Coronavirus thread

[greg]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9.pdf

Theories of SARS-CoV-2 origins
It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged
through laboratory manipulation of a
related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As
noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is
optimized for binding to human ACE2 with
an efficient solution different from those
previously predicted7,11. Furthermore, if
genetic manipulation had been performed,
one of the several reverse-genetic systems
available for betacoronaviruses would
probably have been used19. However, the
genetic data irrefutably show that SARSCoV-2 is not derived from any previously
used virus backbone20. Instead, we propose
two scenarios that can plausibly explain
the origin of SARS-CoV-2: (i) natural
selection in an animal host before zoonotic
transfer; and (ii) natural selection in humans
following zoonotic transfer. We also discuss
whether selection during passage could have
given rise to SARS-CoV-2.

That was long, so I just checked out that paragraph, which I suppose is the main point.

I give up trying to explain. The second lab theory has nothing to do with genetic manipulation. They were researching, doesn't mean they were necessarily manipulating anything. Yet again the first lab theory is being confused for the second. The second theory asserts that it 100% came from nature. Why even bother discussing this.

[drogulus]

That was long, so I just checked out that paragraph, which I suppose is the main point.

I give up trying to explain. The second lab theory has nothing to do with genetic manipulation. They were researching, doesn't mean they were necessarily manipulating anything. Yet again the first lab theory is being confused for the second. The second theory asserts that it 100% came from nature. Why even bother discussing this.

     So what is the second lab theory? Was it something like the patient samples went to the lab in late December, then escaped from the lab somehow, and then the pandemic came from both the early patients and a lab accident? I would never say it couldn't happen, but it does look like the lab part is a little bit superfluous. You already have what it takes to start the epidemic.

[Ratliff]

I give up trying to explain. The second lab theory has nothing to do with genetic manipulation. They were researching, doesn't mean they were necessarily manipulating anything. Yet again the first lab theory is being confused for the second. The second theory asserts that it 100% came from nature. Why even bother discussing this.

What they are saying, I believe, is that artificial manipulation of a RNA virus genome would have to be done using one of a finite number of known techniques. They did not find find the artifacts left behind by those techniques. They conclude there is no reason to believe it was anything but a naturally occurring mutation. Normally a virus must mutate to target a new host. There are two possibilities. A virus in host A mutates to a form that more readily infects host B. Or a virus from host A infects host B and mutates to a form which is more effective in host B. Both are known to occur in nature, and less likely to occur in a lab than in a natural setting.

[JBS]

     So what is the second lab theory? Was it something like the patient samples went to the lab in late December, then escaped from the lab somehow, and then the pandemic came from both the early patients and a lab accident? I would never say it couldn't happen, but it does look like the lab part is a little bit superfluous. You already have what it takes to start the epidemic.

As I understand it, the second lab theory is simply that someone at the lab became infected via a lab accident of some sort, and unknowingly started spreading the virus among the general population. The fact that many of the early cases had a connection to the wet market is essentially a random event, and probably signifies nothing more  than that the infected lab worker shopped there at least once while contagious.

[greg]

     So what is the second lab theory? Was it something like the patient samples went to the lab in late December, then escaped from the lab somehow, and then the pandemic came from both the early patients and a lab accident? I would never say it couldn't happen, but it does look like the lab part is a little bit superfluous. You already have what it takes to start the epidemic.

Well, it was related to the reports that the bats "bled and peed on the researchers," which could be all it took to infect a human (if safety procedures aren't followed 100%). It could have even happened while they were in the caves retrieving the bats (assuming the researchers are also the people retrieving them- that part is unclear), so if that were the case, it could even be referred to as a different name instead of the "second lab theory."

And once one human is infected then the rest is history. I don't think there was any suspicion of actual samples of the viruses leaking from the lab or anything like that.

What they are saying, I believe, is that artificial manipulation of a RNA virus genome would have to be done using one of a finite number of known techniques. They did not find find the artifacts left behind by those techniques. They conclude there is no reason to believe it was anything but a naturally occurring mutation. Normally a virus must mutate to target a new host. There are two possibilities. A virus in host A mutates to a form that more readily infects host B. Or a virus from host A infects host B and mutates to a form which is more effective in host B. Both are known to occur in nature, and less likely to occur in a lab than in a natural setting.

Either I'm not getting it or there isn't a difference. 

The second lab theory would imply that all mutations were natural, among the bats since of course they share viruses among each other. Once it became ready after whatever mutations it was transmitted to a human.

Is it transmission or mutation we're talking about that is "less likely to occur in a lab setting?" And what exactly is different about a lab setting than nature- just human to bat contact?

