Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin (marketwatch.com) 290
Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report (based on information "provided by an international partner" that was "potentially significant but still in need of further investigation and additional corroboration") that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory. WSJ: The details of the reporting go beyond a State Department fact sheet, issued during the final days of the Trump administration, which said that several researchers at the lab, a center for the study of coronaviruses and other pathogens, became sick in autumn 2019 "with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness."
The disclosure of the number of researchers, the timing of their illnesses and their hospital visits come on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization's decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into Covid-19's origins. Current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed differing views about the strength of the supporting evidence for the assessment.
UPDATE (5/24): The Journal took special note of the timing of the information's release, "on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization's decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into COVID-19's origins."
In addition, China explicitly "said Monday the Journal article is false," UPI reported today. But the news service also notes that the director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab had been reached for a comment by the Global Times. His response? He said he had never heard anything about lab workers being sick, and called the claims "groundless."
One member of the WHO team investigating the origins of the outbreak specifically told CNN in February that the lab's researchers had already been tested, with no evidence found of Covid antibodies.
The disclosure of the number of researchers, the timing of their illnesses and their hospital visits come on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization's decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into Covid-19's origins. Current and former officials familiar with the intelligence about the lab researchers expressed differing views about the strength of the supporting evidence for the assessment.
UPDATE (5/24): The Journal took special note of the timing of the information's release, "on the eve of a meeting of the World Health Organization's decision-making body, which is expected to discuss the next phase of an investigation into COVID-19's origins."
In addition, China explicitly "said Monday the Journal article is false," UPI reported today. But the news service also notes that the director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab had been reached for a comment by the Global Times. His response? He said he had never heard anything about lab workers being sick, and called the claims "groundless."
One member of the WHO team investigating the origins of the outbreak specifically told CNN in February that the lab's researchers had already been tested, with no evidence found of Covid antibodies.
November was After it was Widespread (Score:5, Insightful)
From what we've seen, the virus was already spreading rapidly in Wuhan in October, so it's not really anything ground breaking that residents of Wuhan could have been infected.
I would say it's more likely they were infected from the community as they would likely be taking more precautions in the lab environment.
It's quite possible the covid19 variant came from some of the animals they were researching at the lab, but this is pretty weak evidence for that
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From what we've seen, the virus was already spreading rapidly in Wuhan in October, so it's not really anything ground breaking that residents of Wuhan could have been infected.
I would say it's more likely they were infected from the community as they would likely be taking more precautions in the lab environment.
It's quite possible the covid19 variant came from some of the animals they were researching at the lab, but this is pretty weak evidence for that
Exactly. There are documented cases back in August 2019, with suspected cases even earlier.
Re: November was After it was Widespread (Score:2)
Re: November was After it was Widespread (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly compelling evidence. But legit story.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re: November was After it was Widespread (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
> Milan has been at the centre of Italy's coronavirus outbreak,
It's worth noting, that there were direct flights between Wuhan and Milan, before everything got shutdown.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: November was After it was Widespread (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In September, it was already in Italy (Score:2)
They re-tested some archived blood samples and found SARS COV 2 antibodies.
https://journals.sagepub.com/d... [sagepub.com]
When reality is throwing us surprises like that, I feel a strong urge not to commit myself to any one hypothesis yet.
>likely be taking more precautions in the lab environment
Reports that I haven't double-checked are that they were handling bat coronaviruses at BSL-2.
Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
IDIOT. No one *claimed* (at least not in the post you're replying to). They said it's an open hypothesis. That is entirely different, and if you don't understand that difference, you have no business posting here or anywhere else; you're just too dumb.
And contrary to your other point, it would have been possible to give good evidence (proof is for math, not science) that it did not escape from the lab: find someone who was infected in the wild before anyone was infected in the lab. Unfortunately, now--m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, Fauci is the your source for your viewpoints, now is he? [cnn.com]
PolitiFact: "There’s a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still, so I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?"
Fauci: "No actually. I am not convinced about that, I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened."
Re: (Score:3)
I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China
Maybe. But why?
