Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

Interview with a German virologist who is an expert on corona virus. It’s translated but really interesting. Touches on lab leaks, herd immunity and lots of other subjects. Recommended.


I like a lot of what he says, but I never really understand why some people like him, when explaining the lab stuff and the unnecessarily hard work it would take to tinker around and create SARS-CoV-2, tend to only bring up the possibility of SARS-1 being the starting point for that work. This is also relevant when he goes on about the backbone of SARS-2 being so different to SARS-1. The problem I have with this is that surely its possible that the lab in question had in their collection of samples from nature a variety of different backbones, since they were not dealing only with the well known SARS 1, but also an array of other bat coronavirus samples?

Its good that he started going on about T cells when talking about immunity and how he expects vaccines to work beyond the period where we see neutralising antibody levels dropping off, fears about variants effect on skirting round the antibody side of things etc.

I cannot quite share his level confidence about some of the stuff at this stage, I want to leave quite a bit more wiggle room for now at least. And thats certainly the case for me when the subject of how much more room this virus has to pull off some new tricks via mutation comes up. Its the sort of thing where I really want to buy into his view on that, but I am wary, it will take time before I can solidify such reassurances in my mind. Especially because I'd heard early on in the pandemic all the reassuring stuff about how slowly these coronaviruses mutate, which when coupled with the fact I dont like the medias big book of pandemic mutation cliches, caused me to say reassuring things about mutations earlier in this pandemic. Given the trouble with variants we've had since then, some of what I said early on about that is now on my list of regrets, so I dont feel like potentially repeating that mistake again at this stage. As with so many other details, I have to wait, its the only way my confidence about such things an improve.
 

At the end of the following post I made on Friday, there are quotes where Fauci explicitly denied that the funding was for gain-of-function research. I currently have an open mind about whether he is bending the truth with that denial. Maybe its possible to have a tedious debate about what counts as gain-of-function research, and thats in play now, I dont know.

 
Interview with a German virologist who is an expert on corona virus. It’s translated but really interesting. Touches on lab leaks, herd immunity and lots of other subjects. Recommended.


I forgot to say that the article didnt exactly get off to a great start for me when I read stuff like this in the opening section:

We enter the office, Professor Drosten gets up from behind his desk and says we could take off the masks, he has already been vaccinated twice.
 
The other rather bloody obvious problem with taking Drostens view on lab stuff as the whole picture is that he is hardly neutral in the whole debate about gain-of-function studies.

It is quite easy for example to discover that he was one of the scientists who signed up to the "scientists for science" formal statement in support of gain-of-function research, back in 2014 when that topic was last a big issue. Scientists voice support for research on dangerous pathogens

Obviously people who work in that field may have a number of reasons to support the continued funding etc for such work. And they are likely to be focussed on the good that can be achieved, and their role in doing good, rather than uncomfortable possibilities of doing harm if mistakes are made. There are exceptions, people involved who are more uneasy, less assured, more willing to attribute a greater sense of risk to such work. Drosten seemingly wasnt one of those people at that time at least.
 
I expect I would find things to agree with and also some things to criticise or at least some things missing from that article, if I could actually read it. But its behind a paywall.

Here you go, elbows -

From the moment the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in Wuhan, China, scientists and the broader public have sought answers to some fundamental questions: Where did this virus come from? How did the pandemic start? From the early days, experts have considered two possibilities. Either the virus somehow escaped from a laboratory, perhaps the Wuhan Institute of Virology, or, like countless viruses throughout history, it arrived through zoonotic spillover, jumping from animals to humans.

More than a year later, we still don’t know exactly what happened. Though governments and news organizations have focused more attention recently on the notion that the virus leaked from a lab, it’s unclear that we’ll ever identify a theory that satisfies everyone as to how SARS-CoV-2 emerged. Ironically, given the recent prominence of the lab escape theory, the questions the world wants answered about the virus — and the astonishingly fast development of the vaccines that can quash the pandemic — depend entirely on research conducted in labs like the Wuhan Institute of Virology and across the world over the past several decades. This fundamental research underpins our ability to prepare for and respond to pandemics. We need to know what’s out there and what kind of viral threats we face. The only way to do that is to go where the viruses are, with our colleagues who are already there.


