Scientists Condemn Conspiracy Theories About Origin of Coronavirus Outbreak (sciencemag.org) 159
hackingbear writes: A group of 27 prominent public health scientists from outside China, who have studied SARS-CoV-2 and "overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife" just like many other viruses that have recently emerged in humans, is pushing back against a steady stream of stories and even a scientific paper suggesting a laboratory in Wuhan, China, may be the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19. "The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around its origins," the scientists, from nine countries, write in a statement published online by The Lancet .
Many posts on social media have singled out the Wuhan Institute of Virology for intense scrutiny because it has a laboratory at the highest security level -- biosafety level 4 -- and its researchers study coronaviruses from bats; speculations have included the possibility that the virus was bioengineered in the lab or that a lab worker was infected while handling a bat. Researchers from the institute have insisted there is no link between the outbreak and their laboratory. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance and a cosignatory of the statement, has collaborated with researchers at the Wuhan institute who study bat coronaviruses. "We're in the midst of the social media misinformation age, and these rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China."
Many posts on social media have singled out the Wuhan Institute of Virology for intense scrutiny because it has a laboratory at the highest security level -- biosafety level 4 -- and its researchers study coronaviruses from bats; speculations have included the possibility that the virus was bioengineered in the lab or that a lab worker was infected while handling a bat. Researchers from the institute have insisted there is no link between the outbreak and their laboratory. Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance and a cosignatory of the statement, has collaborated with researchers at the Wuhan institute who study bat coronaviruses. "We're in the midst of the social media misinformation age, and these rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China."
How do they reconcile the Chinese report? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Chinese report says that the virus is a 98% match for one being studied in a class 4 biohazard lab, directly across the street from the outbreak, and that there were multiple instances of human contamination, in which a researcher quarantined himself. This virus lives in bats, but the nearest bat habitat is 500+ miles away, and bats are not a normal food for the people in the location where the outbreak started.
How do these researchers rationalize these facts? Do they think that a bat flew 500 miles awa
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Look man, the science is settled. Coronavirus came from batpussy and that's that.
We'll have none of this Sinophobic speculation about the outbreak being due to Chinese incompetence, that's racist.
China is a good boy, they didn't do nothin!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funding Disclosure (Score:2)
These 27 people should disclose the source of all their grant or other money that funds their activities.
Or, are we to believe that only Monsanto or other American companies have scientists in their back pockets?
Re:How do they reconcile the Chinese report? (Score:5, Interesting)
All fun and games in rumours as long as they are held as that. As for loonies who believe abso-fucking-lutely anything and everything, well, there are a whole bunch of them and they are responsible for their own stupidity, as we are responsible for ensuring they are prosecuted when they act out on it.
As for bats flying directly to the restaurant begging to be eaten, well, yeah, they catch them and transport them as far as they need to go to be sold. As you would expect from selling and eating bats, the market would be small and spread pretty widely, many hundreds even thousands of kilometers from the roosting site.
That there are scientist fucking with the viruses, well, we all know that, there are labs all over and how they are fucking with those viruses is not always publicly declared and obviously should be and they should be held fully legally liable for any releases. All research facilities should be routinely and audited for security and penalised severely if they fail legalised requirements for security/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, then I'm not concerned.
Wait, what did you just say?
Re: (Score:3)
The biosafety lab at Wuhan Center for Disease Control, 270 meters away, sent a technician across the road to the wet market during lunch to check it out...
Re: How do they reconcile the Chinese report? (Score:2)
And humans are about 98% genetically similar to most animals on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they reconcile the Chinese report? (Score:5, Insightful)
And humans are a 99% match for chimpanzees. What's your point?
If the match is only 98%, that pretty much excludes the biohazard lab as the source of the virus. If it were a 99.99% match you might be onto something. But 98% is like claiming you must've been attacked by your neighbor's pet poodle because a blood splatter from the animal that attacked you matches a coyote.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And humans are a 99% match for chimpanzees. What's your point?
