The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
N.Y. Times Columnist on the Deception Surrounding the COVID-19 Origin Debate
From yesterday's column by Prof. Zeynep Tufekci:
[T]o promote the appearance of consensus [that the COVID-19 pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission], some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratory's research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax….
The first {influential publication[] that quite early in the pandemic cast the lab leak theory as baseless} was a March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists and declared that no "laboratory-based scenario" for the pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through congressional subpoenas of their Slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen, wrote in the Slack messages, "The lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario." …
Andersen later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that a lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained by Congress show the paper's lead authors discussing how to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on the pandemic's origin for The Times, so as to throw him off track about the plausibility of a lab leak.
The second influential publication to dismiss the possibility of a lab leak was a letter published in early 2020 in The Lancet. The letter, which described the idea as a conspiracy theory, appeared to be the work of a group of independent scientists. It was anything but. Thanks to public document requests by U.S. Right to Know, the public later learned that behind the scenes, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth's president, had drafted and circulated the letter while strategizing on how to hide his tracks and telling the signatories that it "will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person." The Lancet later published an addendum disclosing Daszak's conflict of interest as a collaborator of the Wuhan lab, but the journal did not retract the letter….
There's much more; much worth reading.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Far too many covid conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.
Far too facts labeled by the CDC and other health authorities as wrong and dangerous have turned out to be true.
"Speaking truth to power" doesn't work so well when it results in the truth being twisted around with fatal results.
When people are demonized it is only natural to construct a counter-narrative to divert attention elsewhere. This might be scientifically indefensible but it did result in lives being saved.
NO, DAN, it manifestly killed many. Biden's anger at the unvaccinated led to children dying after being rejected from hospitals for not having the vaccine.
You speak shit, DAN
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?
================
A Sotomayor claim about Covid-19 and children
Sotomayor, a liberal, tried during the Friday hearing to emphasize the danger posed by the omicron variant of the virus. She said, “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.”
Facts First: Sotomayor’s claim about children wasn’t even close to accurate. According to federal data at the time Sotomayor spoke, fewer than 5,000 people under the age of 18 were hospitalized in the US with confirmed or suspected cases of Covid-19; the reported number of child hospitalizations was 4,464 on Thursday, the day before the hearing, and was still under 5,000 as of Monday afternoon
I worked a few blocks away from streets that were closed because of refrigerator trucks — holding Covid 19 corpses because the morgues were filled up.
nice that coumo send covid patients to nursing homes that accelerated the spread.
It was because the hospitals were full up.
Your response is typical -- non-constructive. As usual, it was up to Democrats and knowledgable public health personnel (almost all of whom are liberal) to do the front line work and make the hard choices, while conservatives and Republicans sat back lazily and irresponsibly and took potshots.
Your response is typical -- ignore the reality that government killed people, because government must always be depicted as good.
Not a serious response.
Perhaps Cuomo should have sent some patients to the hospital ships Trump sent or to the field hospital set up by a charitable group.
Actually it was because NYC policy burned through vulnerable populations because prophylactic precautions were not taken early enough. In the end that did have the benefit of lowering the integrated mortality in New York.
Sending sick people to care homes did accelerate the spread. Similar mistakes were make in Lombardy, Italy. These reasons have nothing to do with politics, just misguided public health policy
"I worked a few blocks away from streets that were closed because of refrigerator trucks — holding Covid 19 corpses because the morgues were filled up."
As someone who spent most of 2020 crawling through trailers full of dead people, no you didn't. Those dead folks in those trailers died from all sorts of things. Lots, and lots, and lots of suicides and overdoses. Lots of preventable deaths due to the hospitals shutting down and not doing routine care. Lots of older patients who gave up because they were denied all physical contact with anyone, much less loved ones.
Covid killed a handful of people, but the numbers reported in the news were deaths *with* Covid, not *from* Covid.
The response was ridiculous, and was responsible for more death and suffering than the virus itself.
Bill McNeal — Ideological opposition to public health measures during deadly pandemics is stupid. I think it is fair to say that your ideology carried the day politically throughout America's red states—which then paid a lethal price which could have been notably reduced.
Unfortunately, that lesson goes unlearned by too many, especially by too many political leaders, including leaders of all political stripes. When the nation next confronts a pandemic worse than Covid, one with capacity to kill a notable percentage of everyone, without regard to demographics, your ideology will prove disastrous if followed.
But in circumstances like those, I doubt your ideology will be followed for long. History teaches instead that stark terror will rule, the privileged will segregate themselves in exclusive places of safe refuge, and all will call for totalitarian impositions upon others less protected. What you condemn now will then be recalled generally as a longed-for ideal, put beyond reach by ignorance, and previous threats of violence.
