelligence agencies." Or, for that matter, posting in favor of intelligence agencies taking the lead.
If no one posting here opposes a through WHO investigation with broad access to Chinese lab records and a public report I honestly don't think there's much to dispute.
posted by mark k at 4:26 PM on May 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don't think so? There are a lot of perspectives on this thread, but for the first 100+ comments or so "intelligence" appears once. I saw a lot of posts opposed to taking the question seriously in that stretch. No one was saying "Of course we need a through scientific investigation, just not the US intelligence agencies." Or, for that matter, posting in favor of intelligence agencies taking the lead.
If no one posting here opposes a through WHO investigation with broad access to Chinese lab records and a public report I honestly don't think there's much to dispute.
posted by mark k at 4:26 PM on May 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
Again, xammerboy, do you have sources for that?
I have always been careful to state that everything I have read says a lab leak is extremely unlikely. As far as I know no scientist thinks the lab leak hypothesis is likely. Rather, there just seems to be more uncertainty as the information China has provided to make these assessments is repeatedly shown to be false.
When I said a lot of scientists retracted their opinion I was in part referring to the letter 18 prominent scientists published to Nature demanding a full investigation posted above. It was unfair of me to characterize the letter as a retraction, but it does not inspire confidence, claiming that the entirety of their assessment to date is based upon insufficient information collected by a Chinese team with no transparency or oversight in which they seem to have little confidence.
I was also referring to the article "How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love the Lab-Leak Theory*" written by a former New York Times science reporter, which is peppered with stories where scientists learn the information they used to previously make their assessments was not true. In at least one of these stories, a scientists changes their mind, not about whether or lab leak theory is likely, but as to his own certainty regarding how unlikely that scenario is. The article generally characterizes the investigation into Covid's origins as an ongoing discovery of coverups and lies that each incrementally increase the likelihood of what remains an extremely unlikely lab leak.
posted by xammerboy at 5:36 PM on May 30, 2021
I have always been careful to state that everything I have read says a lab leak is extremely unlikely. As far as I know no scientist thinks the lab leak hypothesis is likely. Rather, there just seems to be more uncertainty as the information China has provided to make these assessments is repeatedly shown to be false.
When I said a lot of scientists retracted their opinion I was in part referring to the letter 18 prominent scientists published to Nature demanding a full investigation posted above. It was unfair of me to characterize the letter as a retraction, but it does not inspire confidence, claiming that the entirety of their assessment to date is based upon insufficient information collected by a Chinese team with no transparency or oversight in which they seem to have little confidence.
I was also referring to the article "How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love the Lab-Leak Theory*" written by a former New York Times science reporter, which is peppered with stories where scientists learn the information they used to previously make their assessments was not true. In at least one of these stories, a scientists changes their mind, not about whether or lab leak theory is likely, but as to his own certainty regarding how unlikely that scenario is. The article generally characterizes the investigation into Covid's origins as an ongoing discovery of coverups and lies that each incrementally increase the likelihood of what remains an extremely unlikely lab leak.
posted by xammerboy at 5:36 PM on May 30, 2021
I also think an investigation where the investigators are able to go where they want to, speak with all the people they want to, and have the freedom to look over all the data they want to will better help put the public's mind at ease
Regarding that, let's take a look at the Birther theory. I think Birtherism is actually a good baseline case to compare, because the target of the investigation is similarly believed to have nefarious intentions because they're seen as foreign and anti-American. Also, Obama didn't release his long form certificate until about 2-3 years later in 2011 and during that time the non-stop right-wing and conspiracy media question was "What's he trying to hide?". And China, of course, refuses to provide lab records or cooperate with interviews and now the same question conservatives are asking is "What are they trying to hide?".
So, did belief in Birtherism stop after the birth certificate release in 2011 or when Trump announced that Obama was born in the US in 2016? No, polling shows 1/3 of the American public still believed it in November 2020. The linked article was about 2020 election fraud theories and how they will continue, but I think the exact same can be applied to Americans who believe in the lab leak theory. Even if China agreed to every request by investigators and they found nothing, at least 1/3 of Americans will still think it was a lab leak. And the numbers will probably be even higher, because China certainly is less well liked in the US public than Obama and China will be in the news much more than a former president.
Now I have to point out that this is focused on the American public. Outside the US, I'm not sure how the non-American public sees all this.
posted by FJT at 10:10 PM on May 30, 2021 [10 favorites]
Regarding that, let's take a look at the Birther theory. I think Birtherism is actually a good baseline case to compare, because the target of the investigation is similarly believed to have nefarious intentions because they're seen as foreign and anti-American. Also, Obama didn't release his long form certificate until about 2-3 years later in 2011 and during that time the non-stop right-wing and conspiracy media question was "What's he trying to hide?". And China, of course, refuses to provide lab records or cooperate with interviews and now the same question conservatives are asking is "What are they trying to hide?".
So, did belief in Birtherism stop after the birth certificate release in 2011 or when Trump announced that Obama was born in the US in 2016? No, polling shows 1/3 of the American public still believed it in November 2020. The linked article was about 2020 election fraud theories and how they will continue, but I think the exact same can be applied to Americans who believe in the lab leak theory. Even if China agreed to every request by investigators and they found nothing, at least 1/3 of Americans will still think it was a lab leak. And the numbers will probably be even higher, because China certainly is less well liked in the US public than Obama and China will be in the news much more than a former president.
Now I have to point out that this is focused on the American public. Outside the US, I'm not sure how the non-American public sees all this.
posted by FJT at 10:10 PM on May 30, 2021 [10 favorites]
I also think an investigation where the investigators are able to go where they want to, speak with all the people they want to, and have the freedom to look over all the data they want to will better help put the public's mind at ease
That's nice. Will this happen in the same world where we get the incontrovertible proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction that led to the adventure in Iraq?
For those who seem determined to make an Origin Story a big deal, can you tell me there are not efforts to determine this exact question, and irrespective of news cycles this information will circulate in good time? And by good time, I mean the way time passes in a world fraught with competing interests.. you know, the world we live in?
At what point does the confirmation of the origin of the pandemic mitigate what many nations are experiencing right this moment? I'm talking about nations that are not the few very fortunate ones, vis-a-vis vaccination rollout. Again, Origin Story folks: is this piece of the puzzle extremely important now? In one week? In one year?
posted by elkevelvet at 11:35 AM on May 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
That's nice. Will this happen in the same world where we get the incontrovertible proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction that led to the adventure in Iraq?
For those who seem determined to make an Origin Story a big deal, can you tell me there are not efforts to determine this exact question, and irrespective of news cycles this information will circulate in good time? And by good time, I mean the way time passes in a world fraught with competing interests.. you know, the world we live in?
At what point does the confirmation of the origin of the pandemic mitigate what many nations are experiencing right this moment? I'm talking about nations that are not the few very fortunate ones, vis-a-vis vaccination rollout. Again, Origin Story folks: is this piece of the puzzle extremely important now? In one week? In one year?
posted by elkevelvet at 11:35 AM on May 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
When there is a catastrophic event that kills millions of people it should be transparently investigated, especially if there's a chance, any chance, that the investigation could lead to findings that help prevent another future catastrophe in any time frame. This seems obvious and inarguable to me.
posted by xammerboy at 12:44 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 12:44 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
I mean, you'd think so, but there sure seem to be a lot of people arguing about it Xammerboy!
posted by Justinian at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 12:49 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
especially if there's a chance, any chance, that the investigation could lead to findings that help prevent another future catastrophe in any time frame.
So I nearly just repeated stuff I've already written but I'll try to keep it short. We didn't apply anything we learned from SARS and MERS to covid-19 which you can take two ways: one, that we're collective idiots and nothing will help us in the next pandemic or two that we already know enough and we just have to use that knowledge.
By all means, let the WHO investigate what happened. If we had known in March 2020 that this was a lab leak it would have done zero to mitigate the covid-19 pandemic in any way.
posted by GuyZero at 1:03 PM on May 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
So I nearly just repeated stuff I've already written but I'll try to keep it short. We didn't apply anything we learned from SARS and MERS to covid-19 which you can take two ways: one, that we're collective idiots and nothing will help us in the next pandemic or two that we already know enough and we just have to use that knowledge.
By all means, let the WHO investigate what happened. If we had known in March 2020 that this was a lab leak it would have done zero to mitigate the covid-19 pandemic in any way.
posted by GuyZero at 1:03 PM on May 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
When there is a catastrophic event that kills millions of people it should be transparently investigated
Getting in bed with conspiracy theorists does not help lend legitimacy to that investigation. Nor does that choice really help much with getting the kind of cooperation that state-level actors require for a transparent investigation. The choices made will not only affect that outcome, but also how the next pandemic turns out for all of us.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:14 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
Getting in bed with conspiracy theorists does not help lend legitimacy to that investigation. Nor does that choice really help much with getting the kind of cooperation that state-level actors require for a transparent investigation. The choices made will not only affect that outcome, but also how the next pandemic turns out for all of us.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:14 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
How do you distinguish someone saying "this should really be thoroughly investigated" from "getting in bed with conspiracy theorists", then? Or are you saying those are the same thing? Clearly, at least to me, there has to be a way to differentiate. Otherwise you're giving them a heckler's veto.
posted by Justinian at 3:14 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:14 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
Easy: the theory that sars-cov-2 was bioengineered or intentionally released is a conspiracy theory. If you want that to be part of the investigation, or have no qualms or objections about that being part of an investigation, or otherwise support an investigation that legitimizes that conspiracy theory, then you are getting in bed with conspiracy theorists. (As a counterexample for how to avoid this, note the letter in Science.)
posted by eviemath at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:50 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
When there is a catastrophic event that kills millions of people it should be transparently investigated, especially if there's a chance, any chance, that the investigation could lead to findings that help prevent another future catastrophe in any time frame. This seems obvious and inarguable to me.
The origin isn't rocket surgery. SARS-CoV-2 came from either A) a wet-market with inadequate sanitary conditions, and um, bats? or B) a viral research lab with inadequate protocols. You're welcome. Let's simply fix both of these... origin problems solved!
You seem to gloss over the fact that each and every country that was infected, was infected because their own pandemic planning was nonexistent, insufficient, or not implemented fully or soon enough. Seems to me this is the harder problem, the one that actually resulted in illness and deaths, and where a country's investigators should be spending the most time.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:11 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
The origin isn't rocket surgery. SARS-CoV-2 came from either A) a wet-market with inadequate sanitary conditions, and um, bats? or B) a viral research lab with inadequate protocols. You're welcome. Let's simply fix both of these... origin problems solved!
You seem to gloss over the fact that each and every country that was infected, was infected because their own pandemic planning was nonexistent, insufficient, or not implemented fully or soon enough. Seems to me this is the harder problem, the one that actually resulted in illness and deaths, and where a country's investigators should be spending the most time.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:11 PM on May 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
Countries could have better managed the pandemic but not stopped it. The only way the pandemic could have been prevented was to stop it at its source.
posted by xammerboy at 5:11 PM on May 31, 2021
posted by xammerboy at 5:11 PM on May 31, 2021
Easy: the theory that sars-cov-2 was bioengineered or intentionally released is a conspiracy theory.
Ah, well, I had thought we were talking about accidental release here ("lab leak"). You're right that nobody serious thinks that covid-19 being bioengineered and/or intentionally released is a real possibility.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on May 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
Ah, well, I had thought we were talking about accidental release here ("lab leak"). You're right that nobody serious thinks that covid-19 being bioengineered and/or intentionally released is a real possibility.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on May 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
If we had known in March 2020 that this was a lab leak it would have done zero to mitigate the covid-19 pandemic in any way.