When we get the correct answer, what will we do with it? Will it assist in the development of inoculations and/or treatments? Probably not so much by now. Will we get some reparations from those responsible? Not likely. Will we discover some unknown lab error that caused the outbreak? It's more likely that a mistake in a process is already understood from other contexts and that better attention to all protocols would be a better solution than finding the one that was screwed up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it leaked from a lab, it would generate pressure for banning gain-of-function research, which would prevent a recurrence in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
If it leaked from a lab, it would generate pressure for banning gain-of-function research, which would prevent a recurrence in the future.
It wouldn't prevent a natural occurrence. But it would limit our understanding of the potential threats.
Re: (Score:2)
The first SARS pandemic in 2003 was also originated in China. And I did read a story that the cause was lab workers that let it leak by mishandling.
So by investigating COVID2 from 2019, maybe we could prevent COVID3.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The first SARS pandemic in 2003 was also originated in China. And I did read a story that the cause was lab workers that let it leak by mishandling.
So by investigating COVID2 from 2019, maybe we could prevent COVID3.
SARS-family viruses regularly spill over into the rural population [npr.org]. We can either study them and be ready for when one makes it to an urban center again and keeps spreading, or wring our hands.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe just to acknowledge and learn from our collective mistakes? Would that be asking too much? Like just maybe we could learn that it's a pretty horrible idea to put a virology lab working on experiments involving massively deadly pathogens smack dab in the middle of a supercity?
If a plane crashes and kills a few hundred people we hold a goddamn inquisition, and work diligently to find the tiniest flaw in the machine. Same thing if a nuclear reactor has blows up or just has a hiccup. But when a potential lab accident snowballs and kills a few million people... We do fuck all? Because I guess it's racist to do anything else.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
It will make us concentrate more in the future on lab protocols, more on ensuring that people can say "Oops, I/we goofed" without getting silenced (think Shi Zhengli and Li Wenliang--or others who weren't so brave), more on catching problems like this before they turn into pandemics--and less on things that had nothing to do with the outbreak (eating yucky stuff). Spending our money and time in the right place, rather than the wrong place.
Is that so hard to understand?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If China is trying to cover up it's responsibility for what would be the greatest man-made disaster since Chernobyl, that's worth knowing. It could even do what Chernobyl did and take down the largest remaining Communist regime.
Re: (Score:2)
Not coming from Wuhan labs and not being lab altered in general are not necessarily the same thing. Nor is being sloppy or secretive about bio leaks the same as being "lab created". Because this is a politically charged topic, one has to be careful about implied scope of claims and doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [thebulletin.org], the evidence is strong that it was a joint project between researchers in China and the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "it"? That article suggests that outright dismissing human engineering of the virus is not warranted, not that there is solid evidence it actually WAS manipulated. Two very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "it"? That article suggests that outright dismissing human engineering of the virus is not warranted, not that there is solid evidence it actually WAS manipulated.
The article says that nothing can ever be outright discounted, but the weight of all the evidence is heavily on the side of a lab escape. A natural source for COVID-19 would be a much lower probability event (because of various genetic properties of the virus mentioned in the article).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The director of the WHO said:
As far as WHO is concerned, all hypotheses remain on the table. This report is a very important beginning, but it is not the end. We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do,” said Dr Tedros. “Finding the origin of a virus takes time and we owe it to the world to find the source so we can collectively take steps to reduce the risk of this happening again. No single research trip can pr
They did study bats and coronavirus with NIH funds (Score:2, Interesting)
Dr. Fauci said with 100% certainty that the Wuhan lab does not do gain of function research
Technically they may not have exactly funded gain of function but....
For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There was a grant given by the US to develop a virus exactly like coronavirus. Here is the grant [nih.gov]. The grant was funded by the US, but the research was outsourced to the Wuhan lab [thebulletin.org].
So ultimately Coronavirus likely was developed as a joint research project between China and the US.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The lab leak theory was proven false in early 2020. Genetic analysis of the Covid 19 genome proves it was of natural origin and could not have escaped from a lab. Just last week Dr. Fauci said with 100% certainty that the Wuhan lab does not do gain of function research, and that even if they did they did it would be done safely.
Except now more people are coming forward to say the lab leak wasn't proven false. Dr. Li Meng Ya being one of them. Her story was called in to question earlier but now more people are starting to take a look at it. The jury hasn't yet given its final verdict on the lab leak yet.
