Origins of Covid

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One researcher, Andersen, did calculate, using a biological clock, back to Sept. 2019. At that point he found two distinct lineages. And that is where it's being argued that is evidence it didn't start in Wuhan.

I think I asked you this before but where does Andersen claim it began in September 2019?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Epidemiology of the first cases:

Quote:

The earliest cases were mostly
resident in the central districts of Wuhan, but cases began to appear in all districts of Wuhan in mid- to
late December 2019 (Fig. 23).

I should point out here that there is no evidence of an outbreak preceding the Wuhan outbreak that can explain the evolution of the 2 lineages.


As I noted earlier and in contradiction to the paper claiming all/most of the case could be connected to an animal market... yeah...no.

Quote:

For those cases where the information was available, 55.4% had a history of recent exposure to a
market:28.0% to the Huanan market only, 22.6% to other markets only, and 4.8% to both. 44.6% had
no history of market exposure (see Fig. 24 and Annex E4). Cases with market exposure were more
evident among the early cases but exposure to other markets occurred in the earliest cases as much as
exposure to the Huanan market. The case reported with the earliest onset date (8 December) had no
history of exposure to the Huanan market.

Summary:

Quote:

The joint international team concluded that:
1. Linking genomic data with epidemiological data is essential for molecular analysis in support
of origin-tracing studies.
2. Quality control of genome sequencing is important to provide reliable results.
3. Viruses from some Huanan market cases were identical, suggesting a spreading event.
4. Analysis of early case genomes also showed some diversity, suggesting additional sources and
unrecognized circulation.
5. Estimates of the time to most recent common ancestor (from literature and re-analysis) suggest
that virus transmission or circulation date might be recent, in late 2019.
6. Up to now, the most closely related genomic sequences have been found in bats.
7. Reports of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in cases and environmental samples before January 2020
in different parts of the world require follow-up.

And the recommendations are for further study.


What I found interesting was the evidence there was probably some spread of the virus before the identified cases in Wuhan. The same thing happened here in the Seattle area. Three cases were identified and researchers at Fred Hutch determined they were closely related meaning there was already a simmering epidemic here before it came to anyone's attention.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think I asked you this before but where does Andersen claim it began in September 2019?

That was his biological clock model looking for the earliest common ancestors. The WHO report also notes the same thing but they found the most common consensus was late Nov.

But put together with a bit of simmering before cases were detected and you get a few weeks to months before the Dec cases.

From the WHO report, page 80 is: Table 8. Time to the most common ancestor (tMRCA) inferred in different studies.

Quote:

2019, late September ... strict clock model

We still have to explain the 2 lineages and to do that you need a few earlier cases. With no evidence those cases began outside Wuhan one has to consider these dates do agree with the government taking a lot of research offline in Sept.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That was his biological clock model looking for the earliest common ancestors.

Would this technique be able to tell if that earliest common ancestor had made it to humans yet?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Would this technique be able to tell if that earliest common ancestor had made it to humans yet?

You would assume so, otherwise both lineages would independently have had the same mutations in a short space of time which seems unlikely...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Would this technique be able to tell if that earliest common ancestor had made it to humans yet?

Those were all from human COVID cases.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

You would assume so, otherwise both lineages would independently have had the same mutations in a short space of time which seems unlikely...

Sorry, don't follow your reasoning there.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Those were all from human COVID cases.

The descendants were.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Sorry, don't follow your reasoning there.

One need not assume anything, just read the papers.

Clock and TMRCA based on 27 genomes - January 25, 2020
Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research

Quote:

Following up on the analyses provided by Andrew Rambaut this is a brief report estimating the evolutionary rate and timing of the epidemic (date of the most recent ancestor (MRCA)) based on 27 publicly shared n2019-nCoV genome sequences. Compared to earlier analyses where several parameters had to be fixed, there is now enough information content in the sequences to obtain reasonable estimates of the clock and TMRCA without fixing parameters. This work is for information purposes only and is not intended for publication. All the data used here is provided by the laboratories listed below through NCBI Genbank or GISAID....

A phylogenetic tree was created using PhyML and in agreement with previous analyses, still shows limited genetic variation in the sampled viruses, which is consistent with a recent common ancestor. Two distinct clusters can also be seen from the tree, consistent with reported human clusters of cases 224 (shown in orange and red)....

