Coronavirus

[Bryn]

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

Where is your evidence (rather than media speculation) that the Wuhan Institute was carrying out enhancement of function studies studies on SARS-Cov2? The rest of your comment is similarly speculative. That the Chinese authorities closed ranks in response to Trump's racist speculation is understandable if rather obstructive. Gao was trying to clarify the current state of investigations of the origins of SARS-Cov2, rather than reinforcing the Chinese authorities' stonewalling. Bear in mind that in the very early days of the outbreak, virus samples had been sequenced by Chinese scientists in Hong Kong and the results were made available worldwide.

[Dave2002]

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

No - because "we" have not drilled 200 metres down to see if there's any blue cheese there!

[Bryn]

No - because "we" have not drilled 200 metres down to see if there's any blue cheese there!

Comparative densities:

Cheese between 400 and 1200 Kg/M³ depending on type

Moon 3344 Kg/M³

QED

[french frank]

Gao was trying to clarify the current state of investigations of the origins of SARS-Cov2, rather than reinforcing the Chinese authorities' stonewalling. Bear in mind that in the very early days of the outbreak, virus samples had been sequenced by Chinese scientists in Hong Kong and the results were made available worldwide.

I think my point stands, though. It is of scientific interest/importance to investigate and research. But I see no political point (cf Trump: and he won't care what the origin was as long as he can continue to call it the 'China virus') in deciding which of two arguably connected sources was the origin. Nor, outside China, does it have any direct public health lessons. (As far as I can see, which may not be very far).

[Bryn]

I think my point stands, though. It is of scientific interest/importance to investigate and research. But I see no political point (cf Trump: and he won't care what the origin was as long as he can continue to call it the 'China virus') in deciding which of two arguably connected sources was the origin. Nor, outside China, does it have any direct public health lessons. (As far as I can see, which may not be very far).

I refer you to the final sentence of #5884: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...835#post918835

[french frank]

I refer you to the final sentence of #5884: http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...835#post918835

How is that important beyond to the scientists investigating - which I had already acknowledged (twice)? I.e. it will not be of immediate use to politicians/public health officials unless the scientific evidence establishes something to be reasonably likely. And it is of no more than casual interest to the general public. The only others are those (mainly outside China) who want to pin the blame somewhere.

[Bryn]

How is that important beyond to the scientists investigating - which I had already acknowledged (twice)? I.e. it will not be of immediate use to politicians/public health officials unless the scientific evidence establishes something to be reasonably likely. And it is of no more than casual interest to the general public. The only others are those (mainly outside China) who want to pin the blame somewhere.

I found that response deeply depressing. The "scientists investigating" are not just playing around for fun. Finding out more about the mechanism of pathogen species jumping and adaptation to the new host species can lead to far speedier responses to newly emerging potential pandemics. Surely, that at least, is of interest to "politicians/public health officials" and "the general public". If not, I fear for the future of our species.

[Frances_iom]

How is that important beyond to the scientists investigating..

Let me suggest one possible reason - Wuhan had a long history of interest in Corona type viruses - to study them you need to grow cultures and see what their effect will be, especially on people, but in general you don't want to use humans as the initial trial animal - thus you breed mice that had some genetic modification to have lung cells similar to humans - growing viruses is not always easy and often requires extensive experimentation to find a suitable growth medium - but viruses mutate by natural selection so that the variant best suited to the medium succeeds in dominating - this can then be tried on the mouse-human lung tissue and the mechanism of infection studied. Thus it is possible that the act of gaining enough virus material to study may have selected one that had greater infectability in humans (ie a 'new' virus tho a variant on that found in say bats which might have had very little cross infection to humans). This research is basically well intentioned but escaped viruses can lead to problems.

Now put on a black-hat - the 1918 'Spanish' flu killed more that were lost by warfare during WW1 - because of the triggered infection response mechanism it actually was significantly more dangerous to young healthy adults, killing within days of infection, the virus being easily transmitted in crowded environments such as army camp etcs - now assume a corona type virus can be developed with a similar nasty property but that suitably vaccinated individuals have a much lower mortality - develop such a combination, vaccinate your army (standard procedure for many diseases) then release your virus - ok maybe farfetched but military organisations have in past been happy to use chemical weapons and as demonstrated in Ukraine some are still happy to treat army as cannon fodder as along as they eventually win over the opponents.

[french frank]

I found that response deeply depressing. The "scientists investigating" are not just playing around for fun. Finding out more about the mechanism of pathogen species jumping and adaptation to the new host species can lead to far speedier responses to newly emerging potential pandemics. Surely, that at least, is of interest to "politicians/public health officials" and "the general public". If not, I fear for the future of our species.

