zlacker

[return to "Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out"]
1. loveis+Oj[view] [source] 2021-04-09 15:24:15
>>todd8+(OP)
Judging by the comments in this thread, it seems a lot of people are still unaware that:

1. Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature, and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"

2. It's not xenophobic for people from the US to suggest the possibility of a lab leak, because the US was itself funding gain of function research on novel coronaviruses in the Wuhan BSL4 lab

3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1]

[1]https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly...

◧◩
2. eighty+3o[view] [source] 2021-04-09 15:40:09
>>loveis+Oj
I feel like people are doing a poor job distinguishing between "engineered" and "leaked."

There is, from my understanding, reasonable evidence to conclude the virus was not engineered from the perspective of "we took genes from one virus and moved them to this virus," but there's no evidence disproving the idea that it was the result of gain of function research.

My personal feeling is that these statements are true:

* The virus is unlikely to have been engineered (in the way I described above) and leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was the result of gain of function research and it leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was a natural research sample and it leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was introduced by an animal/person who traveled to the wet market.

Some of these are more likely than others, and an individual's own calibration for what is likely or unlikely will probably come into play more than evidence in the short term and possibly long term as well. I can say the vast majority of us are not qualified to answer the question either way though.

◧◩◪
3. Bukhma+rX[view] [source] 2021-04-09 18:27:17
>>eighty+3o
My personal feelings are that all 3 are possible, but approximately 0.0001% of people will actually consider the likelihood of each one, but rather, most will choose whichever one is most convenient and comfortable to believe in.

Of course as an Asian person, whatever people believe in will have a direct impact on me. I remember after 9/11, the amount of awful things that were said and done to the Sikh population in my city. It didn’t matter they had literally nothing to do with the attacks. People were angry and wanted someone to blame.

◧◩◪◨
4. triple+Ga2[view] [source] 2021-04-10 03:58:56
>>Bukhma+rX
If SARS-CoV-2 emerged due to the WIV's research activities, then it was potentially with the knowledge and funding of the American government, via the EcoHealth Alliance. Racism is always stupid, but in this case it's particularly so.

This absolutely shouldn't be China vs. USA, and it's deeply unfortunate that the Trump administration's early, characteristically unsupported rhetoric made it so. The WIV's safety was probably below American standards, but probably closer than a wet market is to American agricultural standards. So it's ridiculous to think a lab vs. natural origin makes it "more China's fault". If the CCP is currently covering up a lab accident, then they're probably quite unhappy that they've been "forced" to do so, and wishing in retrospect they'd instead decided a year ago to publicly blame the rogue, American-funded researcher.

Long before the pandemic, this was an obscure academic debate, between virologists who wanted to perform certain risky experiments and others who thought they presented an unacceptable risk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097416/

With the possibility (absolutely not proven; but not disproven either) that such an experiment has just killed 2.9M people, that debate takes on a terrible new significance.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pclmul+4M2[view] [source] 2021-04-10 12:53:11
>>triple+Ga2
By the way, one of the big proponents of gain-of-function research was Anthony Fauci. It makes sense that he came out and tried to control the narrative around the virus given that he may have been responsible for its creation.
[go to top]