You need to read more modern papers. That 99% is back from 2012. Two newer studies have shown it's only ~84%. https://www.icr.org/article/se... [icr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the nearest bat habitat is 500+ miles away
Don't know much about bats, do you. Please refrain from commenting on topics on which you have no knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
"This virus lives in bats, but the nearest bat habitat is 500+ miles away, and bats are not a normal food for the people in the location where the outbreak started."
People eat them in China. And they eat them in a "soup" that looks like a bat taking a beer bath. That it's not a typical food for people in the location where the outbreak is believed/reported to have occurred is relevant, but not the complete story.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it must be pointed out that a "98% match" is nothing. We share more than 98% of our genome with chimpanzees. Are we the same? Of course not.
Having said that, though, contrary to what was suggested by OP, the evidence that the virus was manufactured is pretty good. The two RNA protein "insertions" that were found in the virus exist in no other coronavirus on Earth, suggesting that it did not "evolve" in a natural manner, either within bats or a
Re:How do they reconcile the Chinese report? (Score:4, Interesting)
All in all, it very much looks like this virus was engineered in order to enhance its ability to spread and infect.
This would be true of any new infectious virus. You could almost certainly examine the SARS virus, the Spanish Flu virus and others and manke the same deduction.
Re: (Score:2)
The two protein inserts exist in no other coronavirus on Earth.
That, plus the super-long incubation period, suggest that it was engineered, not natural.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's rushing to a conclusion. What you should say is that the protein inserts exist in no other observed coronoviruses on Earth.
Well, that's certainly true, but again, there are people who have been studying these coronaviruses for decades.
Most of the known ones have already been gene-mapped.
he other thing to consider is how easy (or hard) it would be for a known coronovirus to undergo a series of mutations that would result in those protein inserts which have been observed or for it to have come into contact with another virus that it could have swapped genetic material with in such a way as to have these protein inserts.
Damned near impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate denier and an engineered virus conspiracy theorist, you've got to be a Russian troll. You can't be real, you'd be like, a supporting crazy person in an X-Files episode. Trolls are way more common than the X-Files.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm not convinced that this is the "ah ha" moment that you present it as, at least not without some additional context or evidence.
I did not present it as an "aha" moment. I said there was some evidence.
What you need to understand, though, is that not only are the 2 inserts individually extremely unlikely to happen, but together they mimic a cell-binding structure that exists in a variant of HIV.
I don't know how good you are at probabilities, but given that much information it's safe to say that this happening naturally is extremely unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We share more than 98% of our genome with chimpanzees. Are we the same? Of course not.
Certainly not. We spread much faster and are orders of magnitude deadlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" The two RNA protein "insertions" that were found in the virus exist in no other coronavirus on Earth, suggesting that it did not "evolve" in a natural manner, either within bats or anywhere else. "
I doubt this is supported by science. RNA is a collection genes, these are not proteins. So inserting RNA proteins "found in the virus" is unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the interesting things about viruses, is that they can readily exchange DNA with both their hosts, and other viruses that simultaneously infect the same host. So-called horizontal gene transfer.
Of course, a pair of very unusual sequences that combine to make a virus much more dangerous is perhaps suspicious, but it's not a smoking gun in and of itself. Really nasty plagues never seen before crop up all the time thanks to the massively larger populations and massively higher mutation and gene-transfe
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to the alleged RNA modifications, but this virus doesn't seem dangerous enough to be useful as any kind of weapon. If they wanted to weaponize a virus I would think they would start with MERS or H5N1 or a filovirus or rabies and just try to make them more infective. Just because it's not a likely weapon does not mean it did not escape from the lab though. They may have just been studying what they regarded as a relatively benign bat virus and someone screwed up and caught it and then passed it
Re: (Score:2)
A 98% match is not very significant in a virus. Experts know that, you do not.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a bridge, dummy. Right in between them. 300 m, walking distance.
two Wuhan labs (Score:2)
Wuhan labs (Score:2)
This is informative (Score:4, Interesting)
Glad to see actual information here for once.