Correct. The point is to learn from this event to prevent future similar events. If we had known in September 2019 that a previous lab leak of a virus had killed hundreds of thousands of people, then the covid-19 pandemic might not have happened at all, because of changes in lab management practices.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:47 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
Correct. The point is to learn from this event to prevent future similar events. If we had known in September 2019 that a previous lab leak of a virus had killed hundreds of thousands of people, then the covid-19 pandemic might not have happened at all, because of changes in lab management practices.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 7:47 PM on May 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
How do you distinguish someone saying "this should really be thoroughly investigated" from "getting in bed with conspiracy theorists", then?
The US seems to be among the countries putting the most pressure on an investigation at the global level, if not the primary agent behind this. I am only looking at some media entities outside of the United States, and so I might be wrong about that.
Nonetheless, to piece out the motivations leading to the intelligence policy change here: Trump staffers and acolytes have and are putting pressure within the US government: I provided several pieces of evidence earlier in this thread about the actions of Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, Mike Braun, Josh Hawley, and Peter Navarro, as specific, fact-checked examples. Those actions appear to have lead in no small part to the sudden change in policy by the Biden administration.
Other right-wing extremists affiliated with the GOP have recently gone on the media pressuring the public to accept assertions that the virus does not have natural origin (yet another example, yet another example), and that an investigation should go on as long as it takes to get the desired outcome ("longer than 90 days"). One person even repeatedly throws around the term "signal intelligence" that it turns out does not appear to exist.
I'm not sure how many more examples are required, but these accusations don't seem to carry any weight of fact, and that's a serious problem. It seems obvious that we are long and well past the point when these people should be obliged publicly to put their cards on the table and show up with verifiable evidence.
When these individuals are pushing a hypothesis built upon vague clouds of racism and bullshit, someone working to support that investigation is also working at the behest of extremists. It is very difficult to make a functional distinction, at this point. That person is doing their dirty work, whether they like it or not.
Otherwise you're giving them a heckler's veto.
Respectfully, no one is compelled to prove a negative. So, on the contrary, I'm just deciding not to give Covid bullshitters anything, no more than I would to birthers, 9/11 jet fuel specialists, and Holocaust deniers. Having a perfectly reasonable low- to zero-tolerance policy for bullshit is not gifting bullshitters with the permission to do whatever they want. Anyone else who wants to align themselves with conspiracy theorists and give their beliefs credence, however inadvertently, may simply have to resolve to take a hard look at his or her choices and either own them or change, in the face of knowing perfectly well where these bullshit theories are coming from.
Tl; dr: I've seen nothing, to date, that shows how any of this is going to help hold our governments accountable for fucking up and getting millions sickened and killed, or to help our scientific experts work together and figure out how to deal with the next outbreak. Maybe I'll be wrong. Hopefully something good comes out of this ride-or-die approach we've been put on.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:12 PM on May 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
The US seems to be among the countries putting the most pressure on an investigation at the global level, if not the primary agent behind this. I am only looking at some media entities outside of the United States, and so I might be wrong about that.
Nonetheless, to piece out the motivations leading to the intelligence policy change here: Trump staffers and acolytes have and are putting pressure within the US government: I provided several pieces of evidence earlier in this thread about the actions of Tom Cotton, Rand Paul, Mike Braun, Josh Hawley, and Peter Navarro, as specific, fact-checked examples. Those actions appear to have lead in no small part to the sudden change in policy by the Biden administration.
Other right-wing extremists affiliated with the GOP have recently gone on the media pressuring the public to accept assertions that the virus does not have natural origin (yet another example, yet another example), and that an investigation should go on as long as it takes to get the desired outcome ("longer than 90 days"). One person even repeatedly throws around the term "signal intelligence" that it turns out does not appear to exist.
I'm not sure how many more examples are required, but these accusations don't seem to carry any weight of fact, and that's a serious problem. It seems obvious that we are long and well past the point when these people should be obliged publicly to put their cards on the table and show up with verifiable evidence.
When these individuals are pushing a hypothesis built upon vague clouds of racism and bullshit, someone working to support that investigation is also working at the behest of extremists. It is very difficult to make a functional distinction, at this point. That person is doing their dirty work, whether they like it or not.
Otherwise you're giving them a heckler's veto.
Respectfully, no one is compelled to prove a negative. So, on the contrary, I'm just deciding not to give Covid bullshitters anything, no more than I would to birthers, 9/11 jet fuel specialists, and Holocaust deniers. Having a perfectly reasonable low- to zero-tolerance policy for bullshit is not gifting bullshitters with the permission to do whatever they want. Anyone else who wants to align themselves with conspiracy theorists and give their beliefs credence, however inadvertently, may simply have to resolve to take a hard look at his or her choices and either own them or change, in the face of knowing perfectly well where these bullshit theories are coming from.
Tl; dr: I've seen nothing, to date, that shows how any of this is going to help hold our governments accountable for fucking up and getting millions sickened and killed, or to help our scientific experts work together and figure out how to deal with the next outbreak. Maybe I'll be wrong. Hopefully something good comes out of this ride-or-die approach we've been put on.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:12 PM on May 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
latest TWiV:
Robert Garry joins TWiV to explain how the molecular biology of SARS-CoV-2 shows that it came from Nature and not a lab, including the receptor binding domain, the furin cleavage site, and the two lineages circulating in Wuhan wildlife markets.posted by 20 year lurk at 8:43 PM on May 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
Countries could have better managed the pandemic but not stopped it. The only way the pandemic could have been prevented was to stop it at its source.
That "could have better managed" is carrying a lot of weight. Singapore has had 6 deaths/million population. Taiwan has had 5 deaths/million. China, yes China, has had 3 deaths/million. The United States has had 457/million. The UK has had 1,873 deaths/million. Brazil has had 2,164 deaths/million. You can't stop a virus at it's source. You can only manage it once it emerges. Maybe you could set up a surveillance system, like say the one the lab in Wuhan was part of.
posted by rdr at 8:45 PM on May 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
That "could have better managed" is carrying a lot of weight. Singapore has had 6 deaths/million population. Taiwan has had 5 deaths/million. China, yes China, has had 3 deaths/million. The United States has had 457/million. The UK has had 1,873 deaths/million. Brazil has had 2,164 deaths/million. You can't stop a virus at it's source. You can only manage it once it emerges. Maybe you could set up a surveillance system, like say the one the lab in Wuhan was part of.
posted by rdr at 8:45 PM on May 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
The Guardian has an interesting opinion column about what it would mean if the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis was proven. The column neatly skewers some of the sanctimonious "follow the experts!" tone from us progressives & liberals, and its thesis is that if the lab-leak idea is true, then there will be a groundswell of anti-expert sentiment and a big boost to populists.
I don't know that I agree with that prediction, but the column has some valid points about how COVID information has been managed or censored. I still think that origins is a far less important topic than the jobs of ending this pandemic and suppressing the next one, regardless of how caused.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:06 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't know that I agree with that prediction, but the column has some valid points about how COVID information has been managed or censored. I still think that origins is a far less important topic than the jobs of ending this pandemic and suppressing the next one, regardless of how caused.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:06 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think we can all agree that preventing a pandemic is vastly preferable to having to manage one.
posted by xammerboy at 8:06 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by xammerboy at 8:06 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
If this had started in the U.S. I would expect an international investigation into its origins at some point as a matter of course, especially if stories came out that we ordered doctors not to share information, slow rolled the release of information, shared large amounts of information that later proved to be false, etc. Finally, I view the investigation into Covid's origins mostly as a pretext to be able to do any in person investigating at all. The best case result, I think, would be that it provides more evidence that these labs need to be internationally staffed and supervised in the future. If that policy change could be made, I think that would be meaningful and worth it.
posted by xammerboy at 8:25 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by xammerboy at 8:25 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's clear that what put the world in danger in regards to China was its inability to share what was happening in real time in a meaningful manner with the rest of the world. There are clear steps that can be taken to prevent that in the future, provided enough pressure can be put on China to make changes. It's also clear that Trump put the entire world in danger but I am less sure how to prevent that in the future other than to revise our system of government. It's the harder task. Let's remember that without Covid, Trump would probably have been voted in as president. I still don't know what to do about Trump.
posted by xammerboy at 8:37 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by xammerboy at 8:37 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Countries could have better managed the pandemic but not stopped it. The only way the pandemic could have been prevented was to stop it at its source.
I think we can all agree that preventing a pandemic is vastly preferable to having to manage one.
Eh, and I thought we could all agree that reading other commenter's posts was kind of an integral part of having a conversation and participating in these comment threads. Yet here we are.
xammerboy, please see my long post where I discuss the three stages. As others have noted above, it is technically, literally not possible to stop all transmission of all novel infectious diseases that jump from other species to humans at their source. Previous instances, such as the first SARS, have been prevented from becoming pandemics due to the second and third stage containment measures.
My apologies to other posters who, it seems, I actually have much more agreement with than we realized. I was perhaps derailed by the few-in-source-poster though larger in quantity of comments claims or insinuations that the non-accidental or bioengineered conspiracy should be taken seriously.
posted by eviemath at 10:10 AM on June 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think we can all agree that preventing a pandemic is vastly preferable to having to manage one.
Eh, and I thought we could all agree that reading other commenter's posts was kind of an integral part of having a conversation and participating in these comment threads. Yet here we are.
xammerboy, please see my long post where I discuss the three stages. As others have noted above, it is technically, literally not possible to stop all transmission of all novel infectious diseases that jump from other species to humans at their source. Previous instances, such as the first SARS, have been prevented from becoming pandemics due to the second and third stage containment measures.
My apologies to other posters who, it seems, I actually have much more agreement with than we realized. I was perhaps derailed by the few-in-source-poster though larger in quantity of comments claims or insinuations that the non-accidental or bioengineered conspiracy should be taken seriously.
posted by eviemath at 10:10 AM on June 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Among those of us who agree that a full scope, scientific investigation into what we can learn from the covid-19 pandemic to prevent future pandemics is a useful thing to have at some point in time; who recognize that components of that type of investigation are actually already in progress by relevant scientific experts; and who agree that the theory that sars-cov-2 was maliciously bioengineered or intentionally released has no place on such an investigation: there does seem to be topics to debate and discuss still.
We don't have details about what a US/Biden administration-led investigation would look like, so folks who agree on the basic points I described still have differing opinions or concerns about the likely composition, scope, and time frame of such an investigation. For example, I agree with They sucked his brains out!'s concern about the role and level of influence by Trumpists, who seem to support the conspiracy theory (though some of them are savvy enough to take care in where they say that out loud versus where they use plausibly deniable dog whistles). I am concerned that calls by this group for an investigation "into the origins" of covid-19 instead of an investigation with broader scientific scope on all relevant aspects of what went wrong and what we can learn to prevent future pandemics is one such dog whistle (though it's my impression now that some folks in this thread have been using that restrictive language in good faith to mean the sort of full scope, scientific investigation I describe - I'd have no argument with you folks if you don't mind making a slight language change to avoid that seeming/potential dog whistle phrasing?).
I also have sympathy for the worries that have been expressed by some proponents of a full scope scientific investigation such as I describe who are concerned that there may be no way for such an investigation to feasibly happen right at this moment, or be US-led, without politics obstructing and misusing the investigation; or are worried about such an investigation potentially taking resources away from the efforts to stop the current pandemic that we're still solidly in the middle of across most of the globe. Though personally I'm as yet unconvinced about one way or the other on each of those two details (I doubt that I have sufficient knowledge to have a reasonable, informed opinion on the second point, in particular, though I definitely think it's a very important consideration, given ongoing death rates in many countries).
