A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
The question is how much we want to directly enter the fray? I was quite happy with just talking about the natural origins based on the available bat and pangolin sequences but obviously that doesn't address these arguments. Ifwe want to go full on to attack these ideas I think we have:1. You can't go from RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2 by passaging. Require the induction of 1200 mutations, about half ofwhich are reversions back to the common ancestor. Even if you did it, that would be a shit load of passages sowould be unfeasible in animals. And passaging SC2 in cells causes all sorts of stuff to happen like loss of FCS (although perhaps that is just some cells).2. You can't use modern molecular techniques to create this virus 'de novo' because you have no idea what mutations you would put in. You still need a starting virus that is almost identical to SC2 and just introduce a few things (i.e. FSC and the odd ACE2 contact residues). And you would introduce the perfect cleavage site and theoptimum RBD. So this means something almost the same as SC2 exists or existed in a lab without any publication.3. The only plausible lab origin theory (and possibly the only one that isn't a conspiracy in the event itself) is that someone collected SC2 as part of a collection of samples, was working in through them perhaps to isolate orsequence them and infected themselves (without knowing) and then transmitted (without knowing). But this is simply specific subsection of the zoonotic hypothesis - no different from bat->farmer->market worker. Given it isspecific and this would afford a single unique opportunity for the virus to jump, it is vanishingly less likely than the other types of contact humans have with animals.
-
Damn you are good - so well stated Andrew!
-
:beer:
-
2021-02-06 07:40
Robert F. Garry
For #3 I would add that Alina, Baker et al have recommended stopping all these activities, which of course is 180degrees opposite to what needs to be done. If you want to leave the world completely vulnerable to SARS3, SARS4 etc, sure stop studying sarbecovirus diversity.
-
The way to do it may be to leave them with a couple of very specific things that they need to prove if they are to turn out to be right - the major one is that a live virus, collected from the wild, that was SARS-CoV-2 or near-identical to itwas in a lab in Wuhan in November 2019. Then just let them obsess about that whilst everyone else moves on. The problem at the moment is that they say all these vague notions about passaging and engineering that seem plausible to people who don't know what is required.
-
Yes indeed that---is--- it! It's #2 aka Relman - and the pure essence of a conspiracy theory - they have the progenitor and are keeping it a secret because they don't want the world tp know they f'ed up and released it or they are hiding their super secret bioweapons program.
-
No point in spending time explaining it's _not_ a lab escape - just keep reiterating the data supporting it's all natural evolution. Then combine that with three main things (1) lab escape proponents have not put forward a testable hypothesis, (2) the lab hypothesis comes down to a single 'fact' - this happen in Wuhan (that really is all there is toit), and (3) - and while I hate this part, it's effective - they're amateurs. It's not a nice look to be the person calling other scientists idiots, but they are - so I have no issue hammering on #3 these days.
-
The only viable version of the "lab escape" hypothesis that's left, is the one we mention in PO1 - that somebody had the virus at the WIV and popped it into tissue culture. But as we say, that would look identical to natural emergence -no point for scientists trying to figure out if that could have happened, since it's not a scientific question - it lies with intelligence.