Also Dr. Fauci word must be taken in to question now. Rumor is coming out the research that might have released the virus; payment was authorized by him. Facui might be going into ass covering mode.
Heat up the popcorn, thi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except now more people are coming forward to say the lab leak wasn't proven false. Dr. Li Meng Ya being one of them. Her story was called in to question earlier but now more people are starting to take a look at it. The jury hasn't yet given its final verdict on the lab leak yet.
Also Dr. Fauci word must be taken in to question now. Rumor is coming out the research that might have released the virus; payment was authorized by him. Facui might be going into ass covering mode.
Heat up the popcorn, this ride might just be getting started.
Chinese Troll mods are already on the move. Nothing in that post is a troll, just a debate on evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing flamebaiting about the questions ether.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
proven
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
government official said something "with 100% certainty" so it must be true, because overnment officials never lie
I'm beginning to wonder if this is sature.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The lab leak theory was proven false in early 2020. Genetic analysis of the Covid 19 genome proves it was of natural origin and could not have escaped from a lab. Just last week Dr. Fauci said with 100% certainty that the Wuhan lab does not do gain of function research, and that even if they did they did it would be done safely.
No, Dr. Fauci said that the NIH did not fund gain of function research at the WIV. Implicit in his statement is that the NIH did not directly fund that sort of research. It's becoming known now that the NIH side-stepped President Obama's moratorium on gain-of-function research by funding just such a thing through a third party (indirectly) at the WIV.
/. is not garbage, please continue to keep this in the public eye. It's a great service.
This sort of content on
There are serious questions here (Score:2)
There's also this article [medium.com] which points out that there's something of a dodge in there based on what one considers "gain of function" research, as well.
But yes, the short answer is that research of the sort that might have created Covid-19 in humanized mice was done in Wuhan and Fauci was a party to funding it. The article I linked is a bit over-protective of Fauci on that front due to the author's friendship with him, but it also lays out a decent amount of the facts.
There are good reasons to think that th
Re: (Score:2)
the short answer is that research of the sort that might have created Covid-19 in humanized mice was done in Wuhan and Fauci was a party to funding it.
What you are saying is that Coronavirus was created as a joint project between China and the US.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it your claim that labs don't contain any naturally occurring viruses? The claims and studies so far show that it was not artificially created or manipulated. That is far from proving that this was not a virus being studied in a lab. I am not proposing that it was. So far all we know for sure is that it originated in Wuhan, China. I honestly believe that is a far as we will ever get unless China changes their attitude on cooperation.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
The lab's own research shows that bat coronaviruses are found in human and livestock populations around bat roosts in places like Yunnan, so it's quite plausible for the lab to have played a role in bringing the virus to Wuhan without the virus necessarily being in any of the lab samples brought back. Lab personnel could simply have *caught* the virus, either from the bats themselves or from someone infected in the area. We've all seen the virus's power to spread stealthily via asymptomatic carriers.
But what we should not do is jump from what seems a plausible scenario to us to assuming that's what happened. The fact is, we'll never know because what you need is an open and transparent investigation of all possibilities, even remote ones, and openness and transparency aren't something the Chinese regime is comfortable with at the best of times. The almost willfully stupid *conspiracy theories* spun in the West don't help, but even without those it is unlikely that the regime will allow an investigation that might result in a finding of negligent or even non-negligent accidental involvement of any Chinese national, even if such a finding is unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
The claims and studies so far show that it was not artificially created or manipulated.
This is a misunderstanding of the research. Certain types of manipulation were ruled out. Others weren't. Serial passage is a very common technique for gain of function research, and is absolutely not ruled out by the study you're referring to.
Re: Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
This line of speculation is just racist drivel currently
Nothing in any line of questioning the source of this virus is racist on any level. Questioning the if there was a containment breach, or accident, or just plain idiocy in any lab that handles biotech is never racist. It doesn't matter if this is a African lab, Chinese, or American. You, are just claiming it's racist probably because you don't like where the evidence might point too.
Re: (Score:3)
That's where it wanders into being racist.
No, it doesn't. All it means is the director is Chinese, that is all. Nothing more. It doesn't matter anymore if he was white, black, green, or pokia dotted. There is no racist agenda, only questions being asked and answer being expected.
Honestly, this race card thing is getting old. You lefties need to get a new play book.