Back to the 2 lineages diverging:

Quote:

We are starting to see more structure in the tree and overall the genetic data is highly suggestive of a single-point introduction into the human population followed by sustained human-to-human transmission. This introduction was likely via either a single infected animal or a small cluster of recently infected animals directly into either a single human individual or a small cluster of human individuals. All subsequent cases are the result of human-to-human transmission with no further evidence of zoonotic transmissions. ...

The ranges are more appropriate for interpretation of the dates, as opposed to any one of point media values mentioned above. They are all likely to change - possibly significantly - as more patients are sampled and genomes produced.

This update from March 2020 has been cited more than once here. Nature: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

The descendants were.

I'm not sure where you are going with this but really, man, keeping up on what's been posted is your best bet.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh? The idea that wild animal farms led to the outbreak is not a CT.

It reminds me of theists calling science a religion in order to equivocate between their beliefs and the opposition. It's stupid and transparent, but it keeps popping up.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not sure where you are going with this but really, man, keeping up on what's been posted is your best bet.

I think I am up to speed.


Since the stuff you just quoted includes the possibility that the introduction began with a small cluster of humans and, further, from a small cluster of animals, there is the possibility that the last common ancestor does not correspond with the beginning of the pandemic but precedes it. The last common ancestor would be in that cluster of animals not in humans in that case.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That was his biological clock model looking for the earliest common ancestors.

Could you link to the paper in which Andersen says this [September 2019 origin]?

His paper most frequently cited is this one. I have scanned through it but don't see the September 2019 date. I may have missed it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I think I am up to speed.


Since the stuff you just quoted includes the possibility that the introduction began with a small cluster of humans and, further, from a small cluster of animals, there is the possibility that the last common ancestor does not correspond with the beginning of the pandemic but precedes it. The last common ancestor would be in that cluster of animals not in humans in that case.

That bolded part is a given.

You can't make up imaginary genomes to uncover the animal origin. You have COVID 19 and it jumped to humans some time before the pandemic started.

There are closely related coronaviruses in bats. There's a genetic gap between those and the human pandemic coronavirus.

One thing I did get from the WHO report is they did a very thorough job showing the pandemic began in Wuhan. There's a lot of discussion in the report about hints of potentially earlier cases but nothing that is conclusive. What is conclusive, however, is there was no evidence of anything close to an outbreak in China before the Wuhan cases.

China uses a lot of the same kinds of surveillance we do here in the US looking at ILIs (influenza like illnesses), pneumonia deaths, excess mortality, surveillance cultures, and so on. Nothing ticked up on the radar until Dec in Wuhan.

By the time it did show up in Wuhan there were 2 lineages. And there were disconnected cases meaning the virus was circulating before it was detected and we don't have all the in between cases. But unless it simmered and simmered before taking off, then all the evidence points to it beginning in Wuhan.

Is there any evidence it jumped to humans elsewhere? Not really.

Is there evidence the two divergent lineages were introduced to humans elsewhere? Not really.

Could it have developed in a wild animal that was then shipped to Wuhan markets? That leads back to the unavoidable, improbable coincidence it not only started where the WIV studying coronaviruses is located, but somehow 2 divergent lineages just happened to wind up there and nowhere else.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Could you link to the paper in which Andersen says this [September 2019 origin]?

His paper most frequently cited is this one. I have scanned through it but don't see the September 2019 date. I may have missed it.

Are you looking for this (different author than you are asking about though):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01971220306950

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Could you link to the paper in which Andersen says this [September 2019 origin]?

His paper most frequently cited is this one. I have scanned through it but don't see the September 2019 date. I may have missed it.

Oh for pity's sake! Thinking this is a gotcha or something is absurd given the totality of the evidence. I obviously got it somewhere reading Andersen's papers.

From the WHO report, page 80, Table 8. Time to the most common ancestor (tMRCA) inferred in different studies.
Quote from the first entry in the table:

Quote:

2019, late September ... strict clock model

That was the model Andersen referred to:

Quote:

To estimate the substitution rate of nCoV-2019, I used BEAST 116 with a simple model consisting of HKYγ, strict clock with a CTMC rate prior, and a constant tree prior.

