More like, "some random person ran across a novel virus in the wild, a thousand miles from the nearest bat population, while they were hibernating; and this all just happened to be within a few miles of a laboratory with sketchy safety history that literally studies coronaviruses, and didn't let independent examiners in for a year, even then limiting their time and access severely."
If the argument is:
1) a lab was built in Wuhan that studied coronaviruses, then a global coronavirus pandemic originated in Wuhan
2) Therefore the lab caused the global pandemic
then it is a fallacious argument.[0]
> In a recent paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Forster reported he found three main strains of the virus that he labeled A, B and C.
> His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 (the scientific name for the virus) discovered in bats. Many experts suspect that the virus migrated to humans from bats, probably via some other animal. But he also discovered that the A strain wasn't the predominant type in Wuhan.
> Of 23 samples that came from Wuhan, only three were type A, the rest were type B, a version two mutations from A. But in other parts of China, Forster says, initially A was the predominant strain. For instance, of nine genome samples in Guangdong, some 600 miles south of Wuhan, five were A types.
It doesn't seem fair to assume this originated in Wuhan. Instead the Wuhan markets may have been the first super-spreader site.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
I see you repeat this all around this thread. Can you show me where it says evidence is for emergence?
There's that word "emerged" (in reference to Wuhan) that you pointed out that I also used in my post. I was replying, with a supporting source, that this is not a certainty.
From the source I quoted earlier [0]:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin."
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
I've repeated this because it seems to be a common misconception that the virus first appeared in Wuhan when in fact there is some evidence to the contrary.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
To be frank, that article is speculation, because they assume a certain variant to be the "founding variant" because of its similarity to existing/known virus. It looks like a bit of circular reasoning to me.
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
There's no definitive proof of this, either!
Forster admits that his research is not definitive. The comparison of his A and B strains to the nearest known relative, the bat virus, as a founding variant may be wrong. I understand that the main objection is that there were probably intermediary hosts, and that evolutionary mutations and geography don't always line up.
So does that mean it's 50/50 at this point, he may be wrong, but he may be right?
It's enough for me to question Wuhan as the site of the first human infections. It might be. It might not. I think that's the general scientific consensus at this point. We don't know for certain yet, right? That was my point. Perhaps I could have stated it better.
I really don't understand what you are saying. Weren't all the first cases identified around Wuhan?
Just because some other variant was found to be dominant elsewhere a later point in time does not appear to suggest anything contradictory to me.
That's the thing, the early variants Forster identified could have migrated in either direction. Nobody is questioning the differences between his identified A and B variants, just the directionality. The expert consensus seems to be "too early to know for sure".
That's what I'm saying. Forster might be right, and this came from south of Wuhan. Even his critics say that he may not be right, they don't say he's wrong. We don't know for sure.
Can you appreciate the difference? You seem to be saying "this definitely started in Wuhan" when it appears that is not certain.
Unless it’s peer-reviewed and published, I’m not going to count it as evidence. As far as I can see, you’re citing one dude’s speculations. Unless somebody’s followed up on those speculations in the past year, I’m not sure there’s a case here.
> Some people think it's relevant that a new coronavirus emerged next door to a lab working on new coronaviruses
I don't know thing the above statement has been proven yet, and there are competing theories.
I wasn't trying to prove that the virus came from somewhere else, I was simply casting doubt on the statement that the virus came from Wuhan.
Because nobody knows for sure. Right?
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-find-covid-19-virus-was...
“The computer modelling found the virus’s ability to bind to the bat ACE2 protein was poor relative to its ability to bind human cells. This argues against the virus being transmitted directly from bats to humans. Hence, if the virus has a natural source, it could only have come to humans via an intermediary species which has yet to be found,”
I don't think that changes my point in bringing this up, that it is not a foregone conclusion that Wuhan was the location of the first human infections, that in fact there is some genetic evidence pointing in other directions.
> Asked if his ongoing research should quash speculation that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, Forster is circumspect. "It's not black and white. All I can say is it doesn't look to me as if Wuhan is the prime candidate, because A exists in other regions of China at that time at possibly a higher frequency."
Full disclosure: I've be made aware of papers pointing out that Forster's methodologies may be unreliable, that the gap between bat and human viruses are too large to say definitively which varient of the human virus is older. But I don't think this materially changes the fact that his paper casts a good bit of doubt on Wuhan being the location of the first human infections, showing that there may be evidence to the contrary in his collected and sequenced genetic samples. He admits that himself in the same article:
> "I would be a bit careful about pinpointing a place (of origin), because we don't have many samples from the early phase," he says. "But it seems to me we shouldn't restrict ourselves to Wuhan when looking for the origin." [0]
The source you quote jives with what I have read in other places, that there are still missing pieces to this puzzle.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-...
At this point, this is not a complete black box, “novel virus.” There is a scientific understanding of the virus. There are known related viruses in the wild, just not anywhere near Wuhan. There are multi-pathway paper trails linking this class of viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the people working there.
I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
Not sure why you insist on being pedantic on word choice here. It obviously isn't a novel virus at this point; but it was in 2019 -- or whenever WIV would have found it.
I'd also bet dollars to donuts you have no experience in virology apart from participating in online forums. Which I don't think is any kind of point against you; but it makes it weird when you come out swinging with "you don’t have the faintest bit of background in what you are talking about."
> I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, the media environment around all this has been so bizarre, how various waves of suppression have ebbed and flowed. But if you’ve known where to look, are an independent thinker, not one who just repeats what the large media bullhorns are trumpeting, and can connect dots for yourself, there’s been discussion, discourse, evidence gathering of the very likely source of this virus since the beginning.
I laughed out loud at this. If this is satire it was really well done.
“Faintest bit of background” Meaning, your two competing hypotheses leave out pretty much everything that is known at this point, not an academic credential or such, just a basic reading on the known facts at this point.
“Natural origin” was the leading hypothesis from the start more than a year ago. At this point, there is no evidence for it, there is substantial evidence against it, and the pile of circumstantial evidence for the Wuhan lab being the source is a mile high.