I already got that part "no artifacts left behind" a long time ago which disproves the first lab theory.

[greg]

As I understand it, the second lab theory is simply that someone at the lab became infected via a lab accident of some sort, and unknowingly started spreading the virus among the general population. The fact that many of the early cases had a connection to the wet market is essentially a random event, and probably signifies nothing more  than that the infected lab worker shopped there at least once while contagious.

Thanks for the explanation. 

I think the overload of information on this thread is confusing people, leading to having to re-explain things... which reaaalllly tests my patience. I'm not good at that type of stuff. 

[BasilValentine]

Well, it was related to the reports that the bats "bled and peed on the researchers," which could be all it took to infect a human (if safety procedures aren't followed 100%). It could have even happened while they were in the caves retrieving the bats (assuming the researchers are also the people retrieving them- that part is unclear), so if that were the case, it could even be referred to as a different name instead of the "second lab theory."

And once one human is infected then the rest is history. I don't think there was any suspicion of actual samples of the viruses leaking from the lab or anything like that.

I heard an interview on NPR with a man who had been present during some "bat retrieving" in the caves. He said the lab people wore full protective gear. Alas, the cave was also full of tourists dressed in casual holiday clothes with no protective gear whatever. So, of course it must be the researchers. Conspiracy logic demands it.

[SimonNZ]

There is no way in hell that workers in a viriology lab would ever be in a position where they get "bled and peed on".

[drogulus]

Well, it was related to the reports that the bats "bled and peed on the researchers," which could be all it took to infect a human (if safety procedures aren't followed 100%).

     They were sent samples from patients, not bats. They didn't match older bat viruses, ones the lab had studied. The virus had been circulating for more than a month before the lab identified it as new, as far back as early November.

     What I think is most likely is the virus was first transmitted from bats to humans a thousand miles from Wuhan. Bat to human transmission didn't start at the lab or the market. It was brought to the market from some distance away by a human host. No bats need apply.

     The probability that the virus went directly from a bat to a researcher has to be far lower than transmission from a bat to an unprotected civilian.

     If the timeline don't fit, you must acquit:

The mysterious patient samples arrived at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at 7 P.M. on December 30, 2019. Moments later Shi Zhengli's cell phone rang. It was her boss, the institute's director. The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention had detected a novel coronavirus in two hospital patients with atypical pneumonia, and it wanted Shi's renowned laboratory to investigate. If the finding was confirmed, the new pathogen could pose a serious public health threat—because it belonged to the same family of viruses as the one that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a disease that plagued 8,100 people and killed nearly 800 of them between 2002 and 2003. "Drop whatever you are doing and deal with it now," she recalls the director saying.

     So, the disease control lab sent patient samples to the research lab on Dec. 30.

[Karl Henning]

Well, it was related to the reports that the bats "bled and peed on the researchers,"

It's already been pointed out that this doesn't pass the sniff test.

[ritter]

But rest assured, guys: if the "second lab theory" doesn't hold, a "third lab theory" (or something akin) will be put forward without undue delay.

[greg]

     They were sent samples from patients, not bats. They didn't match older bat viruses, ones the lab had studied. The virus had been circulating for more than a month before the lab identified it as new, as far back as early November.

     What I think is most likely is the virus was first transmitted from bats to humans a thousand miles from Wuhan. Bat to human transmission didn't start at the lab or the market. It was brought to the market from some distance away by a human host. No bats need apply.

     The probability that the virus went directly from a bat to a researcher has to be far lower than transmission from a bat to an unprotected civilian.

     If the timeline don't fit, you must acquit:

The mysterious patient samples arrived at the Wuhan Institute of Virology at 7 P.M. on December 30, 2019. Moments later Shi Zhengli's cell phone rang. It was her boss, the institute's director. The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention had detected a novel coronavirus in two hospital patients with atypical pneumonia, and it wanted Shi's renowned laboratory to investigate. If the finding was confirmed, the new pathogen could pose a serious public health threat—because it belonged to the same family of viruses as the one that caused severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a disease that plagued 8,100 people and killed nearly 800 of them between 2002 and 2003. "Drop whatever you are doing and deal with it now," she recalls the director saying.

     So, the disease control lab sent patient samples to the research lab on Dec. 30.

I like that you are making up your own theory on this. Would be kinda funny if we found out patient zero wasn't from the lab or the market. 



I heard about this bit of news just now... all the news sites are behind a paywall so can't really link anything, but getting several reporting this (if curious, google):

U.S. officials warned in January 2018 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology's work on "SARS-like coronaviruses in bats," combined with "a serious shortage" of proper safety procedures, could result in human transmission and the possibility of a "future emerging coronavirus outbreak."

