Not so much "clutching at the assumption" as saying "that sounds very unlikely given the genetic tracing we have so far showing the path of the virus".
> This sounds like pure speculation and is probably not a reasonable thing to assume.
It is speculation, but not pure speculation - there is some data to back it up.
Trevor Bedford [0] is a researcher at Fred Hutch in Seattle and a professor at UW, focusing on genomic sequencing of viruses.
He estimated two days ago [1] that the number of cases was in the hundreds, with a large degree of uncertainty:
> This approach leads to a similar estimate of the number of current infections at 330 with a 90% uncertainty interval of between 20 and 1500 infections.
This is solely an estimate of the infections here in the Seattle area, based on gene sequencing.
"(At this point most scientists say it's possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)"
It seems as if they're confusing the 'possibility' of the manipulation theory with the 'possibility' of the lab escape theory (which is technically possible, but very, very unlikely).
> That is, to be frank, even as an epidemiologist who is very skeptical of the lab leak hypothesis, a comforting thought.
Yes, much more comforting to believe that the virus originated in a lab, that a successful (so far) conspiracy has been carried out to conceal its origins, and that there will be no transparency or accountability for any of the people involved, who are likely continuing similar research today.
>"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”."
>"He added: “I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan.”"
This pair of quotes has a completely different meaning from the original quote it sliced up:
>"I am also agnostic on this – I do not have any experience of laboratory virology and don’t know what is likely or not in that context. From a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site. It strongly suggests to me that we are missing something important in the origin of the virus. My inclination would be that it is a missing host species in which this feature arose because it was selected for in that host. We can see this insertion has resulted in an extremely fit virus in humans – we can also deduce that it is not optimal for transmission in bat species."
>"... [this ellipsis (...) is from the house.gov transcription] The biggest hinderance at the moment (for this and more generally) is the lack of data and information. There have been no genome sequences from Wuhan for cases more recent than the 6 beginning of January and reports, but no information, about virus from non-human animals in Wuhan. If the evolutionary origins of the epidemic were to be discussed, I think the only people with sufficient information or access to samples to address it would be the teams working in Wuhan."
To emphasize the very last part: Rambaut is talking about genome sequences from human patients in Wuhan -- not laboratory data from the suspect WIV. But the Telegraph quote implies the opposite.
(Also, obviously I'm not picking any "side" here: dishonesty in the Telegraph doesn't vindicate dishonesty in NIH leadership, and vice-versa).
> this whole China Lab theory is literally just tinfoil hat speculation
I feel like that's a bit cold. This is a virus whose closest relatives are known to exist in animals that are the specific animals that they specialise in, in that lab where they also do science around viruses like this one.
Sure, it might not be this but there's a fair bit of co-incidence going on here isn't there? Enough at least to take it beyond the realm of tin foil.
>Virus doesn't need to be perfectly adapted to infect a species.
To be frank, no one said so.
>And I'd be careful about reasoning that if I can't imagine any other way something could happen then it must have happened exactly the way I think it happened
No one is doing that either. Just that the chance of alternative is astronomically small..
"It would be premature to draw any conclusion about the origins of the virus from this paper. But what is not premature is that social media giants deciding for us what is true and what is false may turn out to be as big a threat as the virus. It is unfair to dismiss ideas that one doesn't want to hear as “conspiracy theories” as many people are doing."
> I do not understand, why so many people immediately deny the whole possibility that the virus came out of the lab, as if was some heretic idea.
Take some solace in that sentiment is shifting to "it's possible". A month ago when I asked about it here, my comment was not only heavily downvoted, but there was no support in the replies and my comment was flagged. Now at least there seem to be enough people questioning it that the possibility is at least being taken seriously.
"It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong!" - I know this is said tongue-in-cheek, but this mischaracterizes the medical scientists who have been working themselves to the bone trying to understand this virus and disease.
Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain (or at least, we're very explicit about the claim's certainty). And what we know for certain in medical science is actually quite small. People, both for clout and for profit, make up bullshit when there are gaps in knowledge.
"Believing science", as stated a few times in this article, should actually be framed as: reserving judgement until we have evidence. We should have a bit more respect and patience for the process of acquiring actual knowledge. And people who make claims beyond what we actually know should be held accountable culturally (and financially) for being liars.
> A virus being engineered to be an order of magnitude less virulent seems unlikely to say the least.
From what I gathered it’s not suggesting specific genetic traits were engineered, but rather that they were experimenting and one of those experiments could have accidentally been released(?).
> Also, there is often a confusion where scientist say "we do not know (yet)" and it gets interpreted as "it does not".
Scientists seem completely comfortable saying things like "racism is the real virus" though, when only a short time before they claimed anyone going out in public for non-essential activities was playing a game of human sacrifice.
The idea that they're hesitant to make unfounded conclusions is wrong because there's been all sorts of bizarre statements throughout the entire establishment over the course of the pandemic.
Doom scenarios are the norm, and usually offered with no to little evidence, meanwhile any good or slightly optimistic news is always downplayed.
> You're saying that we should assume "normal situation" in the face of evidence that your assumptions do not hold.
Not really! As you say, this virus is new. Soooooo, we are short on info. So, we should entertain several possibilities.
I didn't say "should" and, to entertain more than one possibility, only said "If"! Biggie difference.
Yup, we don't know. If we do a lot of very well designed and executed statistical trials, controlled, double blind, randomized, simple random sample, stratified sample, etc., then maybe in five years we will know enough to be sure on all the major points, across seasons, ages, other medical conditions, reinfection, spreading via HVAC systems, therapeutics with dosages, side effects, and contraindications, vaccines with number of shots, contraindications, etc. Ah, just wait five years!!!!
Well, nope, to paraphrase, we go to war with the info we have and not the info we want.
So, for the info we have, from the history of viruses, once recovered, then likely immune for a long time; for now we have to take that seriously and maybe are in effect forced to act as if we believe it.
Yup, there are reports of "reinfection" from maybe China or South Korea -- I didn't pay much attention to those reports due to concerns about, call it, data quality. But, net, yup, maybe in some cases, maybe even in all cases, recovery does not mean immunity.
At high cost, we will be finding out with some relatively good data, and in less than five years! Did I mention high cost?
As pointed out by others, we don't even know who COVID's patient zero is, nor whether or not an intermediate host was even required after bats.
The original SARS-CoV virus has never been isolated in animals. HIV's origins in chimps is still murky.
The Spanish flu wasn't Spanish, but otherwise ... And, Ebola. ?
We humans aren't owed an answer, and juxtaposed against our investigative history, I don't understand how the current state of our understanding here is suggestive of anything.
> So maybe this is a variant that has a higher likelihood of mutation in a specific demographic (e.g. Indian).
Is this a thing that's known to have occurred in other viruses? It seems rather unlikely compared to the chance that it came from someone asymptomatic or someone who skipped over the border controls via boat or something like that.
I'd be careful speculating over demographics. There's been a wave of violence against Asian (largely Chinese, Japanese and Korean) people in the US, believed to be caused at least in part by our former president accusing China of accidentally releasing the virus. I wouldn't want some populist to latch on to this theory and start blaming Indian people for variants.
reply