Thread

1. robmusial · 1791169542 · focus · HN ↗

   I literally just finished Annie Jacobsen's book 'Biological War: A Scenario' last week where the central plot point is an accidental release of modified form of pneumonic plague from a lab in Siberia. Very coincidental timing, especially since it made me wonder how often labs like these have accidents and we never hear about them because it is cleaned up without issue.

   1. petcat · 1791170758 · focus · HN ↗

      > made me wonder how often labs like these have accidents and we never hear about them because it is cleaned up without issue.

      Did anyone ever confirm if the lab in Wuhan China was the originator of COVID? I remember that was a rumor but never heard if there was anything to it.

      1. lumost · 1791171119 · focus · HN ↗

         I recently heard a scientist use a phrase something along the lines of “when two extraordinarily improbably events occur together, there is probably a connection”.

         We’ll never know if the lab in Wuhan originated the virus. But it is awfully strange that the first patients of a novel pandemic coronavirus were workers at a lab conducting gain of function research on coronavirus.

         1. jacobolus · 1791180431 · focus · HN ↗

            This is not an accurate description. The first identified patients were people working in or living near a "wet market" where (among other things) various wild animals were sold. It's plausible that someone was infected somewhere else and the market was only the site of a "superspreader event" (rather than the earliest jump from some other animal to humans), but further details are speculative, informed by indirect phylogenetic evidence rather than direct forensic evidence.

            It's not unusual/unexpected that there were labs working on coronavirus research in several major Chinese cities: the 2002 SARS outbreak, which began in southern China and caught researchers and public health officials off guard, led to significant investment in the study of coronaviruses.

            1. anon48293 · 1791180955 · focus · HN ↗

               The first corona identified. The Wuhan workers got sick around a month before.

               They also didn’t find any animal corona samples at the market. Also around 50% of people of the initial cluster had no connection to the market.

               Also the hospital where the lab workers were treated was on the corner of this market.

               1. BonerWiener · 1791181291 · focus · HN ↗

                  Now, we just need a few sources for these claims.

                  1. jacobolus · 1791181961 · focus · HN ↗

                     There was supposedly a "US intelligence report" which claimed that three workers at the lab went to a hospital for treatment for some kind of viral illness in November 2019, but it is not known what illness that was. According to journalists, within the US intelligence community opinions were mixed about possible viral origins, with some intelligence officials believing the lab had something to do with the origin of the virus while other intelligence officials considered that hypothesis implausible. There's not a lot of specific public detail about what information or analysis informed those opinions.

                     All sides of the question were heavily politicized. The Trump administration and the US GOP have heavily pushed a lab leak hypothesis and used it to argue against China and against scientists (e.g. turning Anthony Fauci into a bogeyman). On the other side, China has blocked investigations and tried to steer public statements by various organizations away from anything that would question their government's motives or competence.

                     1. jacobolus · 1791182749 · focus · HN ↗

                        Update: apparently the US intelligence report was eventually declassified and published in 2023: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.dni.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;ODNI&#x2F;documents&#x2F;assessments&#x2F;Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.dni.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;ODNI&#x2F;documents&#x2F;assessments&#x2F;Rep...

                        Quoting the report:

                        • ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2.

                        • ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ The Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation assess that a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause of the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2, although for different reasons.

                        • ⬛⬛ The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting.

                        • ⬛⬛ Almost all IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered. Most agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not laboratory-adapted; some are unable to make a determination. All IC agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a biological weapon.

                        [...]

                        ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ Several WIV researchers were ill in Fall 2019 with symptoms; some of their symptoms were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19. The IC continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19. [...]

                        ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19. While some of these researchers had historically conducted research into animal respiratory viruses, we are unable to confirm if any of them handled live viruses in the work they performed prior to falling ill.

                     2. dualvariable · 1791182858 · focus · HN ↗

                        That article was written by the same journalist who co-wrote the aluminum tubes story for the NYT that was part of the justification for the Iraq War.
            2. dualvariable · 1791182494 · focus · HN ↗

               It is very unlikely that the initial superspreader event of a pandemic would be in a wet market that would be the one place for an animal spillover.

               And when you look at the documented lab release of SARS-CoV-1, it killed the researcher&#x27;s mother. If a lab leak happened, we would expect it to hit the people closest to the researchers at the lab who were infected, and the places they visited. Hitting only the wet market isn&#x27;t very likely.

               The outbreak looks like a wet market spillover. The fact that it happened in the same city as WIV is an unusual coincidence, but if the virus developed in rural Hubei, it was likely it would spillover in Wuhan.

               1. Scipio_Afri · 1791184132 · focus · HN ↗

                  I think perhaps there is a correlation with population density as well. Wuhan is fairly dense, and the wet market that is subject to speculation is located in the most densely populated district of wuhan.

                  Is it possible that the animals at the wet market itself was the source? Sure. But it seems sort of coincidental to me it is also the most dense area of the city; could’ve already been spreading and this location just happened to be where a major outbreak occurred from density factors alone.

               2. kryogen1c · 1791197172 · focus · HN ↗

                  &gt; The outbreak looks like a wet market spillover.

                  Zoonotic spillover is not a spontaneous 0-&gt;100 event, there should be a trail of intermediate hosts and adjacent infections that there is zero evidence of.

                  &gt; If a lab leak happened, we would expect it to hit the people closest

                  thats not representative of sarscov2. People in the same household could fail to spread infection.

                  &gt; Hitting only the wet market isn&#x27;t very likely.

                  It didnt. There were early cases outside of the wet market.

                  &gt; unusual coincidence

                  A novel coronavirus appearing outside a coronavirus gain-of-function research lab is not a coincidence. Id sooner believe it was a sleight of hand to cover for a terrorist attack.

            3. soaaa · 1791186368 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.