How legit this is, i don't know... well if it is, then that's a bit of a red flag. If it isn't, then just fake news I guess.

[Florestan]

I heard an interview on NPR with a man who had been present during some "bat retrieving" in the caves. He said the lab people wore full protective gear. Alas, the cave was also full of tourists dressed in casual holiday clothes with no protective gear whatever. So, of course it must be the researchers. Conspiracy logic demands it.

Scientific logic (and common) sense demand that when researchers are at work in a place --- any place --- access of any other people be denied or severely restricted. Your man was probably lying about the tourists being there.

And the lie is corroborated by this:

Often guided by tips from local villagers, Shi and her colleagues had to hike for hours to potential sites and inch through tight rock crevasses on their stomachs. And the flying mammals can be elusive. In one frustrating week, the team explored more than 30 caves and saw only a dozen bats.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/)

So according to your man, casually dressed tourists inched through tight rock crevasses on their stomachs and found themselves in the same place as the researchers. Feel free to believe that. I can't and I don't.

[Que]

The economic fall out of the pandemic..... I find the current optimism on the stock markets completely incomprehensible....

I guess the reality is to scary to accept? 


Hong Kong Economy Contracts Most On Record Due to Virus Shutdown (Bloomberg)

Hong Kong's downturn is now the worst on record, extending the first recession seen in a decade as the coronavirus outbreak further battered an economy already weakened by political unrest.

The city's economy contracted 8.9% in the first quarter from year-ago levels, according to advance government data. The decline surpasses the previous record of -8.3% in the third quarter of 1998 and a 7.8% contraction in the first quarter of 2009, the two worst quarterly readings in data back to 1974, according to the Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong.

The latest decline also marks the third straight quarterly contraction for Hong Kong, the longest such stretch since the aftermath of the global financial crisis in 2009.

Economists had forecast a drop in output of 6.5% in the three months to March from the same period a year earlier. Hong Kong's economy shrank 1.2% last year, the first time that had happened since 2009.

Q

[Mandryka]

A couple articles from The Gray Lady, so they may not be true:

Global Backlash Builds Against China Over Coronavirus

The Covid-19 Riddle: Why Does the Virus Wallop Some Places and Spare Others?

They both lead to the same article

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html

[Mandryka]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/biggest-failure-in-a-generation-where-did-britain-go-wrong-20200428-p54o2d.html

'Biggest failure in a generation': Where did Britain go wrong?

[Todd]

They both lead to the same article

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html

Oops, glad you found the right link.  I suspect most people don't click through to stories. 

[Que]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/biggest-failure-in-a-generation-where-did-britain-go-wrong-20200428-p54o2d.html

'Biggest failure in a generation': Where did Britain go wrong?

Another case of exceptionalism?

"A shambles of mixed messaging, poor organisation and a complacent attitude that what was happening in Italy wouldn't happen here."

Expert advisers that are not convinced of lockdown as a necessary measure doesn't help either.....

Plus, once you are - literally - "behind the curve" and scrambling to handle the situation, many more mistakes and mishaps are bound to pile up.

Q

[MusicTurner]

- Internal Chinese report warns Beijing faces Tiananmen-like global backlash over virus, led by the US.
The report, made by security & intelligence sources, even says that China "needs to be prepared in a worst-case scenario for armed confrontation between the two global powers". It was handed over to the Chinese leadership back in early April.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-sentiment-ex/exclusive-internal-chinese-report-warns-beijing-faces-tiananmen-like-global-backlash-over-virus-sources-idUSKBN22G19C?il=0

- French hospitals in the Paris area find local corona virus cases from late December 2019,
possibly due to people frequenting China-related places in town. This was before China alarmed the outside world. The patients recovered.
https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/coronavirus-le-professeur-cohen-affirme-qu-il-y-avait-un-cas-de-covid-19-en-france-des-le-27-decembre-1906757.html#content/contribution/edit

- EU launches vaccine and treatment initiative, expecting to reach at least 7.5 Billion Euros
"No matter who gets the vaccine first: It must be ensured that it is available anywhere in the world and at an affordable price. Because that is the only way that we can beat coronavirus on a global scale, otherwise it will come back in waves".
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-leaders-pledge-billions-for-coronavirus-vaccine-virtual-fundraising-conference/a-53322501

[Todd]

A Covid byproduct: Supreme Court broadcasts oral arguments for the first time ever

This should lead to exceptionally well-informed real-time, online discussions of the merits of various arguments.  Of special interest will be the expertise brought to the discussions by non-Americans with their deep knowledge of US con law.