Notice the first line in the table referring to a Sept date uses wait for it... BEAST.


Given the virus had to have begun circulating shortly before the Wuhan cases appeared, one needs to potentially add another couple of weeks which coincides directly with the Chinese moving WIV research data offline. I assume this is what you are getting at.

That date is consistent with a lab accident event.

Even if you use an Oct date for the first cases, the time from an accident to an outbreak consists of some period of time > a few weeks. Add in that there were two lineages detected in Wuhan early in the outbreak and there needed to be some amount of time for those 2 lineages to diverge and you have a match to the Chinese purging WIV data in September.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Are you looking for this (different author than you are asking about though):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01971220306950

Thank you.

I did see that paper:

Quote:

The tMRCA was inferred in late September 2019 (95% CI 08 August–26 October 2019, Table 2, Figure S2B), which was about two months before the early cases of SARS-CoV-2 (Huang et al., 2020).

Andersen was cited in the above paper. I was on one of my rabbit hole dives when I looked at a lot of that stuff. I didn't cite all the papers I read.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that is the paper behind the first line of the page 80 WHO report you've quoted recently. Do you agree?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is there evidence the two divergent lineages were introduced to humans elsewhere? Not really.

Could it have developed in a wild animal that was then shipped to Wuhan markets? That leads back to the unavoidable, improbable coincidence it not only started where the WIV studying coronaviruses is located, but somehow 2 divergent lineages just happened to wind up there and nowhere else.

I liked that Garry paper (pub just 10 days ago) because it seems to go through many of the possibilities that I did outside the "created or natural" false dichotomy so many have....but then it discounts some things we know are possible, like direct infection bat-human.

And why would 2 trips to two different markets be more likely? If the 'wild' animals infect each other, then so can the animals caged in the lab. And if there can be two wild mammals, then why not two humans? I guess he supposes they did not have live bats there and only cultures?
Because a segment was close to two pangolins from 2 years prior? If that was unique to that species, then we'd know pangolins carried it at some point....but we do not. Why can't it just be another bat a few inches away in confined cages?

ugh...I read it a few times and am more confused each time trying to figure his logic..... but I'll read it again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that is the paper behind the first line of the page 80 WHO report you've quoted recently. Do you agree?

I'm not sure but does it matter?


We were posting right along when I found the evidence Chinese officials had removed a whole bunch of research data that had been available online.

An investigation into the WIV databases that were taken offline

Quote:

On the 12th Sep 2019, the main database of samples and viral sequences of the Wuhan Institute of Virology went offline. Eventually every single of the 16 virus databases managed by the WIV was taken offline. Here we show how these databases may provide essential clues at to the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and review the circumstances in which they were taken offline.

The removal date in Sept, 2019, naturally begged the question: if it were related to the pandemic virus, how did they know before the pandemic was discovered?

I recalled reading the Sept date for the first cases. I recall it was in a paper by Andersen but regardless, I did read about that potential date of the first cases.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh for pity's sake! Thinking this is a gotcha or something is absurd given the totality of the evidence. I obviously got it somewhere reading Andersen's papers.

From the WHO report, page 80, Table 8. Time to the most common ancestor (tMRCA) inferred in different studies.
Quote from the first entry in the table:
That was the model Andersen referred to:
Notice the first line in the table referring to a Sept date uses wait for it... BEAST.


Given the virus had to have begun circulating shortly before the Wuhan cases appeared, one needs to potentially add another couple of weeks which coincides directly with the Chinese moving WIV research data offline. I assume this is what you are getting at.

That date is consistent with a lab accident event.

Even if you use an Oct date for the first cases, the time from an accident to an outbreak consists of some period of time > a few weeks. Add in that there were two lineages detected in Wuhan early in the outbreak and there needed to be some amount of time for those 2 lineages to diverge and you have a match to the Chinese purging WIV data in September.

Thank you. I wasn't doing a gotcha; I wanted to know what the source was and was puzzled about it.

Anyway, thank you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I liked that Garry paper (pub just 10 days ago) because it seems to go through many of the possibilities that I did outside the "created or natural" false dichotomy so many have....but then it discounts some things we know are possible, like direct infection bat-human.

