Origins of Covid

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JesseCuster

I'm confused. How is the fact that COVID-19 is easily transmissible between humans evidence in favour of the lab leak hypothesis?

Because the virus first appeared ready to go, well adapted to human cells. Usually a zoonotic virus (from animals to people) enters the first humans without being a perfect match. It then has to get passed around a bit between humans before a well adapted version emerges. If that adaptation happened no evidence of it has been found.

SARS-CoV-2 is well adapted for humans. What does this mean for re-emergence?

Quote:

Abstract
In a side-by-side comparison of evolutionary dynamics between the 2019/2020 SARS-CoV-2 and the 2003 SARS-CoV, we were surprised to find that SARS-CoV-2 resembles SARS-CoV in the late phase of the 2003 epidemic after SARS-CoV had developed several advantageous adaptations for human transmission. Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.

There is another relevant hypothesis, that said adaptions occurred within the bat population. It's been described as a 'generalist version' coronavirus and that's been posted about upthread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's not.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm sticking with that plan until there's some...

Evidence!

So you didn't read the citation then. Why am I not surprised.

Pro lab leak:

Quote:

Ben Embarek said he and his fellow investigators didn't do a full audit of the WIV. The WHO team spent just hours at the institute — which isn't enough time to pore over files, databases, or freezer inventories. The institute's staff also did not share all of its records or safety logs.

That's why Tedros, Fauci, and many others are still calling for a full investigation of the lab.

Con

Quote:

However, Jonna Mazet, an epidemiologist at the University of California at Davis, has worked directly with WIV researchers, including one of its prominent virologists, Shi Zhengli. Mazet told Insider the lab's records were above reproach.

"She is absolutely positive that she had never identified this virus prior to the outbreak happening," Mazet told Insider, referring to Shi's work.

Bottom line the WHO investigation was far from thorough yet came up with an assertion which would have taken a thorough investigation to come up with.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Because it got that capability unusually quickly (I'm taking experts word on this point)

Can you link to a cite for that?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Can you link to a cite for that?

It's in the freaking link that I just read for the other poster who can't be bothered.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because the virus first appeared ready to go, well adapted to human cells.

What do you mean "first appeared"? You mean "first analysed"? There might've been several generations of adaptation before that happened.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

It's in the freaking link that I just read for the other poster who can't be bothered.

Dude, what IS your problem? I'm asking you for information because I find what you posted interesting and, if I'm going to use that in the future in discussions on this topic I'd like to verify that information. I'm not your opponent, here.

There's no link in the post where you said that, and I haven't read every post in the thread because it's a week-end and I have other things to do. So instead of acting like a jackass how about you answer my ******* request?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What do you mean "first appeared"? You mean "first analysed"? There might've been several generations of adaptation before that happened.

Can you provide the window for those "several generations"? Hint: the person you are quoting has provided that information several times.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Can you provide the window for those "several generations"?

What? I said there might have been. My point is that there's no reason to assume that the first victim was the first infected. How do we know how many persons exist in the chain until that point?

Did I beat up someone in your family in the past? What the hell did I do to earn your ire, here?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How do we know how many persons exist in the chain until that point?

Oh, I don't know, look at the evidence??

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Oh, I don't know, look at the evidence??

Oh, you mean the fact that the virus transmits among humans? Or the fact that investigators couldn't perform a full audit?

Again, I have no idea why you're so aggressive. I've not insulted you or even argued against you in this thread. I asked you ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. If there are issues in your life right now, please refrain from taking it out on people here.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Oh, you mean ...

No. I don't mean that. Get a clue by reading the thread. You're asking questions that have been answered, asking for links that were just presented. Get up to speed on your own.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

No. I don't mean that. Get a clue by reading the thread. You're asking questions that have been answered, asking for links that were just presented. Get up to speed on your own.

So you in fact have no evidence to support your claim. I'll treat it as such then. A shame. It was an interesting tidbit, and had you just posted the evidence you claim exists it would've actually been less of an effort than the tirade you went on.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So you in fact have no evidence to support your claim. I'll treat it as such then. A shame. It was an interesting tidbit, and had you just posted the evidence you claim exists it would've actually been less of an effort than the tirade you went on.

Whenever said evidence is posted, you ignore it and repeat your false assertion that no evidence has been provided.

You have yet to address this:

Quote:

Could you describe short of finding the actual answer (animal jump or lab accident) just what it is you would consider as evidence?

