Private channel session 1369
162 messages over 4h 5m, 2021-05-13 – 2021-05-13.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
He also sets up a false balance between Wade and myself - my Twitter thread wasn't merely a "On the other side" -it destroys his argument with actual data.
-
Opens the door for a counter letter or tech comment. _I for one would like to see @Andrew Rambaut math in print.
-
Same...
-
The lab escape idea is not a scientific hypothesis - it is an allegation. It can't be investigated by scientific methods because were it true it would also imply a cover-up which by definition is to avoid discovery.
-
Let's put a Science logo on that and we're done :wink:.
-
I am not sure about presenting the maths up front but we can use it to hone our arguments. The point is that collecting samples have no way of enriching for human transmissible viruses so they have one in a million shot offinding one. Carnivores are act like a filter - selecting at source for transmissible viruses.
-
WHO and PD noticed... [shared file(s): image.png]
-
The editor of science is inviting a scientific 'debate' in his mag. Why don't we see if Nature is interested in acommentary written as a sub-tweet
-
Should we consider it? We can get Angie involved and I'm sure we could get a good list of people to sign - but weshould focus on people with _actual_ experience and not ivory tower academics. Andrew, you have by far theclearest voice here...
-
I think we should. Ian has gone over to the the Lab Leakers (aka FOMOs) . Angie good. From Gorman and Zimmer: " While this group of scientists does not single out any researchers by name, the letter finds fault with those who have also been vocal in supporting the theory of a natural origin, citing a lack of evidence. Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., has been a strong proponent ofthe overwhelming likelihood of a natural origin. He was one of the authors of an often cited paper in March 2020 that dismissed the likelihood of a laboratory origin based largely on the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. "We do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," that paper stated. Speaking for himself only, Dr. Relman said in an interview that "the piece that Kristian Anderson and four others wrote last March in my view simply fails to provide evidence to support their conclusions."Dr. Andersen, who reviewed the letter in Science, said that both explanations were theoretically possible. But, "the letter suggests a false equivalence between the lab escape and natural origin scenarios," he said. "To this day, nocredible evidence has been presented to support the lab leak hypothesis, which remains grounded inspeculation_."_Instead, he said, available data "are consistent with a natural emergence of a novel virus from a zoonotic reservoir,as has been observed so many times in the past." He said he supported further inquiry into the origin of the virus.Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at University of Saskatchewan's Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, has criticized the politicization of the laboratory leak theory. She supports further investigation, but said that "there is more evidence (both genomic and historical precedent) that this was the result of zoonotic emergence rather than a laboratory accident."
-
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/13/1024866/investigation-covid-origin-wuhan-china-lab-biologists-letter/
-
Shi's quotes are important to read.
-
Ian?
-
He's on the Lab Leak bandwagon
-
Letter could be @Andrew Rambaut "lab escape idea is not a scientific hypothesis - it is an allegation. It can't beinvestigated by scientific methods because were it true it would also imply a cover-up which by definition is to avoiddiscovery." It could also call for support of the WHO process, recognition that intermediate hosts or reservoirs for many viruses have not been determined, respect for the scientific process and a call for more virus-hunting not less.
-
Lipkin?
-
Yes
-
Is he quoted somewhere?
-
https://elpais.com/ciencia/2021-05-13/un-grupo-de-destacados-cientificos-pide-una-autentica-investigacion-del-origen-de-la-pandemia.html "Epidemiologist Ian Lipkin , a world authority on emerging pathogens, was another of five experts who in March 2020 pointed to a natural origin of the coronavirus as the most likely hypothesis. His speech now sounds more skeptical. "We may never know the origin of SARS-CoV-2. I am concerned that scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not take adequate precautions when cultivating bat viruses, "Lipkin explains to ELPAÍS. The epidemiologist, from Columbia University (USA), cites research with dangerous viruses carried out inWuhan before the pandemic in laboratories with a medium level of biosafety." I might have said something too.
-
To think that I sent him one of the posters...
-
I have started a document - mainly to rant... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPzBuXW0BY0okNljUBjmOSzDvwMsiW_UGMHYcyCWD4E/edit
-
Great! I'll try to draft something for a reply to Relman too - thanks Bob for the stuff above.
-
Never has the name Butt Lesion been so appropriate.
-
I am now glad we got him on the origins paper - makes him look like a swithering idiot.
-
Currently dealing with the shit show that is B.1.617.2 (it is always the lineages with 1s and 7s in it). Might be a bitpreoccupied for a bit.
-
Yeah, I mean [shared file(s): E1P6mJmWQAEg1sz.png]
-
Yeah - but as always it isn't as simple as that.
