PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[MChambers]

Been away from this thread for about a month...

Curious what people think about Jon Stewart's recent appearance on Colbert and his comments on where Covid-19 came from: https://twitter.com/JasonDukeEvans/s...62233448964098

Stewart takes something that is an unlikely possibility and makes it sound like it's likely. In short, there's a lot of nuance to this issue, and Stewart missed that nuance entirely.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Been away from this thread for about a month...

Curious what people think about Jon Stewart's recent appearance on Colbert and his comments on where Covid-19 came from: https://twitter.com/JasonDukeEvans/s...62233448964098

I heard an extremely convincing argument on Bill Maher several months ago that suggested it was the obvious source, absent the political implications.

The amount that politics has effected this outbreak cannot be overstated. I can imagine a parallel universe in which it would have been a much more efficient response and deaths would be a fraction of what they are.

Which is infuriating.

[jimsumner]

we've always cooked well at home, and the pandemic only made us cook better, so the restaurant bar (if you will) for us has been raised quite a bit...we still love the fun of going out occasionally, but I suspect we'll be eating out less often as well...a bit tired of paying $140 for a dinner for two when what we cook at home is often better. But I'm still all for restaurant employees getting a better proverbial shake.

$140 for a dinner for two? You must be one heck of a tipper.

[budwom]

$140 for a dinner for two? You must be one heck of a tipper.

hey, this isn't A Meat and Three Sides Land, mister!

[JasonEvans]

Stewart takes something that is an unlikely possibility and makes it sound like it's likely.

Why is it unlikely? Is it that you think the Wuhan lab was using strong containment measures on its facility and staff? I'm just wondering why you think it is so unlikely that the virus escaped the lab.

[Bluedog]

I have no take on how likely it was "lab leaked" or not, but I think the thing Stewart is missing is that the Wuhan Coronavirus Lab is located in Wuhan BECAUSE it's the area where coronaviruses are more prevalent and most naturally occurring (in the world?). At least, that's my understanding. So, yes it would appear on the surface to be a mighty fine coincidence that the origins of COVID-19 happen to be the one city where such viruses are studied in detail in a lab (as Stewart suggests). As they say, the most obvious answer is usually the answer. But that doesn't consider that the lab is located there for a reason. As Fauci said, you study it there (and the U.S. even funded some stuff) because it's where it exists. Having said that, sounds like Fauci isn't convinced at this point that it's NOT lab leaked based on what I've read.

[MChambers]

Why is it unlikely? Is it that you think the Wuhan lab was using strong containment measures on its facility and staff? I'm just wondering why you think it is so unlikely that the virus escaped the lab.

Because that's what most of the experts I've read have said. E.g., https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/10007...ed-expert-says and https://www.salon.com/2021/06/06/lab...ory-explainer/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/s...cientists.html

I don't have either the expertise or the information to make an informed judgment, nor does Stewart. I'm certainly not saying it wasn't a leak, just that a leak is less likely than spillover. SARS and MERS weren't lab leaks, as far as I know.

By the way, I didn't say "so unlikely"; that's your wording. I simply said unlikely. It certainly is possible it was a leak. (No, I'm not betting a pie on this one.)

[mph]

Why is it unlikely? Is it that you think the Wuhan lab was using strong containment measures on its facility and staff? I'm just wondering why you think it is so unlikely that the virus escaped the lab.

As anyone reading this thread knows, I thought a lab leak was a reasonable possibility back when the NYT was calling it a conspiracy theory. There’s a stronger circumstantial case today than there was a year ago—there’s strong evidence that the outbreak did not start in the Wuhan animal market; the bats that carry a coronavirus substantially similar to COVID-19 are 600 miles from Wuhan; 3 workers at the Wuhan lab sought medical treatment for respiratory illness in November of 2019; the Wuhan lab had notable lapses in safety protocol and training; the CCP has been obfuscating and hindering the study of the virus’s origin from the very beginning, etc.