Public health defenses against deadly contagion suffer that problem innately—when they work, they look less necessary than they were. There will always be fools to call them draconian afterward, at least until catastrophic failure teaches otherwise.
"Ideological opposition to public health measures during deadly pandemics is stupid."
That's right, and there was scientific consensus prior to March, 2020 that masking and lockdowns were not the way to combat a pandemic.
Thankfully Covid wasn't that deadly to the vast majority of the population, because the measures taken in the US made the pandemic worse.....precisely because partisan morons made the virus political.
And it's fair to say that you know nothing of my politics. It's also fair to say that you have utterly no knowledge of the public health sphere, and would do well to listen rather than screech about that which you are utterly ignorant.
Stephen,
Such blah, blah has little to do with ideology, but with misguided public health policy and arrogance at FDA and at CDC,both of which were many months behind public health authorities in other parts of the world.
That you any many other want to reduce the mistakes under both the Trump and Biden administration to ideology will assure that the next pandemic is also mishandled.
You ignore the side effects which stunted children's growth, trashed the economy, and discredited government scientific advice for a generation. I'd think you at least would care about the last.
None of that is true.
The origin of the virus has absolutely nothing to do with its actual transmissibility or lethality, nor does it have anything to do with lockdowns or vaccines.
Your OP made no sense in that regard.
Trump treated the virus as directly related to its origin. Don't you remember?
Not the way you seem to. I recall Trump mentioning China all the time, but it was (and is) indisputable that the virus originated in China. I don't recall him getting into the nuances of the origins (lab vs cave) etc.
I do recall Trump (and, by extension, MAGA) being 100% gung ho for the vaccine, while Kamala Harris said she didn't trust the Trump administration to develop a safe or effective vaccine.
Then Biden won the election, Eastasia became our enemy, and the parties immediately reversed their positions on the vaccine, with MAGA going all in on stupidity and credulousness.
"I do recall Trump (and, by extension, MAGA) being 100% gung ho for the vaccine"
Not true at all.
Watch videos of Trump at his rallies. When he mentioned the vaccine, he got booed. Not being a man of courage, he quickly stopped mentioning it.
And it was MAGA land which was anti-vaccine. When Biden tried to get it distributed despite local opposition, he was perfectly aware that he was saving Republican lives. By contrast, look what Trump did with blue states.
Are you referring to 2020 rallies? Because the vaccine wasn't confirmed until (conveniently) after the election. I agree that 2024 rallygoers didn't want to hear about it, and Trump was the profile in courage you describe. Honestly, the hypocrisies all around are dismaying. Harris (and Cuomo, I believe) were wrong to opportunistically inject doubt into the safety or efficacy of the vaccine back when it was the "Trump Jab", and Trump has shamefully played footsie with supporters who lump the vaccine into many other (often legitimate) grievances about COVID policy. Thus, undermining one of his greatest achievements!
That's not what happened. They didn't say anything about the actual vaccine itself. Before the vaccine was announced, they discussed a hypothetical vaccine, and said that they'd be leery of anything that Trump announced just before the election, that they'd want actual scientists to announce it. Maybe they were still wrong to do that, but I don't think the MAGA people who started all the vaccine conspiracies were doing so in reliance on those comments.
Dan Schiavetta 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"I do recall Trump (and, by extension, MAGA) being 100% gung ho for the vaccine"
Not true at all.
Watch videos of Trump at his rallies. When he mentioned the vaccine, he got booed. Not being a man of courage, he quickly stopped mentioning it.
Dan - your response would have more credibility - if you werent dealing with facts from an alternate universe. Adamscales pointed out several of your factual errors.
Ridgeway — It's indisputable that the virus was first recognized in China. Whether it originated there? Not so much.
One flaw in the lab leak reasoning: an unjustified presumption it had to be the Wuhan lab the virus leaked from.
If you like the lab leak hypotheses, why not question whether any of hundreds of other labs world-wide might not have leaked it? And then some probably-human vector traveling to China brought it to Wuhan, where it spread until discovered. Give that some thought.
On a statistical analysis, with literally hundreds of lab-contestants in the running, wouldn't betting the non-Wuhan field make more sense than betting the Wuhan pick to win? After all, given the novelty, and the flu-like symptoms, it was a near-certainty that any such organism would escape initial detection, and spread while being mistakenly identified. Then, finally, specialized surveillance associated with a lab somewhere would turn it up. That unlucky lab would get the blame.
So I nominate a lab in Boston. The virus escaped there, not far from where one of the most virulent early U.S. outbreaks was noted. A Chinese student enrolled in a prestigious Boston-area prep school fell ill, but without notable symptoms. She traveled back to Wuhan for holidays, and began spreading the contagion there. It was discovered at the Wuhan lab, after a technician there fell ill with virus he caught in the market, which had arrived there from Boston.
