zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
> The Wuhan Institute hasn’t shared raw data, safety logs and lab records on its extensive work with coronaviruses in bats, which many consider the most likely source of the virus.

Nevertheless, the gain of function research with coronaviruses has been documented in the peer-reviewed literature.

The lack of new information from the Wuhan Institute, despite its longstanding research activities, is probably the most compelling evidence in support of the lab escape hypothesis.

If the evidence pointed elsewhere, it would be released. The most likely explanation is that the Institute's fingerprints are all over this thing.

The second most compelling evidence is that to date the reservoir species has not been found.

>>aazaa+Yo1
It took over five years to find the reservoir species for SARS, and decades for most viruses. It's not evidence at all because the facts match the expected result.

I don't know exactly what information you would want. Every single paper about virology research from the institute was published with western authors. Had there been something wrong in the raw data or safety logs those authors would have said so.

Instead they say that everything is normal.

There is a weird double standard here of ignoring data that goes against this hypothesis and interpreting things that happened for every single other zoonosis in the world to be indicative of a lab escape. Such as, for example, three people out of six hundred presenting with symptoms of seasonal illnesses in the appropriate season.

>>sudosy+gy1
Just because something took 5 years last time does not mean it should take the same this time.

- Our SOP should be better to analyze the information.

- Given the magnitude of the problem, more eyes should be on it

- tools and technologies should be better

It may still take longer, but all things being equal, we should not justify anything based on the past track record.

Your other point is valid though: if 3 people showed up in 1, 2 or 3 hospitals with severe flu, I would not think much of it, no one would.

>>kshack+1c2
The actual process of finding the viral reservoir is to go off into the wild and collect samples. It has not changed since SARS.

SARS was a very big deal in China and the Chinese government allocated a lot of resources to research. As far as points one and two, that means no real improvement, as it was already in the diminishing return phase.

Because of this I don't actually see why it would be any faster. SARS wasn't the first virus where finding a reservoir was tried, far from it, and the limiting factor in the search for the source is still the same. Because of this I don't expect it should be much easier this time than last time.