Having said that, Stewart’s take was funny but not persuasive. He didn’t offer any evidence other than repeating the joke about the name of the lab. Based on Stewart’s rant, there’s no reason to believe his take is any better informed than that of any other comedian or celebrity.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Based on Stewart’s rant, there’s no reason to believe his take is any better informed than that of any other comedian or celebrity.

Important to remember that this is literally his job, though many definitely leaned on him for information for a long period of time.

[cato]

Because that's what most of the experts I've read have said. E.g., https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/10007...ed-expert-says and https://www.salon.com/2021/06/06/lab...ory-explainer/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/s...cientists.html

I don't have either the expertise or the information to make an informed judgment, nor does Stewart. I'm certainly not saying it wasn't a leak, just that a leak is less likely than spillover. SARS and MERS weren't lab leaks, as far as I know.

By the way, I didn't say "so unlikely"; that's your wording. I simply said unlikely. It certainly is possible it was a leak. (No, I'm not betting a pie on this one.)

What do you mean by “spillover”? Direct non-human to human infection outside of one of the two labs in Wuhan? That is possible, but no one has found the virus in any animals other than humans in the 18 months since the world found out about this. The “likely” explanation seems to be bending back to the viruses stored and studied at the two virology labs in Wuhan, not an mystery animal host.

[MChambers]

As anyone reading this thread knows, I thought a lab leak was a reasonable possibility back when the NYT was calling it a conspiracy theory. There’s a stronger circumstantial case today than there was a year ago—there’s strong evidence that the outbreak did not start in the Wuhan animal market; the bats that carry a coronavirus substantially similar to COVID-19 are 600 miles from Wuhan; 3 workers at the Wuhan lab sought medical treatment for respiratory illness in November of 2019; the Wuhan lab had notable lapses in safety protocol and training; the CCP has been obfuscating and hindering the study of the virus’s origin from the very beginning, etc.

Having said that, Stewart’s take was funny but not persuasive. He didn’t offer any evidence other than repeating the joke about the name of the lab. Based on Stewart’s rant, there’s no reason to believe his take is any better informed than that of any other comedian or celebrity.

To be fair, a lot of the folks blaming the pandemic on the Wuhan lab were claiming the coronavirus had been engineered by humans. I think that's what caused their claims to be dismissed as conspiracy theory. From what I've read, there's almost no chance the virus was human-engineered, based on an analysis of the genome. It's too bad the lab leak got conflated with the engineered theory.

[cato]

To be fair, a lot of the folks blaming the pandemic on the Wuhan lab were claiming the coronavirus had been engineered by humans. I think that's what caused their claims to be dismissed as conspiracy theory. From what I've read, there's almost no chance the virus was human-engineered, based on an analysis of the genome. It's too bad the lab leak got conflated with the engineered theory.

It is too bad that crackpots claiming bio weapons hijacked the conversation for so long. I don’t know if it’s fair to say that the crackpots were a large proportion of the people thinking lab leaks were the cause. They certainly got a lot of attention in the media, but quite a few people have been following up on this all along, although maybe more quietly.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It is too bad that crackpots claiming bio weapons hijacked the conversation for so long. I don’t know if it’s fair to say that the crackpots were a large proportion of the people thinking lab leaks were the cause. They certainly got a lot of attention in the media, but quite a few people have been following up on this all along, although maybe more quietly.

Again, every aspect of the last 18 months was politicized to vwry disappointing degrees on all sides. Had science and reason prevailed, we would be sitting in a different universe with more living souls.

[tommy]

Why does it really matter whether it escaped from a lab or came from animals in the Chinese "wet markets?" Of course we need to put in place as many safeguards as reasonably possible to ensure that no dangerous viruses can escape from any laboratories, anywhere, and we need to do whatever is possible to either shut down those wet markets or make them safer. Of course we do. Both of those things need to happen. But once trying to put additional safeguards in place is accepted, and I can't see any reasons not to push for them, why does it matter exactly where this virus came from?