Re: Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The expectation that you deserve answers is the part that drifts into racism.
Not your lab. Not your country's lab. Why should you expect to know which lab tech did what?
I had to step away for a few minutes and think about a proper response to this. Normally, I'm guilty posting from the hip and posting the first respoinse that comes to mind. More than one occasion that has lead to me opening mouth and inserting foot all the way up to my knee. I have also been accused on more than one occasion of being a complete and total ass. I'm sure there is more than one slashdotter, AmiMoJo, that will be more than happy to validate that.
So anyway, I stepped away, took a smoke and now I have in front of me small glass of bourbon from a $50 bottle I only open on special occasions. I've been on Slashdot for over two decades, posted and got responses from the likes of CmdTaco, Linus, Kat, and most importantly, Ogg the caveman.
So, I want you to understand that what I'm about to ask you I really put some thought into. An its something I want you to answer. I'm going to put this the simplest and distinct way I can so there is no confusion or failure to understand me. Ready?
Are you really this fucking stupid?
This pandemic shut the world down. Billions, if not trillions, of dollars of economic damage not just to my country but to the world. Business destroyed and lives ruined. That has left 3.5 million people dead. An you don't think we deserve answers?
You sit there all fucking smug and self righteous lecturing us what we deserve and don't deserve? Hiding behind a veiled threat of fucking racism because we want answers that we damn well fucking deserve.
Not your countries lab, why should you expec to know what a lab tech did? Because I fucking say so, that is why. The whole god damn world expects to know.
Ding me baby!! I have karma to burn!
Re: (Score:2)
This line of speculation is just racist drivel
You can say (some %) of it is racist, and demonstrate it easily, but logically, mathematically, can you prove that all of it is? I personally doubt it. I'm sure there are a non-zero number of people who, irrespective of if logical or not, will look at links (EVEN IF tenuous at best factually) to seek an explanation - this is not in of itself racist, and IMO it'd be prudent to be careful to not lump people in without proof.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Can we have a discussion on Slashdot (Score:2, Informative)
Origin of Covid â" Following the Clues
https://nicholaswade.medium.co... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the detailed read. No mod points today, so just a thank you.
Re:Can we stop putting this garbage on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Genetic analysis of the Covid 19 genome proves it was of natural origin and could not have escaped from a lab.
What it proves is that it almost certainly was transfer to an animal first. The "lab leak" theory separate from the "bioweapon" theory. The "bioweapon" theory claims it was genetically engineered but this has been shown to be exceptionally unlikely. The "lab leak" theory claims that an laboratory animal was exposed to the coronavirus from a bat. From there the virus managed to escape the lab, possibly by infecting scientists. The "lab leak" theory has yet to be discredited.
Re: (Score:2)
The "bioweapon" theory claims it was genetically engineered but this has been shown to be exceptionally unlikely.
It turns out that the evidence against genetically engineering is weak. Here is some analysis [thebulletin.org]. Quote:
"older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain tell-tale signs of manipulation. But newer methods, called “no-see-um” or “seamless” approaches, leave no defining marks. Nor do other methods for manipulating viruses such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage, there is no way of knowing that this is the case. "
It seems like Coronavirus was created in a joint project between the US and China (though still not as a bioweapon, you are right), and that it accidentally escaped.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like Coronavirus was created in a joint project between the US and China (though still not as a bioweapon, you are right), and that it accidentally escaped.
What makes you believe that the US was involved? It seems like a unlikely partnership to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is one grant [nih.gov]. The last two sentences of the abstract are probably the most relevant. Here's another one [nih.gov].
The previous page I linked to [thebulletin.org] says "The grants were assigned to the prime contractor, Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance, who subcontracted them to [the Wuhan lab]." I don't know exactly how they determined that.
Re: (Score:2)
What is gain of function research? Apparently creating chimeras of viruses is not gain of function research ...
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic analysis of the Covid 19 genome proves it was of natural origin and could not have escaped from a lab.
Just being of natural origin does not exclude it from originating at the lab. That lab studies natural variants, and a breach of procedure could allow it to infect a staff member working with one. It's just a logical leap too far to say it could not happen.
