Hacker News Reader

Comment by s_y_n_t_a_x | Hacker News Reader

I don't see how you can fully dismiss the idea that it was an accidental outbreak from a lab, especially when there's precedent.

The truth is we don't know yet, and we can't trust the Communist Party of China.

If you have an issue with the article please point out something specific instead of stating innuendos.

An expert scientist on coronaviruses that made one from scratch at UNC was working in Wuhan.

The virology lab is across the street from the animal market the outbreak originated at.

If that's not plausible, what is?

View on HN

We can't "fully" dismiss accidental release idea, but we can pretty much dismiss it, because sequence (we now have sequence from outside of China, it's not under Chinese control) strongly suggests natural and not artificial origin (see my other comment).

If we are to argue "artificial to look like natural", that's premeditated release, not accidental release.

Could you link to an article or journal that strongly suggests it's natural over artificial based on the sequencing, please.

The evidence that it's natural is based on similarities to a common ancestor, RaTG13. Googling "RaTG13" will turn up results suggesting it's natural over artificial.

What is truly bizarre is that the gene sequence of this common ancestor RaTG13 was only released in late January 2020 by Shi's lab in Wuhan – the same lab in question regarding the leak.

For the moment, I am hesitant to trust any research premised on analysis of RaTG13.

First, RaTG13 is not an ancestor, it's a sibling. Next, the evidence is based on ratio of amino acid changes to silent changes, not based on similarity.

Yes – sibling, not ancestor. Regardless, the analysis is premised on the RaTG13 genome, and I am somewhat skeptical of analysis based on RaTG13.

I think accidental release of a naturally evolved virus is still a plausible hypothesis. To discount it as "conspiracy theory" seems to be wishful thinking.

I will continue to monitor findings on this until more conclusive, non-RaTG13 derived evidence is available.

Not sure how plausible it is, but the article does claim the virus's creation could be part of a red-teaming exercise gone wrong, which would be consistent with a naturally-selected genome wouldn't it?

I didn't state innuendo.

I quoted the leading expert in the world right now saying that the Wuhan virus is not engineered.

I don't trust the CPC either, but when the experts speak you have to listen.

> I didn't state innuendo.

You didn't quote anything from the article. If you have a specific concern with a statement they are using please quote it and state your concern.

> I quoted the leading expert in the world right now saying that the Wuhan virus is not engineered.

No you linked to a paywall so I was unable to view the quote.

If scientists find the origin of the virus we can finally say that it wasn't engineered, currently they have not.

You cannot fully dismiss this possibility yet, especially the circumstances and previous lab outbreaks.

> If scientists find the origin of the virus we can finally say that it wasn't engineered, currently they have not.

No, they have.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mining-coronavirus-g...

...sequencing, combined with sampling the market’s environment for the presence of the virus, is clarifying that it indeed had an important early role in amplifying the outbreak. The viral sequences, most researchers say, also knock down the idea the pathogen came from a virology institute in Wuhan.

Note that the article is dated more than two weeks ago.

If it out-broke from the virology lab across the street from the market then yes it would have a presence of the market's environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com