Anyway, my point is that I'm happy to come to a better understanding of the actual perspectives of other commenters; that while I'm going to limit my additional contributions to this thread to discussions that accept the general goals and facts I describe, I still see the above two paragraphs as areas of understandable debate and discussion among folks who all agree with my initial premise or facts; and I appreciate the many links and arguments that folks have already added to this thread on those topics. (And also if anyone has time or inclination to summarize them to help re-start our discussion in maybe a more productive direction, I would be quite grateful.)
posted by eviemath at 10:34 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
We don't have details about what a US/Biden administration-led investigation would look like, so folks who agree on the basic points I described still have differing opinions or concerns about the likely composition, scope, and time frame of such an investigation. For example, I agree with They sucked his brains out!'s concern about the role and level of influence by Trumpists, who seem to support the conspiracy theory (though some of them are savvy enough to take care in where they say that out loud versus where they use plausibly deniable dog whistles). I am concerned that calls by this group for an investigation "into the origins" of covid-19 instead of an investigation with broader scientific scope on all relevant aspects of what went wrong and what we can learn to prevent future pandemics is one such dog whistle (though it's my impression now that some folks in this thread have been using that restrictive language in good faith to mean the sort of full scope, scientific investigation I describe - I'd have no argument with you folks if you don't mind making a slight language change to avoid that seeming/potential dog whistle phrasing?).
I also have sympathy for the worries that have been expressed by some proponents of a full scope scientific investigation such as I describe who are concerned that there may be no way for such an investigation to feasibly happen right at this moment, or be US-led, without politics obstructing and misusing the investigation; or are worried about such an investigation potentially taking resources away from the efforts to stop the current pandemic that we're still solidly in the middle of across most of the globe. Though personally I'm as yet unconvinced about one way or the other on each of those two details (I doubt that I have sufficient knowledge to have a reasonable, informed opinion on the second point, in particular, though I definitely think it's a very important consideration, given ongoing death rates in many countries).
Anyway, my point is that I'm happy to come to a better understanding of the actual perspectives of other commenters; that while I'm going to limit my additional contributions to this thread to discussions that accept the general goals and facts I describe, I still see the above two paragraphs as areas of understandable debate and discussion among folks who all agree with my initial premise or facts; and I appreciate the many links and arguments that folks have already added to this thread on those topics. (And also if anyone has time or inclination to summarize them to help re-start our discussion in maybe a more productive direction, I would be quite grateful.)
posted by eviemath at 10:34 AM on June 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Guardian has an interesting opinion column about what it would mean if the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis was proven.
The writer suggests widespread mistrust of the experts would develop, which I'd suggest already seems to exist: The writer of that same essay also hints at the possibility of an accidental lab leak of a virus engineered with gain-of-function research. This theory has been repeatedly, exhaustively discredited, so that mistrust of scientific expertise already exists to the extent that this theory even ends up in an op-ed piece in a respected media outlet.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:41 AM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
The writer suggests widespread mistrust of the experts would develop, which I'd suggest already seems to exist: The writer of that same essay also hints at the possibility of an accidental lab leak of a virus engineered with gain-of-function research. This theory has been repeatedly, exhaustively discredited, so that mistrust of scientific expertise already exists to the extent that this theory even ends up in an op-ed piece in a respected media outlet.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:41 AM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Information hygiene might have to become as important on social media networks (including Metafilter), as social distancing and wearing masks are for staying safe out in the real world.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:44 AM on June 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:44 AM on June 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
xammerboy, please see my long post where I discuss the three stages. As others have noted above, it is technically, literally not possible to stop all transmission of all novel infectious diseases that jump from other species to humans at their source.
Preventing all future car accidents is impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate their causes and take steps to make future accidents less likely.
posted by xammerboy at 7:28 PM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Preventing all future car accidents is impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate their causes and take steps to make future accidents less likely.
posted by xammerboy at 7:28 PM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Doctor, Asian American, and WaPo columnist Leana Wen: "We need to investigate the lab-leak theory — without inflaming anti-Asian hate."
posted by PhineasGage at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
If this had started in the U.S. I would expect an international investigation into its origins at some point as a matter of course, especially if stories came out that we ordered doctors not to share information, slow rolled the release of information, shared large amounts of information that later proved to be false, etc.
But the US and China aren't the same. Look, while it frequently falls short in this regard, I would say that the US government at least tries to appear to be transparent and open. No such similar belief really exists with the Communist Party of China. While this doesn't mean that the Party shouldn't be criticized, it does mean a change in expectations. The Party's default would be to censor information and silence critics, especially during a time of crisis. But that doesn't necessarily point to the existence of a greater wrongdoing.
The writer of that same essay also hints at the possibility of an accidental lab leak of a virus engineered with gain-of-function research. This theory has been repeatedly, exhaustively discredited, so that mistrust of scientific expertise already exists to the extent that this theory even ends up in an op-ed piece in a respected media outlet.
Yes, the coverage the lab leak theory got in the news last week is disheartening. It looks like the media was accused of liberal bias and groupthink, and as a response it massively overcorrected in what is a minor shift in the ongoing process of figuring out the origins of COVID-19. It also often failed to specifically point out that the lab leak theories are different from conspiracies about engineered viruses and bioweapons. And now I'm seeing all over the place internet comments jumping to conclusions presuming that there is NO doubt that China did "it" (and "it" could be anything from lab leak to bioweapons) and that there's obviously a cover up.
posted by FJT at 1:05 AM on June 2, 2021
But the US and China aren't the same. Look, while it frequently falls short in this regard, I would say that the US government at least tries to appear to be transparent and open. No such similar belief really exists with the Communist Party of China. While this doesn't mean that the Party shouldn't be criticized, it does mean a change in expectations. The Party's default would be to censor information and silence critics, especially during a time of crisis. But that doesn't necessarily point to the existence of a greater wrongdoing.
The writer of that same essay also hints at the possibility of an accidental lab leak of a virus engineered with gain-of-function research. This theory has been repeatedly, exhaustively discredited, so that mistrust of scientific expertise already exists to the extent that this theory even ends up in an op-ed piece in a respected media outlet.
Yes, the coverage the lab leak theory got in the news last week is disheartening. It looks like the media was accused of liberal bias and groupthink, and as a response it massively overcorrected in what is a minor shift in the ongoing process of figuring out the origins of COVID-19. It also often failed to specifically point out that the lab leak theories are different from conspiracies about engineered viruses and bioweapons. And now I'm seeing all over the place internet comments jumping to conclusions presuming that there is NO doubt that China did "it" (and "it" could be anything from lab leak to bioweapons) and that there's obviously a cover up.
posted by FJT at 1:05 AM on June 2, 2021
And now I'm seeing all over the place internet comments jumping to conclusions presuming that there is NO doubt that China did "it" (and "it" could be anything from lab leak to bioweapons) and that there's obviously a cover up.
One of my favorite bits of reading the last day or so involve a set of emails to and from Dr. Anthony Fauci, released as part of a larger FOIA request. There appears to be one collegial email to "tony" from an associate professor of dermatology at Cornell, pleading for Fauci to lead an investigation into a lab leak at Wuhan, due to the professor's belief that the virus had been "complexed with something sticky, maybe a yeast or fungus." Oh, and also because China is "sterilizing its money". People don't think too seriously about who they are getting into bed with when they support this stuff, but they probably should.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:08 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
One of my favorite bits of reading the last day or so involve a set of emails to and from Dr. Anthony Fauci, released as part of a larger FOIA request. There appears to be one collegial email to "tony" from an associate professor of dermatology at Cornell, pleading for Fauci to lead an investigation into a lab leak at Wuhan, due to the professor's belief that the virus had been "complexed with something sticky, maybe a yeast or fungus." Oh, and also because China is "sterilizing its money". People don't think too seriously about who they are getting into bed with when they support this stuff, but they probably should.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:08 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's clear that what put the world in danger in regards to China was its inability to share what was happening in real time in a meaningful manner with the rest of the world.
There was like a 2 to 3 month gap between when the WHO was in the loop and exchanging info with China, and western nations finally acknowledging that they were in deep sh!t. A widespread homegrown hesitance or failure to act is what put other nations in danger, not China's reticence. And there was about zero delay in the international exchange of genetic details.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:04 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
There was like a 2 to 3 month gap between when the WHO was in the loop and exchanging info with China, and western nations finally acknowledging that they were in deep sh!t. A widespread homegrown hesitance or failure to act is what put other nations in danger, not China's reticence. And there was about zero delay in the international exchange of genetic details.
posted by Artful Codger at 5:04 AM on June 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Indeed, the virus was sequenced in early January 2020, about two and a half months before the US declared a national emergency. The notion that China was withholding scientific data, at least, is not based upon any facts as we have them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:05 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 6:05 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've made my position clear, probably more combatively than is necessary.
The fact that this thread drags out well past 200 comments is illustrative. The question of origin has gained traction and that is the whole point. I'm sorry to see it matters to so many people, I absolutely refute the notion that this will lead to any benefit for "regular people," and I see the whole business as just another point along a creeping line of heightening tensions. Well done, us.
I'm out, I will be determining how to mitigate the impacts to my friends and loved ones, and within my immediate community.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:33 AM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
The fact that this thread drags out well past 200 comments is illustrative. The question of origin has gained traction and that is the whole point. I'm sorry to see it matters to so many people, I absolutely refute the notion that this will lead to any benefit for "regular people," and I see the whole business as just another point along a creeping line of heightening tensions. Well done, us.
I'm out, I will be determining how to mitigate the impacts to my friends and loved ones, and within my immediate community.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:33 AM on June 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
NIH Director: We Need an Investigation Into the Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The notion that China was withholding scientific data, at least, is not based upon any facts as we have them.
This is just not true. Almost everything we learned about Covid during the initial outbreak was leaked by Chinese doctors who had been ordered not to share their information, including the genome you refer to, which was needed to assess Covid's infectiousness.
It's much harder to mitigate an outbreak if your government is going to potentially punish you for reporting it. It's harder to share information if the government is more interested in covering up the outbreak than mitigating it. But immediate reporting, quick action, and total transparency are critical to containing its spread. This is regardless of whether or not the world and the U.S. in particular completely bungled their own response to Covid.
posted by xammerboy at 11:04 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
This is just not true. Almost everything we learned about Covid during the initial outbreak was leaked by Chinese doctors who had been ordered not to share their information, including the genome you refer to, which was needed to assess Covid's infectiousness.
It's much harder to mitigate an outbreak if your government is going to potentially punish you for reporting it. It's harder to share information if the government is more interested in covering up the outbreak than mitigating it. But immediate reporting, quick action, and total transparency are critical to containing its spread. This is regardless of whether or not the world and the U.S. in particular completely bungled their own response to Covid.
posted by xammerboy at 11:04 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
China delayed releasing coronavirus info, frustrating WHO
posted by xammerboy at 11:24 AM on June 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Chinese government labs only released the genome after another lab published it ahead of authorities on a virologist website on Jan. 11. Even then, China stalled for at least two weeks more on providing WHO with detailed data on patients and cases, according to recordings of internal meetings held by the U.N. health agency through January — all at a time when the outbreak arguably might have been dramatically slowed.When Zhang gave permission for the genome to be published on a virologist website it was expressly forbidden by the Chinese government and the next day his lab was shut down by the government for "rectification."
posted by xammerboy at 11:24 AM on June 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's much harder to mitigate an outbreak if your government is going to potentially punish you for reporting it.
It's even harder when your government dismantles a pandemic-preparedness program, knows serious trouble is coming, dismisses the virus for a few months anyway, dumps stocks and other investments in the meantime, does not activate wartime protocols, warps PPE distribution networks so that nurses wear garbage bags, does what it can to discourage you and the wider public from wearing masks, sells bleach and pool cleaner as medicines, etc. That seems like a much broader and deadlier form of punishment, which ended up killing and sickening a lot more people than in China.