And maybe address post #730 while you are at it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Whenever said evidence is posted, you ignore it and repeat your false assertion that no evidence has been provided.

Critiquing something is not ignoring it. Remember you said that the investigators' inability to complete their audit is evidence for a lab leak?

EDIT: Also "said" evidence has not been posted since I made my request, so you're talking nonsense here.

Quote:

You have yet to address this:

Actually I have addressed it, but you failed to respond.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Bottom line the WHO investigation was far from thorough yet came up with an assertion which would have taken a thorough investigation to come up with.

You really do need to grip on the "evidence" concept.

See my point made several times about Saddam and WMD.

I shall continue to await actual evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think asserting there is no evidence is "critiquing" it.

Nor is claiming there's some analogy here to GW Bush et al fabricating evidence there were WMDs in Iraq a critique.

There is simply no point in trying to have a discussion with either of you.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Bottom line the WHO investigation was far from thorough yet came up with an assertion which would have taken a thorough investigation to come up with.

Here's the thing, I think that you are beginning from an assumption that is not shared by the WHO scientists.

This is not a criminal investigation, but you are arguing as though you think it should be and one where the scientists at the WIV, and also at EcoHealth ought to be considered suspects who better have very good alibis.

On the other hand, the WHO scientists are approaching this from the point of view that exactly the things they have been warning is likely to happen, has happened.

There was an interesting point made by one of the people on the Garry podcast who said that back in 2018-2019, there had been a massive outbreak of swine flu that had led to a mass culling of pigs in China (and in Vietnam), and that this in turn had been a big boost for the wildlife farm trade.

Quote:

With pork supplies dwindling as leading producer China and hard-hit Vietnam destroy huge numbers of hogs and tighten controls on shipments, prices have soared by up to 40 percent globally and caused shortages in other markets.

“This is the largest animal disease outbreak in history,” said Dirk Pfeiffer, a veterinary epidemiologist at the City University of Hong Kong. “We’ve never had anything like it.”

This would, then, have increased the possibility of a zoonotic virus emerging through the very mechanisms that people like EcoHealth have warned about.

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes

I see lots of in-your-endo in both articles, zip-all in terms of facts. Let us make one thing clear to Islamists, Van Gelicals, GOP zombies and loose thinkers the world over: "Reason" is not, has never been, and will never constitute factual evidence, no matter the sophistry, "clear pointers", or "must be so's". Also, if someone hits a tree while drunk driving 10x and then hits a tree again, there is no evidence drunk driving was involved in the last incident until there is.

Could the virus have been designed? Possible. Fine, the notion may be entertained and examined. So far, no evidence.

There is no direct evidence of the person being drunk. But in examining the statistical probability of the person being drunk or not, the odds are higher if the person has previously done it 10 times as opposed to never. So it *is* evidence. The question is what weight to give that evidence.

The problem in this case is that the party most equipped to provide the factual evidence is the one least likely to willingly provide it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Here's the thing, I think that you are beginning from an assumption that is not shared by the WHO scientists.

There are experts on both sides and in the middle as to where COVID originated.

Ex-CDC Director Robert Redfield believes COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab

Quote:

“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory — escaped,” said Redfield, who led the CDC during the height of the pandemic. “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.”

Originally Posted by angrysoba

This is not a criminal investigation, but you are arguing as though you think it should be and one where the scientists at the WIV, and also at EcoHealth ought to be considered suspects who better have very good alibis.

I never said anything like this.

I have said Daszak has a conflict of interest and his attempt to steer conclusions away from a lab accident is evident.

And while I'm at it, Garry has used the same biased language claiming the virus doesn't look designed.

Quote:

"The adaptations that the virus has made to affect humans are actually very different than what you would expect if you were designing it using computational models in biological engineering.”

Virologist Robert Garry

To repeat, there are three hypotheses within the lab accident scenario.

1) The virus was constructed or designed. That's a non starter yet in Garry's language he repeats this hypothesis as if it is the only lab accident scenario.

#2) is the virus is a hybrid that developed in the lab and #3) is that the virus came to the WIV in specimens collected in Yunnan.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

On the other hand, the WHO scientists are approaching this from the point of view that exactly the things they have been warning is likely to happen, has happened.

You are back to ignoring Daszak's conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There was an interesting point made by one of the people on the Garry podcast who said that back in 2018-2019, there had been a massive outbreak of swine flu that had led to a mass culling of pigs in China (and in Vietnam), and that this in turn had been a big boost for the wildlife farm trade.