In March 2020, a group of renowned evolutionary virologists analyzed the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and found it was overwhelmingly likely that this virus had never been manipulated in any laboratory. Like the earlier coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, they theorized, it “spilled over” from its natural reservoir host (bats) to a new one (humans). Viruses jump species frequently, with unpredictable consequences. Often a virus hits an evolutionary dead end if it cannot adapt to the new host rapidly enough to be transmitted again. Sometimes, however, it can. Clues that reveal this scenario can be found by analyzing the sequence of the virus genome, and that’s exactly what this study did.


The study carefully examined whether key elements of the virus, particularly the spike protein on its surface, appeared engineered. They did not. The spike didn’t optimally bind to its receptor, ACE-2, and the interaction between the two proteins was unpredictable even using the most advanced computer algorithms. Another key feature often cited as evidence of laboratory origin is the furin cleavage site, where the spike protein is cut in half to “activate” viral material for entry into cells. The viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 don’t have this site, but many others do, including other human coronaviruses. The furin site of SARS-CoV-2 has odd features that no human would design. Its sequence is suboptimal, meaning its cleavage by the enzyme furin is relatively inefficient. Any skilled virologist hoping to give a virus new properties this way would insert a furin site known to be more efficient. The SARS-CoV-2 site has more of the hallmarks of sloppy natural evolution than a human hand. Indeed, a timely analysis last year showed convincingly that it is a product of genetic recombination, a natural feature of coronavirus replication and evolution.


Unfortunately, the pandemic has provided many opportunities to observe SARS-CoV-2 evolution in humans as it unfolds — and confidence in its natural origin has grown over time. The molecular handshake between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE-2, seemingly unique in early 2020, turns out to be found in several related viruses and has since evolved to be a better fit. Its ability to infect human cells also turns out to be unremarkable. A related virus discovered in pangolins infects human cells even more readily than SARS-CoV-2. The virus behind the pandemic may be special in its impact on our lives and the global economy, but the way it infects us isn’t unique at all.
The evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 further undermines claims that the virus is obviously artificial and designed for human transmission. Early in the pandemic, a mutation called D614G took hold and spread rapidly around the world, showing that the virus was adapting to its host from the very beginning. Since then, mutations in the region of the spike protein that binds ACE-2, as well as near the furin cleavage site, show continued adaptation. Several of these are found repeatedly in different variants of concern and almost certainly contribute to increased transmissibility. SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve. It wasn’t perfectly tuned for humans when it appeared, just good enough.

The epidemiological evidence in the World Health Organization’s origins mission report from this spring further bolsters the natural-origin hypothesis. Among early cases, 55 percent had had exposure to wildlife markets, and the growth of the outbreak over time, both in cases and excess deaths, clearly shows that the neighborhood surrounding the Huanan market was the initial center of the epidemic in Wuhan. It’s true that 45 percent of cases could not be linked to a market, but the silent spread of SARS-CoV-2 that has made it so hard to control also makes it difficult to rule out such connections. Yes, the WHO’s mission was imperfect and hampered by political forces in China and elsewhere; even the organization’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has nodded to those limitations by calling for a more thorough examination of the possibility of a lab escape. We don’t disagree about the benefits of doing so, and perhaps the U.S. government’s 90-day intelligence review will turn up compelling new information. We must consider every possibility — but our priorities should be guided by what is most likely. There are still missing pieces of data, including those unlinked cases and inadequate animal sampling, but most of the data we do have points heavily toward natural origin.

* I've had to split it over 2 posts, as it's too long for one.