Chinese government labs only released the genome after another lab published it ahead of authorities on a virologist website on Jan. 11.
Sequence data was submitted by Dr. Zhang further back, at least as far back as January 5, 2020 to NCBI's servers. NCBI is a US government organization that is part of the NIH, which collects and publishes bioinformatics data. The US government had data quite early in its response timeline.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's even harder when your government dismantles a pandemic-preparedness program, knows serious trouble is coming, dismisses the virus for a few months anyway, dumps stocks and other investments in the meantime, does not activate wartime protocols, warps PPE distribution networks so that nurses wear garbage bags, does what it can to discourage you and the wider public from wearing masks, sells bleach and pool cleaner as medicines, etc. That seems like a much broader and deadlier form of punishment, which ended up killing and sickening a lot more people than in China.
Chinese government labs only released the genome after another lab published it ahead of authorities on a virologist website on Jan. 11.
Sequence data was submitted by Dr. Zhang further back, at least as far back as January 5, 2020 to NCBI's servers. NCBI is a US government organization that is part of the NIH, which collects and publishes bioinformatics data. The US government had data quite early in its response timeline.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:38 AM on June 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's much harder to mitigate an outbreak if your government is going to potentially punish you for reporting it.
I mean, it's also harder to mitigate an outbreak if there's an atmosphere of mistrust, hostility, and suspicion among countries. The Party will remain the rulers of China for the foreseeable future, and I think in order to tackle thorny and big transnational issues like global pandemics, the international community needs their cooperation as much as they need theirs. Also, there's only so much the US and even the international community can and even should do to try to change China's internal policies. After all, China is a sovereign country and is pretty much a superpower at this point. Superpowers like Russia and the US have kind of set a precedent for being able to shrug off demands if they think it's against their interests.
posted by FJT at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I mean, it's also harder to mitigate an outbreak if there's an atmosphere of mistrust, hostility, and suspicion among countries. The Party will remain the rulers of China for the foreseeable future, and I think in order to tackle thorny and big transnational issues like global pandemics, the international community needs their cooperation as much as they need theirs. Also, there's only so much the US and even the international community can and even should do to try to change China's internal policies. After all, China is a sovereign country and is pretty much a superpower at this point. Superpowers like Russia and the US have kind of set a precedent for being able to shrug off demands if they think it's against their interests.
posted by FJT at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Sequence data was submitted by Dr. Zhang further back, at least as far back as January 5, 2020 to NCBI's servers.
I didn't know about this and would like to. If the U.S. dragged its feet on publishing the genome they should be held accountable. Just as China still needs to be held accountable for ordering the genome and patient information not to be shared, as well as reprimanding and jailing scientists and journalists.
posted by xammerboy at 10:42 PM on June 2, 2021
I didn't know about this and would like to. If the U.S. dragged its feet on publishing the genome they should be held accountable. Just as China still needs to be held accountable for ordering the genome and patient information not to be shared, as well as reprimanding and jailing scientists and journalists.
posted by xammerboy at 10:42 PM on June 2, 2021
Also, there's only so much the US and even the international community can and even should do to try to change China's internal policies. After all, China is a sovereign country and is pretty much a superpower at this point.
Unfortunately, China's internal policies put the world at risk and violate basic human rights. The world cannot sit idly by. Also, again, if Covid had originated in the U.S. I think we would expect an investigation like this as a matter of course. I would certainly be demanding there be one.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately, China's internal policies put the world at risk and violate basic human rights. The world cannot sit idly by. Also, again, if Covid had originated in the U.S. I think we would expect an investigation like this as a matter of course. I would certainly be demanding there be one.
posted by xammerboy at 10:52 PM on June 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The world cannot sit idly by. Also, again, if Covid had originated in the U.S. I think we would expect an investigation like this as a matter of course. I would certainly be demanding there be one.
Okay, but I never stated you aren't allowed to expect or demand one. I was simply stating that China can still say "no", just as the US has said "no" to the UN or ICC in the past. And even with that disagreement, I would still think it would be better for the US, China, and the world to maintain some form of working relationship and still find ways to work together. Because an investigation is only one part of what has to be done to prepare for the next pandemic. To not do the other parts because of China's refusal to be investigated would also be to sit idly by.
posted by FJT at 1:47 AM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Okay, but I never stated you aren't allowed to expect or demand one. I was simply stating that China can still say "no", just as the US has said "no" to the UN or ICC in the past. And even with that disagreement, I would still think it would be better for the US, China, and the world to maintain some form of working relationship and still find ways to work together. Because an investigation is only one part of what has to be done to prepare for the next pandemic. To not do the other parts because of China's refusal to be investigated would also be to sit idly by.
posted by FJT at 1:47 AM on June 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
The world cannot sit idly by.
Uh, where u been for the last 15 months? Off-planet?
Job #1 is to get COVID vaccines out to wherever they are needed, and stuck into arms. Job #2 is to try to get people back to work, and opening up the world again, and buying goods and services so that other people have work and businesses too. Job #3 - pandemic plans and preparations for the next one.
When jobs 1 & 2 are well in hand, a more thorough understanding of origins will help with job 3. And I'll join you in pushing for investigation. But it's just not that important right now, and the current finger-pointing at China is little more than a distraction from, or avoidance of the more pressing problems.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Uh, where u been for the last 15 months? Off-planet?
Job #1 is to get COVID vaccines out to wherever they are needed, and stuck into arms. Job #2 is to try to get people back to work, and opening up the world again, and buying goods and services so that other people have work and businesses too. Job #3 - pandemic plans and preparations for the next one.
When jobs 1 & 2 are well in hand, a more thorough understanding of origins will help with job 3. And I'll join you in pushing for investigation. But it's just not that important right now, and the current finger-pointing at China is little more than a distraction from, or avoidance of the more pressing problems.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:20 AM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe for you, but humanity is able to do more than one job or two at once.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:27 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 7:27 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
From Vanity Fair: The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins.
posted by Justinian at 9:31 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:31 AM on June 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, China's internal policies put the world at risk and violate basic human rights.
This is a distinction without a difference, so much that I would say the US would have had substantially the same response.
posted by rhizome at 6:42 PM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is a distinction without a difference, so much that I would say the US would have had substantially the same response.
posted by rhizome at 6:42 PM on June 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
From Vanity Fair: The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins.
It's a shame they are also pushing the same discredited gain-of-function conspiracy theory. Reading that was time in my life I'll never get back.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:45 PM on June 4, 2021
It's a shame they are also pushing the same discredited gain-of-function conspiracy theory. Reading that was time in my life I'll never get back.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:45 PM on June 4, 2021
I don't think I'm all that far away from most of the people here in regards to the facts. I think it's extremely unlikely there was a lab leak. I don't think it's likely any investigation will be able to make any definitive determinations. I don't think it's likely there are practical recommendations that can be made beyond what we already know to do. I think Trump is awful and the U.S. handling of Covid is a crime against humanity.
At the same time, nothing about how China handled Covid initially is okay. They were slow to acknowledge what was happening, shut down initial reports of the disease, jailed journalists trying to report on it, etc. It's impossible to know what we don't know when scientists are not free to speak their minds without fear of being imprisoned. I think it's really dangerous to normalize that behavior or pretend it's acceptable. A willingness to open themselves up to an investigation into one of the biggest tragedies the world has ever known is the least China can do, and needs to be done while there's still the political will and the information is available.
At least, that's my take.
posted by xammerboy at 7:23 AM on June 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
At the same time, nothing about how China handled Covid initially is okay. They were slow to acknowledge what was happening, shut down initial reports of the disease, jailed journalists trying to report on it, etc. It's impossible to know what we don't know when scientists are not free to speak their minds without fear of being imprisoned. I think it's really dangerous to normalize that behavior or pretend it's acceptable. A willingness to open themselves up to an investigation into one of the biggest tragedies the world has ever known is the least China can do, and needs to be done while there's still the political will and the information is available.
At least, that's my take.
posted by xammerboy at 7:23 AM on June 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
That's a fine take, xammerboy. None of the issues you bring up with the Chinese government's initial response to the pandemic have anything to do with the origins of the sars-cov-2 virus, and an investigation of the Chinese government's actions such as you describe in this comment would be entirely tangential to any of the investigatory work that would be required to ascertain a patient zero and thus origin of the pandemic, however.
posted by eviemath at 1:35 PM on June 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 1:35 PM on June 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Conspiracy theorist nutjob seditionist wants answers about engineered virus by June 31st, a date which doesn't exist.
Choose carefully who you get in bed with.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:22 PM on June 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Choose carefully who you get in bed with.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:22 PM on June 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
If we can all step off of our usual hilltops for just a second and be serious, there is no way that the origins of SARS-CoV-2 haven't been or aren't being investigated rigorously. So when someone in the West "demands an investigation", what they're usually asking for is a front-page, table-thumping, sabre-rattling, confrontational j'accuse! on China. To satisfy a world-view, basically, because it would do little else except increase international tensions. And deflect from local failures.
Like most of the big scientific work undertaken these days, the viral lab in Wuhan is part of a global research effort, with money, researchers and science crossing borders often. As I mentioned previously - whether the virus escaped from a lab, or jumped species in a market, these are both risks that need to be addressed... and not just in China.
I'm confident that the smart people already have a good handle on the origins of COVID, and it's just diplomacy or complexity that keeps the truth from being posted on the front page. The bigger problems are the poor national responses to pandemic; whether the virus came from a lab, leak, an unsanitary market, or an asteroid, the failures to contain it and the death tolls are the failures of the respective nations, individually and collectively.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:02 AM on June 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
Like most of the big scientific work undertaken these days, the viral lab in Wuhan is part of a global research effort, with money, researchers and science crossing borders often. As I mentioned previously - whether the virus escaped from a lab, or jumped species in a market, these are both risks that need to be addressed... and not just in China.
I'm confident that the smart people already have a good handle on the origins of COVID, and it's just diplomacy or complexity that keeps the truth from being posted on the front page. The bigger problems are the poor national responses to pandemic; whether the virus came from a lab, leak, an unsanitary market, or an asteroid, the failures to contain it and the death tolls are the failures of the respective nations, individually and collectively.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:02 AM on June 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
If we can all step off of our usual hilltops for just a second and be serious
I'll have a good, hearty laugh at pancake-faced bozo politicos like Greene, and I hope sensible people join me, but the reality of people like her and those who are aligned with her racist views is a very, very serious problem.
It's pretty clear the conspiracy nonsense is not going to go away on its own, and the more oxygen that social networks give this nonsense, including Metafilter, the more it festers like the open, stinking wound that it is.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:02 AM on June 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'll have a good, hearty laugh at pancake-faced bozo politicos like Greene, and I hope sensible people join me, but the reality of people like her and those who are aligned with her racist views is a very, very serious problem.
It's pretty clear the conspiracy nonsense is not going to go away on its own, and the more oxygen that social networks give this nonsense, including Metafilter, the more it festers like the open, stinking wound that it is.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:02 AM on June 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses:
• Four novel SARS-CoV-2 related viruses were identified in rhinolophid bats.
• RpYN06 is the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 in most of the virus genome.
• A high diversity of bat coronaviruses was present in a very small geographic area.
• Ecological modeling reveals a broad range of rhinolophid bats in parts of Asia.
posted by meehawl at 6:57 AM on June 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
• Four novel SARS-CoV-2 related viruses were identified in rhinolophid bats.
• RpYN06 is the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 in most of the virus genome.
• A high diversity of bat coronaviruses was present in a very small geographic area.
• Ecological modeling reveals a broad range of rhinolophid bats in parts of Asia.
posted by meehawl at 6:57 AM on June 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
Chait vs. Heer: "Telling the Truth About Lab-Leak Theory Wouldn’t Help Trump."