I like that story because it has a ring of plausibility, and is backed by exactly the same evidence as the Wuhan lab leak story—which is to say, no evidence at all.
I cannot for the life of me understand why people on the left want to die on this hill. It just gives fodder to the anti-vaxx kooks and revanchists on the right.
Of course it is metaphysically possible that a lab outside Wuhan was doing coronavirus research, developed the COVID-19 strain (accidentally or on purpose), infected one (and likely only one) person, who then travelled to Wuhan (without infecting anyone along the way) and started the outbreak there.
Occam's Razor tells us that it is more likely that, since there is a virology institute in Wuhan that was working on coronavirus research at the time, any lab leak that resulted in a COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan originated in that facility.
Similarly, Occam's Razor also tells us that since the Chinese authorities are and were quite keen on showing that there was no lab leak, if there were any compelling evidence pointing to a natural (e.g. cave-based) origin, they would have trumpeted it. One would also have expected that those same authorities would have come up with some explanation for why, of all the places throughout East Asia for that naturally-caused breakout to occur, it chose to happen right next door to a virology institute that happened to be doing coronavirus research.
This isn't partisan, except inasmuch as the right is super sure and they shouldn't be.
You leaned on Occam's Razor three times in a row. And yet you are very confident of the result.
Lathrop is not really shy about dying on weird hills.
If it was just Lathrop, I'd chalk it up to general crankiness and the sovereign will of the people (or is it will of the sovereign people? -- I get confused).
But plenty of more mainstream lefties (see Sarc's comment directly before yours) are bizarrely wedded to the notion that a lab leak explanation is absurd on its face, and likely just the product of unbridled racism. Granted, the right has not exactly been burnishing its non-racist laurels these days, but we are talking about way back in 2020 (oy).
I don't pretend to be able to make a definitive statement on the origin of the virus, but when the initial breakout occurs in the same city that houses a virology institute where we know they were studying coronaviruses, it would seem at least reasonably possible for a leak from that institute to have been the proximate cause of the outbreak. Zebras and horses, to use a new metaphor.
Note that I am emphatically not saying that the leak was intentional. I have not seen anything to show that it was, and I cannot see any reason why they would have done so. If it had been intentional, I'd have expected them not to leak it outside the doors of their own lab -- it would have been perfectly easy to leak it outside some lab in Boston.
...Do you think what I wrote was "bizarrely wedded to the notion that a lab leak explanation is absurd on its face, and likely just the product of unbridled racism?"
There's a legitimate debate over lab leak (which as I've pointed out multiple times over the years and someone else in this thread, is not necessarily the same thing as saying that the virus was engineered) vs. zoonotic. But only Lathrop, AFAICT, is coming up with the idea that even if it's a lab leak it's probably not the lab right near where the outbreak seems to have occurred.
I continue to be agnostic on which non-Lathrop version is correct. I do not think people should've been trying to suppress the lab leak hypothesis, and I don't think it's racist, but I certainly don't think anything is established that proves it correct either.
(I do not have the biology background to even begin to assess random claims about furin cleavage sites and the like — and I suspect neither do 95% of the other people talking about it.)
Like you, I think unintentional leak — whether the virus was engineered or natural — would be far more likely than deliberate release.
Nieporent — Nor so dense that I cannot recognize when the hill in question is weakly defended. I constructed that example to put Occam on my side, not on Ridgeway's. For his mistaken part Ridgeway assumed without basis:
1. Likely only one person infected;
2. Without anyone infected during travel;
3. That because a virus lab in Wuhan was working on coronavirus, that makes it far more likely that a coronavirus initially identified at Wuhan originated in that lab than in any among hundreds of others elsewhere (actually, unless there are multiple labs in Wuhan, Ridgeway put that claim in the form of a meaningless truism, but I ignored that to avoid quibbling);
4. That I had proposed natural origin in my hypothetical, which I did not;
5. That some selective factor in natural origin would create a striking coincidence if discovery, not origin occurred at Wuhan.
Most of that is self-evident flawed reasoning by Ridgeway. Number 3 above needs a moment's thought.
Note first that my hypothetical was not about coronavirus origin, but about relative likelihoods of its discovery at any particular location. That in turn implies estimating unknowns, for instance, how large is the aggregate likelihood of a coronavirus lab leak anywhere, and how does that compare to the necessarily smaller likelihood of a lab leak specifically at Wuhan?
Also, if a novel virus subject to widespread biohazard level research is capable of benign-seeming contagious spread, and can deliver symptoms likely to be confused with ordinary flu, what to make of that? What is the balance of probabilities that such an organism would be discovered by testing at a biohazard lab somewhere, instead of during general medical practice everywhere?
