On the lab leak theory

[Ken Fabian]

If we are chasing conspiracies, maybe it was developed in the USA on President Trump's order and deliberately released in Wuhan at the wet market near the lab ahead of the President's accusation/suggestion it came from the Wuhan lab. China would be hurt by the virus and by the accusation and America would be fine, having the world's best healthcare system and America will be great again... 😉 There is as much evidence for that theory as for Alfred's "must have come from the Wuhan Lab" theory - more "evidence", since we know Donald Trump could, unlike the scientists in Wuhan, be capable of that level of dangerous stupidity.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[Arete]

7 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

Can you give a source on that? Not that I think you're making ti up, I'd just like to read it.

On 12/4/2022 at 6:50 AM, Arete said:

"Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009)"

It should also be noted that actual spillover event and potential to infect are not the same. The sarbecovirus ancestor of SARS COV 2 can be cultured in human and bat cells, so can in theory infect humans, meaning that SARS COV 2 could very likely could infect humans at the split from its ancestor decades ago, but the environmental conditions for a spillover/pandemic did not exist prior to 2020.  

This is additional empirical evidence that contradicts the lab leak theory. 

I recently resigned from my tenure track position and took a government role in biosecurity/disease preparedness. The number of pathogens that can infect humans, but either don't or rarely spillover is very large. 

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, Arete said:

I recently resigned from my tenure track position and took a government role in biosecurity/disease preparedness. The number of pathogens that can infect humans, but either don't or rarely spillover is very large. 

Indeed. Basically any folks with extended contact with animals are at risk of zoonotic spillover. One very common zoonotic disease is toxoplasmosis. Around 11% of the population 6 years and older have it in the US. In Irish farmers that level is around 70%. Farmers are also exposed to many other zoonotic infections with high frequencies including Coxiella burnetii, Borrelia burgdorferi or Leptospira interrogans. 

Also with regards to gain of function research, the term is not that well defined, and in the broadest sense could include any genetic manipulation of pathogens (animal or human). In that sense almost all microbial and virological lab, including the one in Wuhan would fall under it. In the strictest sense, which is under more scrutiny is to do specific manipulations which are expected to allow or enhance pathogenic interactions with humans. That type of research was not part of the research done in that lab (according to NIH reports, that is).

[Alfred001]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:05 PM, exchemist said:

No it isn’t.

I'm assuming this was directed at the monkeys with typewriters comparison to your earlier example, so how are they distinct?

On 12/26/2022 at 11:38 PM, Arete said:

"Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009)"

Thanks, this is strong evidence against the engineered in the lab theory.

On 12/26/2022 at 11:38 PM, Arete said:

It should also be noted that actual spillover event and potential to infect are not the same. The sarbecovirus ancestor of SARS COV 2 can be cultured in human and bat cells, so can in theory infect humans, meaning that SARS COV 2 could very likely could infect humans at the split from its ancestor decades ago, but the environmental conditions for a spillover/pandemic did not exist prior to 2020.  

This is additional empirical evidence that contradicts the lab leak theory. 

Actually, this only contradicts the engineered in the lab theory, not the leaked from the lab theory. But since we now know there are many such labs in China, there's no strong reason any more to assume it did leak from a lab, though it's still a possibility.

I'm still interested, however, in the hypothetical probability debate - why you guys didn't think, under the original premise (3 labs, and if we assume the ability to infect humans is novel), that it would clearly be a leak.

On 12/26/2022 at 11:38 PM, Arete said:

I recently resigned from my tenure track position and took a government role in biosecurity/disease preparedness. The number of pathogens that can infect humans, but either don't or rarely spillover is very large. 

Again, this goes in favor of the lab leak theory. (which I no longer strongly believe)

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, Alfred001 said:

I'm assuming this was directed at the monkeys with typewriters comparison to your earlier example, so how are they distinct?

Thanks, this is strong evidence against the engineered in the lab theory.

Actually, this only contradicts the engineered in the lab theory, not the leaked from the lab theory. But since we now know there are many such labs in China, there's no strong reason any more to assume it did leak from a lab, though it's still a possibility.

I'm still interested, however, in the hypothetical probability debate - why you guys didn't think, under the original premise (3 labs, and if we assume the ability to infect humans is novel), that it would clearly be a leak.

Again, this goes in favor of the lab leak theory. (which I no longer strongly believe)

The probability of a new zoonotic disease being found at a random place is whatever it is. Whether there is a virus lab there or not has no effect on that probability, any more than finding it in a place with a river, or a place where the buses are red.  Monkey and typewriters is a complete non-analogy as far as this is concerned.   

[Arete]

12 hours ago, Alfred001 said:

Again, this goes in favor of the lab leak theory. (which I no longer strongly believe)

I would strongly disagree. The fact that pathogens with the ability to infect humans circulate in zoonotic reservoirs, and spillover events regularly occur means that spillover from a zoonotic reservoir is more likely than escape from a lab in the case of any novel pathogenic strain of a virus. 