My controlling belief is that journalists should say what is true, rather than shade the truth out of fear that truth might help the wrong people. And if the progressive movement has gotten to a point where conceding the truth makes you “contrarian,” that is an indictment not of the “contrarians” but of the progressive movement.posted by PhineasGage at 10:30 AM on June 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Baltimore says he overstated case
Getting this right matters a great deal. After the Imanishi-Kari incident, I'd have thought Baltimore would have behaved in a more careful and circumspect manner.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:38 PM on June 9, 2021
Getting this right matters a great deal. After the Imanishi-Kari incident, I'd have thought Baltimore would have behaved in a more careful and circumspect manner.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:38 PM on June 9, 2021
These authors are a symptom of a larger societal disease.
Still, maybe playing devil's advocate about this can help keep people from losing their car keys.
Laughs are easy, but in seriousness, joining in on spreading conspiracy nonsense at a government level is deadly.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:28 AM on June 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Still, maybe playing devil's advocate about this can help keep people from losing their car keys.
Laughs are easy, but in seriousness, joining in on spreading conspiracy nonsense at a government level is deadly.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:28 AM on June 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'd settle for an investigation into the origins of the Jan. 6 insurrection, honestly.
posted by eviemath at 4:41 PM on June 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:41 PM on June 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Even Linus Torvalds is having none of this "gene sequence doesn't look normal" nonsense. Respect.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:16 AM on June 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:16 AM on June 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
Torvalds has a reputation for being an aggressive jerk in discussion threads in his role as a leader in the Linux community. This was a great example of how that isn't always necessarily a bad thing. Well done him.
posted by biogeo at 8:20 AM on June 11, 2021
posted by biogeo at 8:20 AM on June 11, 2021
G7 summit 2021: we can’t rule out Covid lab leak, says WHO chief.
"Can't rule out" can obviously encompass everything down to "there's only a tiiiiiny tiny chance."
posted by Justinian at 1:07 AM on June 13, 2021
"Can't rule out" can obviously encompass everything down to "there's only a tiiiiiny tiny chance."
posted by Justinian at 1:07 AM on June 13, 2021
A Top Virologist in China, at Center of a Pandemic Storm, Speaks Out
“How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?” [Dr. Shi] said, her voice rising in anger during the brief, unscheduled conversation.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:40 AM on June 14, 2021 [3 favorites]
“How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?” [Dr. Shi] said, her voice rising in anger during the brief, unscheduled conversation.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:40 AM on June 14, 2021 [3 favorites]
More evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the US by December, 2019. So Wuhan was not the only early infection site. Perhaps it was just unlucky with a couple of the first early superspreader events.
posted by meehawl at 7:39 AM on June 15, 2021
posted by meehawl at 7:39 AM on June 15, 2021
Scientists Report Earliest Known Coronavirus Infections in Five U.S. States
“This is an interesting paper because it raises the idea that everyone thinks is true, that there were infections that were going undiagnosed,” said Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
But the small number of samples that tested positive made it difficult to be sure that they were true cases of infection and not just a methodological error. “It’s hard to know what is a real signal and what isn’t,” he said...
Early in the pandemic, the virus would have infected very few people. A low prevalence increases the odds that an antibody test mistakenly identifies a sample as having antibodies when it does not, Dr. Hensley said — a false positive.
The researchers tried to minimize that possibility by using two antibody tests in sequence. The first test flagged 147 samples as possibly having antibodies to the coronavirus; the second slashed that number down to nine.
The team also analyzed 1,000 samples of blood from the 2018-19 cold and flu season, and found none that tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus.
“It’s still very possible that some of them might be false positives,” said Dr. Josh Denny, chief executive of All of Us. But “the fact that all of them would be false positives seems pretty unlikely with what we’ve done.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 AM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
“This is an interesting paper because it raises the idea that everyone thinks is true, that there were infections that were going undiagnosed,” said Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
But the small number of samples that tested positive made it difficult to be sure that they were true cases of infection and not just a methodological error. “It’s hard to know what is a real signal and what isn’t,” he said...
Early in the pandemic, the virus would have infected very few people. A low prevalence increases the odds that an antibody test mistakenly identifies a sample as having antibodies when it does not, Dr. Hensley said — a false positive.
The researchers tried to minimize that possibility by using two antibody tests in sequence. The first test flagged 147 samples as possibly having antibodies to the coronavirus; the second slashed that number down to nine.
The team also analyzed 1,000 samples of blood from the 2018-19 cold and flu season, and found none that tested positive for antibodies to the coronavirus.
“It’s still very possible that some of them might be false positives,” said Dr. Josh Denny, chief executive of All of Us. But “the fact that all of them would be false positives seems pretty unlikely with what we’ve done.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:20 AM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Jon Stewart goes all-in on the lab leak theory (Youtube Link to Late Show Clip Here)
“ ‘Oh, my God, there’s a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China. What do we do?’ ‘Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab.’ The disease is the same name as the lab. That’s just a little too weird, don’t you think?posted by FJT at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
“And then they ask those scientists, ‘So wait a minute, you work at the Wuhan respiratory coronavirus lab? How did this happen?' And they’re like, ‘Ooh, a pangolin kissed a turtle?’ ”
Stewart continued, comparing the situation to scientists responding to a chocolate outbreak near Hershey, Pa.
“ ‘Oh, my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolaty goodness near Hershey, Pa. What do you think happened?' ” Stewart said. “Like, ‘Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the [expletive] chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it?”
On the other hand, in his own words, the show that lead into his involved puppets making crank phone calls. So going all in on a conspiracy theory seems like a natural fit.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:07 AM on June 15, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:07 AM on June 15, 2021
But Stewart is kind of seen as an elder statesman of political comedy, so his words carry weight. This would be similar to saying Joe Rogan is just some podcaster that used to host a TV show about eating bugs.
PRRI did a poll in March. It had various questions and was more about QAnon, but it also had this question:
In other words, this is a juicy and ripe wedge issue. So, it's not surprising to see Republicans pushing this in order to stir something up:
PRRI did a poll in March. It had various questions and was more about QAnon, but it also had this question:
Do you agree or disagree with the statement “The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 was developed intentionally by scientists in a lab”?Bold for "intentionally" added by me to point out that 39% of people in March already believed to some extent that it wasn't an accident. I wouldn't be surprised that because of increased coverage in the last few weeks that the belief of an accidental lab leak is already over 50%.
Completely agree: 15%
Mostly agree: 24%
Mostly disagree: 26%
Completely disagree: 33%
Skipped/refused: 3%
In other words, this is a juicy and ripe wedge issue. So, it's not surprising to see Republicans pushing this in order to stir something up:
This is an old playbook. Religious conservatives did it on evolution and education—“teach the controversy!” Snake-oil marketers did it on the nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Tobacco companies and their lobbyists did it on the very real link between tobacco, second-hand smoke, and cancer. Car companies and their lobbyists did it on safety technologies in automobiles. Chemical and agricultural companies did it on agricultural chemicals from DDT to dicamba. Carbon emitting industries—mostly the oil business—are still doing it on climate change. Find uncertainty, fan it like tinder, and then use it for political gain.posted by FJT at 12:06 PM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
A lot of people seem to sincerely not understand or notice the "intentionally" part of this question. Also a lot of people arguing about this on both sides seem to feel keeping that distinction clear is not to their rhetorical benefit.
More evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the US by December, 2019.
Hmm. I read the paper. Hard for me to figure out how much I believe it. I do like their negative controls, but a geographically dispersed incidence of a half-percent for samples collected that early just seems improbably large. As noted in the NYT article, the epidemiological estimate in Illinois on March 1 (so much later than their average sample) is under 0.1%.
And the way this works with false positives, the individual observations most likely to be wrong are precisely the earliest ones.
So Wuhan was not the only early infection site. Perhaps it was just unlucky with a couple of the first early superspreader events.
It started in one place; it didn't evolve spontaneously around the world. Based on observations Wuhan or someplace that could easily infect people in Wuhan is still by far the best bet, whether this paper's observations are artifacts or 100% accurate.
posted by mark k at 12:31 PM on June 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
More evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the US by December, 2019.
Hmm. I read the paper. Hard for me to figure out how much I believe it. I do like their negative controls, but a geographically dispersed incidence of a half-percent for samples collected that early just seems improbably large. As noted in the NYT article, the epidemiological estimate in Illinois on March 1 (so much later than their average sample) is under 0.1%.
And the way this works with false positives, the individual observations most likely to be wrong are precisely the earliest ones.
So Wuhan was not the only early infection site. Perhaps it was just unlucky with a couple of the first early superspreader events.
It started in one place; it didn't evolve spontaneously around the world. Based on observations Wuhan or someplace that could easily infect people in Wuhan is still by far the best bet, whether this paper's observations are artifacts or 100% accurate.
posted by mark k at 12:31 PM on June 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
But Stewart is kind of seen as an elder statesman of political comedy, so his words carry weight. This would be similar to saying Joe Rogan is just some podcaster that used to host a TV show about eating bugs.
Fair point, but that was uncomfortable to watch. I felt actually embarrassed for him watching an adult behave that way, especially to the extent that people seem to value his gibberish-filled rant over those who do actual science for a living.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:57 PM on June 15, 2021
Fair point, but that was uncomfortable to watch. I felt actually embarrassed for him watching an adult behave that way, especially to the extent that people seem to value his gibberish-filled rant over those who do actual science for a living.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:57 PM on June 15, 2021
Foreign Policy: The Lab Leak Theory Doesn’t Hold Up
It mentions a little of one aspect of the lab leak theory that I haven't really seen anyone really go into at all: Whether it's organizationally or logistically realistic to cover this up:
At its most benign, the lab leak theory holds that China discovered a completely new and dangerous coronavirus, didn’t tell anybody, and didn’t sequence it or develop a vaccine, then let it get out without noticing or while failing to contain it.
Keeping this work secret is easier said than done. Researchers at the Wuhan lab frequently cooperated with American and Canadian counterparts on coronavirus research—we know about the security flaws specifically because American officials toured the facilities. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes findings from its coronavirus research frequently, as part of China’s goal to become a scientific superpower. We know as much as we do about coronaviruses because of the Wuhan lab’s research into the caves in Yunnan.
posted by FJT at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2021 [12 favorites]
It mentions a little of one aspect of the lab leak theory that I haven't really seen anyone really go into at all: Whether it's organizationally or logistically realistic to cover this up:
At its most benign, the lab leak theory holds that China discovered a completely new and dangerous coronavirus, didn’t tell anybody, and didn’t sequence it or develop a vaccine, then let it get out without noticing or while failing to contain it.
Keeping this work secret is easier said than done. Researchers at the Wuhan lab frequently cooperated with American and Canadian counterparts on coronavirus research—we know about the security flaws specifically because American officials toured the facilities. The Wuhan Institute of Virology publishes findings from its coronavirus research frequently, as part of China’s goal to become a scientific superpower. We know as much as we do about coronaviruses because of the Wuhan lab’s research into the caves in Yunnan.
posted by FJT at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2021 [12 favorites]
It's important to remember that Wuhan's population is greater than any city in the U.S., and is the largest city in a province, Hubei, whose population is 150% that of the largest U.S. state. So the fact that it had a major virology lab is not a stunning coincidence by itself--I think the vast majority of the Anglophone world had never heard of Wuhan 18 months ago, so probably mentally put it into the category of tiny, irrelevant backwaters.