And why would 2 trips to two different markets be more likely? If the 'wild' animals infect each other and then, then so can the animals caged in the lab. And if there can be two wild mammals, then why not two humans? I guess he supposes they did not have live bats there and only cultures?
Because a segment was close to two pangolins from 2 years prior? If that was unique to that species, then we'd know pangolins carried it at some point....but we do not. Why can't it just be another bat a few inches away in confined cages?

ugh...I read it a few times and am more confused each time trying to figure his logic..... but I'll read it again.

A lot of these papers we've cited make assertions: ergo the lab is unlikely/ruled out. When you look closely however, the authors filled in blanks with unsupported conclusions. For example claiming all the initial cases in Wuhan had connections to animal markets, they cite the WHO report and then lo and behold I look at the WHO reference and it clearly notes ~40+% of the early cases were not tied to animal markets.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Could it have developed in a wild animal that was then shipped to Wuhan markets? That leads back to the unavoidable, improbable coincidence it not only started where the WIV studying coronaviruses is located, but somehow 2 divergent lineages just happened to wind up there and nowhere else.

The suggestion by Garry is that two different animals carrying SARS-CoV2 coming from the same farm could have been shipped to two different markets in Wuhan, and that led to the divergent lineages.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not sure but does it matter?

Doesn't matter much. Just trying to lower the confusion level.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Thank you. I wasn't doing a gotcha; I wanted to know what the source was and was puzzled about it.

Anyway, thank you.

You wanted to disprove the scrubbing of the WIV databases could be related.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You wanted to disprove ...

I'm such a meanie!

Am I to assume that you have made up your mind that the Chinese government knew the virus was out and so scrubbed the databases in response?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm such a meanie!

Am I to assume that you have made up your mind that the Chinese government knew the virus was out and so scrubbed the databases in response?

It is one hypothesis and it was put out there by DRASTIC who also noted what specific data was taken down. The Sept date in no way discredits the hypothesis. So in that sense I am against discrediting viable evidence.

What's annoying is we've been through all this.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It is one hypothesis and it was put out there by DRASTIC who also noted what specific data was taken down. The Sept date in no way discredits the hypothesis. So in that sense I am against discrediting viable evidence.

What's annoying is we've been through all this.

Huh? I'm trying to ascertain how certain we are about a September 2019 start time.

If we can determine for sure that a September start time is a widely accepted plausiable start time.

And the databases were taken down then.

Then I agree it looks suspicious.

I want to be completely sure about that first so obviously I am going to test the solidity of the evidence.

There is nothing wrong with that at all.

You are so quick to roll your eyes, and to for Pity's sake, and to make "You are trying to do this because you are a horrible mean and nasty person" attacks yet what I asked was....

1) I asked about the Andersen claim before (and you also specified that the Sept 2019 date referred to Wuhan). From my memory, you couldn't find the source, so I had looked through the papers for the date and had been unable to find it.

2) You then made the claim again, so I just asked you, politiely, ["Could you link to the paper in which Andersen says this [September 2019 origin]?

His paper most frequently cited is this one. I have scanned through it but don't see the September 2019 date. I may have missed it."] to see if you could locate it this time.

Then you got angry. But when you explained it to me I said thank you.

And after I said thank you, you were still angry and accused me of having malign intent.

What gives?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I liked that Garry paper (pub just 10 days ago) because it seems to go through many of the possibilities that I did outside the "created or natural" false dichotomy so many have....but then it discounts some things we know are possible, like direct infection bat-human.

Are you going to respond to my request any time soon?

[Sherkeu]

Two other points on the Garry paper

The paper says:

Quote:

Hybrids of natural and Lab Leak scenarios have been suggested (Relman, 2020; Baker, 2020). Some variations on a hybrid scenario suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that infected a scientist while doing field work resulting in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic spread or that after being brought back to a laboratory SARS-CoV-2 was released unknowingly, but not successfully cultured or otherwise manipulated. Compared to the millions of worldwide encounters of humans with wildlife, including the trapping of bats for food, the number of high-risk exposures of scientists doing field or laboratory work with samples from wildlife is miniscule.

First, the team is selective. They know where some 'danger of spillover' ones are located- because it already happened. I would think those Yunnan caves would be on the topsuperurgent priority list for consistent study every year. The locals had antibodies to bat viruses and then they had those 4 miners die of a SARS-like disease.