This would, then, have increased the possibility of a zoonotic virus emerging through the very mechanisms that people like EcoHealth have warned about.

And yet the species responsible for the initial jump to humans still cannot be found.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And while I'm at it, Garry has used the same biased language claiming the virus doesn't look designed.



To repeat, there are three hypotheses within the lab accident scenario.

1) The virus was constructed or designed. That's a non starter yet in Garry's language he repeats this hypothesis as if it is the only lab accident scenario.

#2) is the virus is a hybrid that developed in the lab and #3) is that the virus came to the WIV in specimens collected in Yunnan.

All three of these are addressed in the podcast:

1) Garry points out the unlikelihood of that.

2) Garry points out there is no evidence of the virus being there, and the GoF assumption partly falls under 1 anyway. Garry talks about the unlikelihood of getting from, say, RaTG13 to SARS-CoV2. Some lab leakers are indeed making claims that Garry says are highly implausible. In fact, hypothesis #2 seems a convenient way of having your cake and eating it.

"They made the virus more transmissable in the lab"
"There is no good evidence for saying that the viruses we know of can be altered in the way proposed"
"I never said it was manufactured!"

3) Depending on how you argue it, it pretty much ceases to be lab leak. Are we saying they had the virus, and knew about it? Or are we saying that when the scientists went to Yunnan Province they came back with it on their clothes or caught it from a bat???

Because, as mentioned, that is hardly lab leak. It has nothing to do with the taking down of the database. It has nothing to do with the transmissability. In fact, it really has nothing to do with a lab leak, because all you are saying in this case is that a virus from the wild infected people...

This is theory that "William Shakespeare didn't write the plays - a different man also called William Shakespeare wrote the plays."

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are back to ignoring Daszak's conflict of interest.

Huh? What am I supposed to do? Every time I mentiond Daszak or the WHO am I supposed to attach a reminder to everyone that Peter Daszak is a lying conniving evil person whose whole reason for being is to enrich himself while scattering viruses everywhere and lying for the Communist government in China?

What would satisfy you when it comes to Peter Daszak's "conflict of interest". I have acknowledged it repeatedly, yet what you really mean I should be saying, and what you should be saying if this is your belief, is that Peter Daszak knows it came from a lab and is part of the conspiracy. Yes, conspiracy, because that is what you are alleging.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet the species responsible for the initial jump to humans still cannot be found.

Not "cannot" - hasn't been found. There is a difference.

And guess what, Peter Daszak is urging that the wildlife trade route be thorughly examined.

(Conspiracy theorists: "Oh sure, and OJ Simpson is like totally looking for the real killer, right? LOL!")

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't think asserting there is no evidence is "critiquing" it.

Now you're downright lying. I actually responded to several of your points. You're the one who ignored all of that.

But then that's what you do.

Quote:

Nor is claiming there's some analogy here to GW Bush et al fabricating evidence there were WMDs in Iraq a critique.

That wasn't me. Can't you keep your posters straight?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

All three of these are addressed in the podcast:

1) Garry points out the unlikelihood of that.

2) Garry points out there is no evidence of the virus being there, and the GoF assumption partly falls under 1 anyway. Garry talks about the unlikelihood of getting from, say, RaTG13 to SARS-CoV2. Some lab leakers are indeed making claims that Garry says are highly implausible. In fact, hypothesis #2 seems a convenient way of having your cake and eating it. ..."

One thing at a time.

There are several pieces of evidence this research was indeed going on at the WIV. I posted this in #728 and repeated it in #730 asking it be addressed. It has not been addressed except for a claim this somehow wasn't evidence.

The Telegraph: Why the Covid Wuhan lab escape theory, dead and buried months ago, has risen again

Quote:

A new unpublished research paper, seen by The Telegraph, shows that scientists were doing just that as early as 2008. The tests, known as "gain of function" experiments, were designed to get ahead of an emerging deadly virus.

In 2008, Dr Shi's group in Wuhan first demonstrated the ability to switch the receptor binding domains for bat and human Sars viruses, and by 2010 the Institute of Virology had embarked on "gain of function" experiments to increase the infectiousness of Sars coronavirus in humans.

By 2015, Wuhan scientists had created a highly infectious chimeric virus which targeted the human upper respiratory tract.