I know there are some on one end of the political spectrum or the other that always feel the need to blame. To point fingers, to find fault somewhere, always with the "other," and to use that fault-finding as a political bludgeon. But me? I don't see the issue of where this virus came from as particularly important. To me, what is much, much more important is having in place processes in place to deal with any future viral outbreaks in a rational, efficient, and science-based manner, and having in place the leaders who will understand the nature of the threat, take it seriously, and implement the measures necessary to contain it as quickly as possible.

[jimsumner]

Again, every aspect of the last 18 months was politicized to vwry disappointing degrees on all sides. Had science and reason prevailed, we would be sitting in a different universe with more living souls.

"All sides" politicized science and reason? Can you give us some examples of how the side that supported science and reason politicized science and reason in ways that contributed to having fewer living souls?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Why does it really matter whether it escaped from a lab or came from animals in the Chinese "wet markets?" Of course we need to put in place as many safeguards as reasonably possible to ensure that no dangerous viruses can escape from any laboratories, anywhere, and we need to do whatever is possible to either shut down those wet markets or make them safer. Of course we do. Both of those things need to happen. But once trying to put additional safeguards in place is accepted, and I can't see any reasons not to push for them, why does it matter exactly where this virus came from?

I know there are some on one end of the political spectrum or the other that always feel the need to blame. To point fingers, to find fault somewhere, always with the "other," and to use that fault-finding as a political bludgeon. But me? I don't see the issue of where this virus came from as particularly important. To me, what is much, much more important is having in place processes in place to deal with any future viral outbreaks in a rational, efficient, and science-based manner, and having in place the leaders who will understand the nature of the threat, take it seriously, and implement the measures necessary to contain it as quickly as possible.

I’m not a scientist and I didn’t stay at a holiday inn express, but I would think that knowing the source of the virus is important to our understanding of how to avoid this happening again. If natural in origin, what animal was the source? How and under what conditions did it make the leap to humans? And how likely is it to happen again? If it was a lab leak, then hopefully they take more precautions. But just saying that we’ll be more prepared to deal with the consequences seems to give up on the idea of preventing it from happening again in the first place.

[Bluedog]

"All sides" politicized science and reason? Can you give us some examples of how the side that supported science and reason politicized science and reason in ways that contributed to having fewer living souls?

The NY Times argued that both Republicans and Democrats were terrible with their risk assessments -- in opposite directions. One example of not following the science could perhaps be unnecessary school closures in areas with low spread when mitigation strategies were shown to work. That may not have contributed to fewer living souls, but could contribute to mental illness, domestic abuse, etc. Would also have economic consequences which certainly people's livelihoods depend on.

I'm not equating the two as the same as would rather be on one side of it primarily, but as someone who lives in one of the most progressive cities in the country, I can tell you COVID has been very politicized on that side as well. I don't really see the "other side" (COVID deniers, non mask wearers, vax skeptics) so not as impactful for me, but certainly read about it. But having my two year old wear a mask outside in 90 degree heat with the same cohort for hours a day and not being able to use playground equipment is also not supported by science... although, admittedly, that isn't killing anybody. Although the WHO would argue it's worse for spread given wet masks, etc.

[jimsumner]

The NY Times argued that both Republicans and Democrats were terrible with their risk assessments -- in opposite directions. One example of not following the science could perhaps be unnecessary school closures in areas with low spread when mitigation strategies were shown to work. That may not have contributed to fewer living souls, but could contribute to mental illness, domestic abuse, etc. Would also have economic consequences which certainly people's livelihoods depend on.

I'm not equating the two as the same as would rather be on one side of it primarily, but as someone who lives in one of the most progressive cities in the country, I can tell you COVID has been very politicized on that side as well. I don't really see the "other side" (COVID deniers, non mask wearers, vax skeptics) so not as impactful for me, but certainly read about it. But having my two year old wear a mask outside in 90 degree heat w ith the same cohort for hours a day and not being able to use playground equipment is also not supported by science... although, admittedly, that isn't killing anybody. Although the WHO would argue it's worse for spread given wet masks, etc.

