I admit that I have not read this long "summary" of an extremely long debate, but there was a $100k debate between lab leak vs. zoonosis that went on recently where the winner was declared...
The conclusion at the bottom has, I think, a good summary of why this debate may never end:
[...] for the first time it made me see the coronavirus as one of God’s biggest and funniest jokes. Think about it. Either a zoonotic virus crossed over to humans fifteen miles from the biggest coronavirus laboratory in the Eastern Hemisphere. Or a lab leak virus first rose to public attention right near a raccoon-dog stall in a wet market. Either way is one of the century’s biggest coincidences, designed by some cosmic joker who wanted to keep the debate stayed acrimonious for years to come.
The laboratory proximity can simply be chalked up to "there are firehouses near where there are fires." SARS was a big deal in Asia, even if the west was more isolated from it. That's part of why...
The laboratory proximity can simply be chalked up to "there are firehouses near where there are fires." SARS was a big deal in Asia, even if the west was more isolated from it. That's part of why the response was much faster and more serious with Sars-Cov-2.
We have another obvious zoonosis risk imminent in the US right now, with H5N1.
Yes, but the lab in Wuhan is 1,000 miles from where it would have been likely to see the coronavirus in wild bat populations. That's part of the sub arguments in the op-ed. Unfortunately, neither...
Yes, but the lab in Wuhan is 1,000 miles from where it would have been likely to see the coronavirus in wild bat populations. That's part of the sub arguments in the op-ed. Unfortunately, neither argument can be dismissed so easily.
It can, when you have a wildlife trade bringing animals, and people exposed to those animals, long distances. "The distance between Wuhan (where SARS-CoV-2 was first detected) and Yunnan is...
It can, when you have a wildlife trade bringing animals, and people exposed to those animals, long distances.
"The distance between Wuhan (where SARS-CoV-2 was first detected) and Yunnan is similar to that between Foshan (where SARS-CoV-1 was first detected) and Yunnan.
And the counter from the lab leak folks is the lack of cases or evidence along the route of the trade to Wuhan. Like I said, it takes care to present and rebut a claim because there is such a back...
And the counter from the lab leak folks is the lack of cases or evidence along the route of the trade to Wuhan.
Like I said, it takes care to present and rebut a claim because there is such a back and forth on these points.
Correct, SARS-CoV-2 infected animals have not been found upstream of the market.
Finding such animals would require looking, though, and that has not been done with a focus on relevant animals.
We do, however, find a clear association between the virus and animals in the market itself.
Asymptomatic diseases make finding any patient zero impossible. Lab leak theorists can move the goalposts all they like but it's not really interesting
Yep, when the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic and the majority of symptomatic cases are very minor, you're not going to find many cases Upstream of where their actual outbreak started....
Yep, when the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic and the majority of symptomatic cases are very minor, you're not going to find many cases Upstream of where their actual outbreak started. Especially when everywhere upstream of where the outbreak actually started is remote and underdeveloped.
For ebola, since it has multiple 1976 outbreaks and possible natural reservoirs, from where to where do you specifically consider the reservoir and the outbreak? That aside, is ebola and COVID an...
For ebola, since it has multiple 1976 outbreaks and possible natural reservoirs, from where to where do you specifically consider the reservoir and the outbreak?
That aside, is ebola and COVID an apples to apples comparison when looking at disease path? One spreads through aerosolized particles, and the other through exposure to infected blood. COVID can be spread before symptoms are apparent, but Ebola requires symptoms to have developed. Likewise, we expect that half of ebola outbreaks today still go interpreted unreported due to lack of public health infrastructure to detect it in Africa.
However, the first known patient in Zaire had recently been traveling, but again, I don't know which outbreak and which source you specifically mean.
This is sort of what I mean by the goalposts moving though. There's nothing unusual about SARS-COV-2's outbreak occuring downstream from its source where there's a bunch of travel between the two....
This is sort of what I mean by the goalposts moving though. There's nothing unusual about SARS-COV-2's outbreak occuring downstream from its source where there's a bunch of travel between the two. Failing to address that, as Chan does in both her book and this essay is a weakness to the argument, not a strength.
a. It's far away
b. Lots of viruses start far away
a. There's no upstream cases
b. That's to be expected in this case
A. But no one is asking these questions
B. Here are reviews of all the evidence, they don't agree with your conclusion and you didn't review all the other evidence.
A. It's a coverup
When I replied to your comment in my inbox, all your comment was is the following: Everything after that was edited in and not in the version I replied to. Ignoring for a moment that there...
When I replied to your comment in my inbox, all your comment was is the following:
The point is that SARS-COV-1 traveled the same distance before its outbreaks as did ebola. Did those have cases along the way?
Everything after that was edited in and not in the version I replied to.
Ignoring for a moment that there original post I was replying to oversimplified matters, that my point was that more care is needed in such discussions, and that I don't specifically endorse either theory:
Me asking you to clarify the specific ebola outbreak so I can give a definite answer is not a goal post shift, it is a request for clarification.
Likewise, when you make an argument about how things are A because of example B, I think it is fair to make sure A and B are really comparable.
So in the vein of this comment chain, I replied to someone who described the lab as a firehouse near fires, and pointed out that is was 1,000 miles from the "fires." My next statement was that with these point counter point situations in public discourse, it takes effort to present and rebut a point.
I'm not sure how any of what you are bringing up is really in the vein of that exchange, or why you are using me as a proxy debate for the lab leak theory on this chain.
Yeah unfortunately using 3 cheers and Tildes on the phone if I don't use the edit function to add source links I'll lose my whole post since it doesn't have the draft save function. I was quoting...
Yeah unfortunately using 3 cheers and Tildes on the phone if I don't use the edit function to add source links I'll lose my whole post since it doesn't have the draft save function.
I was quoting a different researcher, so I don't have the clarification you're looking for. I believed him to be referencing the original ebola outbreak given context.
Your example of the "lab leak" response is what I'm referring to with my goalposts moving point, not your request for clarification. I'm responding to you only because you responded with that "here's what lab leakers will say" reply.
Chan and any other lab leak advocate shouldn't be throwing out "it's 1000 miles away" as if that implies it's the lab without addressing that this is the case for other viruses too.
Ultimately your clarification doesn't matter because I guess you were trying to make a point with it. My point with this most recent post was just that this is why it's so frustrating to have to even begin to engage with conspiracy theories. Not that you were personally doing so.
ETA: I truly didn't even see you're the same person I was already talking to. Without labels, i can rarely keep track of folks in separate threads
Just to be clear, these are my posts you are responding to, yes? If so, again, I'm commenting on the use of oversimplified and dismissive arguments. I don't see how anything here has anything to...
Just to be clear, these are my posts you are responding to, yes?
Yes, but the lab in Wuhan is 1,000 miles from where it would have been likely to see the coronavirus in wild bat populations. That's part of the sub arguments in the op-ed. Unfortunately, neither argument can be dismissed so easily.
And the counter from the lab leak folks is the lack of cases or evidence along the route of the trade to Wuhan.
Like I said, it takes care to present and rebut a claim because there is such a back and forth on these points.
If so, again, I'm commenting on the use of oversimplified and dismissive arguments. I don't see how anything here has anything to do with moving goal posts. I'm not moving any, I don't think. I'm not sure I've made much of any claim at all.
If you are saying that we, here on tildes, can't have a real discussion with supporting points and data because some people move goal posts, then I disagree. Call that behavior out, politely, professionally, when it happens here and move on to the next person.
Then I really don't understand the points being made about goal posts and conspiracy theories if we aren't talking about the discussion on tildes, which is where we are. Maybe we are just ships in...
Then I really don't understand the points being made about goal posts and conspiracy theories if we aren't talking about the discussion on tildes, which is where we are. Maybe we are just ships in the night on this issue.
It’s not like they haven’t tried looking. Worse (and more suspicious), the Chinese government has impeded research efforts and hidden/destroyed important data and physical evidence, something that...
It’s not like they haven’t tried looking. Worse (and more suspicious), the Chinese government has impeded research efforts and hidden/destroyed important data and physical evidence, something that didn’t happen with previous outbreaks.
Hey you replied to two of my comments back to back and I'm just wanting to let you not really interested in arguing this. I'm citing experts, and I think this essay is debunked conspiracy theory...
Hey you replied to two of my comments back to back and I'm just wanting to let you not really interested in arguing this.
I'm citing experts, and I think this essay is debunked conspiracy theory with obvious and apparent and obvious lies written by a scientist who keeps writing the same thing. I linked two analyses of the origins of SARS-COV-2 in another comment that considers all of the evidence.
(Not personal just I'm only going to point at the experts because I don't have knowledge that isn't theirs)
Sorry for the back to backs, it gets confusing whomis saying what! I guess my broader point is that some comments seem to be doing what they claim is happening in tfa:drawing unwarranted...
Sorry for the back to backs, it gets confusing whomis saying what!
I guess my broader point is that some comments seem to be doing what they claim is happening in tfa:drawing unwarranted conclusions from other sources.
Iirc, there were identifiable links between wildlife reservoir and outbreak with much shorter distances than 1000 miles, as well as much greater specificity in both the wildlife host and the virus...
Iirc, there were identifiable links between wildlife reservoir and outbreak with much shorter distances than 1000 miles, as well as much greater specificity in both the wildlife host and the virus found. That is, they found the actual outbreak virus (or an ancestor) in an actual wild animal.
This strikes me as an oversimplificationand generally inapt. There are not laboratories like wiv in every city with a wet market, and there are far more wildlife trading centers in high population...
This strikes me as an oversimplificationand generally inapt. There are not laboratories like wiv in every city with a wet market, and there are far more wildlife trading centers in high population areas than there are coronavirus research labs, and the coincidences and circumstances extend beyond merely “virises”.
That was a fun read, thanks for sharing. My big criticism is that using a Bayesian analysis just sort of shifts the goal part a bit because the argument moves to the accepted weights on each point...
That was a fun read, thanks for sharing.
My big criticism is that using a Bayesian analysis just sort of shifts the goal part a bit because the argument moves to the accepted weights on each point of the model. However I will say it is a fun approach to take from a numbers perspective and reminds me of the methods described in Super Forecasting by Philip Tetlock.
A breakdown or perhaps takedown of this essay. From Kristian Ganderson, immunologist I'm not one but I thought this was worthwhile. It's hard to summarize as it goes point by point but it alleges...
It's hard to summarize as it goes point by point but it alleges a large number of outright falsehoods, enough that I question if this post should have a note on the title.
It sure doesn't give me confidence when the two posts that clearly outline the fact that this article has glaring flaws remain unaddressed by anyone arguing for the lab leak approach. By now most...
It sure doesn't give me confidence when the two posts that clearly outline the fact that this article has glaring flaws remain unaddressed by anyone arguing for the lab leak approach.
By now most scientists in the field do not entertain the lab leak. The article posted by OP really doesn't have much to do with science in my eyes, it's an opinion piece that has been debunked. I also feel something should be added to the title, or at the very least the "probably" should be removed.
Every NYT op-ed I've seen so far has been awful. Also Alina Chan, the author, has a history of "taking it out to the public", but she hasn't published scientifically about Covid since 2021.. She...
Every NYT op-ed I've seen so far has been awful.
Also Alina Chan, the author, has a history of "taking it out to the public", but she hasn't published scientifically about Covid since 2021.. She instead seems to prefer to write on a right-winger disinformation-filled op-ed publishing newspaper, much appropriate for her disinformation-filled op-ed that plays into a right winger conspiracy theory.
The credibility of her arguments is very weak. She seems to have -very publicly- decided early on in the pandemic, and hasn't changed her mind ever since. The tweets u/DefinitelyNotAFae shared and my reply-addition to them make this apparent, in my opinion. Add to this all the publicity surrounding her "debate" and the popularity she garners, it all makes me really suspicious about her intentions.
It was also my understanding that the lab leak theory has been fairly well discarded barring sudden new evidence to the contrary. But I'm very much not a scientist and don't feel me hashing it out...
It was also my understanding that the lab leak theory has been fairly well discarded barring sudden new evidence to the contrary. But I'm very much not a scientist and don't feel me hashing it out is helpful in any meaningful way.
Does this link only have a handful of posts rebutting like 3-4 of the op-ed's dozens of points? Because that's all that I see when I open it. For reference, the op-ed makes five key arguments,...
Does this link only have a handful of posts rebutting like 3-4 of the op-ed's dozens of points? Because that's all that I see when I open it.
For reference, the op-ed makes five key arguments, labeled 1-5 and makes dozens of sub arguments and points to support each of the five main claims. What you linked doesn't appear to address any of the five main claims, and only addresses some of the most minor and subjective points. E.g., equivocating between "hunting for" vs "studying" virii.
If I'm not just getting a bad view on my phone, then this is hardly a takedown of the original argument. Though they do raise a few points that are likely far less absolute than either party likes.
Personally, I don't have a professional opinion on the source of COVID; still, its source should have an impact on public health policy. I say that as someone who works in public health policy, sits on an IRB, oversees compliance, helps allocate public health funding, and works at times with dangerous protocols.
If COVID came from gain of function research, then the world should know so we can make BSL policies and legislation a priority. Likewise, getting countries to commit to international standards to prevent the next pandemic. If the virus came from meat markets, then we should invest in curbing that vector. In a perfect world we would pursue both, but with scarce funding we realistically need to prioritize efforts.
That said, I'm pessimistic that the origin of COVID will ever stop being politicized, to the detriment of global health.
There are seventeen "skeets" in the thread. As well as several tangential replies from other people including Jasnah Kholin, virologist and Wendy Orent an anthropologist that writes about science...
Exemplary
There are seventeen "skeets" in the thread. As well as several tangential replies from other people including Jasnah Kholin, virologist and Wendy Orent an anthropologist that writes about science and disease.
A review of Chan's book where she made the same case, which is probably why virologists seem annoyed at this OP-Ed being published. She's had plenty of column inches and air time to peddle this. New Republic
But despite their performance of neutrality, the authors’ allegiances clearly lie with some version of a lab leak. The first clue to this is that the primary intellectual partners Chan and Ridley select for their quest to understand the origins of the pandemic are not virologists or epidemiologists but, rather, a group of self-styled internet sleuths known as Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19, or DRASTIC.