Also, while I cannot confirm their source right now, the DRASTIC team SG mentioned claimed that, after those deaths, the Chinese gov't moved inhabitants of the village near the old mine to a safer distance claiming "water contamination."

Second, the paper claims that

Quote:

There are no documented cases of laboratory infections with previously unknown, but pathogenic, viruses. Thus, hybrid scenarios are of very low probability.

Shi herself documented such a case in 2010 saying:

Quote:

the full-length genome sequence revealed that this was a new Hantaan virus isolate, designated strain KY. Sequence analysis of the three genome segments indicated that this new isolate is a reassortant derived from human and rat Hantaan viruses. Further sequence analysis of the medium (M) genome segment revealed that it originated from a recombination event between two rat Hantaan virus lineages.

It may not count since one species of those rats might have already carried a human-enabled virus and the other infected rat species kept the ability. She doesnt say. But it was new, a hybrid, infected 15 people, and came from the lab!

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Second, the paper claims that


Shi herself documented such a case in 2010 saying:


It may not count since one species of those rats might have already carried a human-enabled virus and the other infected rat species kept the ability. She doesnt say. But it was new, a hybrid, infected 15 people, and came from the lab!

"new Hantaan virus isolate"

A new isolate, but not a new virus.

The claim is that a brand new virus previously unknown escaped from a lab.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Huh? I'm trying to ascertain how certain we are about a September 2019 start time.

You want a fixed date when we have ranges of possible times.

Quote:

If we can determine for sure that a September start time is a widely accepted plausiable start time.

It is definitely plausible. That's based on the evidence posted in this thread. If you are looking for some kind of consensus you won't find it yet.

Quote:

And the databases were taken down then.
Then I agree it looks suspicious.

Of course it is suspicious, you don't need to agree. Got any alternative explanations for why else it was done?

Quote:

I want to be completely sure about that first so obviously I am going to test the solidity of the evidence.

There is nothing wrong with that at all.

That's up to you. I don't care.

Quote:

You are so quick to roll your eyes, and to for Pity's sake, and to make "You are trying to do this because you are a horrible mean and nasty person" attacks yet what I asked was....

Like I said, you are bringing up stuff that was discussed and pretending you never got your answers. But you did, you didn't look at the citations.

Quote:

1) I asked about the Andersen claim before (and you also specified that the Sept 2019 date referred to Wuhan). From my memory, you couldn't find the source, so I had looked through the papers for the date and had been unable to find it.

No, not buying it. You looked for some expected spoonful and as far as I can tell you are skipping half or more of what's been posted.

Quote:

2) You then made the claim again, so I just asked you, politiely, ["Could you link to the paper in which Andersen says this [September 2019 origin]?

His paper most frequently cited is this one. I have scanned through it but don't see the September 2019 date. I may have missed it."] to see if you could locate it this time.

Then you got angry. But when you explained it to me I said thank you.

And after I said thank you, you were still angry and accused me of having malign intent.

What gives?

Is it or is it not true that Sept has been within the range of possible dates of the first cases?

So did I imagine it earlier on or did you simply fail to get the spoon fed answer you were looking for?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

"new Hantaan virus isolate"

A new isolate, but not a new virus.

The claim is that a brand new virus previously unknown escaped from a lab.

NIH: Hantavirus outbreak associated with laboratory rats in Yunnan, China

Quote:

Abstract
An outbreak of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome occurred among students in a college (College A) in Kunming, Yunnan province, China in 2003. Subsequent investigations revealed the presence of hantavirus antibodies and antigens in laboratory rats at College A and two other institutions. Hantavirus antibodies were detected in 15 additional individuals other than the index case in these three locations. Epidemiologic data indicated that the human infections were a result of zoonotic transmission of the virus from laboratory rats. A virus was isolated from rats in College A and the full-length genome sequence revealed that this was a new Hantaan virus isolate, designated strain KY. Sequence analysis of the three genome segments indicated that this new isolate is a reassortant derived from human and rat Hantaan viruses. Further sequence analysis of the medium (M) genome segment revealed that it originated from a recombination event between two rat Hantaan virus lineages.