Now personally I'm not on board with that idea for COVID-19. If the researchers mentioned in the summary were sick in the summer, then it might have more weight and I would say they should be a focus of contact tracing to determine if they were an earl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Old news, bro. (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost as if he makes decisions as evidence is provided...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember learning about significant digits in the 9th grade? I do. At the time I thought it was nonsense. But more than two decades later I very much appreciate the importance of communicating the degree of uncertainty in a pronouncement, no matter how mundane.
I learned that 3*3=9, 2.9999*3=8, and (2.9999*1)*3=6.
Still doesn't make sense.
Re: Old news, bro. (Score:2)
Maybe that's what you learned, but that's not what you were taught.
Re: (Score:2)
After 30 years of being pretty sure my 9th grade chemistry teacher was an idiot, I just looked it up [wikipedia.org].
She insisted that all digits beyond the significant figures be dropped entirely.
"Wouldn't it make more sense to round?", I would ask. "1.9, for example, if only the 1 is significant, wouldn't 2 be more accurate than 1?"
Nope. It's 1, she said.
Obviously engineered (Score:3, Insightful)
The notion this came from a "wet market" was laughable from the start, way too complex a scenario had to occur for this to be the case, way too many wt markets around the world that have never unleashed anything like this.
The simplest answer is almost always right; why is it so hard to believe a biotech lab studying coronavirus let something escape? You don't even have to believe it was some kind of bioweapon, just that it was a mistake in containment of something that we know was being studied at that lab. It always should have been an assumption from the start the virus came from the lab, with calls for them to release the strain under study so that research on a vaccine and the exact nature of the virus could have begun more quickly.
Re:Obviously engineered (Score:5, Informative)
Not just "a biotech lab studying coronavirus". I made that same mistake early on. WIV is one of only a couple dozen biosafety level 4 facilities on Earth, one of only two in China, and houses the world's largest collection of bat coronaviruses (including SARS CoV 2's closest known wild relative). It's ground zero for bat coronavirus research on Earth.
The funny thing is, they weren't even at all secretive about what they were working on; their research was widely discussed publicly. They were proud of it. Hunting for prospective bat coronavirus candidates which could attack through the ACE-2 receptor? That was a goal. CRISPR-edited mice with human ACE-2 receptors? Not at all a secret. They weren't hiding anything before all this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one said they were hiding anything. In the summer of 2019, they were posting job ads to work at the lab to study a new strain of Covid.
I think what everyone defending China is doing is contorting questioning of their level 4 lab safety into some accusation of weaponizing Covid.
I believe the SARS pandemic from 2003 was also released from a Chinese lab by mishandling. At the very least, the world should ensure that their fake level 4 labs are brought up to that actual level, and not be a fake certificati
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like it was a joint project between the US and China [thebulletin.org] that escaped. Also, for some reason they did a lot of their research in their level 2 lab, when it should have been done in the level 4 lab.
Re:Obviously engineered (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Obviously engineered (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it so hard to believe a lab that researches coronaviruses in a nation with a history of SARS might have a doctor studying coronaviruses similar to one in nature that causes an epidemic? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect and hope she were studying?
This is like when Africans avoid ebola treatment centers because they associate them with ebola patients, and thus think that's where white people are giving us ebola. We look down at these Africans for using simple correlation and not understanding scien
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it so hard to believe a lab that researches coronaviruses in a nation with a history of SARS might have a doctor studying coronaviruses similar to one in nature that causes an epidemic? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect and hope she were studying?
Yeah but you hope they aren't doing research to create new, more infectious versions of coronavirus, and doing it in a level 2 lab instead of a level 4 lab. It appears that is what they were doing [thebulletin.org].
Coronavirus was a joint research project between the US and China that escaped the lab.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a BIG difference between "obviously engineered" and "a specimen being studied a lab spread". Even including that is what reduces the credibility of your argument immensely
Re:Obviously engineered (Score:4, Informative)
In terms of transmission to humans, it is possible they had a lab error and several scientists got it through the lab OR, because it was circulating in the region, they got it in their community and just happened to also work in the lab. In either case, if it was already circulating in the region it doesn't really matter to the pandemic if the lab was also a vector of transmission (other than it would be good to know how to improve laboratory practices).
Re: (Score:2)
The notion this came from a "wet market" was laughable from the start, way too complex a scenario had to occur for this to be the case, way too many wt markets around the world that have never unleashed anything like this.