They hinge a lot on RaTG13 being the ancestor of SARSCOV2 because it's 96.2% similar despite a lot of evidence to the contrary and what feels like the obvious fact to me that that's a lot of difference in viral genetic terms, decades even. (idk if genetics is the right word as virii are deeply weird but I already noted I'm not a virologist)
Alina Chan is arguing from a lot of implication and if in that process provides enough outright false claims to be very quickly called out it's a huge red flag to me.
This is why the lab leak theory will never die, no matter how much evidence virologists are patiently accumulating on the side of natural origin. It’s all about suspicion and innuendo. And when one supposedly suspicious event is unpacked, it’s usually a long and boring explanation nobody wants to hear. Meanwhile, the theorists have already found 10 more things that seem spooky to them. Conspiracy theories, we’re learning, are even harder to eradicate than infectious diseases.
Which is why despite all the research, and the evidence vastly suggesting zoonotic origins, we keep coming back to this "but isn't it suspicious...." I mean I don't think it's weird at all to study coronaviruses in an area with a lot of coronaviruses.
But apparently that's the first in a long chain of implications. And the questions ARE being asked by actual researchers. It's just that they're not agreeing with Chan on this. Critical Analysis of the Evidence for the SARS-COV-2 Origin Hypotheses The emergence and evolution of SARS-COV-2
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 has evoked heated debate and strong accusations, yet seemingly little resolution. I review the scientific evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent spread through the human population. The available data clearly point to a natural zoonotic emergence within, or closely linked to, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. There is no direct evidence linking the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 to laboratory work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The subsequent global spread of SARS-CoV-2 was characterized by a gradual adaptation to humans, with dual increases in transmissibility and virulence until the emergence of the Omicron variant. Of note has been the frequent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to other animals, marking it as a strongly host generalist virus. Unless lessons from the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are learned, it is inevitable that more zoonotic events leading to more epidemics and pandemics will plague human populations.
My opinion didn't really matter. I'm not an expert. But every bit of scientific evidence I read leads me to say that zoonotic origins are the most likely on every ground. And Chan bringing back up the same arguments every few months doesn't change them or make them more viable.
I took another look at the thread, and at your post, and still don't see anything addressing the substance of the op-ed. Let's take point #2 as an example: And it goes on and on with additional...
I took another look at the thread, and at your post, and still don't see anything addressing the substance of the op-ed. Let's take point #2 as an example:
2 The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.
Dr. Shi’s group was fascinated by how coronaviruses jump from species to species. To find viruses, they took samples from bats and other animals, as well as from sick people living near animals carrying these viruses or associated with the wildlife trade. Much of this work was conducted in partnership with the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based scientific organization that, since 2002, has been awarded over $80 million in federal funding to research the risks of emerging infectious diseases.
In 2021, The Intercept published a leaked 2018 grant proposal for a research project named Defuse, which had been written as a collaboration between EcoHealth, the Wuhan institute and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, who had been on the cutting edge of coronavirus research for years. The proposal described plans to create viruses strikingly similar to SARS‑CoV‑2.
Defuse project proposed to search for and create SARS-like viruses carrying spikes with a unique feature: a furin cleavage site — the same feature that enhances SARS‑CoV‑2’s infectiousness in humans, making it capable of causing a pandemic.
While it’s possible that the furin cleavage site could have evolved naturally (as seen in some distantly related coronaviruses), out of the hundreds of SARS-like viruses cataloged by scientists, SARS‑CoV‑2 is the only one known to possess a furin cleavage site in its spike. And the genetic data suggest that the virus had only recently gained the furin cleavage site before it started the pandemic.
And it goes on and on with additional supporting points.
Again, maybe I just missed it on my phone. But what I cited above is one of many points and arguments from the op-ed that I haven't seen rebutted or even addressed in any of the links or comments in this thread.
My point is that I think there is a lot of suggestive information, and it is a highly politicized issue. It's ok to read competing arguments and go, huh, both make valid points. And this is one of those cases where even for experts, it isn't possible to say with certainly, because we don't have the smoking gun.
Edit: one final point.
In one experiment, Dr. Shi’s group genetically engineered an unexpectedly deadly SARS-like virus (not closely related to SARS‑CoV‑2) that exhibited a 10,000-fold increase in the quantity of virus in the lungs and brains of humanized mice. Wuhan institute scientists handled these live viruses at low biosafety levels, including BSL-2.
This is what gets me working on public health policy. It shouldn't matter if COVID came from Wuhan. They were clearly using unsafe procedures to work with deadly viruses. We should have policies and laws to encourage improved BSL requirements.
You can't see all the posts, and I don't know why. But personally I don't find the OP-Ed worth engaging with when her book on the matter and the entire topic has been widely refuted. And I really don't see it as any different than any other "but they're not looking for the REAL truth" conspiracy theory.
If there was strong evidence not just a lot of coincidental implication, I'd be swayed by it. Hell, most scientists don't say it's impossible just that it doesn't match the evidence available. Which is how science works. Dr Baric himself said it was possible but that the natural hypothesis was much more likely (and a new relative of SARS-COV-2 in Laos has only enhanced that) but the headlines said "HE SAID ITS POSSIBLE" in a way that maintains the conspiracy theory momentum.
And when you have flat out lies, like the claim of the scientists falling ill with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019 (several of them had seasonal illnesses as one might expect for the time of year, they all tested negative for SARS-COV-2 antibodies) I don't trust the source.
Two points, and a digression. The first is that the point being made is that Wuhan was interested in the specific features that made COVID, COVID. It doesn't prove anything in the same way that no...
Two points, and a digression. The first is that the point being made is that Wuhan was interested in the specific features that made COVID, COVID. It doesn't prove anything in the same way that no correlations do. But like all correlations, they waggle their eyebrows suggestively in the corner and invite closer inspection.
The second is that one should be careful in what they discard whole cloth. Just because an author has a book or position you disagree with or is flawed, doesn't mean all of their arguments are invalid, just like we shouldn't accept the arguments of a respected figure in the field on the basis of past works. Claims should be inspected on their merit, not their provenance.
That said, personally, I get not feeling the need to comb through an op-ed from a author you don't like. But without reading it thoroughly, I don't see how you can give fair criticism of this specific piece.
I do appreciate the links, even if they aren't quite working right for me.
All of that said, I certainly don't know where COVID came from definitively. And like I said above, regardless of whether it came from Wuhan or not, their poor BSL practices should be a concern. Just like the long history of natural reservoirs of disease should be a public health concern. So really my hope is these issues get addressed as policy on the international stage, but I'm not optimistic of that. The world is very reactive in its stances.
It's all eyebrow waggle. I have inspected the claims previously, and read a number of other sources. Chan has written incredibly similar OP-Eds and an entire book on it. I'm not dismissing it...
Two points, and a digression. The first is that the point being made is that Wuhan was interested in the specific features that made COVID, COVID. It doesn't prove anything in the same way that no correlations do. But like all correlations, they waggle their eyebrows suggestively in the corner and invite closer inspection.
It's all eyebrow waggle.
The second is that one should be careful in what they discard whole cloth. Just because an author has a book or position you disagree with or is flawed, doesn't mean all of their arguments are invalid, just like we shouldn't accept the arguments of a respected figure in the field on the basis of past works. Claims should be inspected on their merit, not their provenance.
I have inspected the claims previously, and read a number of other sources. Chan has written incredibly similar OP-Eds and an entire book on it. I'm not dismissing it because of her part works, but because it's the same claims, repeated, apparently essentially unchanging as far as I can see. The source absolutely matters when their expertise is part of the argument. If I wrote an opinion piece on the origins of COVID, everyone should throw it in the trash, even if I had the right conclusions. Because I quit pre-med after microbio because it was the worst and got a psych degree instead.
That said, personally, I get not feeling the need to comb through an op-ed from a author you don't like. But without reading it thoroughly, I don't see how you can give fair criticism of this specific piece.
I didn't say I hadn't read it. I said I dont think it's worth engaging with or taking seriously. I personally can't provide skilled criticism, but instead I provided expert sources who can and are addressing the claims. Several things she says are factually false. Either she's remaining ignorant which means she's not staying current on the evidence and research, or she's lying. Either way, my evaluation of the source material is that it's of poor academic quality.
I provided several scholarly papers that look at all the evidence on origins and do not come to her conclusions. That matters much more to me than a wink and a nudge.
I don't even have an opinion about viral research. Probably it needs to be more secure but also, I doubt I actually understand the different protocols involved and what is actually necessary vs what sounds scary. Because my research work was not in that area, I'll leave that to the immunologist/virologist/evolutionary biologist/science people.
To be clear, I read the publication you posted, and I agree with it. Specifically: And I was never intending to debate the merits of either argument. What I was highlighting is the fact that...
To be clear, I read the publication you posted, and I agree with it. Specifically:
It is worthwhile to consider what type of evidence would definitively rule in or rule out either the zoonotic or lab leak hypothesis. Scientific evidence alone is likely to be insufficient to provide a definitive answer (1). In fact, the types of evidence needed for ruling in and out the two hypotheses are quite different. Establishing the lab leak hypothesis would require evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was working on a CoV very closely related to the original Wuhan strain, and such evidence would have to come from laboratory records. Had the WIV been working on such a virus, evidence of a laboratory accident and/or that some of the initial cases had come from individuals at the WIV would strongly support the possibility of a lab leak. While the Chinese government has denied that such work was being done by the WIV, transparency is lacking (2).
And
There is ample precedent for the seeding of pandemics and more geographically limited outbreaks from nonhuman species. Common-cold CoVs, SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, HIV, influenza A virus, mpox virus, and others all have zoonotic origins (31,–33). SARS-CoV-2 is the ninth documented coronavirus to enter the human population. The best existing scientific evidence supports a direct zoonotic origin. As new evidence continues to emerge from scientific studies or other investigations, our understanding of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 will continue to evolve. Nevertheless, it is possible that its origin may never be known with certainty.
I was never intending to debate the merits of either argument. What I was highlighting is the fact that people were making statements and assertions without sufficient care to make their point particularly well, and from what I could see, were dismissing the op-ed without addressing its actual content.
But I do work with science and medical research and perhaps my work life is setting unrealistic expectations for forum discussions. I expect arguments to check certain boxes, whether they support my view or not.
I want to be clear, it's not about agreeing with the source, it's about evaluating the source and deciding whether it's worthwhile in the first place. If it were my OP-Ed, I'd expect it to be...
I want to be clear, it's not about agreeing with the source, it's about evaluating the source and deciding whether it's worthwhile in the first place. If it were my OP-Ed, I'd expect it to be ignored out of hand. Regardless of whether I was "right".
Alina Chan does not have the credibility to me any longer nor to many of her peers from what I'm gathering. If she cannot do basic fact checking, or worse chooses not to, i certainly can't trust her to make compelling arguments.
Idk if that's not rigorous enough for you, but that's not just blowing it off because I don't like the conclusion. It's a reliability vs validity issue. And she lacks the latter.
The issue here is that some of the points in the op-ed cite sources, including high quality peer reviewed journals. So personally, it does feel a little baby with the bathwater to say all the...
The issue here is that some of the points in the op-ed cite sources, including high quality peer reviewed journals. So personally, it does feel a little baby with the bathwater to say all the points should be ignored. Many of them are well supported, even if I think the op-ed presents them too strongly, as in the case of the research being done at Wuhan.
I would also worry that by dismissing all the points made you feed into the unhealthy aspects of the lab leak narrative, i.e., the conspiracy theorists. Nothing seems to give them more fuel than the general discounting of things that are actually true, because it gives them an ace in the hole to fall back on in losing arguments.
Sure but I have reviewed the evidence before from more reliable sources. I'm not saying everything she says is wrong, I'm saying if she outright lies, I'm not going to consider her overall...
The issue here is that some of the points in the op-ed cite sources, including high quality peer reviewed journals. So personally, it does feel a little baby with the bathwater to say all the points should be ignored. Many of them are well supported, even if I think the op-ed presents them too strongly, as in the case of the research being done at Wuhan.
Sure but I have reviewed the evidence before from more reliable sources. I'm not saying everything she says is wrong, I'm saying if she outright lies, I'm not going to consider her overall argument persuasive.
I would also worry that by dismissing all the points made you feed into the unhealthy aspects of the lab leak narrative, i.e., the conspiracy theorists. Nothing seems to give them more fuel than the general discounting of things that are actually true, because it gives them an ace in the hole to fall back on in losing arguments.
Just my two cents though.
I don't see any evidence that debunking conspiracy theories line by line changes their mind. But thankfully others have done it for her work in the past and, in the posts I linked, to this one.
Similarly, if my actions as a random person on the internet embolden the conspiracy theorists, I feel like anything will and that's on them. Plenty of experts have been plenty thorough.
Well, to each their own. I guess I just don't see the conspiracy theorists in this thread or get the overall point. That said, I don't use Twitter, or Blue sky, or Facebook, or Instagram, or...
Well, to each their own. I guess I just don't see the conspiracy theorists in this thread or get the overall point. That said, I don't use Twitter, or Blue sky, or Facebook, or Instagram, or wherever these folks are and don't engage with them on a regular basis.
When I read a serious argument, meaning real effort went into formulating it, and I disagree enough to publicly rebut, I put in the time and effort to state its points, state my disagreement, and cite my primary sources.
That, I think, is the disconnect. We are approaching this discussion from very different sets of experiences on the topic and levels of exposure to conspiracy theorists.
I suspect as cataloging of corona viruses from these natural reservoirs increases we will likely find that the corona virus isn't particularly unique along several interesting dimensions. Thanks...
I suspect as cataloging of corona viruses from these natural reservoirs increases we will likely find that the corona virus isn't particularly unique along several interesting dimensions. Thanks for the link!
Setting aside the disingenuous and blatantly political reasons people may have been advocating for one side or the other, I think the answer here is concern over racist, jingoistic mob attacks and...
I still don't understand where that comes from, maybe it's a need for science, and by extension, scientists, to be safe?