-
Please tell me something is TOTALLY wrong with this. (I saw the fantastic discussion a few days ago)
-
The india data is hugely difficult to interpret at the morent
-
Nope, definitely not as simple as that - and clearly there's a bias here. However...
-
Difficult enough to the point that we have to ignore it for now?
-
B.1.617.2 (and .1) are very diverse suggesting quite an old origin (perhaps July last year).
-
But imports into UK basically started in March and Indian samples only appeared in Feb.
-
Yup, saw that - similar to CA variant which may well be a dud.
-
But the full diversity is being imported into UK.
-
Became HUGELY prevalent during the surge, but it was surge-driven, not mutation-driven (most likely)
-
That doesn't feel like the virus being more transmissible - that is like lots of viruses entering some very high transmission populations.
-
Hmmm
-
But it has P681R so is very plausibly more transmissible
-
Not necessarily though - if e.g., P681R explains the increased transmissibility, then you'd see the full diversity
-
No?
-
In the UK the raw figures seem like it is growing but actually it is focused in a few places and there are some good epi reasons for growth
-
@Kristian Andersen Not really - I would expect the first virus with P681R that arrives in Mombai to win.
-
@Kristian Andersen Exponential growth is a killer
-
@Kristian Andersen So if these viruses have been lurking in the countryside for months, why do they all arrive inMumbai at the same time.
-
@Kristian Andersen Seems likely to be huge mass gatherings (which India does well I hear) amplifying many variants
-
So I just don't know if it is more transmissible. But I really don't think it is much more transmissible than B.1.1.7.
-
That last point is really key - being 60%+ more transmissible than B.1.1.7 just seems nuts. Unless there's something funky going on with B.1.1.7's own transmission advantage (so it can be lower under certain circumstances whereB.1.617 would be higher - not impossible).
-
@Kristian Andersen Really good point. But what if P681R arrives first, then spread across the country, followed bylocal divergence. Do we know how clustered the diversity is? If you're getting pretty much _all_ diversity into the UK,that'd suggest "not very" - i.e., what I'm suggesting probably not very likely compared to the competing hypothesis ofsurge-driven spread.
-
Yeah - the modellers are so sure. But it just seems wrong to expect there is a simple mutational path to 3-fold more transmissibility over Wuhan (the figure mentioned today) and it didn't happen before now.
-
I can't believe someone can say 300% more transmissible and not just pause.
-
Well, Oli and Nuno said 220% more transmissible for P.1, so there's that :wink:. But I agree - I think we have to be very very careful lot to over interpret the data, which is much too easy to do. But ifwe're saying that SARS-CoV-2 now has an R0 of ~8-9 and no longer ~2.5 then, well shit...
-
Somebody on Twitter got it. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.28.55 PM.png]
-
Angie asked me about writing a letter too - I think we should definitely do it... (with her and others)
-
@Kristian Andersen No - not more transmissible (IRRC) - just that it was transmitting faster (in the environment itwas in).
-
Oli might join it - he liked the snippet I sent him.
-
@Kristian Andersen Hmmm, that was not how I read it (I remember them looking at those separately by splitting out immune evasion and inherent transmission - but I need to look again).
-
It'd be great to have Oli on. Aris too? Do you know him? He seems very insightful.
-
@Kristian Andersen Yeah - I need to look again. But I doubt Oli would be too gungho about it - he is the most sceptical of all of us.
-
I know Aris
-
@Kristian Andersen Just a bit :wink:
-
David Robertson would be in too
-
Stuart Neil perhaps as well.
-
Need some diversity on this too
-
Yup
-
[and Aris, David, Stuart - yup]
-
Pardis?
-
For some inter-Broad tension?
-
Or would she be too cautious
-
Yeah, Pardis would sign I'm sure - although she's a little all over the place with these questions
-
@Kristian Andersen From the preprint [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.54.21 PM.png]
-
Need to get some non Americans too. Happi?
-
Yeah, Happi for sure
-
Mosoka Fallah
-
Need Asia
-
Kanta Subbarao would sign
-
What do you think about the idea of not explicitly addressing this at the Bloom letter but just as a statement about the risk of focusing on lab escape and missing the big fact that we are going to have another pandemic if we don't sort the animal exposure issue.
-
Malik
-
Definitely - don't want tit for tat
-
Yi Guan
-
The folks from this letter all strong: https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/3/article-p955.xml
-
Malik and Yi are good
-
Yeah, good people on the AJTMH letter
-
Also, UTMB guys like Bob Cross
-
(need plenty of people who actually go into the field and get dirty with this type of work)
-
Can't have anyone with any link to WIV Has to be done by slack/googledoc otherwise there will be GIPAs galore
-
Best if we write and then circulate
-
Nor anyone on the WHO team
-
Yeah
-
Jeremy?