And finally, if biohazard labs turn out to be likely settings for initial recognition of such an organism, is the Wuhan lab one more likely to make such an initial recognition than others? Would you bet first on Wuhan, for instance, or on Frederick, MD, or on a lab at a remote location in the American West?
Reflect on those factors and it is far from obvious that coronavirus discovery at Wuhan implies a lab leak at Wuhan, more than it implies a lab leak from any among a myriad of labs elsewhere. The Wuhan region is heavily populated, and one of the world's more active transportation hubs. If you posit a lab leak somewhere, why would you not assume a possibility it would get discovered not where it leaked, but instead at an unusually active transportation hub, at a facility located there, which also routinely practices specialized monitoring to detect the presence of such an organism.
In short, if you identify coronavirus at Wuhan, you probably can assume safely that it is more likely an escape from a lab at Wuhan, than an escape from a specific lab elsewhere—in Frederick, MD, for instance. It is another kettle of statistical fish altogether to assume that means coronavirus identification at Wuhan means a Wuhan escape is even as likely as an escape from one among all other labs put together, world-wide.
My money would be down on a bet that if those variables could be accurately assessed, results would show a lab leak from the world-wide elsewhere, followed by discovery at Wuhan, was notably more likely than a lab leak at Wuhan, followed by discovery at Wuhan.
Probably, Wuhan is like hundreds of labs elsewhere, in that almost none of them will ever trigger a deadly world-wide pandemic. The question whether one among all of them will do that seems more likely. If it happens, it also seems reasonably likely that discovery of initial spread will occur at one of the other labs. The labs can make accurate exotic diagnoses that would baffle the regular medical community.
Lathrop,
You seem to be operating under the weird premise that WIV was a medical clinic rather than a biomedical research lab, and that their expertise was in diagnosing patients. If that were the case, then, maybe, yeah, the outbreak didn't start there but was just detected there first. But that premise is incorrect. The likelihood is that the virus was first detected in Wuhan because the first cases were in Wuhan. And if so, that makes it likely that it came from Wuhan, rather than from some other facility.
Nieporent : There's a legitimate debate over lab leak (which as I've pointed out multiple times over the years and someone else in this thread, is not necessarily the same thing as saying that the virus was engineered) vs. zoonotic.
True. But these are not independent variables. If the virus was zoonotic, then it might have infected humans without passing through the WIV, or by being collected in the wild and lab leaked from WIV. But if the virus was engineered, then (excepting deliberate release) then it necessarily leaked from the lab.
One of the (many) reasons for believing the lab leak theory is the wonderful coincidence that the virus was first discovered in Wuhan, a long way from any bats in Yunnan. But pretty much the same applies to the question of engineering. As Ridgeway says, the conjunction between the virus being discovered in Wuhan and virus research being conducted in Wuhan, is a helluva “coincidence” too.
Consequently it is the most sensible default assumption that the virus was engineered in the WIV and leaked from there. This was always the most sensible default assumption - it’s just that it came up against a medical establishment full court press which did not like this answer. Because this default assumption was contrary to their interests.
Nieporent : I do not have the biology background to even begin to assess random claims about furin cleavage sites and the like — and I suspect neither do 95% of the other people talking about it.)
I am among that 95%. However I do note that the same people who insisted that it couldn’t have been a lab leak from the WIV, were the ones insisting that there was nothing remotely unusual about the fact that the virus had a furin cleavage site, and were the same people who make a living from….virus research grants awarded by Mr Fauci. Consequently I do feel able to assess, at least provisionally, random claims about furin cleavage sites. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Nieporent — Two thought experiments:
First, assume an active covid outbreak among the public in Wuhan, triggered because someone arrived from elsewhere carrying the virus. It spreads, diagnosed as flu. Eventually, someone at the Wuhan Lab becomes sick with covid. Did he get the virus at the lab, or out in the marketplace? At least initially, no one knows. But what they do know is he has covid, not the flu. Because they regularly test folks at the lab to be sure they do not spread to the public the pathogens they study in the lab.
Second, compared to failures in facility security, contagion as a source of pathogen exposure is staggeringly more threatening. Consider, there are in the U.S. an estimated 1,300 biosecurity level 3 facilities. During the covid pandemic, within about one year, almost every one of those facilities was closely surrounded by active covid cases. Nobody thought those nearby cases got there because of security leaks. The commonplace presumption, apparently accurate, is that those cases spread by agency of globe-girdling contagion, acting so fast it amounted to ubiquity.