Setting aside the disingenuous and blatantly political reasons people may have been advocating for one side or the other, I think the answer here is concern over racist, jingoistic mob attacks and vigilante "justice". Without the lab leak theory being considered most likely, Asians were attacked without provocation, treated differently and even killed. Now imagine how much worse it would have been had the lab leak been accepted at the time? I think it is very reasonable to have approached the situation with extreme caution for the safety of many. Also, there is an international relations aspect to it where accusing another country of something that makes them look bad (even if true) will not make them more cooperative at a time when cooperation was of utmost importance.
For the record, I think it's become clear that the the lab leak theory is more plausible than originally expected but I came away thinking it wasn't a slam dunk and alternatives are still as plausible. There was a series of YouTube video debates someone had posted that showed quite a lot of good evidence on both sides that I found very interesting.
Even before the pandemic, violence against AAPI people was escalating. It was to the point that my husband was afraid of being attacked on the street by himself, and he is a fairly big man. In the...
Even before the pandemic, violence against AAPI people was escalating. It was to the point that my husband was afraid of being attacked on the street by himself, and he is a fairly big man. In the early days of the pandemic the conspiracy that COCID was a Chinese bioweapon was huge, to the point I am honestly impressed that there are people who can talk about the lab leak hypothesis without knowing about it. But I guess they had the luxury of not having to worry about their loved ones being attacked on the street.
More than anything, though, I cannot think of a single reason why it would actually matter if the hypothesis is true or not. Since we do not know the exact failures that would have caused the leak to begin with, there is no problem to fix. Any positive outcomes are a stretch while talking about this only goes to reinforce the opinions of the conspiracy theorists and make the world a slightly worse place. It all sucks.
Sorry, but this is not a valid argument in the face of a global threat that killed millions and disrupted life in ways that were previously unseen. There is at concrete danger from the type of...
I cannot think of a single reason why it would actually matter if the hypothesis is true or not
Sorry, but this is not a valid argument in the face of a global threat that killed millions and disrupted life in ways that were previously unseen.
There is at concrete danger from the type of research likely done in Wuhan and that is viruses being artificially cultivated to be more contagious in order to study their effect. The reason I heard why the lab hypothesis is controversial is that people interested in continuing this research—both in the West and in China—want to downplay the threat to protect their area of research.
This issue being turned into racist attacks is monumentally stupid but it can’t protect the Chinese government from blame for stonewalling the investigation to save face.
Suppose that as soon as COVID was on anyone's radar that the Chinese government came out publicly and admitted it was the result of a containment breach; what do you think would have been...
Suppose that as soon as COVID was on anyone's radar that the Chinese government came out publicly and admitted it was the result of a containment breach; what do you think would have been different? At least in the US, Trump seemed pretty open to that possibility fairly early on, and I'd imagine most other heads of state would have considered the possibility at least privately, so it seems unlikely that there would be any major differences in foreign policy. Even if the global public knew for certain that it was lab-made, do you really think that public sentiment particularly in the US and Europe, would have any influence on the Chinese government's decision to continue this sort of experimentation?
Beyond that I don't see how the virus's origins would affect public health policies.
Hypothetically, it would be the second incident in two decades linked to an accidental release of biohazardous material from a lab. This would suggest stricter protocols regarding facility siting,...
Beyond that I don't see how the virus's origins would affect public health policies.
Hypothetically, it would be the second incident in two decades linked to an accidental release of biohazardous material from a lab. This would suggest stricter protocols regarding facility siting, effluent decontamination, and configuration management, and potentially controls over certain types of research.
Perhaps, but one would hope that if it were a lab leak then China would already be implementing stricter containment protocols regardless if the public were clear on that or not. I mean, there...
Perhaps, but one would hope that if it were a lab leak then China would already be implementing stricter containment protocols regardless if the public were clear on that or not. I mean, there were real world consequences to this; even if it were perfectly covered up I'm sure the Chinese government would rather not have to go through this again. Also (and again) it's not like they'd be swayed by Western public opinion on the matter in either case if it were proven.
As far as Non-Chinese states go, even if it isn't a lab leak you'd think biological testing sites would be reviewing their own protocols regardless, though that may be wishful thinking. Either way, you'd have to first admit you're doing this sort of experimentation before a legislative body could review it, and I doubt any nation would be keen to do that out loud.
So again, I'm not sure what proving the lab-leak theory accomplishes in practical terms.
Absolutely. It's as important to separate people of Chinese (or Asian generally) from the actions of the Chinese state as it is to stop short of talking about reasons why the Chinese government is...
Absolutely. It's as important to separate people of Chinese (or Asian generally) from the actions of the Chinese state as it is to stop short of talking about reasons why the Chinese government is often a bad actor because it "feels" racist.
Real people lost real loved ones, jobs and plenty else, and while this doesn't excuse some of their actions (Trucker Convoy in Canada for example) it does provide the reasons for it.
That's the tricky issue about these kinds of discussions in social media. The ones harmed and "held accountable" most of the time are only vaguely linked to the actual provocateurs. Because the...
This issue being turned into racist attacks is monumentally stupid but it can’t protect the Chinese government from blame for stonewalling the investigation to save face.
That's the tricky issue about these kinds of discussions in social media. The ones harmed and "held accountable" most of the time are only vaguely linked to the actual provocateurs. Because the real suspects probably aren't blabbing on social media about this kind of info, and not being on social media makes you night invisible to the crowds wanting to take action.
There could be some conspiracy on suppression, but hanlons razor simply says that social media companies don't want a repeat of the Boston bomber debacle on Reddit. Social media is not a proper investigative unit.
To be more specific than nothis's answer below: The Wuhan laboratory is not rated to conduct the type of research that would have created COVID. It would be invaluable to know the origin in a lab...
More than anything, though, I cannot think of a single reason why it would actually matter if the hypothesis is true or not. Since we do not know the exact failures that would have caused the leak to begin with, there is no problem to fix.
To be more specific than nothis's answer below: The Wuhan laboratory is not rated to conduct the type of research that would have created COVID. It would be invaluable to know the origin in a lab leak scenario when it would implicate China in lax research procedures and ultimately hold the government, as funder and regulator of the lab, responsible. This would ultimately cement the perception of China as a sort of "Wild West" where regulations are only an after thought, see: genetically engineered babies, rampant patent infringement, baby formula adulteration and counterfeiting, etc.
Having said all that, I'd like to go on the record as supporting Zoonosis as the origin of the virus but questioning and investigating a potential lab leak was ultimately the correct course of action
I agree that keeping things cool is a good motivation for political leadership to avoid any kind of controversy, especially in a crisis, and perhaps they just failed to do with any kind of savvy...
I agree that keeping things cool is a good motivation for political leadership to avoid any kind of controversy, especially in a crisis, and perhaps they just failed to do with any kind of savvy or nuance.
It's the rank and file folks like us that I'm having trouble understanding their vehemence against the lab leak idea, resistance which persists. Maybe it's an unfortunate association early on with right wink conspiracy folks? That's sad if true.
I mean, there's no question that governments have fooled around with bioweapons. It seems to defy belief that governments are not still researching them, even if they are on the moral high ground and the research is truly and purely intended for threat response purposes.
It also defies belief that there will not ever be accidental, purely innocent, leaks of highly infections biological agents (indeed it has happened repeatedly already), and that eventually, one of those will cause real, global consequences.
Simply by definition, the lab leak idea is as plausible (if not necessarily as likely) as natural origin of infection number one. If it's true that available evidence somewhat favors natural origins (I tend to think it slightly does), that is only a comment on available evidence. There is a lot of evidence deliberately withheld, and it is very much the kind of evidence which would tend to show the likelihood of lab leaks.
Sorry for the rant, this issue does incite my passion. One, I studied this stuff in grad school. Two, it really matters about how to prepare and prevent the next pandemic to understand how this one happened. And three, humanity needs to rise above the baloney.
It's partly because "virus engineered in a lab escapes containment and causes a pandemic that kills millions" is a tired Hollywood plot that strained credulity back when Stephen King used it. It...
It's partly because "virus engineered in a lab escapes containment and causes a pandemic that kills millions" is a tired Hollywood plot that strained credulity back when Stephen King used it.
It also plays right into the obsessive need many people seem to have to pin everything bad that happens in the world on the direct agency of humans, and specifically humans with whom we have political beef. Economic crashes can't happen just because markets and economies are immensely complex and dynamic systems, it has to be the Global Zionist Cabal™ trying to control the gentiles. Viruses can't just jump willy-nilly across species, the implications are too scary. Must have been the Chinese. Everybody knows their quality control standards are lax (which is why we have them manufacture everything, I guess?).
I'm in no way qualified to judge the strength of the claims on either side in this debate, but I know which sounds more plausible to me based on my experience of the world, and the Stephen King plot ain't it.
Exactly this. There's a lot of emphasis to find blame and to describe human agency (or hubris) as the source of so many troubles. Yet things do happen outside of human control and there are so...
It also plays right into the obsessive need many people seem to have to pin everything bad that happens in the world on the direct agency of humans... Viruses can't just jump willy-nilly across species, the implications are too scary.
Exactly this. There's a lot of emphasis to find blame and to describe human agency (or hubris) as the source of so many troubles. Yet things do happen outside of human control and there are so many things we just have a rudimentary understanding of and yet try to summarize that knowledge in a form that suggests we know more than we do.
As a comparable example, HIV is believed to have come from a mutation of a virus transmitted by primates in West Africa. There are all kinds of apocryphal stories that are complete fiction about how that happened. But evidence suggests that primate-to-human transmission happened well before most people started hearing about HIV in the media. And HIV, of which there are two variants, is probably the result of a mutation from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), which humans have also been known to contract from time to time (also due to unsanitary practices around other species). But the mutation that specifically became HIV is the one that's really dangerous to humans because we know that's the one that's prevalent and, just like the initial SARS-COV-2 is the coronavirus variant that's become obviously dangerous to humans even though there had been a couple earlier outbreaks (the first SARS as well as MERS) that there was very little impetus to follow up on aside from some very specialized groups and agencies. Though someone did and warned about it in this publication dated October 2013:
... two novel coronaviruses from Chinese horseshoe bats that are closely related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the cause of a pandemic during 2002 and 2003.
The Wikipedia page suggests that not only has SIV/HIV jumped between species multiple times, but that SIV has lingered in primate populations for many times longer than recorded human history. It's entirely possible that a coronavirus capable of mutating and binding to cell receptors in humans was similarly lingering in the wild for quite some time, occasionally bouncing back and forth between species co-habitating an area or butchered in the same wet market. The publication on bats with coronaviruses certainly seems like evidence that these zoonotic viruses are transmissible.
In the end, zoonotic diseases are things that we're just started to research and put the pieces together not just in terms of human genetics, but in broader genetic terms which will also give us a better understanding of how interconnected ecosystems are (as well as their -- and our -- vulnerabilities). Racing to conclusions that fit a specific narrative view, while ignoring comparable circumstances and other possibilities, really isn't doing anyone any good.
This is a sensationalized version of, "pandemic was caused by the inadvertent release of a virus under study." I know the linked post includes information that suggests some degree of engineering...
"virus engineered in a lab escapes containment and causes a pandemic that kills millions"
This is a sensationalized version of, "pandemic was caused by the inadvertent release of a virus under study."
I know the linked post includes information that suggests some degree of engineering may have occurred on the covid-19, however, that's not required for the leak to be the initial infection vector, espeically given that it would hardly be the first time a dangerous contagion leaked from a lab.
I think this goes too far and I’d like to put a good word in for curiosity. The origin of the pandemic is a fascinating scientific mystery and of course people are interested! This story has it...
I think this goes too far and I’d like to put a good word in for curiosity. The origin of the pandemic is a fascinating scientific mystery and of course people are interested! This story has it all. (That’s why people make movies about it too.)
A good teacher could probably do a lot, building on that basic motivation. But unfortunately, for many people, being curious about a subject doesn’t result in becoming more informed.
When the public gets interested in a question, the results can be frustrating. There’s a lot of noise. But there is good info out there too.
This is actually a large part of it. The right-wing pseudoscience and quack solutions largely started out from legitimate therorizing and experimentation. Ivermectin, for example, was part of an...
Maybe it's an unfortunate association early on with right wink conspiracy folks? That's sad if true.
This is actually a large part of it. The right-wing pseudoscience and quack solutions largely started out from legitimate therorizing and experimentation. Ivermectin, for example, was part of an an experiment trying to identify a protocol to treat severe cases, but the protocol was ineffective (it was ivermectin, some antibiotic to account for immune-suppression and a retroantiviral IIRC).
There were legitimate inquests into various lab leak hypotheses as well, but similarly to the CDC dropping the ball on initial communications, bad science reporting fueled conspiratorial thinking about it. Combined with American political turmoil that led to the US having huge issues with conspiracies, and their export to other countries.
I am having trouble with this too, also a bit of an emotional reaction. It's also odd to me the number of comments on Tildes that are against a lab leak theory. My opinion is pretty much 99%...
It's the rank and file folks like us that I'm having trouble understanding their vehemence against the lab leak idea, resistance which persists. Maybe it's an unfortunate association early on with right wink conspiracy folks? That's sad if true.
I am having trouble with this too, also a bit of an emotional reaction. It's also odd to me the number of comments on Tildes that are against a lab leak theory. My opinion is pretty much 99% certainty that it was a lab leak due to human error (still just my opinion, I know). Also, isn't human error slightly less terrifying?
Some of my thoughts from the past few years:
China and India are both known as countries where one can outsource medical research if the rules in one's own country are too strict.
The US has admitted to funding research about coronaviruses in Wuhan.
Yunnan and Laos both have towns that are solidly in what is known as the golden triangle, this area is not only known for being a massive drug production area (opium and meth), but also for: money laundering, gambling, human trafficking, call center scamming, sale of endangered wildlife, and human organ trafficking. Basically, you can't really trust what anyone says about these areas because they are about as minimally governed and corrupt as anywhere can be.
Both of these areas are mountainous, and generally difficult to traverse outside of major cities and roads, i.e. people aren't going to easily stumble across coronavirus infected bats, unless they are actually looking for them.
The cold chain in Laos is laughable, I can't see the transfer of coronavirus infected bat's being much more secure.
Laos didn't have its first real outbreak of covid until a year or so in...when police illegally snuck an infected Lao national back into the country from Thailand. So again, how does it go from bats to humans, if it's not even going from bats to humans in one of the regions the bats are from?