It's pretty simple.

And no, we aren't talking about something drastically different here.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You want a fixed date when we have ranges of possible times.

It is definitely plausible. That's based on the evidence posted in this thread. If you are looking for some kind of consensus you won't find it yet.

Of course it is suspicious, you don't need to agree. Got any alternative explanations for why else it was done?

That's up to you. I don't care.

Like I said, you are bringing up stuff that was discussed and pretending you never got your answers. But you did, you didn't look at the citations.

No, not buying it. You looked for some expected spoonful and as far as I can tell you are skipping half or more of what's been posted.

Is it or is it not true that Sept has been within the range of possible dates of the first cases?

So did I imagine it earlier on or did you simply fail to get the spoon fed answer you were looking for?

Have it your way then. Stay angry if you like.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Have it your way then. Stay angry if you like.

I'm not angry. Answer the highlighted questions:

Is it or is it not true that Sept has been within the range of possible dates of the first cases?

So did I imagine it earlier on or did you simply fail to get the spoon fed answer you were looking for?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chris Hayes, MSNBC with a cautionary piece on separating the evidence from the politics.

It's very brief.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Are you going to respond to my request any time soon?

Oh yeah! I think SG gave you a pretty good overview. (though your lazy-reading self didnt deserve it! )

It starts with simply noticing some incredible coincidences of location. "Bat coronavirus pandemic starts next to the world premiere lab studying bat coronaviruses."

Then the wet market story turns out not to be true. The first (confirmed) patient was a month before and not connected to the market. The claims of massive testing at the markets with lots of positive tests turned out not to involve a single infected animal.

Just look to the areas you think would be most convincing to you and see if you can make sense of it. The science is interesting to learn about and most of the main papers are linked in the thread somewhere if you search for them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

...
It starts with simply noticing some incredible coincidences of location. "Bat coronavirus pandemic starts next to the world premiere lab studying bat coronaviruses."

Then the wet market story turns out not to be true. The first (confirmed) patient was a month before and not connected to the market. The claims of massive testing at the markets with lots of positive tests turned out not to involve a single infected animal. ...

Adding to that, something I said in the beginning of this discussion: "Most (all?) of the coronaviruses they were studying did not naturally occur in the Wuhan area."


We have gone through the evidence there was gain of function research with live coronaviruses occurring at the WIV. Despite the fact it was denied later that any live viral cultures were studied in the WIV, earlier papers by the researchers there reported on research with live viral cultures. And that's not even including the evidence there were cages at the WIV for bats.


We are left to explain the divergence early on into 2 distinct lineages. Capsid and Chris Halkides are convinced that is evidence it didn't start at the lab.

If correct and the WHO report found no evidence of any outbreak prior to the Wuhan cases, and no animal source has been found...

So where did those lineages diverge and where is the evidence for that?

The only support for the hypothesis the virus emerged in a wild animal that was then sold at the Wuhan markets has some very big holes. 40+% of the early cases in Wuhan had no connection to any wet market, and, no infected animal has been found.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Chris Hayes, MSNBC with a cautionary piece on separating the evidence from the politics.

It's very brief.

The important thing is that if the virus escaped from a Chinese lab then they are to blame for the 3.5 million deaths and global economic damage, which justifies demonizing the Chinese government while excusing our own incompetent response.

There's just one problem with that - until March 2020 the US government was funding coronavirus research in Wuhan. Trump ended funding after learning that $3.7 million had gone to the Wuhan lab, which is an admission of our own government's part in it and an attempt to distance himself from it (if the virus really did escape from the Wuhan lab - or even if it didn't!).

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

It may not count since one species of those rats might have already carried a human-enabled virus and the other infected rat species kept the ability. She doesnt say. But it was new, a hybrid, infected 15 people, and came from the lab!

The conclusion is obvious - we must immediately stop all coronavirus research, particularly in countries which are likely to harbor strains that could jump to humans. This is the only way to prevent future outbreaks!

We can just stick to the science and let it lead us where the evidence goes, but when the source of this outbreak is exposed it will be used for political ends. We can only hope that those ends are more constructive than destructive.

[Ulf Nereng]

How does the detection of early (September) sars-cov2 antibodies in Italy fit into all of this?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...00891620974755