Coronavirus

[Simon Biazeck]

Interesting article from John Harris in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-boris-johnson

Excellent - thank you!

~SBz.

[Bryn]

I find the BBC's news reporting on the issue of the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2's leap to humans decidedly biased and unscientific. It seems pretty consistently biased toward Trump's lab leak claims. This, despite the very clear “You can always suspect anything. That’s science. Don’t rule out anything” from their interlocutor, George Gao, they have been presenting that plain statement of fact as if he was suggesting the very opposite of what he was also saying about the likelihood or otherwise of a lab leak as the source. The most likely source is still held, by both Gao and the overwhelming majority of those other scientists engaged in investigating it, to be the wet market, rather than a lab leak, whether accidental or intentional.

[french frank]

I find the BBC's news reporting on the issue of the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2's leap to humans decidedly biased and unscientific. It seems pretty consistently biased toward Trump's lab leak claims. This, despite the very clear “You can always suspect anything. That’s science. Don’t rule out anything” from their interlocutor, George Gao, they have been presenting that plain statement of fact as if he was suggesting the very opposite of what he was also saying about the likelihood or otherwise of a lab leak as the source. The most likely source is still held, by both Gao and the overwhelming majority of those other scientists engaged in investigating it, to be the wet market, rather than a lab leak, whether accidental or intentional.

I'm not sure what difference it makes (other than for the scientists seeking to establish the truth) whether the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab or whether it occurred naturally in bats and passed to some other species and then to humans. In both cases it would be 'accidental'. If that's so, what lesson is learnt whereby such an occurrence can be avoided in the future?

[Bryn]

I'm not sure what difference it makes (other than for the scientists seeking to establish the truth) whether the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab or whether it occurred naturally in bats and passed to some other species and then to humans. In both cases it would be 'accidental'. If that's so, what lesson is learnt whereby such an occurrence can be avoided in the future?

If the wet market was the source, far stricter regulation of them should help. Similarly, stricter controls on research protocols in labs might follow if a lab leak was shown to be the source. The investigation might also uncover more about the mechanisms of inter-species transmission.

[Frances_iom]

... The investigation might also uncover more about the mechanisms of inter-species transmission.

It may also throw some light on any military work done at Wuhan as well has just how much was covered up at the start of the outbreak as well as during the long delay before reluctantly letting the WHO visit - but I suspect too much has already been lost to reach definite conclusions.

[Bryn]

BBC News is at it again on the 9 o'clock News Channel broadcast with the totally erroneous claim that science is about proving or disproving things. No! It might disprove things but it never proves anything beyond doubt. That's a basic tenet of science. Certainty is foreign to properly conducted science. That is the very essence of what Gao was saying.

[Bryn]

It may also throw some light on any military work done at Wuhan as well has just how much was covered up at the start of the outbreak as well as during the long delay before reluctantly letting the WHO visit - but I suspect too much has already been lost to reach definite conclusions.

That's political conjecture, not science.

[Bryn]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nese-scientist gives a far more balanced picture than does BBC News.

[french frank]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nese-scientist gives a far more balanced picture than does BBC News.

I've only read the BBC online story. It seems very similar to the Guardian which obtained much of the information from the BBC interview. The two points I took away from both versions was that the Chinese scientist said: “You can always suspect anything. That’s science. Don’t rule out anything.” And that it was confirmed that the Chinese did carry out an investigation themselves (conclusions unknown). In what way was the (broadcast?) BBC news unbalanced?

[Bryn]

I've only read the BBC online story. It seems very similar to the Guardian which obtained much of the information from the BBC interview. The two points I took away from both versions was that the Chinese scientist said: “You can always suspect anything. That’s science. Don’t rule out anything.” And that it was confirmed that the Chinese did carry out an investigation themselves (conclusions unknown). In what way was the (broadcast?) BBC news unbalanced?

In its presentation, with, for instance, weight being given to the pro lab leak view of the 2 out of 8 US intelligence agencies which had a low to medium confidence that the virus escaped from a lab, plus the stress given to Gao's point about not dismissing the possibility of such a lab leak but not also stressing that such was simply a confirmation of a scientific outlook, not a voicing of support for the lab leak hypothesis. The thrust of the BBC News (upper case "N") report was to favour the lab leak theory over the majority view of scientific investigators that the wet market was the most likely source of the species jump to humans. It was not the BBC interview with Gao which was biased but the BBC News presentation relating to that interview.

[french frank]

Sorry, I'm not quite clear. You're describing a broadcast programme rather than the online story (the only one I have access to)?

In its presentation, with, for instance, weight being given to the pro lab leak view of the 2 out of 8 US intelligence agencies which had a low to medium confidence that the virus escaped from a lab, plus the stress given to Gao's point about not dismissing the possibility of such a lab leak but not also stressing that such was simply a confirmation of a scientific outlook, not a voicing of support for the lab leak hypothesis. The thrust of the BBC News (upper case "N") report was to favour the lab leak theory over the majority view of scientific investigators that the wet market was the most likely source of the species jump to humans.

[Bryn]

Sorry, I'm not quite clear. You're describing a broadcast programme rather than the online story (the only one I have access to)?

Indeed, as I have been from the start of this discussion related to the Gao interview. The problem with the BBC News coverage may have its roots in the common misunderstanding among arts graduates that scientists deal in certainties. Hopefully, Fever: The Hunt for Covid's Origin, will be more science-based.

[Dave2002]

Can we yet rule out the possibility that the moon is made of blue cheese?

Bryn is correct that science doesn't generally prove anything, but if something can be shown to have very low probability, or probability of being plausible, then that isn't usually a line to follow. The BBC has had a somewhat dodgy approach to this in the past "in the interests of balance". Thus there will be reports on scientific conferences, attended by thousands of experts, who mostly agree on a particular line - example climate change - but there are others, and then balance that up with an interview with a nutter who will argue that his or her views are "possible", and "not ruled out by science".

In the meantime I found this sentence in the Guardian article interesting "In May, Zhong Nanshan, a senior Chinese scientist, estimated that the peak of infections would arrive in late June, with about 65 million infections a week."

So how are we following the current infections in China? Have they now become fairly benign, or are very large numbers of Chinese people becoming seriously ill or dying?

[Bryn]

Can we yet rule out the possibility that the moon is made of blue cheese?

Yes, because science can disprove things. We have material samples from the moon and they have been sown not to be made of cheese.

[richardfinegold]

I am not sure why this distinction between the Lab-Leak and Wet Market is being made. In my mind they fit together. A lab in Wuhan is doing enhancement of function studies. An animal specimen being used in the studies became diverted to the wet market where it was purchased and became the initial vector. The Chinese Government then engages in a cover up because they don’t wish to be held accountable.
You bias the argument by referring to “Trumps” Lab Leak Theory. If the FBI, no friend of Trump, has concluded that this is the most likely scenario, I find that very important.
They have spent a fortune searching every bat cave in Asia for a naturally occurring SARS-2, unsuccessfully. That, and the fact that enhancement of function studies were being done in the very city where the outbreak originated, cannot be explained away by the most determined pro Chinese apologist.
For all of the talk about Scientific Certainty, the real standard that everyone seems to be looking for is Legal Certainty. Unless videotapes of someone stealing an infected animal from the Lab and hawking it for a few yuan in the wet market exists (highly unlikely) there are some who will never accept the most likely etiology