I know everyone thinks it sounds like the start to a zombie movie, but google these (might end up on a list) towns: Bokeo and Mongla; and Kings Roman Group. If anything, it's the perfect region to set the opening of a zombie pandemic Hollywood movie.
The consensus among researchers is that it was not a lab leak. That's why so many of us don't believe it's a lab leak. Just because this one person--who has been criticized by other researchers...
The consensus among researchers is that it was not a lab leak. That's why so many of us don't believe it's a lab leak. Just because this one person--who has been criticized by other researchers ever since covid started--still thinks that it was a lab leak doesn't mean that it was a lab leak.
Plus there are multiple people in here sharing links to things by immunologists talking about why this article's claims are completely bogus.
The consensus is that the evidence available for review falls significantly toward an animal to human infection causing the outbreak. A major problem with then leaping to “It was not a lab leak”...
The consensus is that the evidence available for review falls significantly toward an animal to human infection causing the outbreak. A major problem with then leaping to “It was not a lab leak” is that a lot of really important data and evidence has been intentionally hidden/withheld/removed/destroyed by the Chinese government. There is also a strong incentive, perhaps well intententioned at least in some cases, for the answer to be “not a lab leak.”
I'm not so sure that it is important to determine where this virus originated. To me, the only value finding the source would have would be if that information could inform policy improvements and...
I'm not so sure that it is important to determine where this virus originated. To me, the only value finding the source would have would be if that information could inform policy improvements and cooperation around managing these pandemics globally. I think litigating it in the public sphere and in the news is unlikely to accomplish that.
We know that there are lots of ways for viruses to jump from other species to humans, just like we're seeing with H5N1 right now in the US. We had the Ebola Reston scare in the '90s, and that didn't stop people from doing virus research. It didn't even stop them from importing monkeys from the source where the infected monkeys came from. Caitlyn Rivers, an epidemiologist, did a good job of laying this position in her blog post earlier this year on , Force of Infection.
What I've learned about gaps in public health infrastructure, mostly from epidemiologists like Rivers and Dr. Jetalina at Your Local Epidemiologist , is that what we really need is more (infectious disease) surveillance, better communication the public, and for the public health industry to rebuild trust in science. A lot of the progress made during the pandemic was lost when they chose to end the state of emergency without putting other reporting requirements in place.
The other reason why I typically avoid digging into this is that the debate has significant negative consequences for people who are ethnically Chinese and have nothing to do with the Wuhan lab or public health and virus research at all. Granted this is exacerbating an underlying race issue that already existed, but the backlash against the Chinese American community during the pandemic was awful. I think it's irresponsible to do things that fuel those problems, including publishing articles like the one in the NYT that are merely suggestive without offering any real proof, even if those suggestions are made more credible by coming from voices in the scientific community.
As a former researcher (albeit not medical related), I think it's incredibly important to thoroughly investigate the root cause, if only for the lessons it might teach us. Not investigating it, in...
As a former researcher (albeit not medical related), I think it's incredibly important to thoroughly investigate the root cause, if only for the lessons it might teach us.
Not investigating it, in my opinion, will only lead to more lazy xenophobia as rumours and speculation get twisted by those with an agenda to push. Having concrete evidence to point towards is crucial for avoiding that.
I agree with you that seeking a root cause as a part of improving international public health infrastructure would be an admirable goal. I disagree that this article is doing that, because it's...
I agree with you that seeking a root cause as a part of improving international public health infrastructure would be an admirable goal.
I disagree that this article is doing that, because it's supporting a particular conclusion using innuendo rather than talking about how a root cause analysis could or should be done.
It is unfortunate that the U.S. (and a lot of other places) are so incredibly racist. But let's revers the facts for a second. Suppose the virus first appeared in Raleigh, NC, just down the road...
It is unfortunate that the U.S. (and a lot of other places) are so incredibly racist. But let's revers the facts for a second. Suppose the virus first appeared in Raleigh, NC, just down the road from UNC which is where a lot of similar research to that in WIV occurs. As a potential recipient of scorn from the Chinese, I would still say let's find out the truth of the matter. Granted, as the US is still relatively more powerful than China, our racism is potentially much more damaging. Nevertheless, truth does matter.
Also, racism aside, if China (and others) are conducting research on global pandemic-causing contagions at labs with insufficient containment protocols and gear, we really ought to know about it and start doing something to protect ourselves. And if it's even the worser case that China was performing malicious (as opposed to responsive) gain of function research, we really ought to know about it and start doing something to shut that down. And in the still worser case that China intentionally released this thing, well, we really need to be taking some serious measures to prevent that sort of thing happening (note, I am not suggesting any of things, merely trying to demonstrate why the truth of the matter is so important).
What you proposed is more like if people in Wuhan cared about getting to the bottom of COVID origin to manage or improve their reputation. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking...
What you proposed is more like if people in Wuhan cared about getting to the bottom of COVID origin to manage or improve their reputation. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about unrelated ethnic Chinese (and many other people of Asian descent) getting death threats for something that happened half a world away.
In the role reversal you proposed, the parallel would be an American/white person living in another country with no ties to NC and no say in whether anyone in NC can or will "find out the truth of the matter", but who is also facing threats just for being white. In that framing, I don't think innuendo about the origin of COVID is any more ethical.
I agree there is progress to be made in how laboratory oversight is maintained. It would be great if we had a biological test ban treaty and everyone signed on. But the work required to do that isn't going to start from some mights and maybes in a NYT article. So I maintain my position that this is irresponsible and sensationalist. I think actually moving the conversation forward would look more like talking about the structure of the international treaty structure, how communication between labs and foreign and domestic governments is carried out, and (as I pointed out in my post) what public health reforms would prepare us best for the next outbreak, regardless of source.
On the other hand, it could be argued that it's irresponsible not to do what one would otherwise do with slightly different factors because it's for some kind of 'greater good'. In this case, it...
The other reason why I typically avoid digging into this is that the debate has significant negative consequences for people who are ethnically Chinese and have nothing to do with the Wuhan lab or public health and virus research at all. Granted this is exacerbating an underlying race issue that already existed, but the backlash against the Chinese American community during the pandemic was awful. I think it's irresponsible to do things that fuel those problems, including publishing articles like the one in the NYT that are merely suggestive without offering any real proof, even if those suggestions are made more credible by coming from voices in the scientific community.
On the other hand, it could be argued that it's irresponsible not to do what one would otherwise do with slightly different factors because it's for some kind of 'greater good'. In this case, it is more likely to diminish reputable organizations and people who shy away from addressing a topic that they would ordinarily address but they don't solely to avoid potentially giving some misguided people fuel for their misguided conspiracies and hatred. Granted that is an additional factor to consider when discussing what type of opinions to publish, but it shouldn't be considered to simply just be the 'greater good' with no consequences to it. I don't think that lying, hiding, or omitting discussion on possible truths to the public is an action that can be done in the service of a greater good without some potentially severe consequences. I think it's important to acknowledge that those consequences exist in order to support the notion that discussion should be omitted from the public in service of a 'greater good'.
Otherwise when that happens, instead of fueling misguided people and their misguided notions of those of Chinese ethnicity, it fuels misguided people and their now more real notions of mainstream reputable news organizations not publicizing potentially truthful information in an attempt to influence/manipulate how people think or feel about a subject. There is social harm done by this too, and what's worse, when done that way it's done through dishonesty. In this scenario, it's an action taken by people who assume ethical superiority through less ethical actions to attempt to override actions taken by a relatively small portion of people who would have approached it as ethically inferior through their prejudices. Meaning some executives at the New York Times or political representatives or public policy experts etc. decide to ignore discussion because they think it's their ethical responsibility to avoid fueling a portion of people from using it as a motivation to be racist. It's good for people to consider how their ideas may impact someone else or what reactions that it may spark, but it is ultimately THEIR reactions, not those who initially discussed a topic responsibly.
I agree with you that we should not let our discourse be held hostage by people doing terrible things. However, I disagree that this article is an instance of "those who initially discussed a...
I agree with you that we should not let our discourse be held hostage by people doing terrible things.
However, I disagree that this article is an instance of "those who initially discussed a topic responsibly". I think this article is just innuendo given weight by someone with credentials. There's no evidence presented, just suggestive information meant to support a conclusion that can inflame the kinds of problems I originally posted about.
As I said in my response to the sibling comment:
I think actually moving the conversation forward would look more like talking about the structure of the international treaty structure, how communication between labs and foreign and domestic governments is carried out, and (as I pointed out in my post) what public health reforms would prepare us best for the next outbreak, regardless of source.
But there's opinion articles for things like this everywhere. Why is this one different? Would an opinion article a where it says "Why the pandemic probably started from animal to human...
There's no evidence presented, just suggestive information meant to support a conclusion that can inflame the kinds of problems I originally posted about.
But there's opinion articles for things like this everywhere. Why is this one different? Would an opinion article a where it says "Why the pandemic probably started from animal to human transmission, in five key points" have the same criticism? Why is the person who writes the flip of that responsible for the misguided people who may use that speculation as fuel for their hate, but the other one is fine? To me, they're both equally approaching the topic with the same level of responsibility, which surely people will vary on what they view speculation/opinions from credentialed people or non-credentialed people as to whether they can be discussing a topic "responsibly".
Look at a lot of the topics on there, and poking in a few of the articles, they don't seem to be loaded with sources, facts and evidence, they're pretty much as labeled, opinions. Comparatively, the article posted here about the why the pandemic probably started in the lab seems to have far more sources and information to bolster its claims than several of the other opinion articles I looked at.
So when is it OK to have opinions on some things and not other things? Granted, I do believe there is a line and it's not that straightforward to just say anyone can speculate on whatever they want on any platform they want, but it's not like this person that authored this article is not just anyone (meaning not just some random blogger, doomsday prepper or conspiracy theorist who spends all day focusing on rare hypotheticals or spewing bullshit online).
The notion that there's some reason to avoid conversation on this specific topic but not the many others that are happening only serves to bolster conspiracy theorists and the people who have a persistent desire to feel they're exposing some grand conspiracy or just people who persistently feel they're being oppressed by imaginary figures that don't exist. Granted I don't think it's necessarily worth engaging in a conversation with someone on a topic where the string has run out, at some point it may only legitimize their delusions to keep arguing but once the debate is already out there you can just keep referring them to the arguments already made, rather than saying you're taking the high road and never having made the arguments to begin with.
And it's no wonder why the world is chock full of people who hold basic, ignorant misunderstandings about hot topics. Trans healthcare, geopolitics, COVID, Gaza - you have people who are either...
Look at a lot of the topics on there, and poking in a few of the articles, they don't seem to be loaded with sources, facts and evidence, they're pretty much as labeled, opinions.
And it's no wonder why the world is chock full of people who hold basic, ignorant misunderstandings about hot topics. Trans healthcare, geopolitics, COVID, Gaza - you have people who are either unrelated or adjacent to the fields in question laying out essentially baseless claims using language that makes it seem factual. An opinion piece should be very clearly an opinion, something both the NYT and other publications across the political spectrum routinely forgo.
So when is it OK to have opinions on some things and not other things?
It's always okay to have an opinion. It's not okay to try and make a career out of spreading misinformation from the very start of the pandemic and then framing your point of view as an "opinion". This author has been debunked since the first time she engaged in conversation but has, like pretty much every grifter, simply ignored her detractors and continued on because she knows people who don't know any better will read her article and take her word for it without doing a single Google search.
I read the NYT daily, though not often their opinion pieces. They put "opinion" in capital red block letters with the title of the piece, and again at the bottom of the article. I've never been...
An opinion piece should be very clearly an opinion, something both the NYT and other publications across the political spectrum routinely forgo.
I read the NYT daily, though not often their opinion pieces. They put "opinion" in capital red block letters with the title of the piece, and again at the bottom of the article. I've never been confused on the app or with the physical paper about what was news and what was opinion.
I can't even begin to count the amount of articles my family shares with big red "OPINION" letters in the title while taking the contents as fact. This happens and it happens so often I get into...
I can't even begin to count the amount of articles my family shares with big red "OPINION" letters in the title while taking the contents as fact. This happens and it happens so often I get into regular arguments with relatives over it.
It is my firm belief that an op-ed should be much more obvious. "In my view...", "It is my belief that...", "In my experience...". There really is no excuse not to include this kind of language. Maybe I am uniquely affected because my family isn't very media literate, but we gain nothing by letting people publish whatever they want in the news so long as they put "opinion" in the title.
There is a bar to clear to publish an opinion piece in the NYT, and many opinion pieces do use that language, though others do not. I think publishing well thought out persuasive essays and...
There is a bar to clear to publish an opinion piece in the NYT, and many opinion pieces do use that language, though others do not.
I think publishing well thought out persuasive essays and opinions is important to public discourse. The fact that the US struggles with information literacy and numeracy is a problem, and I'm all for more explicit disclaimers.
That said, the NYT is one of the better outlets at separating news from opinion.
Bottom line, because this one got posted to Tildes. If this is normative for NYT opinion, then that's probably a good reason for me to continue not reading the NYT opinion section. Here on Tildes,...
Why is this one different?
Bottom line, because this one got posted to Tildes. If this is normative for NYT opinion, then that's probably a good reason for me to continue not reading the NYT opinion section. Here on Tildes, we can have the wider conversation, which in this case, is to acknowledge the social consequences of asking these questions in the US. From reading some of the other threads, it appears that neither of us is alone in our views.
Would an opinion article a where it says "Why the pandemic probably started from animal to human transmission, in five key points" have the same criticism? Why is the person who writes the flip of that responsible for the misguided people who may use that speculation as fuel for their hate, but the other one is fine? To me, they're both equally approaching the topic with the same level of responsibility, which surely people will vary on what they view speculation/opinions from credentialed people or non-credentialed people as to whether they can be discussing a topic "responsibly".
For one, you've posed a hypothetical "other side" argument, so we can speculate any level of responsibility we want for that. In this case, I think I'm unlikely to agree with an "it's reasonable to argue both sides equally" view precisely because the zoonosis argument isn't feeding conspiracy and hate.