Thanks for the Foreign Policy article, FJT, it addresses some stuff that I hadn't read anything about, specifically how plausible or implausible an accidental release with either an unwitting response or a cover-up really is. Most of the stuff I've read is just about how implausible an intentional leak of either a natural or engineered virus was.
posted by skewed at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2021 [5 favorites]
Thanks for the Foreign Policy article, FJT, it addresses some stuff that I hadn't read anything about, specifically how plausible or implausible an accidental release with either an unwitting response or a cover-up really is. Most of the stuff I've read is just about how implausible an intentional leak of either a natural or engineered virus was.
posted by skewed at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2021 [5 favorites]
In other words, this is a juicy and ripe wedge issue
Obviously a stunt, but it is definitely part of the larger scheme at play here. It is certainly amplified, when folks like Stewart effectively join forces with the likes of Greene in pushing this in the public sphere.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:24 PM on June 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
Obviously a stunt, but it is definitely part of the larger scheme at play here. It is certainly amplified, when folks like Stewart effectively join forces with the likes of Greene in pushing this in the public sphere.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:24 PM on June 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
What the fuck is Jon Stewart thinking with that fatuous rant? Apparently he's fallen victim to the same stupid, lazy thinking he used to satirize. The Post reporter (here) rightly criticizes and dismantles Stewart's trail of stupid, but then endorses it anyway:
posted by LooseFilter at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Stewart responded that it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. And he’s right to the extent you regard “conspiracy theory” as something that is implausible. (I would still argue it applies to a situation in which the Chinese government would have spent a year and a half covering this up.) It was just perhaps an oversimplification — the same kind of oversimplification for which the kinds of people promoting Stewart’s segment once pilloried him.If the ends justify the means, we are in real trouble.
That said, it will very likely push that seeming coincidence even more into the debate over the lab leak, which might ultimately be a healthy thing.
posted by LooseFilter at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Something that is implausible" is a dumb definition of "conspiracy theory." I've always thought of CSes as something (anything, really) that could be true, and only needs some quantity of supporting information in order to build a bridge to truth. It's very "three points define a circle."
posted by rhizome at 5:53 PM on June 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 5:53 PM on June 15, 2021 [3 favorites]
Wow, I just watched that bizarre rant by Stewart. Incredibly disappointing: yes, he's just a comedian, but he's a respected public voice of critical thought, as well, and people are going to assume that he had some sort of basis for what he said. Instead of apparently just making up a "fact" about the name of Wuhan Institute of Virology actually being the "Wuhan Novel Coronavirus Laboratory" or whatever crazy thing it was that he said. I guess this is what happens when he doesn't have writers for too long.
posted by biogeo at 7:09 PM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 7:09 PM on June 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Maybe Stewart's been watching too much FOX News post-TDS and the brain worms have set in. I'd feel sorry for him, I guess, if his show hadn't contributed in its own way in making Trump possible, with all the downstream consequences of that, by making right-wing extremism of the sort behind this and similar conspiracies just a bit of good fun.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:51 PM on June 15, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:51 PM on June 15, 2021
Seems people online are pretty divided on whether he was joking or not. After rewatching the clip and reading some of these reactions, I admit now I don't know. At this point, I will just chalk it up to the pandemic/social isolation altering my sense of humor and possibly also Jon Stewart's comedic instincts. Oh, and of course how toxic and murky the entire lab leak discourse has become online.
posted by FJT at 12:25 AM on June 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by FJT at 12:25 AM on June 16, 2021 [2 favorites]
I thought it was satire, but I fear I may be wrong, and most importantly it's not being taken as satire so that's what matters...
posted by bitteschoen at 12:38 AM on June 16, 2021
posted by bitteschoen at 12:38 AM on June 16, 2021
One wonders if Jon Stewart is part of an advance guard of more mainstream figures who will likewise shift the paradigm towards a lab leak.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:43 AM on June 16, 2021
posted by Apocryphon at 9:43 AM on June 16, 2021
The US public discourse is kind of shifting it into the typical red vs blue model:
-One end of the spectrum is being occupied by (going from less to more extreme) engineered/intentional release/bioweapons theories, which an Atlantic article groups together as "Mad Scientists"
-The other end of the spectrum is the natural/zoonotic origins camp
-And the middle position is the accidental lab leak theory, which because it's in the middle is also kind of seen as the the most reasonable/respectable/moderate position to have
But I don't think this reflects how experts in science and health see the issue. For this group the Mad Scientists theories isn't even considered, and its zoonotic origins on one end and the accidental lab release on the other. And even then, the majority are fairly confident or at least tilt a little bit towards zoonotic origins.
Everything I've read says the origins of Covid probably won't be discovered for many years. So that means in the US discourse these positions will settle in and take root. And even if stronger evidence emerges later for the zoonotic origins of Covid, I'm doubtful the other side will just stop arguing for the possibility of a lab leak.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on June 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
-One end of the spectrum is being occupied by (going from less to more extreme) engineered/intentional release/bioweapons theories, which an Atlantic article groups together as "Mad Scientists"
-The other end of the spectrum is the natural/zoonotic origins camp
-And the middle position is the accidental lab leak theory, which because it's in the middle is also kind of seen as the the most reasonable/respectable/moderate position to have
But I don't think this reflects how experts in science and health see the issue. For this group the Mad Scientists theories isn't even considered, and its zoonotic origins on one end and the accidental lab release on the other. And even then, the majority are fairly confident or at least tilt a little bit towards zoonotic origins.
Everything I've read says the origins of Covid probably won't be discovered for many years. So that means in the US discourse these positions will settle in and take root. And even if stronger evidence emerges later for the zoonotic origins of Covid, I'm doubtful the other side will just stop arguing for the possibility of a lab leak.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on June 16, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've watched TWiV a bit and the question I have about this is if a global coordinated move on investigating the origins would have yielded information that is by now lost. Like, investigate while the gun is smoking. The reason it didn't happen is obviously geopolitical, but scientifically we can say whether or not early access to information and evidence would've helped or not. I don't think they address this in the TWiV talks, but from a media perspective the ongoing controversy strikes me as collective psychological bargaining over a lost opportunity in the first place due to a failure to coordinate globally about an emerging global crisis.
posted by polymodus at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2021
posted by polymodus at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2021
No question there has been lost opportunity as time elapsed. But what I find so anti-intellectual and distressing in the comments here and elsewhere, from those opposed to trying to better understand how the pandemic started, is the notion that there was some date certain after which all valid evidence and information simply... disappeared? One doesn't have to be a fan of "cold case" crime stories to see that there is value in investigating such important unknowns, whether promptly or later.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:51 PM on June 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 7:51 PM on June 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
It might be important for people to ask themselves what valid evidence and information disappeared. It used to be understood and widely accepted that it is impossible to prove a negative, and that the onus is on the party making an assertion to defend that assertion with something more than circumstantial evidence -- much of which is based upon vague tribal mistrust, at best, and racist animosity, at worst. If those basic standards have changed, maybe we are in very more serious trouble than just a pandemic.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:39 PM on June 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:39 PM on June 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
among the evidence daszak & company lamented losing or the risk of losing, some TWiVs ago, were stored blood samples worth potential serological data in wuhan and elsewhere (i think they reported some agreement about preservation of wuhan samples and fretted about samples elsewhere approaching their "destroy by" date). think there might have been mention of irreplaceable data from the producers (many now lost? untraceable?) of animals available at the city's markets and up and down their supply line. these aren't necessarily lab-escape-supporting lines of evidence.
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:10 PM on June 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by 20 year lurk at 9:10 PM on June 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
I've been thinking a lot about the bit on journalistic values we discussed here--including especially things like oversight, transparency, and factualism. Not everyone rates these very highly, but this thread has been an illustration of very different instincts even among people often align around left/liberal values.
I probably rank lab leak of natural samples (ie, not "gain of function" stuff, let alone bioweapons) at 1% or something, to make up a number. But I'm interested in the question. I inspect things with lower probability than that all the time at work.
I know everyone's worried about how this might empower racists, but I will say--just speaking for myself--if I said I didn't want an investigation here it would prove unequivocally true that I only care about the truth when it's politically convenient or lets me criticize the US government, big corporations, or Republicans.
It used to be understood and widely accepted that it is impossible to prove a negative
Like a lot of logical fallacies that have catchy names, this claim is largely meaningless practically speaking and just doesn't apply.
The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that if someone leading a thorough lab inspection would have a decent chance of demonstrating the negative. I used to work in heavily regulated labs, for example, that have requirements for thorough documentation and procedures in place to prevent undetectable alteration.
An inspection of a lab like this that showed (1) no sign of fraud or alteration of records and (2) no sequences close to the ones released in the wild prior to December would essentially prove this wasn't leaked. Conversely, a sequence identical to the one that caused the pandemic and used by workers who got sick prior to the release would be essentially dispositive in favor of it.
In the middle are obvious deletions of records (suspicious but not proof) and extremely sloppy record keeping (frustrating but not suspicious.) The latter is a possibility, but records so bad you wouldn't expect to find positive evidence, if there was one, is pretty low. (This is the point, but also the flaw, with the FP piece linked a bit ago. A coverup is hard, but only if someone is actively trying to uncover something. If you insist the question is out of bounds it's incredibly easy.)
The idea of an investigation is to find out what happened. To try and get a better idea of the truth. You don't need to do an investigation at all if the answer is already known.
posted by mark k at 9:33 PM on June 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
I probably rank lab leak of natural samples (ie, not "gain of function" stuff, let alone bioweapons) at 1% or something, to make up a number. But I'm interested in the question. I inspect things with lower probability than that all the time at work.
I know everyone's worried about how this might empower racists, but I will say--just speaking for myself--if I said I didn't want an investigation here it would prove unequivocally true that I only care about the truth when it's politically convenient or lets me criticize the US government, big corporations, or Republicans.
It used to be understood and widely accepted that it is impossible to prove a negative
Like a lot of logical fallacies that have catchy names, this claim is largely meaningless practically speaking and just doesn't apply.
The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that if someone leading a thorough lab inspection would have a decent chance of demonstrating the negative. I used to work in heavily regulated labs, for example, that have requirements for thorough documentation and procedures in place to prevent undetectable alteration.
An inspection of a lab like this that showed (1) no sign of fraud or alteration of records and (2) no sequences close to the ones released in the wild prior to December would essentially prove this wasn't leaked. Conversely, a sequence identical to the one that caused the pandemic and used by workers who got sick prior to the release would be essentially dispositive in favor of it.
In the middle are obvious deletions of records (suspicious but not proof) and extremely sloppy record keeping (frustrating but not suspicious.) The latter is a possibility, but records so bad you wouldn't expect to find positive evidence, if there was one, is pretty low. (This is the point, but also the flaw, with the FP piece linked a bit ago. A coverup is hard, but only if someone is actively trying to uncover something. If you insist the question is out of bounds it's incredibly easy.)
The idea of an investigation is to find out what happened. To try and get a better idea of the truth. You don't need to do an investigation at all if the answer is already known.
posted by mark k at 9:33 PM on June 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
It might be important for people to ask themselves what valid evidence and information disappeared. It used to be understood and widely accepted that it is impossible to prove a negative
That's not the point. We are not the experts and can't decide what technical information and evidence is relevant. The valid question we can ask of the experts is that had the world governments not coordinated and approached things more like grownups, i.e. proactively, then would we have had more scientific information. But that's not a negative proposition; that is the logical proposition of The Investigation Started 1 Year Earlier -> More Useful Information Available for Origins Effort. There are no quantified existential negations in that proposition (and quantified existentials, in first order logic of the form ~ Exist (x), are what people mean by scientific unfalsifiability and unprovable negative statements).
As 20 year lurk said, the TWiV interview with the WHO officials mentioned that now they only have blood bank samples rather than actual serology that could've been obtained earlier. The WHO interviewees who are responsible for studying COVID origins also mentioned things like the trade-off between disinfecting the marketplaces versus preserving information for scientists.
