zlacker

>>lazycr+(OP)
If anyone is tempted to associate 'lab leak' with xenophobia or anti-Chinese sentiment, please remember the WIV lab was in partnership with the U.S. NIH (National Institutes of Health).

https://www.biospace.com/article/1nih-awards-ecohealth-allia...

>>mgamac+Ce
I think there are a couple of conflations in the 'lab leak' meme.

- China intentionally manufactured the virus and released it (Proven false, virus wasn't engineered)

- China accidentally released the virus while collecting it (Possible, but unlikely given the virus has early evidence away from both collection point and Wuhan Lab)

- China has too many wet markets that allowed the virus to mutate enough for human jump (Current consensus working theory, but also unproven as intermediary animal has not been identified)

But all of these list China as the responsible party, so if you want to call it out as not Xenophobia or Anti-China sentiment then you'd have to show evidence the reporting showed "Joint Sino-American research lab causes..." kind of headlines. Otherwise, you point strengthens that this has at least an under current of anti-china sentiment, as the reporting has not mentioned US involvement at all.

WHO of course have a lot to answer for with regards to ignoring Taiwan because if BS geopolitics when they had the most reliable/believable/compelling evidence of the nature of SARS-Cov2

>>onetho+oc1
>- China intentionally manufactured the virus and released it (Proven false, virus wasn't engineered)

The most common lab leak hypothesis I've seen is that it was engineered during gain-of-function research and then accidentally leaked.

The fallacy is just that the only reason someone would engineer a virus would be to weaponize it. Gain-of-function research is regularly done to study and combat viruses. So just because it was engineered doesn't imply it was intentionally released.

>>meowfa+Gf1
But they have found the virus in bats... it’s not engineered. Yes there are lots of legitimate reasons to study viruses.

>>onetho+RW2
No, they haven't found the exact virus in bats in the wild, yet. They've found some relatives, but not the virus. There's still no strong empirical evidence one way or another for the zoonotic vs. lab leak hypothesis.

>>meowfa+al3
Even the lab leak is zoonotic. Because 100% it was from the bats... you are right it might have gone via the lab or via a wet market... what’s the difference though?

(Yes it isn’t 100% match, but it’s 100% an ancestor... so not engineered)

>>onetho+yX3
First, even genetically-engineered viruses (i.e., viruses whose nucleic acid sequence was directly manipulated by scientists) are genetically similar to natural viruses--scientists lack the knowledge to design a viral genome entirely de novo, so such activity starts with one or more natural genomes. I believe other evidence makes such an origin for SARS-CoV-2 unlikely, but the existence of natural relatives means nothing.

Second, are you really saying that if we somehow later confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally-evolved virus sampled and accidentally released by the WIV, we should just shrug and do nothing? Even before the pandemic, there was a debate over whether deliberately seeking out novel pathogens (especially for gain-of-function experiments, but even just for collection and sequencing) brought sufficient benefit to justify the risk. If it turned out that such activity started a pandemic that killed millions of people, wouldn't it perhaps be worth revisiting that tradeoff?