The narrowness of this article is the irresponsible part to me, even an as an opinion piece. If someone wants to have the whole conversation about public health needs, by all means, include a discussion of the origin of the virus. But a piece that only touches on the part that feeds the conspiracy stuff without even acknowledging any other part of it? Even if they don't want to strawman the zoonosis argument, they can talk about what might be (responsibly) done if one were to draw the conclusion that this came from a lab. But there's none of that. Just innuendo.
It's hard for me to believe that is done in good faith and not intentionally feeding the conspiracy. Doubly so because this person is "credentialed". I'm not surprised that it happened. It does happen a lot. But just because it's common doesn't make it acceptable to me.
Fauci Says the Idea That He Covered Up a Lab Leak Is ‘Preposterous’ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/science/fauci-hearing-covid-origins.html This has info about the sustained witch hunt...
This is a well drafted essay from a reasonably serious and credible source - researcher at MIT and Harvard joint lab. I have always held and promoted the idea that the most likely source of the...
This is a well drafted essay from a reasonably serious and credible source - researcher at MIT and Harvard joint lab.
I have always held and promoted the idea that the most likely source of the virus was the lab, although I am the first to point out I am just some guy. However, I had reasons for my opinion: the coincidences were too numerous and too highly aligned to ignore, and the opinions pushing against the theory were overly vociferous and from sources with strong incentives for their opinion to be right. That, and I never found their analyses to be overly rigorous, and for every statistical outcome which I couldn't follow, there were smart people pointing out the flaws. [For the record, I did well in my biostatistics studies in graduate school, but haven't used them much lo these many years].
What surprised me the most, however, was how many in my various communities, including tildes, were resistant to the idea of the lab leak, and how vociferous they were in shouting me down (except on tildes, of course). It felt frustrating, and I concluded that there was an almost dogmatic pressure for the lab leak theory to be wrong. I still don't understand where that comes from, maybe it's a need for science, and by extension, scientists, to be safe?
In any event, I have noticed a growing willingness to explore and promulgate the quite sensible idea that the virus came from a lab, in very close proximity to the first publicly identified cases, which was researching exactly the same kind of unique virus as drove the pandemic It's unfortunate that the vanguard are otherwise politically problematic, but I think we should look very seriously at every reasonable possibility, and not rule any out until we have really definitive evidence. More importantly, given the global scale of the damages, it's really important to get this right. The obfuscation and research resistance given by so many parties is highly irresponsible in this case. There is continuing risk of a repeat, we need to spend serious time and effort to understand and learn from all this.
The main reason people wanted to shut down the talk of lab leaks was that in the beginning, lab leak theories were closely tied to racism, and increased acts of violence against Asian people in...
The main reason people wanted to shut down the talk of lab leaks was that in the beginning, lab leak theories were closely tied to racism, and increased acts of violence against Asian people in Western countries. Doesn't make it right, but it is likely the main reason.
That’s accurate but it’s funny to me because the wet market explanation where diseased bats / pangolins / dogs / raccoons are sold for food seems way more blatantly racist than a laboratory...
That’s accurate but it’s funny to me because the wet market explanation where diseased bats / pangolins / dogs / raccoons are sold for food seems way more blatantly racist than a laboratory containment failure.
"Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped the Battle Over Covid’s Origin" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Benjamin Mueller A lab leak was once dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. But the idea is...
"Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped the Battle Over Covid’s Origin"
by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Benjamin Mueller A lab leak was once dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. But the idea is gaining traction, even as evidence builds that the virus emerged from a market. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/18498/
I haven't read this, but I thought at least the fact that it exists may help to explain your experience discussing this topic. Here is what Fauci had to say about it in his testimony earlier this year:
Majority Counsel: “Just you sitting here today, do you think the possibility or the hypothesis that the coronavirus emerged from a laboratory accident is a conspiracy theory?”
Dr. Fauci: “Well, it’s a possibility. I think people have made conspiracy aspects from it. And I think you have to separate the two when you keep an open mind, that it could be a lab leak or it could be a natural occurrence. I’ve mentioned in this committee that I believe the evidence that I’ve seen weighs my opinion towards one, which is a natural occurrence, but I still leave an open mind. So I think that in and of itself isn’t inherently a conspiracy theory, but some people spin off things from that that are kind of crazy.”
Thank you for linking to that post, I was trying to find it but was having trouble. Fantastic article btw, and I think it makes the case that the virus came from animal origin, while not delving...
Thank you for linking to that post, I was trying to find it but was having trouble. Fantastic article btw, and I think it makes the case that the virus came from animal origin, while not delving into the politicized debate of it all.
Just because they're a "credible source" does not mean they are a credible source. From Dr. Chan's Wikipedia page:
This is a well drafted essay from a reasonably serious and credible source - researcher at MIT and Harvard joint lab.
Just because they're a "credible source" does not mean they are a credible source. From Dr. Chan's Wikipedia page:
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for co-authoring a preprint according to which the virus was "pre-adapted" to humans and suggesting COVID-19 could have escaped from a laboratory.[2][4] The preprint has not been accepted for publication by a scientific journal, but received a significant reception in the popular press.[2]
The reaction of virologists and other specialists to Chan's hypothesis has been largely, but not exclusively, negative. The New York Times noted in October 2021 that Chan's view has been "widely disputed by other scientists", but some have commended her willingness to advance alternative hypotheses in the face of controversy.[5] Jonathan Eisen of UC Davis praised Chan for raising the lab-origin discussion, but said her views remain conjecture, as not enough disease outbreaks have been traced in enough molecular detail to know what is normal, noting also that the virus continues to change and adapt.[2] Sixteen months after Chan's preprint was shared online, a scientific review article published in Cell described the pre-adaptation theory as "without validity."[6]
I can only speak to my two fold reluctance to accept a lab leak theory without a smoking gun: It requires a large scale and ongoing coverup by multiple international governments and scientists,...
I still don't understand where that comes from, maybe it's a need for science, and by extension, scientists, to be safe?
I can only speak to my two fold reluctance to accept a lab leak theory without a smoking gun:
It requires a large scale and ongoing coverup by multiple international governments and scientists, many of whom likely lost their own lives or families lives.
I am worried that it will give us a false sense of security in thinking that a virus as deadly as this one would be less likely to evolve in nature. If this did not evolve in nature, then we are less likely to agree that wet markets should be banned, and factory farming is a close 2nd for risk factors.
In this case, that is not actually true. A coverup has occurred. All the necessary information to identify a smoking gun is largely internal to China, whose government operates an effective...
It requires a large scale and ongoing coverup by multiple international governments and scientists, many of whom likely lost their own lives or families lives.
In this case, that is not actually true. A coverup has occurred. All the necessary information to identify a smoking gun is largely internal to China, whose government operates an effective censorship apparatus. That apparatus indeed activated, and a lot of data which could quickly exonerate the lab, and/or provide seriously damning evidence, was deliberately destroyed, censored, or obfuscated.
Assuming you are referring to the "missing data" table at the end, what rows would you add? I also assume you are not disputing the yes's/no's. One I would like to see is something like,...
Assuming you are referring to the "missing data" table at the end, what rows would you add? I also assume you are not disputing the yes's/no's.
One I would like to see is something like, "Reasonable statistical analysis of early individual infections lead to gegraphical epicenter" and I assume there are others.
I arguably am disputing them. This week is hell on wheels for me, but to not even mention that there has been a massive amount of research and discussion about the Tanuki in relation to COVID-19...
I arguably am disputing them. This week is hell on wheels for me, but to not even mention that there has been a massive amount of research and discussion about the Tanuki in relation to COVID-19 is just not ok given that infographic. For her sources she cites a WHO paper from 2021 when the recent tanuki information is from 22 or 23.
Now on the one hand, I do not believe we are 100% sure it came from the Tanuki's at this point, as it requires some low chance events happening. And science is complicated ESPECIALLY cross species science in a country that is maybe not the most open about its data before they were accused of bio-engineering a weapon.
On the other hand, as a scientist, her not disclosing what animals we do think it came from, and instead actually portraying it so blatantly in some yes/no chart, is frankly misleading to the point that I seriously doubt the integrity and motive of this article.
Assertion without evidence is a lie, even if it turns out to be true in the end. This is how conspiracy theories have always started. Assertion without evidence where someone comes after the...
Assertion without evidence is a lie, even if it turns out to be true in the end.
This is how conspiracy theories have always started. Assertion without evidence where someone comes after the assertion to string together various points of data that fit.
I get where your coming from, but respectfully disagree. Assertions are always the beginning of inquiry. Scientifically, we reformulate assertions as null hypotheses which we then seek to...
I get where your coming from, but respectfully disagree. Assertions are always the beginning of inquiry. Scientifically, we reformulate assertions as null hypotheses which we then seek to disprove. But they are still assertions.
Truth is important, and because truth, or its pursuit, leads to unfortunate outcomes is no reason to leave it behind.
Even some so called “conspiracy theories” are true, and official stories often false.
Also, it is important to neither promulgate an assertion as true, nor to assume one making an assertion believes it to be true in that moment. Throughout this saga, sober folks have made the claim, “it looks like there could have been a lab leak,” and all kinds of people have heard them saying “China has bio-engineered a virus weapon!” Worse, without comment on the lab leak, folks have pointed out flaws in some assertion or other in an argument about purely natural vectors, only to be shouted down and labeled “conspiracy theorists.”
I appreciate your feedback on what I said, and I too understand where you're coming from. I agree that assertions can be the starting point for the beginning of inquiry. However, that's not the...
I appreciate your feedback on what I said, and I too understand where you're coming from.
I agree that assertions can be the starting point for the beginning of inquiry. However, that's not the kind I'm talking about and I should have clarified. Many people, especially conspiracy theorists, do not care about the scientific method, nor are they willing to reject their assertions when presented with evidence that contradicts it. Instead they twist what they can, ignore what they can't explain, and turn to personal attacks and accusations of collusion when they are backed into a corner.
My point is that even if something that started as an assertion without evidence is later discovered to be true, the people claiming it to be true had no evidence at the time, and we're therefore lying if they told people that it was true.
There is a huge difference between saying "I think something could be true, so I will look for evidence to confirm or reject that assertion" and saying "this thing is true, and any doubters are in a league against me just because they ask for evidence I can't provide".
I admit that I have not read this long "summary" of an extremely long debate, but there was a $100k debate between lab leak vs. zoonosis that went on recently where the winner was declared zoonosis.
The conclusion at the bottom has, I think, a good summary of why this debate may never end:
The laboratory proximity can simply be chalked up to "there are firehouses near where there are fires." SARS was a big deal in Asia, even if the west was more isolated from it. That's part of why the response was much faster and more serious with Sars-Cov-2.
We have another obvious zoonosis risk imminent in the US right now, with H5N1.
Yes, but the lab in Wuhan is 1,000 miles from where it would have been likely to see the coronavirus in wild bat populations. That's part of the sub arguments in the op-ed. Unfortunately, neither argument can be dismissed so easily.
It can, when you have a wildlife trade bringing animals, and people exposed to those animals, long distances.
"The distance between Wuhan (where SARS-CoV-2 was first detected) and Yunnan is similar to that between Foshan (where SARS-CoV-1 was first detected) and Yunnan.
Same for Ebola in West Africa. And other viruses.
The wild-life trade is the conduit."
https://bsky.app/profile/kgandersen.bsky.social/post/3ku2mev7aaj2g
And the counter from the lab leak folks is the lack of cases or evidence along the route of the trade to Wuhan.
Like I said, it takes care to present and rebut a claim because there is such a back and forth on these points.
The point is that SARS-COV-1 traveled the same distance before its outbreaks as did ebola. Did those have cases along the way?
Also
https://bsky.app/profile/kgandersen.bsky.social/post/3ku2qukndkc2y
Finding such animals would require looking, though, and that has not been done with a focus on relevant animals.
We do, however, find a clear association between the virus and animals in the market itself.
Asymptomatic diseases make finding any patient zero impossible. Lab leak theorists can move the goalposts all they like but it's not really interesting
Yep, when the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic and the majority of symptomatic cases are very minor, you're not going to find many cases Upstream of where their actual outbreak started. Especially when everywhere upstream of where the outbreak actually started is remote and underdeveloped.
For ebola, since it has multiple 1976 outbreaks and possible natural reservoirs, from where to where do you specifically consider the reservoir and the outbreak?
That aside, is ebola and COVID an apples to apples comparison when looking at disease path? One spreads through aerosolized particles, and the other through exposure to infected blood. COVID can be spread before symptoms are apparent, but Ebola requires symptoms to have developed. Likewise, we expect that half of ebola outbreaks today still go interpreted unreported due to lack of public health infrastructure to detect it in Africa.
However, the first known patient in Zaire had recently been traveling, but again, I don't know which outbreak and which source you specifically mean.
This is sort of what I mean by the goalposts moving though. There's nothing unusual about SARS-COV-2's outbreak occuring downstream from its source where there's a bunch of travel between the two. Failing to address that, as Chan does in both her book and this essay is a weakness to the argument, not a strength.
a. It's far away
b. Lots of viruses start far away
a. There's no upstream cases
b. That's to be expected in this case
A. But no one is asking these questions
B. Here are reviews of all the evidence, they don't agree with your conclusion and you didn't review all the other evidence.
A. It's a coverup
When I replied to your comment in my inbox, all your comment was is the following:
Everything after that was edited in and not in the version I replied to.
Ignoring for a moment that there original post I was replying to oversimplified matters, that my point was that more care is needed in such discussions, and that I don't specifically endorse either theory:
Me asking you to clarify the specific ebola outbreak so I can give a definite answer is not a goal post shift, it is a request for clarification.
Likewise, when you make an argument about how things are A because of example B, I think it is fair to make sure A and B are really comparable.
So in the vein of this comment chain, I replied to someone who described the lab as a firehouse near fires, and pointed out that is was 1,000 miles from the "fires." My next statement was that with these point counter point situations in public discourse, it takes effort to present and rebut a point.
I'm not sure how any of what you are bringing up is really in the vein of that exchange, or why you are using me as a proxy debate for the lab leak theory on this chain.
Yeah unfortunately using 3 cheers and Tildes on the phone if I don't use the edit function to add source links I'll lose my whole post since it doesn't have the draft save function.