As you noted, to the best of our knowledge, no one has died from an abundance of caution on this issue. I believe any suggestion that both sides share equal blame for a U.S. death count now in excess of 600,000 souls is false equivalence at its worst and trust me, I've written and deleted much stronger iterations of this post.

[cato]

Why does it really matter whether it escaped from a lab or came from animals in the Chinese "wet markets?" Of course we need to put in place as many safeguards as reasonably possible to ensure that no dangerous viruses can escape from any laboratories, anywhere, and we need to do whatever is possible to either shut down those wet markets or make them safer. Of course we do. Both of those things need to happen. But once trying to put additional safeguards in place is accepted, and I can't see any reasons not to push for them, why does it matter exactly where this virus came from?

I know there are some on one end of the political spectrum or the other that always feel the need to blame. To point fingers, to find fault somewhere, always with the "other," and to use that fault-finding as a political bludgeon. But me? I don't see the issue of where this virus came from as particularly important. To me, what is much, much more important is having in place processes in place to deal with any future viral outbreaks in a rational, efficient, and science-based manner, and having in place the leaders who will understand the nature of the threat, take it seriously, and implement the measures necessary to contain it as quickly as possible.

This SARS didn’t come from any “wet market” or pangolin. Considering the devastation the virus has caused, I do care how it started. How would you start to protect against the next one if you don’t know how this one started?

[mph]

To be fair, a lot of the folks blaming the pandemic on the Wuhan lab were claiming the coronavirus had been engineered by humans. I think that's what caused their claims to be dismissed as conspiracy theory. From what I've read, there's almost no chance the virus was human-engineered, based on an analysis of the genome. It's too bad the lab leak got conflated with the engineered theory.

That's true, to a degree. Saying it was engineered as a bioweapon and either intentionally or accidentally released by China is a conspiracy theory. But saying it was natural occurring, brought to Wuhan, and accidentally released is very different. Saying it was brought to Wuhan, subjected to gain of function experiments and then accidentally released is also very different. I think it's reasonable to expect media outlets like the NYT and WP to make those kinds of distinctions. In an age of rampant distrust of the mainstream media it behooves them to make those distinctions. In this case, they failed. In February of 2020, the NYT said Tom Cotton was promoting "fringe theories" about COVID-19's origins. In February 2020, the WP headline said ""Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." In June of this year, they changed the headline to "Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus fringe theory that scientists have disputed."


Read Cotton's words and decide for yourselves whether the Times and Post gave his argument a fair hearing:

Cotton referenced a laboratory in the city, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, in an interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” He said the lab was near a market some scientists initially thought was a starting point for the virus’s spread.

“We don’t know where it originated, and we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”

Yet Cotton acknowledged there is no evidence that the disease originated at the lab. Instead, he suggested it’s necessary to ask Chinese authorities about the possibility, fanning the embers of a theory that has been repeatedly disputed by experts.

“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”

"All sides" politicized science and reason? Can you give us some examples of how the side that supported science and reason politicized science and reason in ways that contributed to having fewer living souls?

I'm not going to equivocate between Trump's politicization (and outright denial) of science and the way the media handled the lab leak theory. Trump's claims were more outlandish and cost more lives over the last year than anything said by Democrats or the media. But, there's no doubt in my mind that Democrats, the media, and even some scientists dismissed the lab leak theory because it was espoused by Trump and because it could be used to perpetuate an anti-China narrative, not because it was actually beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. While the outright dismissal of the lab-leak theory cost few, if any, lives over the last year, the implications for preventing future pandemics could be large. The media has a responsibility to ask questions like, should we be bringing deadly viruses to population centers? Should we be conducting gain of function research and funding other countries that conduct gain of function research? Should we do more to help improve safety and training at biosafety level 3 and 4 labs? There are millions of future lives potentially implicated in those questions.