I use the 'Bypass Paywalls - Chrome' extension, it's also available for Firefox, it's very good. :thumbs:
 
Some of the public consideration of a lab escape has focused on a kind of research known as gain-of-function, and whether such experiments could have given rise to SARS-CoV-2. This work is defined by the National Institutes of Health as research on influenza, MERS-CoV or SARS coronaviruses with the potential to enhance transmissibility by aerosol droplet or pathogenicity in mammals. A subset of that research, done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and some labs in the United States, has involved constructing “chimeric” coronaviruses, where the spike protein of one virus is inserted into the genetic backbone of another, typically the original SARS-CoV or a bat coronavirus called WIV1 used at the Wuhan lab. This allows scientists to study the properties of the spike protein within the context of a well-understood system and make direct comparisons about virulence with a known virus.

These experiments carry some risk, as noted by researchers who have engaged in them, and it’s appropriate to consider the balance between that risk and their benefits.
Understandably then, some people have wondered whether these types of experiments could have produced SARS-CoV-2. The answer is, in this case, not really. In theory, if you had the right viruses in your catalogue, sure. But there are no indications that anyone had ever seen this virus nor any viruses similar enough to serve as its genetic building blocks before SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the population.


The Wuhan institute’s most recent chimeric virus used a very different coronavirus as its genetic backbone. Looking at the body of research produced there, it’s clear that scientists were laser-focused on the bat viruses related to SARS-CoV, which spurred research on coronaviruses worldwide after it emerged in 2003 because of its pandemic potential. There’s just no trace of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, and if the SARS-CoV-2 progenitor or its building blocks weren’t in the lab before the pandemic, the pandemic could not have started there — even accidentally. This precludes the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 evolved via serial passage in cell culture, or repeated rounds of infection of other cells in a lab, as do other observations about the virus. In standard cell culture, features like the furin cleavage site that are crucial for transmission and disease in humans are rapidly lost as the virus begins adapting to the vervet monkey kidney cells typically used to grow it. For the past 18 months, virologists around the world have been studying SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory, and they have not seen any evidence that it becomes more dangerous to humans in the lab. The opposite is true: The virus loses features key to transmissibility and virulence, forcing researchers to innovate new culture methods to allow the study of antivirals or vaccines.


It does seem like quite a coincidence that the pandemic started in Wuhan, which has one of the world’s leading coronavirus research labs, and that’s surely helped raise questions about a possible leak. But in addition to being a coronavirus research center, Wuhan is a city of 11 million people, home to a major transportation hub that is connected to every other part of China, as well as wildlife markets supplied by farms throughout the country. The presence of the lab in the city where the pandemic emerged is simply not suspicious enough on its own to outweigh what we know about the virus.
We agree that researchers should continue to study whether the virus could have emerged from a lab, but this cannot come at the expense of the search for animal hosts that could have transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Getting better answers will take rigorous scientific work — and cooperation from China. As frustrating as obfuscation by the Chinese government is, the answers are there. If we make accusations and demands that aren’t firmly grounded in evidence, we run the real risk of having no origins investigations at all.

The only reason we can evaluate the genomic and virological evidence in a scientifically informed way, and the only reason we have vaccines so quickly, is decades of research on coronaviruses. We’d be years behind the curve without this fundamental knowledge, which resulted from gain-of-function studies and surveys of coronaviruses in bats and other wild animals. How many are there? Where are they? Can they infect us? How might they compare with the original SARS-CoV, which caused a global epidemic in 2003? An even bigger question looms now: Can we design vaccines that might protect us against all related coronaviruses? Research is progressing, but testing vaccine candidates will require finding out what viruses are out there. Again, we have to work with colleagues in China, where the viruses are, to do that.


As the vaccines start to bring the pandemic under control in the United States, the fundamental truth about how to identify and fight dangerous viruses hasn’t changed: Preparing for pandemics, global crises by definition, demands a global response. We must approach this collaboratively — and objectively recognize what the data shows. This virus is more likely to be a product of nature than a product of a laboratory. Letting politics lead us toward other conclusions won’t help keep anyone safer.
 
Cheers. The same old stuff then - logical, important to understand, but deliberately narrow and leading.

Put simply, a lot of their logic relies on the idea that nothing very similar/the same as SARS-CoV-2 was in the lab. But its really hard for me to exclude that possibility. Because if it was in nature, and the lab specialised in collecting samples from the natural world, then how can I really rule that out?