If you resided near one specific Level 3 or Level 4 biosecurity facility, what orders of magnitude would you choose to express your own relative per-decade risks from the two sources of pathogen exposure, facility leaks or wild contagion? Any reasonable estimate you choose will demonstrate the foolishness to suppose proximity of a wild pathogen to a facility where it is studied is likely evidence of escape from that facility.
Your Bayesian analysis is flawed. The probability of a lab leak given that someone near the lab got infected is not the same as the probability of a lab leak.
Then why wasn't there an active covid outbreak in the location from where this person came, or anywhere along the path he took? Even if it were misdiagnosed as the flu at the time, which would be staggeringly incompetent since early variants of COVID were nothing like the flu, it could be retroactively diagnosed as COVID. And yet nobody has found any earlier outbreaks.
Oh come on David. Next you'll be telling me that the current Ebola outbreak in Uganda originated there, rather than a high school science project in Nebraska gone bad. Don't you know how many science projects are done in Nebraska every year? Clearly the most likely explanation is a basement lab leak that was transmitted to Uganda. The odds are overwhelming.
@Sarc -- I took your comment to mean you didn't agree with the substance of my post, which implied to me that you do not think a lab leak is a likely explanation. I did not mean to imply you are playing the race card on this issue -- but that was done by many people back when this was a hot topic.
I was taking issue with your seeming confidence in the lab leak as more than just likely.
We may even be on the same page.
Ridgeway — As I said, no evidence at all.
Also? Occam's Razor disapproves favoring low-probability explanations over more likely ones. Try to notice, you award yourself an Occam bypass, when you insist on your conclusion, and then reason backward to deduce that what you concluded proves the likelihood of your presumed cause.
Nieporent does that too, along with most of the lab leak mavens, who cannot get it through their skulls that the sum of likelihoods from non-WIV sources is literally orders of magnitude greater than the WIV alternative. That is why any respectable WIV-dependent explanation requires ironclad evidence. That would collapse competing probabalistic arguments to zeroes, and carry the day for the inherently improbable lab-leak explanation. Unlikely things do happen sometimes.
But until that happens—while all the explanations must compete alike on the basis of probabilities—the other probabilities overwhelm WIV-leak insistence probabilities. What you think looks pretty likely remains metaphorically an almost-invisible dot on a life-sized picture of a bowling ball.
"who cannot get it through their skulls that the sum of likelihoods from non-WIV sources is literally orders of magnitude greater than the WIV alternative."
It's always nice when deductions match reality. Here is a list of lab leaks. Perhaps you could highlight which of those which are examples of your thesis, where a leak from Lab A is first detected in the vicinity of a distant Lab B?
"It's indisputable that the virus was first recognized in China."
Actually, it was first found in November in waste water abd in blood samples in both Italy and France. That was before the first Chines reports in public.
As to your other world labs leaking, that is preposterous grasping at straws. A lab that did not create SARS-CoV-2 could not have leaked it. Your politics is getting in the way of elementary logic
Stupid Government Tricks 30 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You ignore the side effects which stunted children's growth, trashed the economy, and discredited government scientific advice for a generation. I'd think you at least would care about the last.
Dan Schiavetta 25 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"None of that is true."
His statement on stunting childrens growth is untrue, though there is legitimate scientific/medical debate as to whether vaxing impeded the broader development of childrens immune system. The rest of is statement is spot on.
I took this highly educated audience as being capable of understanding that as "education and social growth", not that they all turned into dwarves.
My apologies.
What are these fatal results?
I've never understood why the question of the origins of Covid-19 might be of more than academic interest. As far as I can see the question of the origins of the pandemic had no implications for what policy makers should do to mitigate or end the pandemic, and it has no implications going forward.
(Other than that we should be careful about the security precautions in labs, which seems like the sort of thing everyone was already trying to do anyway. I don't think any lab leak conclusion will ever be detailed enough that labs in other countries can draw lessons from it.)
"I've never understood why the question of the origins of Covid-19 might be of more than academic interest. As far as I can see the question of the origins of the pandemic had no implications for what policy makers should do to mitigate or end the pandemic, and it has no implications going forward."
True. Its only use was in the service of racism and xenophobia (Trump: "the Kung Flu").
If the goal was racism, then it would be far more racist to claim that the virus was spread due to Chinese selling bats in an open wet market for consumption, vs accidentally escaping a government lab.
*Nationalist* xenophobia.
You still here people talking about the ChiComs around here sometimes.
Closed minds spew nonsense.
Well, that is true: You never did understand 🙂
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?
If it was so inconsequential, why hide it? Why lie about it? Why pretend now it is unimportant, after 5 years of pretending it was so important as to justify censorship and firing dissenters?
You've never understood why it might be of geopolitical significance that COVID was released from the Wuhan lab?
I don't believe you're being honest here Martinned2.