Oh, while I have your attention:
1. Masks are pretty close to useless. Stop using them. They don't work.
2. WASH YOUR HANDS WITH BAR SOAP AND WARM WATER.
3. Gloves or mittens do help.
4. Wash your hands before and after handling food or clothes. Again, bar soap, warm water. No, not scalding. No, not soap dispensers. No, not hand sanitizer. DEFINITELY NOT ANTI-BIOTIC, STOP BREEDING SUPERBUGS!
5. Phone the hospital before just showing up. They have protocols that will ensure you don't spread any COVID-19 to other people.
Re:This is informative (Score:5, Informative)
1. This is not true; they are not "pretty close to useless", and one absolutely should not "stop using them". That said, in medical settings, they are insufficient on their own to 100% prevent infection
4. Hand sanitizer works just fine. There's nothing magical about soap. Antibiotics are irrelevant in this regard - neither good nor bad. It's a virus.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that this virus can infect you through your eyeballs. Why would a mask be helpful?
Re:This is informative (Score:5, Informative)
There's a difference between "capable of infection" and "likely to infect". Just like the fact that several-days-old influenzaviruses can still be infectious, but the odds of infection are far lower than freshly deposited viruses.
Viruses can infect through many different means (and it appears that COVID-19 uses multiple means). Masks are designed to protect you from aerosols (viruses don't generally travel as "free particles", but rather contaminate aerosols from breath, coughing, and sneezing). But that's not the only way you can become infected.
Blocking aerosols when you're around someone who has a cold/flu (including those caused by coronaviruses) is a good thing. It's not immunity, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking aerosols when you're around someone who has a cold/flu (including those caused by coronaviruses) is a good thing. It's not immunity, though.
Percentage bet, then.
Sadly, if one active social commentator suggests that scrubbing a wart with a raw potato and then burying the spud cures the papillomavirus, folks will be planting potatoes in a much greater incidence than than they will be absorbing ideas contrary to their settled belief set(s).
Re: (Score:2)
"Sadly, if one active social commentator suggests that scrubbing a wart with a raw potato and then burying the spud cures the papillomavirus, folks will be planting potatoes in a much greater incidence than than they will be absorbing ideas contrary to their settled belief set(s)."
But at least they'll have more food.
Re: (Score:3)
The particular kinds of masks being used won't filter out a virus, but that's not the point!
The point is to keep people from coughing and sneezing on other people!
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that this virus can infect you through your eyeballs. Why would a mask be helpful?
First, it protects others when you sneeze. Also, there is a subtle difference between "can" and "has a probability of xyz% to do so. Most infections of this type are actually from people touching their faces. Masks stop that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the news I see people in China with masks, and also hats with home made plastic face shields.
Re: (Score:2)
Through the peepers is not a documented route of infection afaik. It would definitely be a good idea to wear a pair of swim or ski goggles and maybe some earplugs too for good measure if you are in Wuhan tho. If I had to go to Wuhan I would wear a full face P100 respirator even though it hasn't been proven to stop this virus because the idea of its effectiveness is plausible and it has not been proven not to work when used carefully.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
1. This is not true; they are not "pretty close to useless", and one absolutely should not "stop using them". That said, in medical settings, they are insufficient on their own to 100% prevent infection
I think this is all funny as shit. I was bored one night and tuned into Chinese News station CGTN. There was a guy on TV demonstrating the use of different types of masks and said that any of the masks would stop coronavirus. He said it just like that as a matter of fact.
Then I tuned to a US news station and the guy on TV said the masks were useless. Literally within the same 1 minute window of time.
Then I looked up the size of the virus (~100nm) and data from manufactures websites. Surprise... useless
Re:This is informative (Score:5, Insightful)
The size of the virus is not what's relevant. It's the size of fluid droplets in sneezes, and whether the virus can survive on the masks. The droplets are large enough to be caught, but the virus can survive on at least most of the masks, so their value is still questionable, but not for the reason you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
The masks are as much to stop your fluid droplets from getting on other people as they are for protecting you from infection.