In 2018 and 2019, grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in the US show that Dr Shi had applied to work on "virus infection experiments in humanised mice" using Sars coronaviruses to find out what changes could lead to a spillover event into humans.

Shortly before the first cases of coronavirus were reported, Dr Daszak gave an interview, saying the work had been going on for six or seven years, and warning that they had created "untreatable" Sars viruses which could infect humanised mice. ...

These are documented in published papers cited in this thread and the Daszak interview is linked to upthread.


I ask you again, how is direct evidence the researchers at the WIV were indeed carrying out this dangerous research not evidence related coronaviruses were being handled in their labs?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Now you're downright lying. I actually responded to several of your points. You're the one who ignored all of that.

But then that's what you do.

That wasn't me. Can't you keep your posters straight?

That post was a reply to both you and TA.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That post was a reply to both you and TA.

You keep sidestepping the fact that I've actually responded to your posts and that you've not followed up on that.

I wonder why that is.

Just kidding. I don't.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One thing at a time.

There are several pieces of evidence this research was indeed going on at the WIV. I posted this in #728 and repeated it in #730 asking it be addressed. It has not been addressed except for a claim this somehow wasn't evidence.

The Telegraph: Why the Covid Wuhan lab escape theory, dead and buried months ago, has risen again

These are documented in published papers cited in this thread and the Daszak interview is linked to upthread.


I ask you again, how is direct evidence the researchers at the WIV were indeed carrying out this dangerous research not evidence related coronaviruses were being handled in their labs?

My understanding is that this is a misunderstanding about what the research was. What is always used is an episode of TWiV:

Quote:

Shortly before the first cases of coronavirus were reported, Dr Daszak gave an interview, saying the work had been going on for six or seven years, and warning that they had created "untreatable" Sars viruses which could infect humanised mice

I believe that I have linked to part of a subsequent TWiV episode, in which Racaniello and others were explaining how this is a misunderstanding of the research.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

....
Not "cannot" - hasn't been found. There is a difference.

I agree, I should have said still hasn't been found.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

....And guess what, Peter Daszak is urging that the wildlife trade route be thorughly examined.

Of course he is. That is what his company EcoHealth is all about.


Posted on page 4 of this thread:
Taiwan News: WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic

Quote:

Video taken just days before the start of the coronavirus pandemic shows a current World Health Organization (WHO) inspector discuss the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan itself.

In a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia, virologist Vincent Racaniello interviewed British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak about his work at the nonprofit to protect the world from the emergence of new diseases and predict pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak's organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses.

Scroll down to the video and hear it directly from Daszak.

How is that not direct evidence said research was indeed going on at the WIV?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What do you mean "first appeared"? You mean "first analysed"? There might've been several generations of adaptation before that happened.

I have a pet theory that maybe it existed on some small holding wildlife farm perhaps run by a small family who had developed antibodies against the virus that their animals had given to them, and that after the mass swine culling of 2018-2019, they got a chance to send some of their animals, for a good price, to one of the big cities.

It would be consistent with a scenario suggested by Garry, that the animals could have gone to Wuhan, and there be sent to two different markets, creating two different lineages and infecting people who went there.

If this were to happen around late-October to mid-November it would be consistent with other data we have about the evolution of the virus. Then, a small outbreak could have occurred around this time, mostly asymptomatic, until a few people began getting sick, masked by the flu epidemic of around the same time.

Subsequently, some of the sick people such as "First Case" who is actually not the first case in December 2019 could very easily be someone who himself did not have a connection to a market. But the majority of those who got sick did have a connection.

Is there evidence for this theory?

No. But it seems to match the available evidence.

Hence people such as Peter Daszak (obligatory acknoeldgement of Daszak's conflict of interest here: a reminder to everyone that Peter Daszak is a lying conniving evil person whose whole reason for being is to enrich himself while scattering viruses everywhere and lying for the Communist government in China) want to investigate the wildlife farm routes as this may end up giving clues to how it came about. I thnk he expects to find people and animals somewhere along the line to have evidence of the virus.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I agree, I should have said still hasn't been found.

Of course he is. That is what his company EcoHealth is all about.


Posted on page 4 of this thread:
Taiwan News: WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic

Scroll down to the video and hear it directly from Daszak.

How is that not direct evidence said research was indeed going on at the WIV?

Again, I think the point is that the reporting misunderstands the research (Daszak "caught on" camera!! - makes it sound like he was giving away secret information instead of having a publicly broadcast interview).