How about a different angle. What sort of liability should there be for releasing a pandemic virus?
How about a different angle. What sort of liability should there be for releasing a pandemic virus?
Good question. How about liability based on iron-clad proof the lab accused did leak the virus? With damage payments backed by mandatory re-insurance underwritten by all the insurance companies in the world.
Feel free to sue China for money damages and see how far you get.
Missouri has done so and got a huge judgment!
A default judgment to be sure, but a win's a win, baby!
What I asked was, what sort of liability do you think there ought to be.
If China itself was liable as you've suggested here, the US government could certainly find ways extract several pounds of flesh, for example.
Step 1. Wuhan lab leak is a deranged conspiracy theory! How dare anyone make such outrageous bombshell extremely serious accusations! And racist too!
Step 2. So what, why does this even matter if it's true? I'm befuddled honestly.
If it talks like a racist, and does Nazi-salutes like a racist, it's not my job to wade through all the garbage you post online to see which of your racist claims happen to correlate with actual reality in some way.
The idea that a virus leaked from a laboratory is RACIST!
You are correct that the possible origin of COVID has no real world impact. But the obsession over it is a fascinating study in conservative psychology and Republican politics.
It took two to be obsessive in this. Why were lefties so obsessive in denying it, to the point of censorship and firing dissenters?
I love that "Well, it originated at a wet market across the street from this biolab" is the MORE plausible story.
The Left decided that even MENTIONING that it came from a lab, you had to be silenced. Silenced HARD.
It was a Dem obsession.
It has a real world impact. The elite consensus (at least in public) was that the virus came from unusual eating habits in China. This consensus was such that Twitter banned users if they speculated that the virus came from a lab. The new consensus that the virus did come from a lab is a reminder that we can't always trust scientists, public health officials, etc., to tell the public the truth about subjects within their supposed expertise. This is so even where is no obvious reason not to tell the truth.
"elite consensus"
Experts are sometimes wrong, so expertise isn't a thing anymore!
There is, in fact, no such consensus.
Now that you guys are caught out and all your lying and deception and the mountains you moved to silence and destroy people over the years is laid bare.... 'oh well, its not important anyway.' with zero remorse. that is your defense???
LOL you guys are f&*ing straight up psychopaths man. Nothing behind those eyes.
It matters because Fauci etc should have been fired instead of put in charge of the response.
They hid the origin because they had funded the origin.
There's of course no evidence for any of that, and Fauci was not put in charge of the response.
I've never understood why the question of the origins of Covid-19 might be of more than academic interest. As far as I can see the question of the origins of the pandemic had no implications for what policy makers should do to mitigate or end the pandemic, and it has no implications going forward.
What an idiot you are, then.
Here are a few real-world implications and policy changes that could arise from confirmation that it was a lab leak from WIV:
1. Maybe we should not be conducting dangerous Gain-of-function research, at all
2. If we are to do gain of function research (to prepare for a naturally occurring virus), do it in places that have better safety protocols than WIV, and in countries that actually cooperate transparently with international agencies
3. If we ignore 1 & 2 and continue to do GoF research in China, at least not lie about it under oath to congress
I don't know who you think "we" is, but if you think you can tell China to stop doing certain research, you're in for a big surprise.
As is obvious to anyone with half a brain (I know that excludes you), the "we" here is the US, who funded the GoF research in Wuhan.
But the point that sailed over your head is that if China is a rogue nation, as you concede, that reinforces my point #2
I think that you made my point more clearly than I did.
ZZtop's point is a good one. We - the world - have largely ended above ground nuclear testing. It's not that China (US/Russia/India/...) couldn't do a test if they wanted to, but it is considered a bit beyond the pale nowadays.
What matters is not whether or not covid19 did or did not result from a GoF research oopsie. I don't think even the most ardent natural origin proponents are suggesting that some future GoF oopsie resulting in a pandemic is impossible.
So that raises the question of what the risks and benefits of GoF are, and what level of precautions are appropriate. And since pandemics have international consequences that should be an international conversation - which we have been to busy with partisan mudslinging to have.
Maybe GoF is, on the balance, a good thing to do, or not. Probably not all GoF is equally beneficial/risky. There are a range of precautions that might be appropriate, from BSL-5 labs (Andromeda Strain!) on remote islands to teens doing science projects in the basement. I'm not qualified to address most of those questions - but I really think we ought to have a global discussion before Measles32 leaks from a Sudanese BSL-1 lab.
Martin,
The answer is straight forward and has strong implications going forward.
Because the virus was created at the Wuhan lab in its gain of function research. Do dangerous things, get dangerous results.
The New York Times was complicit in the censorship and coverup. They don't get to play victim now.
https://x.com/NancyRomm/status/1901296129821536498
The same people who now claim: "What? Biden was a demented half-wit that didn't know what day it was? His staff tricked us all!"