Coughing or sneezing into your elbow or a tissue isn't as effective as a mask and masks cover spit that inevitably escapes when you talk too.
Re: (Score:2)
The size of the virus is not what's relevant. It's the size of fluid droplets in sneezes, and whether the virus can survive on the masks.
You are incorrect. This virus is airborne.
The droplets are large enough to be caught, but the virus can survive on at least most of the masks, so their value is still questionable, but not for the reason you describe.
Masks don't protect against droplet exposure to eyes. Face shields do.
Stop spreading lies. Right now!
The virus being "airbone" means it travels in droplets of fluid!
The mask does protect you to some degree, as there are more attack points than the eyes. The mainly protect others when you sneeze or cough and _that_ is what reduces infection rates.
Re: (Score:2)
The virus being "airbone" means it travels in droplets of fluid!
Thinking droplets travel thru the air so they are "airborne" is idiotic. You clearly have no grasp of what the terms mean and why droplets != airborne. Go educate yourself.
And at this time I know you are a completely clueless fuckup. Because that is _exactly_ the mechanism for this type of infection. The other way is a fine powder, which requires an advanced bio-weapons lab to create. Biology cannot do it. Biology uses droplets of water that are small enough to float and contain the virus in them.
Now, this may completely astonishing you, but water droplets below 5 micrometer diameter float in normal air, potentially for a long time. Above, the infection radius rapidly drops a
Re: (Score:2)
And at this time I know you are a completely clueless fuckup. Because that is _exactly_ the mechanism for this type of infection.
Is it really so hard to just Google shit... This is so dumb. I'm this I'm that.... blah blah blah.
Now, this may completely astonishing you, but water droplets below 5 micrometer diameter float in normal air, potentially for a long time. Above, the infection radius rapidly drops and rarely goes over 1m, but they can still cause infection below that.
Ok fine... you win.... I'll do it for you...
"Some diseases can be transferred by infected droplets contacting surfaces of the eye, nose, or mouth. This is referred to as droplet contact transmission. Droplets containing microorganisms can be generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. Droplets can also be generated during certain medical procedures, such as bronchoscopy. Droplets are too large
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you dropped "Measles and SARS are examples of diseases capable of droplet contact transmission." from the source...
Also, your source massively oversimplifies things. Small droplets are pretty much non-dried when you cough them out and the face-mask catches them.
_Your_ claim was that face masks are useless, if you already have forgotten that. The lie you need to stop spreading is that face-masks are useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you dropped "Measles and SARS are examples of diseases capable of droplet contact transmission." from the source...
Why is this funny? I left out a lot of other irrelevant text as well.
Also, your source massively oversimplifies things. Small droplets are pretty much non-dried when you cough them out and the face-mask catches them.
The difference between droplet and airborne are well known in the industry as is the appropriate response to protect against each. Droplet protocols are complete subsets of airborne. There is no winning against airborne with a droplet protocol. (e.g. face mask)
_Your_ claim was that face masks are useless, if you already have forgotten that. The lie you need to stop spreading is that face-masks are useless.
I'm getting a little tired of people who can't read, don't know what they are talking about and straight up misquoting me out of context to fit their own narratives or are just to
Re: (Score:2)
There are different kinds of masks and they are definitely not all equally effective in theory.
Surgical masks of the type that so many people all over Asia and even inside of Wuhan are wearing are not supposed to provide any protection at all from particulates, but the Chinese are claiming that they tested them and they block a lot of particles. Probably not enough to stop from getting infected though. Their only purpose is to protect patients from doctors wearing them and these doctors are not supposed to
Re: (Score:2)
How does it get into the air? While it might have wings, I suspect it's much more likely that it hitches a ride on a snotlet when you cough or sneeze.
Re: (Score:3)
You fail. The masks do not filter out the virus. They filter out the droplet of fluid it is traveling in. Also, the main application is to protect others, with some side-application in lowering your own risk.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a standard N95 or P95 mask then it offers protection, if it is N100 or P100 even better.