That is explained here. I have cued up the time for you (I have posted this before, but didn't see a response to it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iRb4YjzzQ&t=1387s

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Again, I think the point is that the reporting misunderstands the research (Daszak "caught on" camera!! - makes it sound like he was giving away secret information instead of having a publicly broadcast interview).

That is explained here. I have cued up the time for you (I have posted this before, but didn't see a response to it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iRb4YjzzQ&t=1387s

Why do you need an interpretation of how Daszak was misunderstood when you can watch him for yourself?

"He uses this as evidence the virus was manufactured in a lab"

Look over there, don't look at the actual hypothesis.

"perfectly reasonable experiments for perfectly reasonable objectives"

Right, until a devastating pandemic escapes from the lab.

What would be reasonable would be some very good evidence extraordinary precautions were taken. Instead we hear a very cavalier description that this was no big deal, it's just people who don't understand the science that have an issue with what they are hearing in Daszak's interview.


That's my take.

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One thing at a time.

There are several pieces of evidence this research was indeed going on at the WIV. I posted this in #728 and repeated it in #730 asking it be addressed. It has not been addressed except for a claim this somehow wasn't evidence.

The Telegraph: Why the Covid Wuhan lab escape theory, dead and buried months ago, has risen again

These are documented in published papers cited in this thread and the Daszak interview is linked to upthread.


I ask you again, how is direct evidence the researchers at the WIV were indeed carrying out this dangerous research not evidence related coronaviruses were being handled in their labs?

Would you mind giving a link to the 2008 paper. I looked on PubMed and couldn’t find it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Would you mind giving a link to the 2008 paper. I looked on PubMed and couldn’t find it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I had a look at this list of publications for her. I put them in date order and found quite a few for 2008. Not sure which one it would be...

https://publons.com/researcher/16656.../publications/

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I had a look at this list of publications for her. I put them in date order and found quite a few for 2008. Not sure which one it would be...

https://publons.com/researcher/16656.../publications/

Thanks, it’s probably this paper. https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/4/1899. Apologies to SG if you have cited this up thread. The paper uses pseudotyped virus to look at receptor usage. This uses an HIV backbone. This is straightforward research many labs use to understand how animal viruses infect cells.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Thanks, it’s probably this paper. https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/4/1899. Apologies to SG if you have cited this up thread. The paper uses pseudotyped virus to look at receptor usage. This uses an HIV backbone. This is straightforward research many labs use to understand how animal viruses infect cells.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I suppose the video that SG and others cite between Racaniello and Peter Daszak (in which Ray Baris is mentioned) is somewhat different.

That said, when they talked about it on TWiV, in the video I linked to above, they were also saying that the research may have sounded dangerous but was actually not as horrifying as it sounded.

Unfortunately there is a lot of cross-talk as everyone interjects to say the concern is silly, but they don't really get to explain it as clearly as I would like.

One of them, Amy, says something along the lines of how it is not a complete virus, or they use the spike proteins, or an adenovirus etc...

I have the feeling sometimes that in TWiV the curse of knowledge kicks in. They know what they are talking about so they sometimes don't bother to complete sentences or the points they are making because everyone has already understood.

Also, they are first and foremost virologists and not broadcasters so they don't always have the media savvy of people who are much better at spreading messages such as Joe Rogan, Matt Ridley, Bill Maher etc...

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Which I didn't make.


No I don't. Identifying as a potential is all you have to do identify it as a potential source. WTF is the matter with you?

If you recall, this entire discussion stems from this post:

Originally Posted by lomiller

This question was already asked a few days ago, and as yet no one supporting the lab leak hypothesis has provided an answer so I'll ask it again.

What is the single most compelling piece of positive evidence for a lab leak?

"It's a potential source" is not evidence for the lab leak hypothesis. It doesn't matter who made the argument, it's not valid.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by lomiller

"It's a potential source" is not evidence for the lab leak hypothesis. It doesn't matter who made the argument, it's not valid.

Simple question: Should we be investigating the WIV or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Thanks, it’s probably this paper. https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/4/1899. Apologies to SG if you have cited this up thread. The paper uses pseudotyped virus to look at receptor usage. This uses an HIV backbone. This is straightforward research many labs use to understand how animal viruses infect cells.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What the telegraph article states is not that the 2008 research was with a precursor to COVID 19, it states:

Quote:

In 2008, Dr Shi's group in Wuhan first demonstrated the ability to switch the receptor binding domains for bat and human Sars viruses, ...