NO,sorry, he was a fool long before that
“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-wsj-the-obama-biden-virus-response-could-have-killed-nearly
The Obama-Biden Virus Response Could Have Killed Nearly Two Million
Amzing that Ron Klain admitted that.
Too bad the NY Times did not INVESTIGATE this instead of just repeating press releases
Not a bad thing at all.
We now know exactly what the NYT is, and is not.
It is a propaganda machine for the totalitarian party, and is not in any way a publisher of true facts.
"All the news that fits, we print"
The allegation is that they did investigate, and the sources lied to them.
Sounds like stuff that's been known for years, which the NYT actively resisted and helped cover up, and now they're admitting it. Why now?
Because it's late enough to not matter politically, and their readership is comforted by the fact they don't have to give a fuck about being misled four years ago?
Look up what an opinion column is; you seem to be confused.
Is their readership really this stupid?
We will not forget, or forgive.
We have yet to have any meaningful accountability for the bad (and malign) decisions made by bureaucrats and politicians.
The one decision that strikes me as clearly wrong was trashing the vaccine. In hindsight there were other bad decisions, but were they unreasonable given the information available at the time?
…and pushing snake oil alternatives like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
…and pushing snake oil alternatives like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
And really bright lights. Internally!
That made Trump look like (even more of) a dumbass (than he already did), but it didn't harm anyone, AFAIK. There weren't people shining flashlights down their throats as 'treatment.' There were people taking dewormer instead of getting vaccinated.
Oh, but there were plenty of vulnerable people who tried MMS as a result.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-leader-group-peddling-bleach-cure-lobbied-trump-coronavirus
Truth is stranger than fiction...
Nieporent — Would you be equally comfortable asserting that there were not people turning down vaccination, in reliance on being saved by medically administered light treatments instead?
I am pretty active on social media and I saw a lot of people discussing seeking out and using HCQ and ivermectin; I didn't similar talk about "medically administered light treatments." I am sure someone, somewhere tried that. But I have no reason to think that was more than an isolated thing.
. . . and forcing states to fight each other to get PPE's etc. instead of taking control and forming a national procedure.
. . . and . . .
True enough, Josh. For most people the first vaccine was a net positive.
Unfortunately, not all reports of side-effects to hospitals were reported to and registered in the CDC database. Did those long-term side effects outweigh the immunization benefit. It is very difficult to say in individual cases.
Assuming the excerpt above contains the meat of the accusation (I cannot access the NYT website to read the whole thing) then if you dig into the other links available, this is what you discover is the source of this reporting bombshell (note that this quote is not recent):
And the Slack channel? The reason we now know about it at all is because last month it was subpoenaed by US Republicans, then leaked — and seized upon by those who now think that that conclusion was wrong.
The US magazine National Review ran an article calling it the “Covid Cover-Up”. The website Unherd referred to a “cabal of conspiring scientists”. An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal talked of the “Covid Lab-Leak Deception”. A feature in The Australian referred to “secret research, spin, cover-ups”. The Republican subcommittee deemed it a co-ordinated “attempt to kill the lab leak theory”.
So basically, MAGA regurgitating MAGA, at a moment when Trump is in need of public distractions.
As for the allegedly evasive scientists, they did exactly what almost everyone has done when targeted by Trump's vengeance machine—they tried to slither out of the target area by whatever means they could manage.
The most important point to note about this entire Covid contretemps renaissance is that no one has added one substantive bit of scientific evidence to adduce a lab leak. That record is right where it was left when it last proved inconclusive and politically unavailing.
Note also, EVs headline seems to imply Zeynep Tufekci has status as a full-time NYT columnist. That needs confirmation. She may write intermittently. She is trained as a sociologist. Nothing in the excerpt above recommends her as a down-the-middle journalistic interpreter of the other journalism she seems to have relied upon.
The whole piece is not better. It is exactly as speculative as you gather - long on speculation and circumstantial evidence, short on anything directly relevant to the factual question at the heart of the debate.
The NYTimes ran the piece with the usual disclaimer they run under their more contentious pieces, advising readers that they are open to printing a wide range of viewpoints from a diverse group of contributors. In this particular case, they might have been better-off leaving the conspiracies off their pages. It's too bad that Eugene's judgment is no better.
Stephen,
If you keep your head in the sand long enough, you will suffocate. Don't do it.
The fact is that there is NO direct evidence of zoonotic transmission or mutation in the wild. That was always wishful thinking by those who funded the WIV research
The columnist commits the most common error in this particular discussion -- he conflates "human engineered" (e.g., "lab designed") with "lab leak". Those are two different issues. The entire public discussion at the time (2020-21) was rife with this error, and one might reasonably ask whether some actors committed the error intentionally. But discussion of "conspiracies" is not helped by repeating the error.