But a regular surgical mask will stop a significant number of particles at 100nm. Not all. So it definitely should lower infection rates.
But it needs to be paired with a plastic face shield.
Re: (Score:2)
"Antibiotics are irrelevant in this regard - neither good nor bad. It's a virus." While it's not clear, that might have been WillA-what's-his-name's point: antibiotics won't help stop this virus, and in fact used widely, they'll just help bacteria (which are in the environment anyway) become resistant. If that's what he meant, it's' not so much irrelevant as under-explained.
Re: (Score:2)
>Hand sanitizer works just fine. There's nothing magical about soap.
Well, soap is usually FAR more effective than hand sanitizers, by several orders of magnitude. And sanitizers definitely help breeding superbugs. Either the antibiotics (which include things like bleach) have no effect on the virii, in which case the hand sanitizer is completely useless - or they kill most of the virii, in which case the ones they don't kill are likely to pass on a greater resistance to that antibiotic to their descend
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you have a different definition of "hand sanitizer" than I'm used to. Where I am, the active ingredient in hand sanitizers is isopropyl alcohol. It most definitely kills bacteria and viruses. Just like ethanol does. And with literally billions of years to have learned to do so (since fermentation occurs naturally, sometimes up to quite high concentrations that even kill the yeast that makes it), microbes still haven't evolved resistance to the killing power of strong ethanol. They're unlikely to
Re: (Score:2)
>Compounds that kill on-contact are not the concern.
Only if they're 100% effective. Anything that leaves survivors, allows adaptation. Go ahead, find me a hand sanitizer that promises to kill 100% of microbes.
Re: (Score:2)
Geological timescales worth of evolution in the presence of alcohol, even from the creatures that create alcohol themselves, argues that it's not going to happen.
Your argument is like saying that because some animal might not die in a forest fire, and forest fires keep occurring in the same forest, that eventually animals are going to be able to survive being thrown into the sun.
There is no credible threat of adaptation to "brute force" sterilization techiques. It's adaptation to selective killing approach
Re: (Score:2)
>Geological timescales worth of evolution in the presence of alcohol, even from the creatures that create alcohol themselves, argues that it's not going to happen.
And where are the natural environments where alcohol accumulates to sufficient levels for it to be a problem? Not to mention, alcohol isn't actually a terribly effective disinfectant, even on external surfaces. And the old "pour alcohol on a wound" strategy actually does more damage to the wounded tissue than the microbes infecting it.
>You
Also, pens (Score:2)
6) Carry around your own pen.
When the checkout lady asks you to sign the CC receipt (or any other request for signature), use your own pen.
7) Avoid doorknobs and other doorway latches in public
Push doors open with your hip or elbow, open the door from the bathroom using a piece of paper towel, and so on.
The Corona virus can survive some seconds on a surface (time depends on the type of surface), so try to avoid touching things that the public has recently touched.
This does not apply to your house doorknobs
Re: (Score:2)
The Corona virus can survive some seconds on a surface (time depends on the type of surface), so try to avoid touching things that the public has recently touched.
My understanding it's more like hours to days depending on temperature and conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to three days on hard surfaces. I don't know about soft/permeable ones, though. I'm interested in useful information about that. I like to order stuff from China and it often comes packed in paper products.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should either provide useful information or eat a bag of dicks up, coward.
Do I care? (Score:2)
Just to note, you are the least warrior-like Okian I've ever heard of, going by this post.
Maybe accept the realities of existence, or Jesus. Whichever you're comfortable with in your fragile condition.
I don't structure my life around what other people think.
It seems to work for you though, so go for it.
Re: (Score:3)
A mask used by someone who is coughing does help reduce spread though. Sure viruses can get through, but the cloud of water droplets from every sneeze and cough is what spreads many of the viruses causing colds and flus. They're not sufficient of course, and one should be washing hands anyway as you may touch many surfaces that these water droplets have been transfered to. But someone who is sneezing and coughing should be using a mask if out in public (though to be honest, I am also guilty here of not fo
Re: (Score:3)
1. Masks are pretty close to useless. Stop using them. They don't work.
A dangerous lie: Masks protect others when you sneeze. They protect you only to a minor degree, but still enough to make wearing them a very good idea.