And no, I had not looked at the 2008 study though your link is very interesting. I did read a reference to the 2010 paper but I don't believe I linked to it here.

Quote:

... by 2010 the Institute of Virology had embarked on "gain of function" experiments to increase the infectiousness of Sars coronavirus in humans.

More recently was the US withdrawing financial support for the GoF research at the WIV after determining the research was too dangerous.

I posted this upthread and I am aware of the editor's note they added contemporarily: Nature 2015: Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research

Quote:

In an article published in Nature Medicine1 on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.

Although almost all coronaviruses isolated from bats have not been able to bind to the key human receptor, SHC014 is not the first that can do so. In 2013, researchers reported this ability for the first time in a different coronavirus isolated from the same bat population2.

The findings reinforce suspicions that bat coronaviruses capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host) may be more common than previously thought, the researchers say.

There's a lot more in the thread about the potential for the coronavirus in bats to jump directly to humans including the case of the 6 miners in Yunnan who were infected after working around bats in the caves there. 3 died.

And it is still high on the differential that students and/or researchers brought one of these coronaviruses back after a field trip to those caves. The pictures of them collecting specimens from the bats is appalling from an infection preventionist (infection control) POV. There's a link here somewhere to those images. What that suggested to me and what I believe is probably occurring in the WIV but also elsewhere in other labs is a sense the danger is disregarded to a large extent.

There is also a link to the kind of live cultures they were using in their experiments with the coronaviruses they collected from the horseshoe bats in Yunnan.

Quoted in post # 229

Quote:

... when Vero E6 cells* were respectively infected with the two successfully rescued chimeric SARSr-CoVs, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S, and the newly isolated Rs4874, efficient virus replication was detected in all infections (Fig 7). To assess whether the three novel SARSr-CoVs can use human ACE2 as a cellular entry receptor, we conducted virus infectivity studies using HeLa cells** with or without the expression of human ACE2. All viruses replicated efficiently in the human ACE2-expressing cells. The results were further confirmed by quantification of viral RNA using real-time RT-PCR (Fig 8).

2017: Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus

I don't know the kind of lab you work in but if it is like what I see in my healthcare field, people are not meticulous around dangerous pathogens when they should be. The link a couple pages back (a very long post) to all the previous lab accidents and near misses is an example of what I am talking about.

I listened to less than a minute of the podcast recently posted but from what I saw they had the same attitude. A cavalier attitude about dangerous work is not confined to handling dangerous pathogens.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Because it got that capability unusually quickly (I'm taking experts word on this point) so it raises the question of whether this virus was a product of gain of function research.

The whole point of "gain of function" work is to identify viruses with the potential to be highly contagious in humans so saying it got this way "unusually quickly" is probabaly wrong. From what I've seen Covid-19 is less infectious to humans than SARS was and SARS never spread all that widely so it must have started out that way.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I'm not an expert on this but I also have to wonder why, if the virus was so contagious in it's original form when it jumped species, then why haven't there been more jumps?

The virus as it existed in it's animal host hasn't been identified or studied in a lab so there is no way to know how infectious is was to humans. Studies of the bat virus RatG13, the closest know relative to Covid don't entirely agree some say it's moderately infectious to humans others say it can't infect humans at all.

There is also a Pangolin virus that has a spike structure that is genetically more similar to Covid than the spike in RaTG13, even though the rest of the virus is less similar. Studies of this virus suggest it would be highly infectious to humans because the spike already binds very efficiently to human ACE2 receptors.

As for why there were not more jumps, I saw a paper a month or tow ago suggesting that even with Covid being as infectious as it is a single new case would naturally die out 75% of the time after only infecting a couple people. I had no luck finding it again though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you recall, this entire discussion stems from this post:.

And perhaps you missed the answer because it was within a muddle of answers:

There is no "single" piece. It is an assessment of many many pieces.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What do you mean "first appeared"? You mean "first analysed"? There might've been several generations of adaptation before that happened.

5-10 generations of hosts plus many many generations of the virus itself inside of each host.

It's also likely that Covid was already very efficient at entering human cells before it jumped to humans. Any evolution would have involved how efficiently it could co-opt human cells to reproduce itself.

Also worth noting is that when jumping from humans to animals like mink Covid was immediately highly infectious in the new host. So much so that it spread though entire min farms very very quickly.