zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. jchook+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-02-13 19:33:12
I don't feel convinced by the argument. Maybe someone can help me understand better.

- Virus infects human ACE2 suboptimally, therefore it's not lab grown. Why? Because a virus engineer is always going for maximizing spread rate? Seems plausible that less-than-ideal infection rates of humans could be a feature rather than a bug.

- A polybasic clevage site was not seen in SARS-CoV... but it's function is not known. Okay?

- The virus backbone was "0day" and not previously known to researchers. Seems like a feature that a covert bio warfare lab would desire.

The rest of the speculation seems to ride on the assumption that the virus originated in China (despite evidence showing otherwise[1][2]), and their discovery seems biased toward any data to support that conclusion.

1. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2

replies(1): >>loveis+z6
2. loveis+z6[view] [source] 2021-02-13 20:22:32
>>jchook+(OP)
>Why? Because a virus engineer is always going for maximizing spread rate? Seems plausible that less-than-ideal infection rates of humans could be a feature rather than a bug.

You are correct. There is both gain of function and loss of function happening in these types of experiments.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

[go to top]