We come at this from two different points of view. Your initial point was the unbalanced nature of the BBC's reporting. I'm approaching this purely from that perspective of a news story. It will, in my view, be a news story when the scientists come up with some conclusions - and as a news story it won't matter which of the two presently likely solutions turns out to be the origin of the virus. Nor will it be much of a news story if they don't come up with an 'answer'. It is something of a news story to learn that the Chinese themselves carried out an investigation. It is a news story to learn that the Chinese were apparently obstructive over the release of information.

Finding out more about the mechanism of pathogen species jumping and adaptation to the new host species can lead to far speedier responses to newly emerging potential pandemics. Surely, that at least, is of interest to "politicians/public health officials" and "the general public". If not, I fear for the future of our species.

What the scientists discover will, of course, have important implications for politicians, public health officials and the general public. But a news story of a scientist saying nothing can be ruled out doesn't take them far.

[Bryn]

We come at this from two different points of view. Your initial point was the unbalanced nature of the BBC's reporting. I'm approaching this purely from that perspective of a news story. It will, in my view, be a news story when the scientists come up with some conclusions - and as a news story it won't matter which of the two presently likely solutions turns out to be the origin of the virus. Nor will it be much of a news story if they don't come up with an 'answer'. It is something of a news story to learn that the Chinese themselves carried out an investigation. It is a news story to learn that the Chinese were apparently obstructive over the release of information.



What the scientists discover will, of course, have important implications for politicians, public health officials and the general public. But a news story of a scientist saying nothing can be ruled out doesn't take them far.

The news story here was, surely, the interview with Gao. What I was challenging was the BBC News presentation of that story. While Gao was concentrating more on the science, the BBC News presentation of the interview (not the interview itself) was a diversion from that science towards what politicians and a minority (2 out of 8) of US intelligence agencies have speculated about the Wuhan Institute's possible link to the interspecies jump, misrepresenting a basic tenet of science along the way. That is what I was challenging. I have not listened to later BBC News coverage of the interview. For all I know, they may have modified the presentation since the early one I picked up on. The BBC News presentation was basically on the same level as the Sun's: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/225267...ouglas-murray/, which also wildly misrepresented George Gao's point about science not being able to totally rule out the possibility of a lab leak. Professor Gao was not expressing an opinion about the origin, one way or the other. He was stating a basic tenet of scientific investigation.

[Dave2002]

Comparative densities:

Cheese between 400 and 1200 Kg/M³ depending on type

Moon 3344 Kg/M³

QED

No - it could have a dense solid or even liquid core surrounded by blue cheese.

[french frank]

Bryn: There may be a basic disconnect between what I was saying and your response. The only point I made clear I couldn't comment on was the BBC's broadcast coverage which I didn't see/hear. The online story (I said) was much the same as the Guardian's. As to the importance of the science, I agree with you that the science is important, the possible repercussions for politicians, public health officials and the general public could be very important. I understood what Gao was saying and what he was not. I would agree that if the BBC's coverage was on the same level as that Sun article, it would have been sensationalised and badly distorted (I rely on the Guardian/BBC online coverage here as being accurate).

To recap: It may be important to scientists to discover (if that's possible) whether the origin was a lab leak or natural transmission between animals (and other discoveries that led on from that) but since I have no political axe to grind it wouldn't matter to me which of the two it turned out to be. (I surmised that many/most people who similarly had no axe to grind would think like me but conceded that might not be the case.) And here endeth …

[Bryn]

No - it could have a dense solid or even liquid core surrounded by blue cheese.

But even if somehow milk for the cheese could somehow have penetrated below what we now know to be a rocky surface layer, that would not mean the moon was made of cheese but merely contained some. There again: https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out...side-the-moon/

[Bryn]

Good heavens! I tuned into Dave since I noted that it was a QI repeat with a very fine panel, including the late Barry Humphries, and what should come up but a range of statistics about the moon. On now but worth catching on Dave ja vu from 00:20, and then on-demand somewhere or other.

[french frank]

Slightly puzzling news: It appears that Johnson has already handed over his Covid diaries and WhatsApp messages to the Cabinet Office, while saying he was perfectly willing to hand them over directly to the inquiry - if asked. Has he handed them to the Cabinet Office because they have been adamant they need to remove 'irrelevant' material before the inquiry gets to see it? The (crossbench) inquiry chairwoman says it is for her to decide what is and isn't relevant, not 'the government'. Transparency, transparency.