SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Newly-revealed coronavirus data has reignited a debate over the virus's origins:
Data collected in 2020—and kept from public view since then—potentially adds weight to the animal theory. It highlights a potential suspect: the raccoon dog. But exactly how much weight it adds depends on who you ask. New analyses of the data have only reignited the debate, and stirred up some serious drama.
The current ruckus starts with a study shared by Chinese scientists back in February 2022. In a preprint (a scientific paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal), George Gao of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) and his colleagues described how they collected and analyzed 1,380 samples from the Huanan Seafood Market.
These samples were collected between January and March 2020, just after the market was closed. At the time, the team wrote that they only found coronavirus in samples alongside genetic material from people.
There were a lot of animals on sale at this market, which sold more than just seafood. The Gao paper features a long list, including chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, doves, deer, badgers, rabbits, bamboo rats, porcupines, hedgehogs, crocodiles, snakes, and salamanders. And that list is not exhaustive—there are reports of other animals being traded there, including raccoon dogs. We'll come back to them later.
But Gao and his colleagues reported that they didn't find the coronavirus in any of the 18 species of animal they looked at. They suggested that it was humans who most likely brought the virus to the market, which ended up being the first known epicenter of the outbreak.
But....
Fast-forward to March 2023. On March 4, Florence Débarre, an evolutionary biologist at Sorbonne University in Paris, spotted some data that had been uploaded to GISAID, a website that allows researchers to share genetic data to help them study and track viruses that cause infectious diseases. The data appeared to have been uploaded in June 2022. It seemed to have been collected by Gao and his colleagues for their February 2022 study, although it had not been included in the actual paper.
[...] "This finding was a really big deal, not because it proves the presence of an infected animal (it doesn't). But it does put animals—raccoon dogs and other susceptible species—into the exact location at the market with the virus. And not with humans," Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada and a coauthor of the report, tweeted on March 21.
[...] There's more drama to this story. Débarre and her colleagues say they told Gao's team their findings on March 10. The next day, Gao's team's data disappeared from GISAID, and Débarre's team took their findings to the World Health Organization. The WHO convened two meetings to discuss both teams' results with the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO).
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 27 2023, @12:48PM (6 children)
Ahhhhh, that's good, janrinok. But the paper doesn't seem to mention that infamous spike.
In point of fact, those half dozen miners who got sick from bat guano seem to be proof enough that SARS viruses are transmissable to humans. The question is, where, how, and when, did COVID19 develop that spike. SARS-CoV-2 was proven to be deadly without any spike. The spike makes it more deadly. We're talking closely related viruses here, be we're not talking about the same virus. Something happened between 2002 and 2020, that caused the COVID virus to develop that spike.
Going back to Occam, those original miners treatment seems to have been, in part, responsible for the virus developing a strong preference for the human respiratory system. The later manipulation of the virus in the lab gave the virus it's spike, which is perfectly suited for infecting the respiratory system.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday March 27 2023, @06:13PM (5 children)
These things are always mutating - there have been over 6 mutations that have been detected in France alone. The spike is just another one and it does nothing to support your claims that it has been developed in a laboratory and not in the wild. The spike, or a spike, has been detected in wild animals. It neither proves or disproves anything.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 27 2023, @10:55PM (4 children)
I stand with Occam. It's no coincidence that the pandemic started outside the doors of the lab working on exactly what this virus turned into.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday March 28 2023, @08:39AM (1 child)
How do you know? You don't like the idea because it doesn't fit your views. Why not wait until we have EVIDENCE and then make a decision?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 29 2023, @11:20AM
Presently, it looks like we'll have to wait until we get new government in China to get that EVIDENCE. That's the coincidence that bothers me right now.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday March 29 2023, @08:47AM (1 child)
If you were going to create a lab to study such viruses wouldn't it make sense to put it where those viruses can be found easily? It also prevents potentially infected material from having to be shipped elsewhere which reduces the risk it poses rather than increases it. If you want to prevent such a virus wouldn't you still need to know what you need to do to make something that would meet the requirement? Every major country is conducting similar research to identify cures for medical problems rather than to create weapons to be used against others.
You are clutching at straws and trying to make a case for your own beliefs. Try getting evidence rather than speculation upon which to base your arguments.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 29 2023, @11:25AM
I'm clutching at straws? No, you're being silly. As you point out here, those COVID viruses do not occur anywhere around the wet market, naturally. The viruses were introduced by man. The argument is whether those viruses were accidentally introduced by way of the animals going through the market, or the viruses were introduced by way of the lab.
There are zero convincing arguments for the animal vector.
You're not convinced by the lab argument.
Occam has had his say. Go argue with Occam.