For example, my lab works on avian influenza, many samples of which came from the wetland down the street. If (well, when) someone in town catches AI, why would its presence in the local wetland increase the likelihood of escape from a PC3 lab vs environmental acquisition from a known pathogen reservoir? 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Arete

[Alfred001]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:15 PM, exchemist said:

The probability of a new zoonotic disease being found at a random place is whatever it is. Whether there is a virus lab there or not has no effect on that probability, any more than finding it in a place with a river, or a place where the buses are red.  Monkey and typewriters is a complete non-analogy as far as this is concerned.   

Well, that's not true. The presence of the lab doing that kind of research certainly increases the probability.

As for the monkeys and typewriters, how is it not analogous?

You're saying it's just as likely to occur at any place, whether it has a lab or not, so how is this different than saying that a monkey typing up antidisestablishmentarianism is no less likely than any other equally long string of random letters, because what difference does it make that it happens to mean something in English?

On 12/29/2022 at 12:40 AM, Arete said:

I would strongly disagree. The fact that pathogens with the ability to infect humans circulate in zoonotic reservoirs, and spillover events regularly occur means that spillover from a zoonotic reservoir is more likely than escape from a lab in the case of any novel pathogenic strain of a virus. 

For example, my lab works on avian influenza, many samples of which came from the wetland down the street. If (well, when) someone in town catches AI, why would its presence in the local wetland increase the likelihood of escape from a PC3 lab vs environmental acquisition from a known pathogen reservoir? 

Because it means this could have happened anywhere on Earth, yet it happened in one of relatively few places where there's also a lab it could have escaped from.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Alfred001

[PhilGeis]

Both FBI and DoE reviews offered as probable the "lab leak" source based on their review.  

Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

[John Cuthber]

16 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

Which would be the appropriate  control measures for a bat virus, and vastly more than those in a wet market.

[PhilGeis]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Which would be the appropriate  control measures for a bat virus, and vastly more than those in a wet market.

So what? Not aware the virus was not found in the wet market.

Again FBI and DoE both cite the lab as the probably source.

Edited March 3, 2023 by PhilGeis

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

Both FBI and DoE reviews offered as probable the "lab leak" source based on their review.  

Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

As I am sure you know BSL2 is more enhanced than a regular 101 (which generally are BSL1). And most animal viruses work (that are not known to infect humans) are handled at BSL2 containment levels. 

FBI and DoE both are swinging towards lab leak as the probable source with low to moderate confidence (indicating lack of evidence), whereas four other agencies swing toward natural exposure (also low confidence) and three further which are undecided.

So basically we do not know. I am not too surprised that FBI and DoE are thinking more in terms of lab-leak as they are more in tune with specifically these types of risk.

[Janus]

3 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

Both FBI and DoE reviews offered as probable the "lab leak" source based on their review.  

 

The key issue here is, what do they mean by "probable"? It does not necessarily mean the same as "probably".  There is a difference between saying "It is probable that I will be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow, and saying "I will probably be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow"  The first just means that there is a non-zero probability that it will occur, and the second implies a good probability that it will occur.

In addition, for quite a while now, intelligence reports and reviews have been split into categories: High confidence, Moderate confidence, and Low confidence, depending on the reliability of the information and sources.

From my understanding, these  particular reviews are in the Low confidence category.

So "probable" used in a Low confidence report is not something I'd be willing to hang my hat on.

[John Cuthber]

43 minutes ago, PhilGeis said:

Not aware the virus was not found in the wet market.

Did they look at the right time, i.e. before they knew there was an outbreak?
Did they look in the right place, i.e. at every (susceptible) animal there?

One odd case in some animal that passed the bug to a store-holder before becoming someone's cooked dinner would be all it took.

Obviously, you can't rule out a lab mistake as the "source" but you have to ask how the virus got into the lab.
It must have been in the environment somewhere.
How easy is it to rule out the idea that, rather than coming from the lab, it came from the tyre of the car that carried the sample to the lab?

Lab escapes happen. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak
And they knew they were dealing with a dangerous (Cat 3, I think) organism.

The only way in which you can "blame China" is if you can be sure that they deliberately made a lethal human pathogen in what is- as you say- pretty much a school laboratory.
 

Edited March 3, 2023 by John Cuthber

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, Janus said:

The key issue here is, what do they mean by "probable"? It does not necessarily mean the same as "probably".  There is a difference between saying "It is probable that I will be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow, and saying "I will probably be hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow"  The first just means that there is a non-zero probability that it will occur, and the second implies a good probability that it will occur.

I think, that they do not assign probability, it is more likely an assessment of whether natural or wet market exposure is more likely or lab leak. The low confidence indicates that the evidence level for the decision is low. 