I was quoting a different researcher, so I don't have the clarification you're looking for. I believed him to be referencing the original ebola outbreak given context.
Your example of the "lab leak" response is what I'm referring to with my goalposts moving point, not your request for clarification. I'm responding to you only because you responded with that "here's what lab leakers will say" reply.
Chan and any other lab leak advocate shouldn't be throwing out "it's 1000 miles away" as if that implies it's the lab without addressing that this is the case for other viruses too.
Ultimately your clarification doesn't matter because I guess you were trying to make a point with it. My point with this most recent post was just that this is why it's so frustrating to have to even begin to engage with conspiracy theories. Not that you were personally doing so.
ETA: I truly didn't even see you're the same person I was already talking to. Without labels, i can rarely keep track of folks in separate threads
Just to be clear, these are my posts you are responding to, yes?
If so, again, I'm commenting on the use of oversimplified and dismissive arguments. I don't see how anything here has anything to do with moving goal posts. I'm not moving any, I don't think. I'm not sure I've made much of any claim at all.
If you are saying that we, here on tildes, can't have a real discussion with supporting points and data because some people move goal posts, then I disagree. Call that behavior out, politely, professionally, when it happens here and move on to the next person.
If I decide to say that, I'll say it. I didn't, so I didn't. I don't tend to argue through implication.
Then I really don't understand the points being made about goal posts and conspiracy theories if we aren't talking about the discussion on tildes, which is where we are. Maybe we are just ships in the night on this issue.
It’s not like they haven’t tried looking. Worse (and more suspicious), the Chinese government has impeded research efforts and hidden/destroyed important data and physical evidence, something that didn’t happen with previous outbreaks.
Hey you replied to two of my comments back to back and I'm just wanting to let you not really interested in arguing this.
I'm citing experts, and I think this essay is debunked conspiracy theory with obvious and apparent and obvious lies written by a scientist who keeps writing the same thing. I linked two analyses of the origins of SARS-COV-2 in another comment that considers all of the evidence.
(Not personal just I'm only going to point at the experts because I don't have knowledge that isn't theirs)
Sorry for the back to backs, it gets confusing whomis saying what!
I guess my broader point is that some comments seem to be doing what they claim is happening in tfa:drawing unwarranted conclusions from other sources.
Iirc, there were identifiable links between wildlife reservoir and outbreak with much shorter distances than 1000 miles, as well as much greater specificity in both the wildlife host and the virus found. That is, they found the actual outbreak virus (or an ancestor) in an actual wild animal.
This strikes me as an oversimplificationand generally inapt. There are not laboratories like wiv in every city with a wet market, and there are far more wildlife trading centers in high population areas than there are coronavirus research labs, and the coincidences and circumstances extend beyond merely “virises”.
That was a fun read, thanks for sharing.
My big criticism is that using a Bayesian analysis just sort of shifts the goal part a bit because the argument moves to the accepted weights on each point of the model. However I will say it is a fun approach to take from a numbers perspective and reminds me of the methods described in Super Forecasting by Philip Tetlock.
A breakdown or perhaps takedown of this essay.
From Kristian Ganderson, immunologist
I'm not one but I thought this was worthwhile.
It's hard to summarize as it goes point by point but it alleges a large number of outright falsehoods, enough that I question if this post should have a note on the title.
It sure doesn't give me confidence when the two posts that clearly outline the fact that this article has glaring flaws remain unaddressed by anyone arguing for the lab leak approach.
By now most scientists in the field do not entertain the lab leak. The article posted by OP really doesn't have much to do with science in my eyes, it's an opinion piece that has been debunked. I also feel something should be added to the title, or at the very least the "probably" should be removed.
Every NYT op-ed I've seen so far has been awful.
Also Alina Chan, the author, has a history of "taking it out to the public", but she hasn't published scientifically about Covid since 2021.. She instead seems to prefer to write on a right-winger disinformation-filled op-ed publishing newspaper, much appropriate for her disinformation-filled op-ed that plays into a right winger conspiracy theory.
The credibility of her arguments is very weak. She seems to have -very publicly- decided early on in the pandemic, and hasn't changed her mind ever since. The tweets u/DefinitelyNotAFae shared and my reply-addition to them make this apparent, in my opinion. Add to this all the publicity surrounding her "debate" and the popularity she garners, it all makes me really suspicious about her intentions.
It was also my understanding that the lab leak theory has been fairly well discarded barring sudden new evidence to the contrary. But I'm very much not a scientist and don't feel me hashing it out is helpful in any meaningful way.
I want to add to this by a tweet of NHS Head of Data Analytics and Partnerships, Ben Pierce.
Does this link only have a handful of posts rebutting like 3-4 of the op-ed's dozens of points? Because that's all that I see when I open it.
For reference, the op-ed makes five key arguments, labeled 1-5 and makes dozens of sub arguments and points to support each of the five main claims. What you linked doesn't appear to address any of the five main claims, and only addresses some of the most minor and subjective points. E.g., equivocating between "hunting for" vs "studying" virii.
If I'm not just getting a bad view on my phone, then this is hardly a takedown of the original argument. Though they do raise a few points that are likely far less absolute than either party likes.
Personally, I don't have a professional opinion on the source of COVID; still, its source should have an impact on public health policy. I say that as someone who works in public health policy, sits on an IRB, oversees compliance, helps allocate public health funding, and works at times with dangerous protocols.
If COVID came from gain of function research, then the world should know so we can make BSL policies and legislation a priority. Likewise, getting countries to commit to international standards to prevent the next pandemic. If the virus came from meat markets, then we should invest in curbing that vector. In a perfect world we would pursue both, but with scarce funding we realistically need to prioritize efforts.
That said, I'm pessimistic that the origin of COVID will ever stop being politicized, to the detriment of global health.
There are seventeen "skeets" in the thread. As well as several tangential replies from other people including Jasnah Kholin, virologist and Wendy Orent an anthropologist that writes about science and disease.
A review of Chan's book where she made the same case, which is probably why virologists seem annoyed at this OP-Ed being published. She's had plenty of column inches and air time to peddle this.
New Republic
They hinge a lot on RaTG13 being the ancestor of SARSCOV2 because it's 96.2% similar despite a lot of evidence to the contrary and what feels like the obvious fact to me that that's a lot of difference in viral genetic terms, decades even. (idk if genetics is the right word as virii are deeply weird but I already noted I'm not a virologist)
Alina Chan is arguing from a lot of implication and if in that process provides enough outright false claims to be very quickly called out it's a huge red flag to me.
Which is why despite all the research, and the evidence vastly suggesting zoonotic origins, we keep coming back to this "but isn't it suspicious...." I mean I don't think it's weird at all to study coronaviruses in an area with a lot of coronaviruses.
But apparently that's the first in a long chain of implications. And the questions ARE being asked by actual researchers. It's just that they're not agreeing with Chan on this.
Critical Analysis of the Evidence for the SARS-COV-2 Origin Hypotheses
The emergence and evolution of SARS-COV-2
My opinion didn't really matter. I'm not an expert. But every bit of scientific evidence I read leads me to say that zoonotic origins are the most likely on every ground. And Chan bringing back up the same arguments every few months doesn't change them or make them more viable.
I took another look at the thread, and at your post, and still don't see anything addressing the substance of the op-ed. Let's take point #2 as an example:
And it goes on and on with additional supporting points.
Again, maybe I just missed it on my phone. But what I cited above is one of many points and arguments from the op-ed that I haven't seen rebutted or even addressed in any of the links or comments in this thread.
My point is that I think there is a lot of suggestive information, and it is a highly politicized issue. It's ok to read competing arguments and go, huh, both make valid points. And this is one of those cases where even for experts, it isn't possible to say with certainly, because we don't have the smoking gun.
Edit: one final point.
This is what gets me working on public health policy. It shouldn't matter if COVID came from Wuhan. They were clearly using unsafe procedures to work with deadly viruses. We should have policies and laws to encourage improved BSL requirements.
The testimony from Dr Baric who wrote that proposal
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Baric-TI-Transcript.pdf
https://bsky.app/profile/kgandersen.bsky.social/post/3ku2ncbhw4s2y
Addresses it in more detail. UNC's Defuse proposal didn't have that in it. They were looking for them in the wild, they weren't trying to make them.
Another thread
https://bsky.app/profile/kgandersen.bsky.social/post/3ku2olb33cb2f
You can't see all the posts, and I don't know why. But personally I don't find the OP-Ed worth engaging with when her book on the matter and the entire topic has been widely refuted. And I really don't see it as any different than any other "but they're not looking for the REAL truth" conspiracy theory.
If there was strong evidence not just a lot of coincidental implication, I'd be swayed by it. Hell, most scientists don't say it's impossible just that it doesn't match the evidence available. Which is how science works. Dr Baric himself said it was possible but that the natural hypothesis was much more likely (and a new relative of SARS-COV-2 in Laos has only enhanced that) but the headlines said "HE SAID ITS POSSIBLE" in a way that maintains the conspiracy theory momentum.
And when you have flat out lies, like the claim of the scientists falling ill with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019 (several of them had seasonal illnesses as one might expect for the time of year, they all tested negative for SARS-COV-2 antibodies) I don't trust the source.
Two points, and a digression. The first is that the point being made is that Wuhan was interested in the specific features that made COVID, COVID. It doesn't prove anything in the same way that no correlations do. But like all correlations, they waggle their eyebrows suggestively in the corner and invite closer inspection.
The second is that one should be careful in what they discard whole cloth. Just because an author has a book or position you disagree with or is flawed, doesn't mean all of their arguments are invalid, just like we shouldn't accept the arguments of a respected figure in the field on the basis of past works. Claims should be inspected on their merit, not their provenance.
That said, personally, I get not feeling the need to comb through an op-ed from a author you don't like. But without reading it thoroughly, I don't see how you can give fair criticism of this specific piece.
I do appreciate the links, even if they aren't quite working right for me.
All of that said, I certainly don't know where COVID came from definitively. And like I said above, regardless of whether it came from Wuhan or not, their poor BSL practices should be a concern. Just like the long history of natural reservoirs of disease should be a public health concern. So really my hope is these issues get addressed as policy on the international stage, but I'm not optimistic of that. The world is very reactive in its stances.
It's all eyebrow waggle.
I have inspected the claims previously, and read a number of other sources. Chan has written incredibly similar OP-Eds and an entire book on it. I'm not dismissing it because of her part works, but because it's the same claims, repeated, apparently essentially unchanging as far as I can see. The source absolutely matters when their expertise is part of the argument. If I wrote an opinion piece on the origins of COVID, everyone should throw it in the trash, even if I had the right conclusions. Because I quit pre-med after microbio because it was the worst and got a psych degree instead.
I didn't say I hadn't read it. I said I dont think it's worth engaging with or taking seriously. I personally can't provide skilled criticism, but instead I provided expert sources who can and are addressing the claims. Several things she says are factually false. Either she's remaining ignorant which means she's not staying current on the evidence and research, or she's lying. Either way, my evaluation of the source material is that it's of poor academic quality.
I provided several scholarly papers that look at all the evidence on origins and do not come to her conclusions. That matters much more to me than a wink and a nudge.
I don't even have an opinion about viral research. Probably it needs to be more secure but also, I doubt I actually understand the different protocols involved and what is actually necessary vs what sounds scary. Because my research work was not in that area, I'll leave that to the immunologist/virologist/evolutionary biologist/science people.
To be clear, I read the publication you posted, and I agree with it. Specifically:
And
I was never intending to debate the merits of either argument. What I was highlighting is the fact that people were making statements and assertions without sufficient care to make their point particularly well, and from what I could see, were dismissing the op-ed without addressing its actual content.
But I do work with science and medical research and perhaps my work life is setting unrealistic expectations for forum discussions. I expect arguments to check certain boxes, whether they support my view or not.
I want to be clear, it's not about agreeing with the source, it's about evaluating the source and deciding whether it's worthwhile in the first place. If it were my OP-Ed, I'd expect it to be ignored out of hand. Regardless of whether I was "right".
Alina Chan does not have the credibility to me any longer nor to many of her peers from what I'm gathering. If she cannot do basic fact checking, or worse chooses not to, i certainly can't trust her to make compelling arguments.
Idk if that's not rigorous enough for you, but that's not just blowing it off because I don't like the conclusion. It's a reliability vs validity issue. And she lacks the latter.
The issue here is that some of the points in the op-ed cite sources, including high quality peer reviewed journals. So personally, it does feel a little baby with the bathwater to say all the points should be ignored. Many of them are well supported, even if I think the op-ed presents them too strongly, as in the case of the research being done at Wuhan.
I would also worry that by dismissing all the points made you feed into the unhealthy aspects of the lab leak narrative, i.e., the conspiracy theorists. Nothing seems to give them more fuel than the general discounting of things that are actually true, because it gives them an ace in the hole to fall back on in losing arguments.
Just my two cents though.
Sure but I have reviewed the evidence before from more reliable sources. I'm not saying everything she says is wrong, I'm saying if she outright lies, I'm not going to consider her overall argument persuasive.
I don't see any evidence that debunking conspiracy theories line by line changes their mind. But thankfully others have done it for her work in the past and, in the posts I linked, to this one.
Similarly, if my actions as a random person on the internet embolden the conspiracy theorists, I feel like anything will and that's on them. Plenty of experts have been plenty thorough.
Well, to each their own. I guess I just don't see the conspiracy theorists in this thread or get the overall point. That said, I don't use Twitter, or Blue sky, or Facebook, or Instagram, or wherever these folks are and don't engage with them on a regular basis.
When I read a serious argument, meaning real effort went into formulating it, and I disagree enough to publicly rebut, I put in the time and effort to state its points, state my disagreement, and cite my primary sources.
That, I think, is the disconnect. We are approaching this discussion from very different sets of experiences on the topic and levels of exposure to conspiracy theorists.
It's now established that the furin cleavage site is not unique to SARS-COV-2 among bat betacoronaviruses.
I suspect as cataloging of corona viruses from these natural reservoirs increases we will likely find that the corona virus isn't particularly unique along several interesting dimensions. Thanks for the link!