2. WASH YOUR HANDS WITH BAR SOAP AND WARM WATER.
Yes, obviously. Except that soap from a dispenser is perfectly fine too.
3. Gloves or mittens do help.
Not in normal settings. Gloves changed after you touched a patient do help though.
4. Wash your hands before and after handling food or clothes.
See above
Again, bar soap, warm water. No, not scalding. No, not soap dispensers. No, not hand sanitizer. DEFINITELY NOT ANTI-BIOTIC, STOP BREEDING SUPERBUGS!
What are you smoking to spew this nonsense? Yes, _obviously_ not scalding, but the rest?
5. Phone the hospital before just showing up. They have protocols that will ensure you don't spread any COVID-19 to other people.
Actually, call for an ambulance and tell them what you suspect. They will tell you what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
1. That entirely depends on the mask, many masks are useless, but if they fit the face properly and meet the right standards then they should work. The masks have to stop 'very small aerosols'. In the UK FFP3 standard masks might substantially reduce infection risk but I need to understand the whole nature of these masks and breath aerosols better - mainly size of aerosols exhaled and effectiveness of masks stopping those particle sizes.
Relevant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
2. Agree
3. Not convinced bec
Re: (Score:2)
>1. Masks are pretty close to useless. Stop using them. They don't work.
Actually they work really well - many people just don't understand what they're for. Wearing a mask won't appreciably protect you from catching an airborne disease - it will however protect everyone else from you spreading the disease. Which is why everyone wears them during surgery - it's to protect you, not the doctor. If you have a cough, then wear a mask as a courtesy to everyone else. If everyone did that, it would dramatical
The past 24 hours sucked. :P (Score:3)
Lots of graphs here [teslamotorsclub.com]. The summary:
Re: (Score:2)
Re, South Korea: it should be noted that at least the government appears to be taking it very seriously. The cases are predominantly of a religious sect [wikipedia.org] (or cult, if you'd rather). They're cooperating. The military has been dispatched to help with containment. Daegu, the nearest large city (2,5m people), is in the containment zone; residents are being advised to stay indoors and wear masks.
confirmed (Score:2, Funny)
This story as good as confirms it was manufactured by someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Or your response confirms you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
This story as good as confirms it was manufactured by someone.
Who says it has to be man-made to be a bio-weapon? Every single time in written history humans have used bio-weapons they have been naturally occurring pathogens.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says it has to be man-made to be a bio-weapon?
Because they closed the iris before any of it could make its way to earth.
Re: confirmed (Score:2)
I've no idea who leaked it, or even what was leaked. I just know that "lots of public health scientists say it isn't true" is leak cover up 101 for it being true.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it painfully obvious that there is a conspiracy theory and that the conspirators are pushing a theory as fact.
The conspiracy theory is, in fact, that this wasnt from the occams razor lab
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do you expect these people to say if there is no cover-up going on? Right, you probably did not event think of that.
Protip: To an idiot a cover-up looks exactly the same as the literal truth.
Re: (Score:2)
This story as good as confirms it was manufactured by someone.
Bullshit. One wonders how people like you can even get on their shoes on the morning. Stop making things worse.
Scientific paper? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this part of the "scientific paper":
He described that he was once by attacked by bats and the blood of a bat shot on his skin. He knew the extreme danger of the infection so he quarantined himself for 14 days 7. In another accident, he quarantined himself again because bats peed on him. He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick.
The so-called scientific paper is not a paper. There's nothing scientific in it. There's a bunch of conjecture and a screenshot of Google Maps. There's no aim/hypothesis, no methodology, no results, just a dodgy discussion and brittle conclusion. Perhaps it was meant to be a letter to someone or maybe some kind of appeal for funding but it's not a scientific paper.
life imitates, er, other life (Score:3)
"The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumors and misinformation around its origins"
If experience teaches us anything, the learned observations of the scientists from nine countries will be widely discredited by the rapid, open, and transparent sharing of rumor and hysteria by the ignorant masses.