The first paper to which he refers is very clear that it is talking about the question of whether the COVID virus was "human engineered" or whether the mutations that allowed it to infect humans in the way it did were natural mutations. See:
"The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
In context, it is 100% clear that "laboratory-based scenario" in this paper means "mutations engineered by human design," and NOT "natural mutations that happen to be studied in a lab under a microscope." And yet the columnist acts as though this is inconsistent with a "lab leak" thesis. In reality, a virus that has mutated naturally and is under study in a lab can also be subject to an accidental leak. The two concepts are in no way inconsistent.
Not sure why this is bugging me so much but the author, Zeynep Tufekci, is a woman. Zeynep is a pretty common Turkish woman's name; it's simply the Turkish equivalent of Zaynab. She has been writing on COVID issues for like 5 years so I thought she was pretty well known.
Also bothered me. The phrase "lab leak" can be used ambiguously to refer to accidental discharges as well as to intentional discharges, depending on the user's preference.
I also recall that there was originally a lot of discussion about whether the virus was "naturally occurring" or had been "engineered" (either for experimental reasons or as a bioweapon). Either can be "leaked", and either can be leaked intentionally or accidentally.
Speaking about a "lab leak theory" tells us virtually nothing useful without adding considerably more context.
Not that it matters much now--we will almost certainly get to do this whole pandemic thing again in the near future!
The actual origin of covid is a historical fact. We might never know the true origins. The best we can do now is make the best hypothesis we can based on the facts. This should not be a political issue.
your first two sentences contradict each other.
No the orgin should not be a political issue. However the left made it a political issue when they began the effort to discredit any and all discussions of the likely source. The active effort of dishonesty went a long way to creating an atmosphere of distrust of the government sourced information. The CDC and other health agencies didnt help their credibility with the multitude of other erroneous information.
I meant was the origin of covid is a fact, but a fact that we don't know. Thus making it a political issue is stupid.
The left denial and silencing of the possible source was political. The left made it a political issue .
MAGA's weird focus on the possible source was political. They seemed to think that if it came from a lab that meant that no NPI — which they hated with a passion — was needed.
David Nieporent 41 minutes ago"MAGA's weird focus on the possible source was political. They seemed to think that if it came from a lab that meant that no NPI —"
Nice job conflating two separate and distinct unrelated issues and pretending as if connected.
Thanks. But I don't think they are unrelated, in the minds of MAGA. That was precisely my point.
You continue to demonstrate that you suffer from TDS.
With the exception of isolation, none of NPI protocols provided much if any benefit.
https://emilyburns.substack.com/p/if-masks-work-why-dont-they-work
Step 1. These purveyors of dangerous and racist misinformation need to be banned from the internet and fired from their jobs and lose their medical licenses if they question the narrative!!!
Step 2. Gee whiz guys, let's not make this a political issue, I'm genuinely confused why this even matters, also we can never be totally certain by golly, gotta be circumspect now . . .
There's not a doubt in my mind but that the formation and election of the New Right coalition was in response to the deceptive, confused, arbitrary, senseless, norm-destroying, guilty, and economically destructive responses to the pandemic by our public heath agencies, political parties, and captured institutions such as public schools.
https://images.dailykos.com/images/574802/story_image/1350.png?1533664371
Um, Trump was already president at the time.
Step 1. We need to SHUT DOWN every mom and pop business in the country immediately! And also BAN church, close the gyms, ban surfing and going to the beach! Big corporate stores and liquor and weed shops can stay open though. #staythefuckhome
Step 2. It's a total mystery why anyone is upset, we were all just doing our best during COVID to keep people safe for their own good, the science changed that's how science works, bigot.
Among the bizarre stories in the MAGA Cinematic Universe is the idea that different rules applied to mom&pop vs. big stores.
I think it varied a lot from state to state, and one can quibble that the rule was 'essential' vs. 'non-essential', but at least locally that meant that Lowes was open, and Local Rug Emporium was closed, and Lowes was selling rugs.
The rationale was that, say, hardware stores were essential because if your only toilet broke you kinda need replacement parts. But if you wander around e.g. a Lowes or Walmart, the vast majority of their stuff isn't all that essential. Just from a couple of minutes browsing, Lowes sells footballs, but the local sporting goods couldn't. Curtains, rugs, petunias, ping pong tables, wall art, Easter decor, all for sale at the big box while the Mom-n-Pop who didn't happen to have a plumbing aisle was shut down.
Again, this was the local situation. I have no idea what was going on on the benighted side of the Mississippi 🙂