Of course thats not the same as me having compelling evidence that it did come from the lab. Its just that I dont find the logic used to exclude or diminish that possibility to be all that compelling. Plus such articles dont seem able to resist including all the usual justifications for doing lab research with these viruses, which in my book handily ends up underlining their preferences and blindspots, some of the motivations for closing down or diminishing the various lab-related theories.

Dont get me wrong, me being able to pick a few holes in these sorts of articles is not proof of anything. It is only justification for me retaining an open mind on the subject. And entirely natural origins that didnt involve the virus passing through the lab are still very much part of my thoughts, I've seen nothing that would even begin to rule out such possibilities.
 
Or to put it another way, when I worry about new pandemics, its all about animal-human interactions. That includes the meat trade and the fur trade and all the other stuff we hear about in that regard. But I put lab stuff in exactly the same category, its on the list of theoretical opportunities for a virus that has been lurking in certain animals to gain the opportunity to infect a human and then infect more humans.
 
I still think the 'Joints for Jabs' offer in the US is the best offer so far. :thumbs:

As an attempt at quashing conspiranoia around anti-vaccionation hatred ( :mad: ), they should be offering that deal (man! :p ) around the crystal-bothering shops and headshops of Glastonbury very soon ;) :p :D

I've got a feeling ;) that anti-vaccination resistence might decline a little bit if incentive-spliff :weed: was on offer ..... there might even become unexpected actual competition between loons and the sane for jabs, around certain parts of Somerset!! :eek: ;)

Will report back on the above theory after we and van get to Glastonbury town in early July :oldthumbsup: :beer: { Eva Luna ;) )

:)
 
Lets face it, if puff is too dangerous to be legally available then selling the idea that a vaccine is safe and sensible is gonna be a whole lot harder for numpties to get to grips with.
 
On the lab theory again, this is what happens if you are some sort of distinguished scientist but talk shit and use unwise language, probably straying well beyond your area of expertise at the same time. I think I'd rather listen to generalists and armchair observers than the percentage of experts who appear very capable of arrogance and overrating their own abilities, making sloppy mistakes and proclamations.


Not only did he use stupid language like smoking gun, but it seems he got specific details all wrong too.

I cannot comment on whether the Guardian is correct to say that his claims were a significant driver of the resurgence of interest in this angle. I dont think I'd ever heard of him or his claims until I read the above article today, but I could be wrong about that if my memory isnt up to scratch.
 
Meanwhile in terms of background data relevant to the non-lab theories, I see there is a recent article in Nature which details what animals were sold at Wuhans markets in a several year period leading up to the pandemics first known outbreak. Pangolins continue to be 'off the hook' in terms of indicators of what the intermediate host might have been, since apparently none are in these records (and no bats either). There seems to be quite a long lsit of other potential candidates.

 
Can we have a separate thread for this origins stuff please? It all veers into conspiracy and unscientific reasoning very quickly. I’d prefer to avoid it if possible.
 
Can we have a separate thread for this origins stuff please? It all veers into conspiracy and unscientific reasoning very quickly. I’d prefer to avoid it if possible.
Not when I talk about it it doesnt. Your attitude towards it is clear, but I intend to carry on ignoring your narrow attitude towards the matter. I havent noticed anyone else descending into conspiracy rubbish about it here either, so I dont share your concerns about that aspect as it relates to this particular forum either.
 
More broadly I am sorry that we arent taking advantage of more separate threads about all sorts of things in general. But as the pandemic has gone on, we have tended to be left with a handful of active threads that cover a fairly broad range, with many other threads having lost all momentum.

I will of course listen to other views on whether the lab stuff should be allowed to be discussed on this thread. Despite my rudeness I'll even take yours into account, but not in isolation given your obvious bias.
 
I will of course listen to other views on whether the lab stuff should be allowed to be discussed on this thread. Despite my rudeness I'll even take yours into account, but not in isolation given your obvious bias.

FFS I only asked and said please, no need to be a dick about it. Carry on bombarding the forum I ain’t the boss around here.
 