So that's already two examples that WHO people themselves are on record for mentioning. It's just that the current news cycle reads more like a deflection from global responsibility, with the media getting people to polarize themselves based on political ideology around judging the lab, rather than collectively challenging our governments to handle a global crisis better from the start.
posted by polymodus at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
That's not the point. We are not the experts and can't decide what technical information and evidence is relevant. The valid question we can ask of the experts is that had the world governments not coordinated and approached things more like grownups, i.e. proactively, then would we have had more scientific information. But that's not a negative proposition; that is the logical proposition of The Investigation Started 1 Year Earlier -> More Useful Information Available for Origins Effort. There are no quantified existential negations in that proposition (and quantified existentials, in first order logic of the form ~ Exist (x), are what people mean by scientific unfalsifiability and unprovable negative statements).
As 20 year lurk said, the TWiV interview with the WHO officials mentioned that now they only have blood bank samples rather than actual serology that could've been obtained earlier. The WHO interviewees who are responsible for studying COVID origins also mentioned things like the trade-off between disinfecting the marketplaces versus preserving information for scientists.
So that's already two examples that WHO people themselves are on record for mentioning. It's just that the current news cycle reads more like a deflection from global responsibility, with the media getting people to polarize themselves based on political ideology around judging the lab, rather than collectively challenging our governments to handle a global crisis better from the start.
posted by polymodus at 10:25 PM on June 16, 2021 [1 favorite]
The reason it didn't happen is obviously geopolitical
Is that a roundabout way of saying Trump bears at least some responsibility for this too? Because he did alienate US allies, launch a trade war against China, hollow out the State Department, and slash CDC staff in China.
From one article in Politico and another from Washington Post, it seems there were people in the Trump administration looking into the lab leak theory from the beginning. However, they were limited to only open source information and some info from allied intelligence services. From both articles I also get the impression that Trump officials put a little blame on the science/health community (Fauci is mentioned in both articles) for saying as early as February evidence pointed to the virus being natural in origin and that there was no evidence of a lab leak. Officials saw that as tipping the scales in favor of zoonotic origin vs lab leak. Of course, the whole blame thing could just be Trump staff being like their former boss and axe grinding about Fauci.
posted by FJT at 1:44 AM on June 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is that a roundabout way of saying Trump bears at least some responsibility for this too? Because he did alienate US allies, launch a trade war against China, hollow out the State Department, and slash CDC staff in China.
From one article in Politico and another from Washington Post, it seems there were people in the Trump administration looking into the lab leak theory from the beginning. However, they were limited to only open source information and some info from allied intelligence services. From both articles I also get the impression that Trump officials put a little blame on the science/health community (Fauci is mentioned in both articles) for saying as early as February evidence pointed to the virus being natural in origin and that there was no evidence of a lab leak. Officials saw that as tipping the scales in favor of zoonotic origin vs lab leak. Of course, the whole blame thing could just be Trump staff being like their former boss and axe grinding about Fauci.
posted by FJT at 1:44 AM on June 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
I know everyone's worried about how this might empower racists, but I will say--just speaking for myself--if I said I didn't want an investigation here it would prove unequivocally true that I only care about the truth when it's politically convenient or lets me criticize the US government, big corporations, or Republicans.
Look, I have not ever said "no" to an investigation of the lab leak during this discussion. But I also don't think we should ignore all the shit around this: Media biases, conspiracy mongering, Republicans weaponizing uncertainty for political gain, public opinion of China reaching an all-time low, and (yeah) racism. I got the impression that some commenters dismissed or didn't consider these things because the Truth of the lab leak was the only thing that mattered.
with the media getting people to polarize themselves based on political ideology around judging the lab, rather than collectively challenging our governments to handle a global crisis better from the start.
Wait, I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting this: Are you kind of saying that the media may be focusing a little bit too much on the lab leak as opposed to other issues like how to best prepare for the next pandemic?
posted by FJT at 10:46 PM on June 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
Look, I have not ever said "no" to an investigation of the lab leak during this discussion. But I also don't think we should ignore all the shit around this: Media biases, conspiracy mongering, Republicans weaponizing uncertainty for political gain, public opinion of China reaching an all-time low, and (yeah) racism. I got the impression that some commenters dismissed or didn't consider these things because the Truth of the lab leak was the only thing that mattered.
with the media getting people to polarize themselves based on political ideology around judging the lab, rather than collectively challenging our governments to handle a global crisis better from the start.
Wait, I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting this: Are you kind of saying that the media may be focusing a little bit too much on the lab leak as opposed to other issues like how to best prepare for the next pandemic?
posted by FJT at 10:46 PM on June 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is a brilliant Twitter thread by a scientist who recovered "a deleted set of #SARSCoV2 sequences that provide additional information about viruses from the early Wuhan outbreak." His conclusion (before offering a link to all his data and analysis on Github): "We should therefore avoid dogmatic arguments about #SARSCoV2 origins / early spread, and instead focus on following two questions: (1) How can we get more data? (2) How can we better analyze the data we have?"
posted by PhineasGage at 3:24 PM on June 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 3:24 PM on June 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
WHO asks for re-checks of research on when coronavirus first surfaced in Italy (Reuters, June 1, 2021) The Italian researchers' findings, published by the INT's scientific magazine Tumori Journal, showed neutralising antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in blood taken from healthy volunteers in Italy in October 2019 during a lung cancer screening trial. Most of the volunteers were from Lombardy, the northern region around Milan, which was the first and hardest hit by the virus in Italy.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:12 PM on June 22, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:12 PM on June 22, 2021
comrade_robot: my understanding is that the Bloom Lab data does not provide a lot of evidence as to the source of the outbreak (as he says in the thread!) but is rather the sort of behavior one would expect if China were engaged in a coordinated attempt to obscure the source of the outbreak, such that we cannot trust any of their data or conclusions about it.
Basically the data that was deleted suggests that the initial source of the big outbreak in Wuhan wasn't in fact the Wuhan Seafood Market. So deleting it could well be an attempt to hide that fact.
It's right to point out that this doesn't provide evidence as to the origin but it's also fairly troubling that China appeared to be deliberately obscuring information relevant to the origin.
posted by Justinian at 12:53 AM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
Basically the data that was deleted suggests that the initial source of the big outbreak in Wuhan wasn't in fact the Wuhan Seafood Market. So deleting it could well be an attempt to hide that fact.
It's right to point out that this doesn't provide evidence as to the origin but it's also fairly troubling that China appeared to be deliberately obscuring information relevant to the origin.
posted by Justinian at 12:53 AM on June 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
That's definitely true. This info sure can't be used to increase our confidence in China's data though. "They could be covering up all kinds of stuff that isn't related to the origin being from a lab" is true but not exactly comforting.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 AM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:31 AM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
The NYT just posted an overview current theories and investigations about the origins of COVID-19.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:30 AM on June 23, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 10:30 AM on June 23, 2021
Basically the data that was deleted suggests that the initial source of the big outbreak in Wuhan wasn't in fact the Wuhan Seafood Market. So deleting it could well be an attempt to hide that fact.
But the idea that Huanan Seafood Market being an early superspreader event and not the initial outbreak site has been out there since May 2020 (WSJ article about it). In fact the article says that the idea was pushed by Chinese authorities to take the heat and focus away from China:
Separately, China’s top epidemiologist said Tuesday that testing of samples from a Wuhan food market, initially suspected as a path for the virus’s spread to humans, failed to show links between animals being sold there and the pathogen. Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said in comments carried in Chinese state media, “It now turns out that the market is one of the victims.”
And then this NYT article about the Bloom Labs discovery points to the data being withdrawn in June 2020, a month after the WSJ article.
A weird thing is that the NYT article specifically mentions that the person who requested the data to be withdrawn from the NIH database was not named by the NIH spokesperson. A WaPo article says the same thing and adds that it was "a researcher who originally published the genetic sequences".
posted by FJT at 6:37 PM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
But the idea that Huanan Seafood Market being an early superspreader event and not the initial outbreak site has been out there since May 2020 (WSJ article about it). In fact the article says that the idea was pushed by Chinese authorities to take the heat and focus away from China:
Separately, China’s top epidemiologist said Tuesday that testing of samples from a Wuhan food market, initially suspected as a path for the virus’s spread to humans, failed to show links between animals being sold there and the pathogen. Gao Fu, director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said in comments carried in Chinese state media, “It now turns out that the market is one of the victims.”
And then this NYT article about the Bloom Labs discovery points to the data being withdrawn in June 2020, a month after the WSJ article.
A weird thing is that the NYT article specifically mentions that the person who requested the data to be withdrawn from the NIH database was not named by the NIH spokesperson. A WaPo article says the same thing and adds that it was "a researcher who originally published the genetic sequences".
posted by FJT at 6:37 PM on June 23, 2021 [1 favorite]
(1) How can we get more data? (2) How can we better analyze the data we have?
I took the time to read this paper. The basis of Bloom's analysis is one deleted record and the early assertion that this record is a "smoking gun" that contains genomic sequence data that can be analysed directly not only as coronavirus sample, but as coronavirus sample tied directly to the SARS-CoV-2 disease, as we know it today.
That is a very strong assumption to make, particularly given both the timing — slightly before December 2019 for that record, it appears — and the apparently large phylogenetic distance between that sample and other samples since recovered: most simply from those infected around the world, at least since March 2020, based on the paper methodology.
That seems like a large technical hill to climb. That genetic distance would require that an engineering program have an approximately two to three month window to develop a virus evolved to be genetically similar to the coronavirus that spread around the world. That is a very short period of time to evolve a new virus in a lab, test and verify its pathogenicity in human test subjects, spread that variant to seed agents, and then send them around the world. Ignoring the complications of coordinating the cleanup of this record.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:44 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
I took the time to read this paper. The basis of Bloom's analysis is one deleted record and the early assertion that this record is a "smoking gun" that contains genomic sequence data that can be analysed directly not only as coronavirus sample, but as coronavirus sample tied directly to the SARS-CoV-2 disease, as we know it today.
That is a very strong assumption to make, particularly given both the timing — slightly before December 2019 for that record, it appears — and the apparently large phylogenetic distance between that sample and other samples since recovered: most simply from those infected around the world, at least since March 2020, based on the paper methodology.
That seems like a large technical hill to climb. That genetic distance would require that an engineering program have an approximately two to three month window to develop a virus evolved to be genetically similar to the coronavirus that spread around the world. That is a very short period of time to evolve a new virus in a lab, test and verify its pathogenicity in human test subjects, spread that variant to seed agents, and then send them around the world. Ignoring the complications of coordinating the cleanup of this record.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:44 PM on June 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
Zeynep Tufecki in the NY Times: "Where Did the Coronavirus Come From? What We Already Know Is Troubling."
Even if the coronavirus jumped from animal to human without the involvement of research activities, the groundwork for a potential disaster had been laid for years, and learning its lessons is essential to preventing others.posted by PhineasGage at 6:52 AM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
Some portion of Tufecki's piece goes into pushing the furin cleavage site theory to suggest the virus was engineered in a lab. This theory has been discredited by various pieces of research, not least by evidence found of recombination events in other coronaviruses. A 2020 paper from Andersen et al. suggests evidence that the site and resulting peptide modifications had to evolve under pressure from immune system response. This is not typically observed in viruses grown from cell cultures, such as would occur in a laboratory setting. More to the point: If it was engineered, humans could have done a better job modifying that site for improving human-to-human transmissibility. Those interested can also search this thread on the term "furin cleavage" for discussion by other scientists. The op-ed writer should have perhaps taken the time to speak to people with training in the field being discussed, but then it wouldn't be an opinion piece, I suppose.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:50 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:50 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
So, if I've got this right, the lab leak theory is: The Wuhan Institute of Virology (modified/didn't modify/oops, modified again) an extant zoonotic coronavirus and (accidentally released it in the Wuhan seafood market/accidentally released somewhere other than the Wuhan seafood market/accidentally released it in Europe several months prior somehow/okay maybe they didn't but they could have you guys and that's very troubling).