The Important Part (Score:3, Informative)
"Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance and a cosignatory of the statement, has collaborated with researchers at the Wuhan institute who study bat coronaviruses."
In other words, "my friends in Wuhan couldn't possibly have anything to do with it, and I'm not biased at all. Really."
Of course, the statement itself only addresses whether the virus is "has a natural origin" (and it appears it does), but glosses right over the "some idiot accidentally released the virus into Wuhan because he violated protocol" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Whew. That's a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
Just like lyme disease and Plum Island (Score:3, Funny)
There's no link between Lyme Disease and Plum Island...except that the Lyme Disease outbreak started nearby. Just like it's a coincidence that COVID-19 started right next to a viral disease lab.
Move along, everyone, nothing to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Lyme disease was endemic in Europe for thousands of years, and the earliest reported human case in America was in Wisconsin. Plum Island is in New York.
Re: (Score:2)
Plum Island is in New York.
Which is the exact origin of the phrase “Plum crazy”! Coincidence? I think not!!!
Re: (Score:2)
And how did those deer ticks get from Europe to CT? During the annual deer swim?
Lyme disease is named after Lyme, CT, where the first cases were diagnosed. Lyme, CT is right across Long Island Sound from Lyme, CT. Use the map, Luke!
Re: (Score:3)
First known case was from a market that's a 5-minute walk from the facility. It's obviously possible someone could have screwed up containment protocol, then had lunch in the market. Lots of people are running with this possibility for lack of a better story. Doesn't make it true, but it's also not ridiculous.
Wow. A whole 27. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just the mass noun. A herd of cattle. A flock of birds. A consensus of scientists.
Was there a public service announcement on this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real scientific paper there... (Score:2)
Those crazy conspiracy nuts say virologists are incompetent and dangerous. China and the PLA agree. But to combat this, lets make it completely political and tell them anecdotal stories about bats to proof that they shouldn't pick on virologists....
I suppose it's possible. (Score:3)
But it seems highly unlikely. That the virus originated in the city that contains the lab which studies a similar virus. It's a city of 10 million people in a country of 1.5 billion people.
Assuming that this wildlife is consumed at the same rate everywhere in the country (a wildly wrong assumption), that would mean that there is a 1 in 150 chance that it will accidentally start in Wuhan.
But even if it's not consumed everywhere in the country, but only in a few regions, it's still too coincidental. Why hasn't it ever been observed anywhere else?
This would be like a virus which got transferred to humans from maple trees through maple syrup, but it didn't come from Canada. It came from some place which also has occasional maple trees. It's possible, but it's so unlikely, that it doesn't requires strong evidence to make the original assumption. It requires strong evidence to refute. If it's unlikely, then the improbable is the extraordinary event that requires extraordinary evidence.
Not mutually exclusive... (Score:2)
In italy 2 oldster died from it (Score:2)
They had no contact with any Chinese, they got it in a bar.
So stay away from bars.
Sorry, released ON PURPOSE (Score:2)
OK, then show massive and overwhelming proof! (Score:2)
Who writes these godawful scripts?
So we, the mindless public, are supposed to believe that the Russians are actively working to get either Trump reelected, or Bernie Sanders elected?!
Therefore, the only palatable savior will be Michael Bloomberg (an ardent supporter of the Chinese Communist Party) --- who will be victorious at a brokered convention --- perhaps former President Obama, taking time off from producing propaganda films for the Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. The coronavirus just started, but the flu has had months.
Re: (Score:2)
The regular flu has infected 20 million and killed 10,000 Americans in the USA. You're more likely to die from that than the coronavirus.
How many Americans have been exposed to both though?
The vacuum of space is pretty deadly without protection but how many did it kill this year? Exposure matters.