Sorry about that. I may have severely misjudged the ways in which me going on about it does your head in.
 
With that in mind, next time I want to talk about some detail of it I will resurrect an older thread about it and will see how it goes. If someone else mentions it on this thread though, I will find it hard not to join it.
 
I am against taking content away from this thread, as time has gone by more and more content has gone to other dedicated threads, one has to ask what is left for this thread?

There can easily be more than one conversation in one thread. IMO.
 
Meanwhile in terms of background data relevant to the non-lab theories, I see there is a recent article in Nature which details what animals were sold at Wuhans markets in a several year period leading up to the pandemics first known outbreak. Pangolins continue to be 'off the hook' in terms of indicators of what the intermediate host might have been, since apparently none are in these records (and no bats either). There seems to be quite a long lsit of other potential candidates.

Where did they get the records of what animals were sold at the market? Pangolin meat is illegal in China which might not stop it being sold but it will stop its sale being recorded.
 
Meanwhile in terms of background data relevant to the non-lab theories, I see there is a recent article in Nature which details what animals were sold at Wuhans markets in a several year period leading up to the pandemics first known outbreak. Pangolins continue to be 'off the hook' in terms of indicators of what the intermediate host might have been, since apparently none are in these records (and no bats either). There seems to be quite a long lsit of other potential candidates.


I thought researchers had ruled out the Wuhan market after finding early cases from 2019 with no connection to the market, though they believe it acted as an "amplifier."
 
I thought researchers had ruled out the Wuhan market after finding early cases from 2019 with no connection to the market, though they believe it acted as an "amplifier."
The possibility certainly diminished in their minds, and I think they ruled out there being much chance of obtaining direct evidence via samples from that market.

There isnt much I've ruled out really, in more general terms.

I've gone rusty in regards knowledge of timing of known sequence of events in terms of early infections. Early on it was reasonable to point a finger at that market but like you say it may just have been the location of an early superspreading type event rather than earlier pandemic origin moments. I drew attention to that article in part to demonstrate the sort of animal candidates that are still in play as people continue to persue the natural, non-lab animal to human possibilities.
 
Where did they get the records of what animals were sold at the market? Pangolin meat is illegal in China which might not stop it being sold but it will stop its sale being recorded.
Theres loads of details about their methods in the piece. Too much for me to quote. So I'll just draw attention to one bit for now, and would recommend reading the full thing.

Notably, vendors freely disclosed a variety of protected species on sale illegally in their shops, therefore they would not benefit from specifically concealing pangolin trade or the trade in any particular species, and so we are confident this list is complete
 
The possibility certainly diminished in their minds, and I think they ruled out there being much chance of obtaining direct evidence via samples from that market.

There isnt much I've ruled out really, in more general terms.

I've gone rusty in regards knowledge of timing of known sequence of events in terms of early infections. Early on it was reasonable to point a finger at that market but like you say it may just have been the location of an early superspreading type event rather than earlier pandemic origin moments. I drew attention to that article in part to demonstrate the sort of animal candidates that are still in play as people continue to persue the natural, non-lab animal to human possibilities.

It always seemed a little weird that the lab leak theory was criticised as being somehow racist when the prevailing theory at the time was that the pandemic was caused by Chinese people eating exotic animals from a filthy market.
 
It always seemed a little weird that the lab leak theory was criticised as being somehow racist when the prevailing theory at the time was that the pandemic was caused by Chinese people eating exotic animals from a filthy market.
I havent thought about that much, and it only takes a few words or a certain kind of framing to turn any of these theories into something racist.

I dont have a vivid memory of lab theory stuff being discredited via accusations of racism, but I can imagine a number of different ways that criticism could be applied. There are Trump-related ways to direct that criticism, and I think the plenty of people in the USA may be more alert to certain rather common racist tropes and stereotypes (partly as a consequence of racist shit that was amplified by war propaganda). Stuff that I dont want to stumble around trying to describe properly myself, and so will just link to this wikipedia page about them instead. Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Back
Top Bottom