Setting aside the disingenuous and blatantly political reasons people may have been advocating for one side or the other, I think the answer here is concern over racist, jingoistic mob attacks and vigilante "justice". Without the lab leak theory being considered most likely, Asians were attacked without provocation, treated differently and even killed. Now imagine how much worse it would have been had the lab leak been accepted at the time? I think it is very reasonable to have approached the situation with extreme caution for the safety of many. Also, there is an international relations aspect to it where accusing another country of something that makes them look bad (even if true) will not make them more cooperative at a time when cooperation was of utmost importance.
For the record, I think it's become clear that the the lab leak theory is more plausible than originally expected but I came away thinking it wasn't a slam dunk and alternatives are still as plausible. There was a series of YouTube video debates someone had posted that showed quite a lot of good evidence on both sides that I found very interesting.
Even before the pandemic, violence against AAPI people was escalating. It was to the point that my husband was afraid of being attacked on the street by himself, and he is a fairly big man. In the early days of the pandemic the conspiracy that COCID was a Chinese bioweapon was huge, to the point I am honestly impressed that there are people who can talk about the lab leak hypothesis without knowing about it. But I guess they had the luxury of not having to worry about their loved ones being attacked on the street.
More than anything, though, I cannot think of a single reason why it would actually matter if the hypothesis is true or not. Since we do not know the exact failures that would have caused the leak to begin with, there is no problem to fix. Any positive outcomes are a stretch while talking about this only goes to reinforce the opinions of the conspiracy theorists and make the world a slightly worse place. It all sucks.
Sorry, but this is not a valid argument in the face of a global threat that killed millions and disrupted life in ways that were previously unseen.
There is at concrete danger from the type of research likely done in Wuhan and that is viruses being artificially cultivated to be more contagious in order to study their effect. The reason I heard why the lab hypothesis is controversial is that people interested in continuing this research—both in the West and in China—want to downplay the threat to protect their area of research.
This issue being turned into racist attacks is monumentally stupid but it can’t protect the Chinese government from blame for stonewalling the investigation to save face.
Suppose that as soon as COVID was on anyone's radar that the Chinese government came out publicly and admitted it was the result of a containment breach; what do you think would have been different? At least in the US, Trump seemed pretty open to that possibility fairly early on, and I'd imagine most other heads of state would have considered the possibility at least privately, so it seems unlikely that there would be any major differences in foreign policy. Even if the global public knew for certain that it was lab-made, do you really think that public sentiment particularly in the US and Europe, would have any influence on the Chinese government's decision to continue this sort of experimentation?
Beyond that I don't see how the virus's origins would affect public health policies.
Hypothetically, it would be the second incident in two decades linked to an accidental release of biohazardous material from a lab. This would suggest stricter protocols regarding facility siting, effluent decontamination, and configuration management, and potentially controls over certain types of research.
Perhaps, but one would hope that if it were a lab leak then China would already be implementing stricter containment protocols regardless if the public were clear on that or not. I mean, there were real world consequences to this; even if it were perfectly covered up I'm sure the Chinese government would rather not have to go through this again. Also (and again) it's not like they'd be swayed by Western public opinion on the matter in either case if it were proven.
As far as Non-Chinese states go, even if it isn't a lab leak you'd think biological testing sites would be reviewing their own protocols regardless, though that may be wishful thinking. Either way, you'd have to first admit you're doing this sort of experimentation before a legislative body could review it, and I doubt any nation would be keen to do that out loud.
So again, I'm not sure what proving the lab-leak theory accomplishes in practical terms.
Absolutely. It's as important to separate people of Chinese (or Asian generally) from the actions of the Chinese state as it is to stop short of talking about reasons why the Chinese government is often a bad actor because it "feels" racist.
Real people lost real loved ones, jobs and plenty else, and while this doesn't excuse some of their actions (Trucker Convoy in Canada for example) it does provide the reasons for it.
That's the tricky issue about these kinds of discussions in social media. The ones harmed and "held accountable" most of the time are only vaguely linked to the actual provocateurs. Because the real suspects probably aren't blabbing on social media about this kind of info, and not being on social media makes you night invisible to the crowds wanting to take action.
There could be some conspiracy on suppression, but hanlons razor simply says that social media companies don't want a repeat of the Boston bomber debacle on Reddit. Social media is not a proper investigative unit.
To be more specific than nothis's answer below: The Wuhan laboratory is not rated to conduct the type of research that would have created COVID. It would be invaluable to know the origin in a lab leak scenario when it would implicate China in lax research procedures and ultimately hold the government, as funder and regulator of the lab, responsible. This would ultimately cement the perception of China as a sort of "Wild West" where regulations are only an after thought, see: genetically engineered babies, rampant patent infringement, baby formula adulteration and counterfeiting, etc.
Having said all that, I'd like to go on the record as supporting Zoonosis as the origin of the virus but questioning and investigating a potential lab leak was ultimately the correct course of action
I agree that keeping things cool is a good motivation for political leadership to avoid any kind of controversy, especially in a crisis, and perhaps they just failed to do with any kind of savvy or nuance.
It's the rank and file folks like us that I'm having trouble understanding their vehemence against the lab leak idea, resistance which persists. Maybe it's an unfortunate association early on with right wink conspiracy folks? That's sad if true.
I mean, there's no question that governments have fooled around with bioweapons. It seems to defy belief that governments are not still researching them, even if they are on the moral high ground and the research is truly and purely intended for threat response purposes.
It also defies belief that there will not ever be accidental, purely innocent, leaks of highly infections biological agents (indeed it has happened repeatedly already), and that eventually, one of those will cause real, global consequences.
Simply by definition, the lab leak idea is as plausible (if not necessarily as likely) as natural origin of infection number one. If it's true that available evidence somewhat favors natural origins (I tend to think it slightly does), that is only a comment on available evidence. There is a lot of evidence deliberately withheld, and it is very much the kind of evidence which would tend to show the likelihood of lab leaks.
Sorry for the rant, this issue does incite my passion. One, I studied this stuff in grad school. Two, it really matters about how to prepare and prevent the next pandemic to understand how this one happened. And three, humanity needs to rise above the baloney.
It's partly because "virus engineered in a lab escapes containment and causes a pandemic that kills millions" is a tired Hollywood plot that strained credulity back when Stephen King used it.
It also plays right into the obsessive need many people seem to have to pin everything bad that happens in the world on the direct agency of humans, and specifically humans with whom we have political beef. Economic crashes can't happen just because markets and economies are immensely complex and dynamic systems, it has to be the Global Zionist Cabal™ trying to control the gentiles. Viruses can't just jump willy-nilly across species, the implications are too scary. Must have been the Chinese. Everybody knows their quality control standards are lax (which is why we have them manufacture everything, I guess?).
I'm in no way qualified to judge the strength of the claims on either side in this debate, but I know which sounds more plausible to me based on my experience of the world, and the Stephen King plot ain't it.
Exactly this. There's a lot of emphasis to find blame and to describe human agency (or hubris) as the source of so many troubles. Yet things do happen outside of human control and there are so many things we just have a rudimentary understanding of and yet try to summarize that knowledge in a form that suggests we know more than we do.
As a comparable example, HIV is believed to have come from a mutation of a virus transmitted by primates in West Africa. There are all kinds of apocryphal stories that are complete fiction about how that happened. But evidence suggests that primate-to-human transmission happened well before most people started hearing about HIV in the media. And HIV, of which there are two variants, is probably the result of a mutation from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), which humans have also been known to contract from time to time (also due to unsanitary practices around other species). But the mutation that specifically became HIV is the one that's really dangerous to humans because we know that's the one that's prevalent and, just like the initial SARS-COV-2 is the coronavirus variant that's become obviously dangerous to humans even though there had been a couple earlier outbreaks (the first SARS as well as MERS) that there was very little impetus to follow up on aside from some very specialized groups and agencies. Though someone did and warned about it in this publication dated October 2013:
The Wikipedia page suggests that not only has SIV/HIV jumped between species multiple times, but that SIV has lingered in primate populations for many times longer than recorded human history. It's entirely possible that a coronavirus capable of mutating and binding to cell receptors in humans was similarly lingering in the wild for quite some time, occasionally bouncing back and forth between species co-habitating an area or butchered in the same wet market. The publication on bats with coronaviruses certainly seems like evidence that these zoonotic viruses are transmissible.
In the end, zoonotic diseases are things that we're just started to research and put the pieces together not just in terms of human genetics, but in broader genetic terms which will also give us a better understanding of how interconnected ecosystems are (as well as their -- and our -- vulnerabilities). Racing to conclusions that fit a specific narrative view, while ignoring comparable circumstances and other possibilities, really isn't doing anyone any good.
This is a sensationalized version of, "pandemic was caused by the inadvertent release of a virus under study."
I know the linked post includes information that suggests some degree of engineering may have occurred on the covid-19, however, that's not required for the leak to be the initial infection vector, espeically given that it would hardly be the first time a dangerous contagion leaked from a lab.
I think this goes too far and I’d like to put a good word in for curiosity. The origin of the pandemic is a fascinating scientific mystery and of course people are interested! This story has it all. (That’s why people make movies about it too.)
A good teacher could probably do a lot, building on that basic motivation. But unfortunately, for many people, being curious about a subject doesn’t result in becoming more informed.
When the public gets interested in a question, the results can be frustrating. There’s a lot of noise. But there is good info out there too.
This is actually a large part of it. The right-wing pseudoscience and quack solutions largely started out from legitimate therorizing and experimentation. Ivermectin, for example, was part of an an experiment trying to identify a protocol to treat severe cases, but the protocol was ineffective (it was ivermectin, some antibiotic to account for immune-suppression and a retroantiviral IIRC).
There were legitimate inquests into various lab leak hypotheses as well, but similarly to the CDC dropping the ball on initial communications, bad science reporting fueled conspiratorial thinking about it. Combined with American political turmoil that led to the US having huge issues with conspiracies, and their export to other countries.
I am having trouble with this too, also a bit of an emotional reaction. It's also odd to me the number of comments on Tildes that are against a lab leak theory. My opinion is pretty much 99% certainty that it was a lab leak due to human error (still just my opinion, I know). Also, isn't human error slightly less terrifying?
Some of my thoughts from the past few years:
China and India are both known as countries where one can outsource medical research if the rules in one's own country are too strict.
The US has admitted to funding research about coronaviruses in Wuhan.
Yunnan and Laos both have towns that are solidly in what is known as the golden triangle, this area is not only known for being a massive drug production area (opium and meth), but also for: money laundering, gambling, human trafficking, call center scamming, sale of endangered wildlife, and human organ trafficking. Basically, you can't really trust what anyone says about these areas because they are about as minimally governed and corrupt as anywhere can be.
Both of these areas are mountainous, and generally difficult to traverse outside of major cities and roads, i.e. people aren't going to easily stumble across coronavirus infected bats, unless they are actually looking for them.
The cold chain in Laos is laughable, I can't see the transfer of coronavirus infected bat's being much more secure.
Laos didn't have its first real outbreak of covid until a year or so in...when police illegally snuck an infected Lao national back into the country from Thailand. So again, how does it go from bats to humans, if it's not even going from bats to humans in one of the regions the bats are from?
I know everyone thinks it sounds like the start to a zombie movie, but google these (might end up on a list) towns: Bokeo and Mongla; and Kings Roman Group. If anything, it's the perfect region to set the opening of a zombie pandemic Hollywood movie.
The consensus among researchers is that it was not a lab leak. That's why so many of us don't believe it's a lab leak. Just because this one person--who has been criticized by other researchers ever since covid started--still thinks that it was a lab leak doesn't mean that it was a lab leak.
Plus there are multiple people in here sharing links to things by immunologists talking about why this article's claims are completely bogus.
The consensus is that the evidence available for review falls significantly toward an animal to human infection causing the outbreak. A major problem with then leaping to “It was not a lab leak” is that a lot of really important data and evidence has been intentionally hidden/withheld/removed/destroyed by the Chinese government. There is also a strong incentive, perhaps well intententioned at least in some cases, for the answer to be “not a lab leak.”
I'm not so sure that it is important to determine where this virus originated. To me, the only value finding the source would have would be if that information could inform policy improvements and cooperation around managing these pandemics globally. I think litigating it in the public sphere and in the news is unlikely to accomplish that.
We know that there are lots of ways for viruses to jump from other species to humans, just like we're seeing with H5N1 right now in the US. We had the Ebola Reston scare in the '90s, and that didn't stop people from doing virus research. It didn't even stop them from importing monkeys from the source where the infected monkeys came from. Caitlyn Rivers, an epidemiologist, did a good job of laying this position in her blog post earlier this year on , Force of Infection.
What I've learned about gaps in public health infrastructure, mostly from epidemiologists like Rivers and Dr. Jetalina at Your Local Epidemiologist , is that what we really need is more (infectious disease) surveillance, better communication the public, and for the public health industry to rebuild trust in science. A lot of the progress made during the pandemic was lost when they chose to end the state of emergency without putting other reporting requirements in place.
The other reason why I typically avoid digging into this is that the debate has significant negative consequences for people who are ethnically Chinese and have nothing to do with the Wuhan lab or public health and virus research at all. Granted this is exacerbating an underlying race issue that already existed, but the backlash against the Chinese American community during the pandemic was awful. I think it's irresponsible to do things that fuel those problems, including publishing articles like the one in the NYT that are merely suggestive without offering any real proof, even if those suggestions are made more credible by coming from voices in the scientific community.
As a former researcher (albeit not medical related), I think it's incredibly important to thoroughly investigate the root cause, if only for the lessons it might teach us.
Not investigating it, in my opinion, will only lead to more lazy xenophobia as rumours and speculation get twisted by those with an agenda to push. Having concrete evidence to point towards is crucial for avoiding that.
I agree with you that seeking a root cause as a part of improving international public health infrastructure would be an admirable goal.
I disagree that this article is doing that, because it's supporting a particular conclusion using innuendo rather than talking about how a root cause analysis could or should be done.
It is unfortunate that the U.S. (and a lot of other places) are so incredibly racist. But let's revers the facts for a second. Suppose the virus first appeared in Raleigh, NC, just down the road from UNC which is where a lot of similar research to that in WIV occurs. As a potential recipient of scorn from the Chinese, I would still say let's find out the truth of the matter. Granted, as the US is still relatively more powerful than China, our racism is potentially much more damaging. Nevertheless, truth does matter.