1) The "wet market" was the first super spreader event but it hasn't been the theory for the cross-over event for months since earlier cases were known about.
2) Cross-overs from nearby wildlife in villages is quite common, as is transmission from livestock, I'm not sure I'd see a wet market as an exception.
The simplest answer is almost always right; why is it so hard to believe a biotech lab studying coronavirus let something escape? You don't even have to believe it was some kind of bioweapon, just that it was a mistake in containment of something that we know was being studied at that lab. It always should have been an assumption from the start the virus came from the lab, with calls for them to release the strain under study so that research on a vaccine and the exact nature of the virus could have begun more quickly.
It was always a possibility though there was always the question of evidence. This is potentially the first solid evidence implicating them, and I say "potentially" because we don't actually know if this
China has a demographic problem... (Score:2)
Re: Obviously engineered (Score:2)
Like WHO appointed expert Peter Daszak.
Oh wait. He was funding the WIV research.
The easiest people to con are the ones who think they're too smart to be conned.
Re: (Score:2)
To be more specific, Peter Daszak got funding from the US to outsource research to create a virus just like COVID-19 at the Wuhan lab [thebulletin.org]. Coronavirus was a joint research project between China and the US that escaped the lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Chutzpah.
"A logical question, if I may" (Score:2)
Why not test the researchers who got sick early on for SARS COV 2 antibodies? If they're negative, we can stop thinking about them. If they're positive, we would be stuck not knowing whether the antibodies were vaccine-produced.
It's good science to generate multiple hypotheses and not throw any out from passion or prejudice. Any hypothesis has to explain how SARS COV 2 is well adapted to spreading in humans. An example hypothesis for that is that it might be have evolving undetected in some animal with ACE2
Re:"A logical question, if I may" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a little late to be testing for antibodies since they could have had it then (when it first started spreading in China) or they could have caught it later, or the antibodies could have worn off and they might test negative even if they had it back then.
They DID test the researchers (Score:5, Informative)
CNN reports the workers at the lab "were tested and there was no evidence found of Covid antibodies. [cnn.com]"
Why is it that none of the news stories you're reading now are even bothering to mention that? Because it's an entirely different story if you know that the workers at the lab were tested.... Even the TFA specifies that the workers had been sick with symptoms "consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illness."
A F**k up at the institute is a possibillity (Score:2, Insightful)
The theories of an engineered virus being purposely released are far fetched. But the simple fact is the Wuhan Virology Institute was studying coronaviruses from bats and other animals in the wake of SARS, and have published that. It's not a secret.
Basically, a reasonable explanation is they were working with SARS-COV-2 in their labs doing research. It was not done safely, and somebody screwed up. Instead of throwing everything at it to resolve the issue early and with full discloser internationally helping
People where covid started showed covid symptoms (Score:3)
Why are people acting like these employees would be immune to a natural exposure?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you stuff that straw man with even more straw, you'll feel even better when you hit it.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to know what a straw man argument is.
What the original poster submitted was a conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
My conspiracy theory, NIH knew Wuhan was doing not-gain-of-function research (nudge nudge wink wink) and they were being partly funded indirectly by US government even if only a little.
The paper shredders went brrrr and a lot of scientists felt the need to cover each others asses because the not-gain-of-function research (nudge nudge wink wink) is rampant among their peers.
Re:Now Fauci is changing his tune. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Fauci changing his tune, or are the quotes you pulled simply a scientist acknowledging uncertainty, as most of us here do regularly when asked if we are certain of something? Alternatively, even if he is changing his tune, isn't that exactly what we'd want in the face of new evidence that, on its face, contradicts his prior beliefs? Scientists should be the first ones to acknowledge uncertainty or newly discovered facts pointing to a different understanding.
A few years back I remember a scientist at the LHC being asked about apocalyptic scenarios that could result from turning on the LHC. When pointedly asked, the scientist admitted that they weren't 100% certain that the earth wouldn't be swallowed in a runaway black hole that resulted from the experiments, but to help others understand what they meant in saying that, they then pointed out that they also weren't 100% certain that fire-breathing dragons wouldn't come flying out of a portal when they flipped the switch (which spawned a load of tongue-in-cheek articles about scientists worrying about the potential for dragons, as you might imagine). And had fire-breathing dragons come flying out when they flipped the switch, I'd have hoped those scientists would be quick to recognize that they got it wrong in the moments before their fiery doom.
