The only thing I find somewhat frustrating about this is that lab leak is nearly impossible to disprove. Because even if you can convince folks that the science shows it was natural in origin, that still doesn't mean it wasn't being studied in a lab somewhere.<p>I agree with the other commenter who says that "it's a good idea to review and possibly improve biolab safety protocols and also to end wet markets as the latter were obviously a biohazard even before the pandemic." I see at least some discussion of the former, but almost none of the latter. Is there anything we can do about wet markets? Use trade negotiations as leverage? I don't even see a discussion.
Standard reminder that it took years to find SARS. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9</a><p>There are lots and lots of bat caves.
It's sad that it's so politicized, because there was definitely a coverup of at least the appearance of a lab leak and probably of a lab leak itself, but I disagree with the politics of basically everyone with that opinion. I know you guys probably haven't read the Vanity Fair reporting by Katherine Eban because I mean what hackers would read Vanity Fair but it was pretty convincing, especially if you read the supplementary materials and if you have any background in life sciences.
>Research scientist said he and his colleagues wanted to “disprove any type of lab leak theory.”<p>So some members of Congress took this to mean they had a motive, rather than an attempt to 'disprove the null hypothesis'... and that's the entire basis for calling this a "cover-up"?
> This remains the only scientifically supported theory for how the virus emerged.<p>I am not so sure about this assertion. And definitely, the lab leak hypothesis should not have been so forcefully suppressed as a conspiracy theory.
Many in this thread have remarked on there being two version of "lab leak", 1) that it was manipulated in a lab, then escaped, or 2) that it was a natural virus that escaped from the lab.<p>The evidence is that it is a natural virus, so 1) is excluded by scientific data. As to 2), the problem is that there is <i>no evidence</i> that SARS-CoV2 was ever at the Wuhan Lab before the pandemic, and also that the first people to become infected were also not at the lab. There is however evidence that the market was the origin of the pandemic.<p>So, there's no evidence for either version of "lab leak", and evidence against them. It's as simple as that.
The primary thing I don't understand about lab leak and bioweapon theories surrounding SARS-Cov-2 (And if you're an advocate of ideas in this vicinity I'd <i>love</i> a deeper explanation) is this:<p>If this disease has human origins, accidental or otherwise, why allow it to spread unrestrained?<p>We know the disease spreads through aerosol transmission. We know that it presents serious long term risks for people who catch it, even those who only have a mild asymptomatic case. Hazard ratios for most "scary" health impacts (strokes, heart attack, diabetes, etc) sit anywhere from 1.75 to near 3, even in broader meta analyses. We know that reinfection can magnify the risk profile of the disease. Estimates for pasc/long covid sit any where between 10 and 30% of all cases for at least 6 months after infection.<p>Community transmission, as measured by waste water numbers, has been at or above the levels observed during the delta wave for more than half of the months since the omicron wave. We've abandoned masking, destroyed testing infrastructure, indoor air quality is still not substantially better than it was pre 2019, and we have done nothing to bring ANY interventions back.<p>Isn't all of this just a failure? Or at least a contradiction? If you believe that this disease originated in a lab, why does it make sense to welcome it into your body without any protective measures? Every person on this subcomittee is talking about this lab leak while making sure that they take no visible measures to protect themselves from it, at a time when there's still nonzero community transmission. And now, of course, wastewater numbers are increasing and we are on the precipice of another period of delta-wave-level community transmission.<p>If this <i>was</i> some nefarious bioweapons play, isn't the response to let it spread and to give up on the disease a confirmation that that such bioweapons are a viable strategy? Why aren't rational actors that believe in these theories of covid's origins doing everything to ensure that they do not get the disease and in turn everything to bring transmission of the disease down to 0?<p>Someone, please, make it make sense to me.
Really setting aside the divisive political positions that have poisoned the debate in the US, I find it really interesting that really <i>solid</i> science has been done by scientists truly studying the data with appropriate scepticism and the scientific method, while proponents of the zoonosis origin of Covid have characteristically lied and manipulated data, and also generally addressed the scientific findings that contradict their standpoint with personal insults and ad hominem attacks.<p>Here are just a few of the people that have studied the data scientifically - and have destroyed the supposed 'raccoon dog' theory, the cherry-picked and manipulated data used by Worobey et al, and obviously the lies that went into the infamous 'Proximal Origin' document - which the authors themselves did not believe:<p><a href="https://nitter.net/gdemaneuf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nitter.net/gdemaneuf</a><p><a href="https://nitter.net/mbalter" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nitter.net/mbalter</a><p><a href="https://nitter.net/jbloom_lab" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nitter.net/jbloom_lab</a><p><a href="https://nitter.net/R_H_Ebright" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nitter.net/R_H_Ebright</a><p><a href="https://nitter.net/EmaNymton90" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://nitter.net/EmaNymton90</a><p>PS: please at least spend <i>a few seconds</i> looking at the links here as it's disheartening that there are so many negative responses within a few seconds of my posting this in good faith. None of these experts are fringe activists or crackpots.
Next question is whether the pandemic scenario was exploited by a coalition of interests to push their narrow agendas (digital id, privacy law exceptions, data collection and surveillance, mail-in voting, censorship, undermining of fundamental freedoms of movement and association, etc.) These also absolutely occurred and cannot be denied rationally.<p>The real question of the pandemic that I think people need to ask themselves is, did you demonstrate courage and compassion? If you fell for it all and became a persecutor of others, consider the capacity of courageous and compassionate people to forgive, and take some time to reckon how you would act if you had the chance to make those choices again. I'm pretty sure you're going to get the opportunity soon.
> In a back-and-forth with Andersen that sounded something like a rudimentary lesson in scientific hypotheses, Representative Jamie Raskin (D–MD) brought up an email in which the Scripps Research scientist said he and his colleagues wanted to “disprove any type of lab leak theory.” Republican members assert that this betrayed Andersen’s ill intent. “You meant pursuing the scientific process by which you have a hypothesis, which stands unless it’s disproven, is that right?” Raskin asked Andersen. “That is correct,” Andersen said. “I’m referring to the concept of what’s called falsification.”<p>If any scientist reads this, if someone privately says they want to "disprove any type of lab leak theory" then they aren't talking about a good faith experiment. That's not how scientists talk about questions they are trying to find the actual answers to. But on the other hand I wouldn't want some guys in suits and American flag lapel pins subpoenaing my DMs or all up in my FOIA requests every time I did a research on a politically adjacent research topic, and if they were then I'd certainly make the argument that these guys are making, that they are humble scientists doing the scientific method just like Bill Nye says on TV.