[TheVat]

Everything I've seen so far suggests that the low confidence lab leak theory is being promoted in intelligence reports from intelligence officers, and not papers from epidemiologists or virologists.  When you look at all the reports directly from scientists in relevant fields, they all state a much higher probability to the spillover theory.  If the media is going to jump to a lab leak theory due to scientists at the DOE weighing in, an agency that runs labs like Livermore and AFAIK no bio labs, that seems like a stretch.  And the FBI, while it does in fact have access to a bio lab at Fort Detrick, MD, that's just a unit with specialists in forensic research, and not epidemiology/virology.  There is a virology unit at Ft. Detrick, but I don't think it is run by the FBI.  It is strange that most of the "breaking news" on this seems to be coming from Right-Wing or RW-leaning media, news outlets that have previously fed a variety of Yellow Peril theories to their subscribers/watchers.  For example, when I look at a more neutral news source, like NPR, their stories mention that the vast majority of the scientific community do not see the lab leak theory as supported by evidence and as far lower probability than the spillover theory.  

This bias in some media seems to have led to a cadre of bloggers and trolls who attack anyone who is dubious about the lab leak theory as "close-minded" and "opposed to science because you won't wait for more evidence."  The problem is, the initial outbreak happened in an authoritarian dictatorship, so it seems really unlikely that there will be "more evidence" forthcoming that could either support or negate the lab leak theory.  And the fact that spillover from zoonotic reservoirs is common and well-documented means that the Ockham's Razor candidate for strongest theory will likely remain the spillover theory.  Nothing will ever be proved beyond a doubt, and that will feed the conspiracy nuts for years.  

 

 

[CharonY]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/who-deeply-frustrated-by-lack-of-us-transparency-on-covid-origin-data/

Quote

The DOE's "low confidence" assessment also doesn't lend the investigations the "momentum" that some lawmakers seem to suggest. The US intelligence community's standards for confidence in assessments, laid out in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE 2007) Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, explained that a "low confidence" assessment:

generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

Even if such an assessment was weightier, the DOE's lean toward the lab leak hypothesis is still a minority view within the US intelligence community. Of nine intelligence community entities that have reviewed SARS-CoV-2 origin data, only two—the DOE and the FBI—have tilted toward a lab leak. Five favor the hypothesis of a natural "spillover" event from wild animals (four agencies and the National Intelligence Council), while the remaining two entities say there is not enough data to sway opinions toward either hypothesis.

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

Both FBI and DoE reviews offered as probable the "lab leak" source based on their review.  

Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

Which lab? I read that there are two in Wuhan. 

[iNow]

We’re never going to know for sure which origin hypothesis is exactly correct. I’m uncertain, though, why this is the issue getting everyone agitated?

Wet market. Lab leak. Both should be made safer as a good general practice, but in terms of the origin of SARS-Cov2, who cares? None of these agencies are saying it was deliberate or for militaristic reasons.

Of all the lessons humanity needs to learn after this pandemic, I don’t feel that even makes the Top 10 list. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by iNow

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Of all the lessons humanity needs to learn after this pandemic, I don’t feel that even makes the Top 10 list. 

I am not sure that during this pandemic (or any of the previous pandemics for that matter) lessons were really learned. We just keep on failing the class. 

[iNow]

Hang Tony Fauci! 

Yeah. Pretty much. We’re obviously still failing, too. 

[mistermack]

22 hours ago, Janus said:

The key issue here is, what do they mean by "probable"?

Agreed. But the other key issue is who can you believe? Even if the FBI had clear information, I wouldn't trust what they announced. Is their number one priority the truth, or political gain? 

I would put very low value on what they said. All it tells you is what they would like you to believe. And I can work that one out for myself. 

They will obviously not state something that can be easily shot down by the press, so they carefully word the statement to give a desired impression, while being non committal. 

And likewise with the Chinese. 

Edit to add : Just a thought about the Chinese though. If the source WAS their laboratory, you would think that they would have known much earlier how dangerous the virus was, and would have reacted much faster, and closed down the area much more effectively. That seems to point to it NOT being lab-generated. 

It's a tragedy really that the Chinese didn't nip it in the bud, by an efficient enforced lockdown. The early variants of the virus responded well to total lockdown, because they weren't so infectious as later ones. Every new variant has been more infectious than the last, making lockdown pointless later. But right at the start, it could easily have been eliminated.

Edited March 4, 2023 by mistermack

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

Agreed. But the other key issue is who can you believe? Even if the FBI had clear information, I wouldn't trust what they announced. Is their number one priority the truth, or political gain? 

 

What is the political gain you see here? Is it to the Democratic party because Trump was in office during the outbreak? Is it to the US because America benefits some how if China is responsible? Or is it to the FBI in some way?

[mistermack]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Is it to the US because America benefits some how if China is responsible?

Of course. It damages the international reputation of China if they caused covid by developing harmful new virus variants. And also casts doubt on the quality of their science and technology. 

It might or might not be true, but it's exactly what I would expect the FBI to say, whichever is the case. 

[CharonY]

None of the groups are considering lab developed viruses as a realistic option. It is about accidental leaks.

[mistermack]

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

None of the groups are considering lab developed viruses as a realistic option. It is about accidental leaks.

Accidental leaks of what?