Also, racism aside, if China (and others) are conducting research on global pandemic-causing contagions at labs with insufficient containment protocols and gear, we really ought to know about it and start doing something to protect ourselves. And if it's even the worser case that China was performing malicious (as opposed to responsive) gain of function research, we really ought to know about it and start doing something to shut that down. And in the still worser case that China intentionally released this thing, well, we really need to be taking some serious measures to prevent that sort of thing happening (note, I am not suggesting any of things, merely trying to demonstrate why the truth of the matter is so important).
What you proposed is more like if people in Wuhan cared about getting to the bottom of COVID origin to manage or improve their reputation. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about unrelated ethnic Chinese (and many other people of Asian descent) getting death threats for something that happened half a world away.
In the role reversal you proposed, the parallel would be an American/white person living in another country with no ties to NC and no say in whether anyone in NC can or will "find out the truth of the matter", but who is also facing threats just for being white. In that framing, I don't think innuendo about the origin of COVID is any more ethical.
I agree there is progress to be made in how laboratory oversight is maintained. It would be great if we had a biological test ban treaty and everyone signed on. But the work required to do that isn't going to start from some mights and maybes in a NYT article. So I maintain my position that this is irresponsible and sensationalist. I think actually moving the conversation forward would look more like talking about the structure of the international treaty structure, how communication between labs and foreign and domestic governments is carried out, and (as I pointed out in my post) what public health reforms would prepare us best for the next outbreak, regardless of source.
On the other hand, it could be argued that it's irresponsible not to do what one would otherwise do with slightly different factors because it's for some kind of 'greater good'. In this case, it is more likely to diminish reputable organizations and people who shy away from addressing a topic that they would ordinarily address but they don't solely to avoid potentially giving some misguided people fuel for their misguided conspiracies and hatred. Granted that is an additional factor to consider when discussing what type of opinions to publish, but it shouldn't be considered to simply just be the 'greater good' with no consequences to it. I don't think that lying, hiding, or omitting discussion on possible truths to the public is an action that can be done in the service of a greater good without some potentially severe consequences. I think it's important to acknowledge that those consequences exist in order to support the notion that discussion should be omitted from the public in service of a 'greater good'.
Otherwise when that happens, instead of fueling misguided people and their misguided notions of those of Chinese ethnicity, it fuels misguided people and their now more real notions of mainstream reputable news organizations not publicizing potentially truthful information in an attempt to influence/manipulate how people think or feel about a subject. There is social harm done by this too, and what's worse, when done that way it's done through dishonesty. In this scenario, it's an action taken by people who assume ethical superiority through less ethical actions to attempt to override actions taken by a relatively small portion of people who would have approached it as ethically inferior through their prejudices. Meaning some executives at the New York Times or political representatives or public policy experts etc. decide to ignore discussion because they think it's their ethical responsibility to avoid fueling a portion of people from using it as a motivation to be racist. It's good for people to consider how their ideas may impact someone else or what reactions that it may spark, but it is ultimately THEIR reactions, not those who initially discussed a topic responsibly.
I agree with you that we should not let our discourse be held hostage by people doing terrible things.
However, I disagree that this article is an instance of "those who initially discussed a topic responsibly". I think this article is just innuendo given weight by someone with credentials. There's no evidence presented, just suggestive information meant to support a conclusion that can inflame the kinds of problems I originally posted about.
As I said in my response to the sibling comment:
I think actually moving the conversation forward would look more like talking about the structure of the international treaty structure, how communication between labs and foreign and domestic governments is carried out, and (as I pointed out in my post) what public health reforms would prepare us best for the next outbreak, regardless of source.
But there's opinion articles for things like this everywhere. Why is this one different? Would an opinion article a where it says "Why the pandemic probably started from animal to human transmission, in five key points" have the same criticism? Why is the person who writes the flip of that responsible for the misguided people who may use that speculation as fuel for their hate, but the other one is fine? To me, they're both equally approaching the topic with the same level of responsibility, which surely people will vary on what they view speculation/opinions from credentialed people or non-credentialed people as to whether they can be discussing a topic "responsibly".
https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion
Look at a lot of the topics on there, and poking in a few of the articles, they don't seem to be loaded with sources, facts and evidence, they're pretty much as labeled, opinions. Comparatively, the article posted here about the why the pandemic probably started in the lab seems to have far more sources and information to bolster its claims than several of the other opinion articles I looked at.
So when is it OK to have opinions on some things and not other things? Granted, I do believe there is a line and it's not that straightforward to just say anyone can speculate on whatever they want on any platform they want, but it's not like this person that authored this article is not just anyone (meaning not just some random blogger, doomsday prepper or conspiracy theorist who spends all day focusing on rare hypotheticals or spewing bullshit online).
The notion that there's some reason to avoid conversation on this specific topic but not the many others that are happening only serves to bolster conspiracy theorists and the people who have a persistent desire to feel they're exposing some grand conspiracy or just people who persistently feel they're being oppressed by imaginary figures that don't exist. Granted I don't think it's necessarily worth engaging in a conversation with someone on a topic where the string has run out, at some point it may only legitimize their delusions to keep arguing but once the debate is already out there you can just keep referring them to the arguments already made, rather than saying you're taking the high road and never having made the arguments to begin with.
And it's no wonder why the world is chock full of people who hold basic, ignorant misunderstandings about hot topics. Trans healthcare, geopolitics, COVID, Gaza - you have people who are either unrelated or adjacent to the fields in question laying out essentially baseless claims using language that makes it seem factual. An opinion piece should be very clearly an opinion, something both the NYT and other publications across the political spectrum routinely forgo.
It's always okay to have an opinion. It's not okay to try and make a career out of spreading misinformation from the very start of the pandemic and then framing your point of view as an "opinion". This author has been debunked since the first time she engaged in conversation but has, like pretty much every grifter, simply ignored her detractors and continued on because she knows people who don't know any better will read her article and take her word for it without doing a single Google search.
I read the NYT daily, though not often their opinion pieces. They put "opinion" in capital red block letters with the title of the piece, and again at the bottom of the article. I've never been confused on the app or with the physical paper about what was news and what was opinion.
I can't even begin to count the amount of articles my family shares with big red "OPINION" letters in the title while taking the contents as fact. This happens and it happens so often I get into regular arguments with relatives over it.
It is my firm belief that an op-ed should be much more obvious. "In my view...", "It is my belief that...", "In my experience...". There really is no excuse not to include this kind of language. Maybe I am uniquely affected because my family isn't very media literate, but we gain nothing by letting people publish whatever they want in the news so long as they put "opinion" in the title.
There is a bar to clear to publish an opinion piece in the NYT, and many opinion pieces do use that language, though others do not.
I think publishing well thought out persuasive essays and opinions is important to public discourse. The fact that the US struggles with information literacy and numeracy is a problem, and I'm all for more explicit disclaimers.
That said, the NYT is one of the better outlets at separating news from opinion.
Bottom line, because this one got posted to Tildes. If this is normative for NYT opinion, then that's probably a good reason for me to continue not reading the NYT opinion section. Here on Tildes, we can have the wider conversation, which in this case, is to acknowledge the social consequences of asking these questions in the US. From reading some of the other threads, it appears that neither of us is alone in our views.
For one, you've posed a hypothetical "other side" argument, so we can speculate any level of responsibility we want for that. In this case, I think I'm unlikely to agree with an "it's reasonable to argue both sides equally" view precisely because the zoonosis argument isn't feeding conspiracy and hate.
The narrowness of this article is the irresponsible part to me, even an as an opinion piece. If someone wants to have the whole conversation about public health needs, by all means, include a discussion of the origin of the virus. But a piece that only touches on the part that feeds the conspiracy stuff without even acknowledging any other part of it? Even if they don't want to strawman the zoonosis argument, they can talk about what might be (responsibly) done if one were to draw the conclusion that this came from a lab. But there's none of that. Just innuendo.
It's hard for me to believe that is done in good faith and not intentionally feeding the conspiracy. Doubly so because this person is "credentialed". I'm not surprised that it happened. It does happen a lot. But just because it's common doesn't make it acceptable to me.
Fauci Says the Idea That He Covered Up a Lab Leak Is ‘Preposterous’ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/science/fauci-hearing-covid-origins.html
This has info about the sustained witch hunt Republicans have been undertaking because Fauci dared to try to keep people alive.
This is a well drafted essay from a reasonably serious and credible source - researcher at MIT and Harvard joint lab.
I have always held and promoted the idea that the most likely source of the virus was the lab, although I am the first to point out I am just some guy. However, I had reasons for my opinion: the coincidences were too numerous and too highly aligned to ignore, and the opinions pushing against the theory were overly vociferous and from sources with strong incentives for their opinion to be right. That, and I never found their analyses to be overly rigorous, and for every statistical outcome which I couldn't follow, there were smart people pointing out the flaws. [For the record, I did well in my biostatistics studies in graduate school, but haven't used them much lo these many years].
What surprised me the most, however, was how many in my various communities, including tildes, were resistant to the idea of the lab leak, and how vociferous they were in shouting me down (except on tildes, of course). It felt frustrating, and I concluded that there was an almost dogmatic pressure for the lab leak theory to be wrong. I still don't understand where that comes from, maybe it's a need for science, and by extension, scientists, to be safe?
In any event, I have noticed a growing willingness to explore and promulgate the quite sensible idea that the virus came from a lab, in very close proximity to the first publicly identified cases, which was researching exactly the same kind of unique virus as drove the pandemic It's unfortunate that the vanguard are otherwise politically problematic, but I think we should look very seriously at every reasonable possibility, and not rule any out until we have really definitive evidence. More importantly, given the global scale of the damages, it's really important to get this right. The obfuscation and research resistance given by so many parties is highly irresponsible in this case. There is continuing risk of a repeat, we need to spend serious time and effort to understand and learn from all this.
The main reason people wanted to shut down the talk of lab leaks was that in the beginning, lab leak theories were closely tied to racism, and increased acts of violence against Asian people in Western countries. Doesn't make it right, but it is likely the main reason.
That’s accurate but it’s funny to me because the wet market explanation where diseased bats / pangolins / dogs / raccoons are sold for food seems way more blatantly racist than a laboratory containment failure.
A lot of the most racist "lab leak" theories took it a lot further than just "containment failure", which helped.
"Lab Leak or Not? How Politics Shaped the Battle Over Covid’s Origin"
by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Benjamin Mueller
A lab leak was once dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory. But the idea is gaining traction, even as evidence builds that the virus emerged from a market.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/18498/
I haven't read this, but I thought at least the fact that it exists may help to explain your experience discussing this topic. Here is what Fauci had to say about it in his testimony earlier this year:
I'll also share here the last time COVID's origin was discussed on Tildes:
https://tildes.net/~health/1f9j/i_watched_fifteen_hours_of_covid_origins_arguments_so_you_dont_have_to
Thank you for linking to that post, I was trying to find it but was having trouble. Fantastic article btw, and I think it makes the case that the virus came from animal origin, while not delving into the politicized debate of it all.
Just because they're a "credible source" does not mean they are a credible source. From Dr. Chan's Wikipedia page:
I can only speak to my two fold reluctance to accept a lab leak theory without a smoking gun:
In this case, that is not actually true. A coverup has occurred. All the necessary information to identify a smoking gun is largely internal to China, whose government operates an effective censorship apparatus. That apparatus indeed activated, and a lot of data which could quickly exonerate the lab, and/or provide seriously damning evidence, was deliberately destroyed, censored, or obfuscated.
I don’t have time to fact check everything but this article is weak and the final infographic is, at best, out right misleading
Assuming you are referring to the "missing data" table at the end, what rows would you add? I also assume you are not disputing the yes's/no's.
One I would like to see is something like, "Reasonable statistical analysis of early individual infections lead to gegraphical epicenter" and I assume there are others.
I arguably am disputing them. This week is hell on wheels for me, but to not even mention that there has been a massive amount of research and discussion about the Tanuki in relation to COVID-19 is just not ok given that infographic. For her sources she cites a WHO paper from 2021 when the recent tanuki information is from 22 or 23.
Now on the one hand, I do not believe we are 100% sure it came from the Tanuki's at this point, as it requires some low chance events happening. And science is complicated ESPECIALLY cross species science in a country that is maybe not the most open about its data before they were accused of bio-engineering a weapon.
On the other hand, as a scientist, her not disclosing what animals we do think it came from, and instead actually portraying it so blatantly in some yes/no chart, is frankly misleading to the point that I seriously doubt the integrity and motive of this article.
Assertion without evidence is a lie, even if it turns out to be true in the end.
This is how conspiracy theories have always started. Assertion without evidence where someone comes after the assertion to string together various points of data that fit.
I get where your coming from, but respectfully disagree. Assertions are always the beginning of inquiry. Scientifically, we reformulate assertions as null hypotheses which we then seek to disprove. But they are still assertions.
Truth is important, and because truth, or its pursuit, leads to unfortunate outcomes is no reason to leave it behind.
Even some so called “conspiracy theories” are true, and official stories often false.
Also, it is important to neither promulgate an assertion as true, nor to assume one making an assertion believes it to be true in that moment. Throughout this saga, sober folks have made the claim, “it looks like there could have been a lab leak,” and all kinds of people have heard them saying “China has bio-engineered a virus weapon!” Worse, without comment on the lab leak, folks have pointed out flaws in some assertion or other in an argument about purely natural vectors, only to be shouted down and labeled “conspiracy theorists.”
I appreciate your feedback on what I said, and I too understand where you're coming from.
I agree that assertions can be the starting point for the beginning of inquiry. However, that's not the kind I'm talking about and I should have clarified. Many people, especially conspiracy theorists, do not care about the scientific method, nor are they willing to reject their assertions when presented with evidence that contradicts it. Instead they twist what they can, ignore what they can't explain, and turn to personal attacks and accusations of collusion when they are backed into a corner.
My point is that even if something that started as an assertion without evidence is later discovered to be true, the people claiming it to be true had no evidence at the time, and we're therefore lying if they told people that it was true.
There is a huge difference between saying "I think something could be true, so I will look for evidence to confirm or reject that assertion" and saying "this thing is true, and any doubters are in a league against me just because they ask for evidence I can't provide".