Scientists rarely deal in certainties. Saying you have a "strong leaning" is in no way at odds with not yet being convinced.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Fauci changing his tune, or are the quotes you pulled simply a scientist acknowledging uncertainty, as most of us here do regularly when asked if we are certain of something? Alternatively, even if he is changing his tune, isn't that exactly what we'd want in the face of new evidence that, on its face, contradicts his prior beliefs? Scientists should be the first ones to acknowledge uncertainty or newly discovered facts pointing to a different understanding.
100% agree, but that is not the real problem here. The real problem, is a rabid society hell-bent on hanging on every fucking word this man says.
Yes, he could hold a sensible opinion on this that was derived from the facts at the time. New data may change that, but it's rather hard to reason a new stance when society already took yesterdays word and ran off the Cliff of Conspiracy with it.
You can't fix stupid. Sometimes you can't even talk to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming a foreign enemy, and associating a people with a virus, to distract from domestic policy failures are archetypical totalitarianism moves (as are using government powers to attack critics and refusing to abide by the outcome of an election).
So yeah: Orange Man Bad epidemiologist, but I have no problem with a scientific investigation by a competent administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming domestic policy to distract from the source of the problem.
Keep engaging in your left wing right wing politics, and just like in 2003, and in 2019, China will be the source of yet another SARS pandemic.
So yes, case in point, your post is so deathly afraid to question the source, and instead points the finger elsewhere to distract and deflect what you probably do perceive as xenophobia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming a foreign enemy...
Uh, a whole lot of the planet is in bed with that "enemy" you speak of. Which 21st Century woke definition would you be using again?
and associating a people with a virus...
You mean like the Spanish Flu that oddly no one has a problem with?
...I have no problem with a scientific investigation by a competent administration.
"Competent" would be walking into China's backyard and not accepting bullshit for an answer.
Let me know why you think any country, would succeed in that mission.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that the truth.
Look at how much the discourse has changed on /. in just the last 10 years.
The bastions of rational thought are falling around us because they let people in trailer parks have access to the internet.
Surprise! More information didn't make them smarter. They only accept information that small minds can accept.
I'm old.
Re: Move on (Score:2)
No they didn't.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A year ago there was no direct evidence proving the lab leak theory, and claiming that there was would have been incorrect. That's the bit that got debunked. The "there is a smoking gun" bit. Nkt the plausibility of the lab leak.
But what there was was a lot of circumstantial evidence coupled with a lot of what looked like conspicuous attempts by not-disinterested parties to divert attentiona away from the WIV.
Now there is more circumstantial evid
Re: (Score:2)
This is a distinction without difference.
If I get the sniffles or even a flu, I'll probably just call in sick.
But you don't work in a level 4 biosafety lab...
You'd hope they'd be a little bit more cautious.
Maybe it's even required of them to get every little thing checked out.
Re: Seeking care in a hospital (Score:2)
In China, you get the sniffles and the give you an IV of antibiotics. I am not even joking with you, I live in China and over prescription here is crazy. Many things you can get without prescription, including antibiotics but for some reason, they really love IV antibiotics. I know Pakistani doctors who study here and we all agree, it's fucking crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
The only "debate" is either for hate clicks or political reasons (e.g. to deflect from the very poor handling of the pandemic by the previous administration).
No, the only stifling of debate is for political reasons. But thankfully for those like yourself, you've already accomplished those political goals. Why do you suddenly think this is being more openly discussed again?
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore COVID finds it difficult to transmit by touch, which is in all likelihood how it would have transmitted if it was being worked on in a lab setting... except that the facility at the center of this is a Biohazard 4 lab and the idea that such a facility would fall victim to poor handwashing procedures is silly.
I'm not quite sure how you deduce that touch would have been the most likely vector of spread when it's rather obvious the virus is airborne, and small enough to bypass the overwhelming majority of safety equipment. It also holds one hell of an incubation period, and has the ability to infect with asymptomatic results.
Perhaps what is silly is assuming humans are perfect, and facilities are idiot-proof. We're damn good at building a better idiot.
Re: (Score:2)