-
Fauci?
-
He might if the tone was right
-
(Jezza, I mean)
-
If it was all about human/animal interface
-
And missing the opportunity to stop the next one by focusing blame on a postdoc in WIV
-
UC Davis PREDICT folks that are not / less conflicted? We haven't exactly been buds in the past, so could work.
-
I would avoid PREDICT personally
-
Could be seen to have a vested interest
-
"And missing the opportunity to stop the next one by focusing blame on a postdoc in WIV" Yes - as Shi said _The continued pressure on scientists who are working to understand the risk of coronavirus emergence actually weakens our ability to prevent the next zoonosis._
-
Maybe the Tufts "Spillover" folks
-
Stephen Goldstein has been a clear voice too
-
But yes -vested interest
-
Spillover folks could be good. And I think we could get the whole of UTMB group to sign on
-
That Chris guy - the one with the razor tweets
-
Would pay to watch him "debate" Alina.
-
E.g., Bob C, Weaver, Vasilakis, etc.
-
Not PREDICT as that's Daszak
-
Oh yeah, fucking Chris - we'll just have him write the whole thing!
-
[not Chris - Alex Crits-Christoph]
-
Yeah
-
The Spillover folks outsmarted EgoHealth so definitely no COI there - quite the contrary.
-
Wish I could show the gamey tastes data as that is hugely instructive
-
Get it on the bioRxiv asap!
-
I'll see where they are
-
That menu is public: https://mustsharenews.com/wuhan-market-animals-menu/
-
But yeah that's important data
-
Also - have to walk back on some of the AJTMH letter folks because they're GOF.
-
But more powerful to show these animals have viruses Those 2 RSVs are human ones in the pangos...so, transmission occurs
-
I don't know who Wellym is, but Wellym gets it... [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 3.09.23 PM.png]
-
Nope
-
Key thing is to write it carefully and then work out the people
-
Interesting retweeter - some balance. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 3.10.55 PM.png]
-
But, I could get Doherty to sign and he's got a fucking Nobel prize and is an all round smart guy
-
Let me summarize people suggested so far
-
Maybe we can get David Baltimore to sign... Nobel^2
-
:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing: Charlie Rice might
-
Failing David Baltimore maybe Alice Huang!
-
I'll pin this and add suggested co-signers at the end.
-
Oh, that's genius Bob!!
-
That would be so good
-
Bob - who from GVN?
-
Baltimore, Mike Bishop and Harold Varmus signed the letter for Daszak/EgoHealth when trump pulled the grant
-
I say we reach out to Baltimore - he might be spooked enough by the time this is ready
-
[we need a Twitter script for this - take out scientists liking the tweets from the Bloomshitters and include those who liked our stuff...]
-
Gallo, Christian Brechet, *Palese, Schinazi, anyone here*https://gvn.org/about/scientific-leadership-board/
-
Trevor Bedford...
-
Not sure he would go against Richard Neher
-
He should.
-
Let's keep the diversity in mind. Loads more white American males here.
-
Show fucking Richard who's the boss!
-
Yes - absolutely need the diversity
-
Would be fun
-
Emma
-
And we'd need A LOT of people to sign - let's aim for at least 50
-
As many on the Cambridge Working Group as possible
-
Lots of people, relevant experience, diversity, Nobel laureates - in other words, look at how the Bloomshitters failed and capitalize on that...
-
Any collaborators of Baric or postdocs now PIs?
-
Fucking Vince too
-
From CWG: Barry Bloom Alison Galvani Michael Osterholm
-
None of that lot I would say. Alison loves Lipsitch. Elodie Ghedin would do it.
-
I can likely get Mike Osterholm - and he's Biden Task Force. Elodie, yes.
-
I know Barry too - so can ask
-
(he understands the whole WHO stuff)
-
As we said... https://twitter.com/acritschristoph/status/1392968069752909829?s=21
-
Love that guy
-
Fouchier RA, , Drosten C, or Osterhaus AD
-
No, they are GoF.
-
Good point!
-
Ron is still toxic.
-
Susan R. Weiss https://www.med.upenn.edu/apps/faculty/index.php/g275/p11346
-
@Andrew Rambaut THese two from the CAmbridge Group wrote this: https://mbio.asm.org/content/11/4/e01868-20 At this time, the scientific consensus is that the virus emerged as a zoonosis whereby it jumped from an animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, to humans (*11*), and arguments about a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 are moreakin to a conspiracy theory than to a scientifically credible hypothesis.
-
@Kristian Andersen fair-cop