Seems pretty convincing.
posted by figurant at 2:34 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
Seems pretty convincing.
posted by figurant at 2:34 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
Tufekci is saying the complete, 180° opposite of that in the one paragraph discussing virologists' reactions to furin cleavage weirdness. (Frankly the piece has several badly flowing or poorly edited sentences, so confusion is understandable)
Tufekci's piece is long and nuanced, deconstructs the lab leak controversy through
sociological insights and historical context because that's her expertise as a professor. One thing I was impressed with was her willingness to call out Daszak as well as Shi for publicly saying inconsistent things, I haven't seen TWiV do that, and I'd attribute it just as much as virologists being in the same circles are less willing to be openly skeptical.
Another nonobvious critique Tufekci offers reads to me like a point against the Proximal Origins paper view; Garry was recently interviewed on TWiV taking the position that based on genomic analysis, it is absurd to think that it was genetically engineered. But Tufekci here is fundamentally correct about science: she says that such a hypothesis cannot be ruled own based on genomic analysis alone.
She also reads the Bloom piece correctly. I've seen different criticisms, on TWiV, about the Bloom issue, but Tufekci in a single paragraph shows the correct way to read Bloom's argument (which if anyone simply read the abstract last week rather than listen to the politics and media, I think would've arrived at the same conclusion; she's saying just putting aside the database deletion controversy, the upshot of the piece is evidence overthrowing the initial, government-sanctioned narrative of wild markets being the source).
Anyways the whole piece is worth reading.
Nearly every SARS case since the original epidemic has been due to lab leaks — six incidents in three countries, including twice in a single month from a lab in Beijing.
People, especially biologists and experts, keep talking about the "chance"/"likelihood"/'probability" of anthropogenic epidemic, but this one factoid alone makes one question if our experts subscribe to frequentist probability or some other theory of probability.
posted by polymodus at 6:39 PM on June 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
Tufekci's piece is long and nuanced, deconstructs the lab leak controversy through
sociological insights and historical context because that's her expertise as a professor. One thing I was impressed with was her willingness to call out Daszak as well as Shi for publicly saying inconsistent things, I haven't seen TWiV do that, and I'd attribute it just as much as virologists being in the same circles are less willing to be openly skeptical.
Another nonobvious critique Tufekci offers reads to me like a point against the Proximal Origins paper view; Garry was recently interviewed on TWiV taking the position that based on genomic analysis, it is absurd to think that it was genetically engineered. But Tufekci here is fundamentally correct about science: she says that such a hypothesis cannot be ruled own based on genomic analysis alone.
She also reads the Bloom piece correctly. I've seen different criticisms, on TWiV, about the Bloom issue, but Tufekci in a single paragraph shows the correct way to read Bloom's argument (which if anyone simply read the abstract last week rather than listen to the politics and media, I think would've arrived at the same conclusion; she's saying just putting aside the database deletion controversy, the upshot of the piece is evidence overthrowing the initial, government-sanctioned narrative of wild markets being the source).
Anyways the whole piece is worth reading.
Nearly every SARS case since the original epidemic has been due to lab leaks — six incidents in three countries, including twice in a single month from a lab in Beijing.
People, especially biologists and experts, keep talking about the "chance"/"likelihood"/'probability" of anthropogenic epidemic, but this one factoid alone makes one question if our experts subscribe to frequentist probability or some other theory of probability.
posted by polymodus at 6:39 PM on June 25, 2021 [5 favorites]
she says that such a hypothesis cannot be ruled own based on genomic analysis alone
This scraping from the bottom of the barrel needs to stop. If you have evidence, show it. Let's see your cards.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:08 PM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
This scraping from the bottom of the barrel needs to stop. If you have evidence, show it. Let's see your cards.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:08 PM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
JFC, the whole point to her piece - and so many MeFites' comments above in this thread - is that MORE RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:46 PM on June 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 8:46 PM on June 25, 2021 [3 favorites]
This scraping from the bottom of the barrel needs to stop. If you have evidence, show it. Let's see your cards.
And it's misinformation to frame Tufekci's essay as anything arguing in favor of "lab leak". By deconstructing it using historical context and summarizing the known issues thus far, she is saying that it's a false debate. Literally in the essay the author writes about scientists not confronting the fundamental problem of unknown-unknowns.
What you interpret and frame as "scraping the bottom" is simply what scientists knowledgeable about scientific history and sociology of science as doing basic science. It is also partly your biases (again, recognizing that the piece has badly edited sentences, one that was almost a run-on sentence) that led you to totally misread Tufekci's paragraph on furin cleavage then dismiss the whole piece based on that; doing that is also adding to misinformation.
Tufekci's point about genomic analysis being not proof is a basic scientific statement that is fair (and non-obvious) criticism of the proximal origins position. Political correctness doesn't mean only the elite get to speak actual scientific truths.
posted by polymodus at 9:12 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
And it's misinformation to frame Tufekci's essay as anything arguing in favor of "lab leak". By deconstructing it using historical context and summarizing the known issues thus far, she is saying that it's a false debate. Literally in the essay the author writes about scientists not confronting the fundamental problem of unknown-unknowns.
What you interpret and frame as "scraping the bottom" is simply what scientists knowledgeable about scientific history and sociology of science as doing basic science. It is also partly your biases (again, recognizing that the piece has badly edited sentences, one that was almost a run-on sentence) that led you to totally misread Tufekci's paragraph on furin cleavage then dismiss the whole piece based on that; doing that is also adding to misinformation.
Tufekci's point about genomic analysis being not proof is a basic scientific statement that is fair (and non-obvious) criticism of the proximal origins position. Political correctness doesn't mean only the elite get to speak actual scientific truths.
posted by polymodus at 9:12 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
Sinica Podcast with Deborah Seligsohn on Covid-19 Origins
Goes more into the international politics side of things. They also discuss the situation inside China, how the Chinese government is not a monolith. It's important to keep this in mind, because certain ministries are actually more receptive to bringing in international experts to help (like the Ministry of Health). Politicizing the lab leak debate in the US/West might make it more difficult to do that, because it's harder to defend bringing in foreign experts in an atmosphere of suspicion.
Biden's 90-day intelligence review may have stalled the WHO investigation and scientists in China have started shying away from doing Covid-19 research, because they're afraid of the political ramifications.
Another tidbit was that the recently passed "Endless Frontier Act", the bill for technology and science funding to compete with China, included an amendment to cut all funding from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that was inserted by Senator Joni Ernst. And that's also not a good thing if you're seeking cooperation with China to try to figure out the origins of Covid-19.
posted by FJT at 9:28 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
Goes more into the international politics side of things. They also discuss the situation inside China, how the Chinese government is not a monolith. It's important to keep this in mind, because certain ministries are actually more receptive to bringing in international experts to help (like the Ministry of Health). Politicizing the lab leak debate in the US/West might make it more difficult to do that, because it's harder to defend bringing in foreign experts in an atmosphere of suspicion.
Biden's 90-day intelligence review may have stalled the WHO investigation and scientists in China have started shying away from doing Covid-19 research, because they're afraid of the political ramifications.
Another tidbit was that the recently passed "Endless Frontier Act", the bill for technology and science funding to compete with China, included an amendment to cut all funding from the Wuhan Institute of Virology that was inserted by Senator Joni Ernst. And that's also not a good thing if you're seeking cooperation with China to try to figure out the origins of Covid-19.
posted by FJT at 9:28 PM on June 25, 2021 [4 favorites]
she is saying that it's a false debate.
I mean, Yeaahhh?
I think some people were saying kind of similar things in this very thread since the beginning.
But the false debate is out there and got a major boost in publicity in the last couple of months. We know that in August Biden's 90-day intelligence review will be due and that's going to provide another round of headlines. So, I guess maybe I'll see everyone in the next thread?
posted by FJT at 11:58 PM on June 25, 2021
I mean, Yeaahhh?
I think some people were saying kind of similar things in this very thread since the beginning.
But the false debate is out there and got a major boost in publicity in the last couple of months. We know that in August Biden's 90-day intelligence review will be due and that's going to provide another round of headlines. So, I guess maybe I'll see everyone in the next thread?
posted by FJT at 11:58 PM on June 25, 2021
(Frankly the piece has several badly flowing or poorly edited sentences, so confusion is understandable)
Poor grammar or no, she opens her essay with the 1977 outbreak of H1N1 and then continues by later kinda-sorta-really teasing promotion of a theory that has been repeatedly discredited by virologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticists for more than a year, now. She then chooses to further continue her argument that the virus was probably released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology on the basis of a set of unconnected events and unsubstantiated assertions with no connection to facts as we know them. So neither she, nor you, can argue any confusion on the part of the reader. She wrote what she wrote.
To all others: I am begging you to think very hard about the life and death consequences that come from rebroadcasting her variety of bullshit. As an example of one serious end result — intentional or not — rebroadcasting her nonsense helps contribute support to a larger, organized campaign of mistrust that ultimately gets people to avoid vaccination. As a for instance, people are avoiding getting their shots because of mistrust of health officials, including Fauci, who is referenced in this post.
So this is no longer just idle chitchat about lab safety protocols (which most people online know nothing about, anyway). Like the example of Andrew Wakefield's retracted study dissuading parents from getting their children vaccinated against measles, one consequence of this conspiracy theorizing is literally — not rhetorically — getting people hurt and killed: today, right now.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:00 AM on June 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
Poor grammar or no, she opens her essay with the 1977 outbreak of H1N1 and then continues by later kinda-sorta-really teasing promotion of a theory that has been repeatedly discredited by virologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticists for more than a year, now. She then chooses to further continue her argument that the virus was probably released from the Wuhan Institute of Virology on the basis of a set of unconnected events and unsubstantiated assertions with no connection to facts as we know them. So neither she, nor you, can argue any confusion on the part of the reader. She wrote what she wrote.
To all others: I am begging you to think very hard about the life and death consequences that come from rebroadcasting her variety of bullshit. As an example of one serious end result — intentional or not — rebroadcasting her nonsense helps contribute support to a larger, organized campaign of mistrust that ultimately gets people to avoid vaccination. As a for instance, people are avoiding getting their shots because of mistrust of health officials, including Fauci, who is referenced in this post.
So this is no longer just idle chitchat about lab safety protocols (which most people online know nothing about, anyway). Like the example of Andrew Wakefield's retracted study dissuading parents from getting their children vaccinated against measles, one consequence of this conspiracy theorizing is literally — not rhetorically — getting people hurt and killed: today, right now.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:00 AM on June 26, 2021 [3 favorites]
What a lousy article. It suggests, then it backs off a bit, then it comes back, and consequently leaves you with the impression that the minimalist position is that the crossover event occurred when Chinese researchers were infected; it's at least possible that it was caused by a callous disregard for human safety; and that the median position is that Chinese lab workers were shockingly irresponsible and chose to cover it up. Everything that can excite suspicion is breathlessly reported, no matter how irrelevant; every argument that would militate against a conclusion of official responsibility is dismissed with something like "they would say that, wouldn't they".
What we're actually left with is what we knew before: there was a crossover event, probably from bats via an intermediary species, and that this probably occurred in Hubei. And that's basically it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:40 AM on June 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
What we're actually left with is what we knew before: there was a crossover event, probably from bats via an intermediary species, and that this probably occurred in Hubei. And that's basically it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:40 AM on June 26, 2021 [4 favorites]
« Older Instant everything. Incredible prices. Big heart. | The Little Engine That Maybe Could Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rodlymight at 10:40 AM on May 26, 2021 [17 favorites]