zlacker

>>ruarai+(OP)
This has honestly been my unbiased opinion since essentially day 1. I believe that the release was almost certainly a complete accident, but there's just no realistic chance a novel virus coincidentally originates in the same isolated place as a lab that specializes in that exact same type of virus. The denialists, including the WHO and CDC and everyone else, need to get real and own up to what happened and figure out how to stop it from happening again. This has nothing to do with the PRC or anyone or anywhere else, it could have happened at any biological facility in the world and will eventually happen again somewhere unless scientific honesty and cooler heads prevail.

>>crx07+ML
> there's just no realistic chance a novel virus coincidentally originates in the same isolated place as a lab that specializes in that exact same type of virus.

I think that it is at least somewhat likely that it was the result of the lab's activities, but your assertion here has a huge dose of selection bias.

If the virology labs studying coronaviruses were placed randomly around the world, you'd be correct - but they're not. They're placed near locations where novel coronaviruses have crossed the species barrier in the past, and where they are likely to do so in the future.

It would be equivalent to say that lighthouses cause ships to run aground, because many teams when ships run aground it's near a lighthouse.

>>Ancapi+231
China is a big country. Wuhan is 900km away from the bat caves that are believed to be the breeding ground for these viruses.

>>gregwe+5L1
...but Wuhan is also 0km away from the wet markets that sell meat sourced x00km away near and around the bat caves.

>>koheri+TO1
I have seen estimates of thousands of wet markets in China and perhaps 10000 in all of Asia. Why the one wet market closest to a lab doing GOF research, and previously questioned on its containment rigor.

>>a9h74j+Rn2
Because it is the largest city near the bat habitat - with the largest wet market.

Wuhan is like Chicago in China. It's not some random small town. If an outbreak occurred in some rural area (which it might have previously), it's possible that it just fizzled out.

Wuhan is a great place for a virus to spread.

>>koheri+wO3
Take a look at this on a map. Mojiang (where RaTG13, the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, was reportedly sampled) is closer to Chongqing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, or HK than to Wuhan. Pu'er is roughly Chicago-sized, and it's 150 km away. Kunming is more people than two Chicagos, and it's 200 km away. It makes sense that this first emerged in a city, but Wuhan is far from the obvious geographic choice.

>>triple+PE4
Maybe folks in Mojiand have some immunity because other variants spread there before? Maybe that's why Vietnam (cause Hanoi is close too) have been largely spared. Maybe Wuhan has a bigger market for "wild meat" than rural places - that wouldn't surprise me. Maybe RaTG13 is present in a lot of places. Maybe there are some even closer relatives to sars-cov-2 closer to Wuhan.

Again, none of this is conclusive. It's all speculation. maybe maybe maybe. There are lots of potential ways for this to have happened natually.

>>koheri+Vv7
FWIW, I do suspect cross-immunity will eventually explain a lot of mysteries of this virus, including why the Asia-Pacific region has been so lightly-hit compared to Europe and the Americas. So I do agree it's possible that weaker population immunity in more distant regions more than offsets less frequent spillover, and paradoxically makes them the more likely regions for an outbreak (although that's not what experts including Zhengli Shi had originally guessed).

But there's lots of other distant cities in China too, and none of them have virology institutes with the world's biggest collection of novel SARS-like viruses. So whatever your prior was for lab accident vs. natural, I do believe the location in Wuhan should significantly increase that. Certainly far from conclusive, but a possibility that requires serious investigation.