The non lab leak scenario is just what it historically has been for ~70% of all viruses that we can trace (and probably the remainder as well, but we have no evidence): zoonotic jump.
The lab-leak scenario presumes zoonotic jump, too. Just rather than from something in the wild, it's from humanized (ACE2-transgenic) mice, which WIV was known to be using to study SARS-like Coronaviruses.
The coronaviruses being studied at WIV included RaTG13, one of the closest relatives (96.1% genomic match) to SARS-CoV-2 ever found in the wild.
But a key difference between SARS-CoV-2 and it's wild relatives is the spike protein with affinity for the ACE2 receptor, so it would have had to have evolved through an intermediate host with a human-like ACE2 receptor. For example, ACE2-transgenic lab mice.
This does not itself rule out the wild-origin theory, but no wild host that could explain the missing link from RaTG13 to SARS-CoV-2 has yet been found.
Indeed. So the only reasonable conclusion so far is that we haven't found the reservoir host yet. This may take a while and it may even never happen. If and when we do we will finally be able to make another step in this whole saga.
> If there was GoF being done on the sample (adding of the spike protein to infect humans), that could be the remaining percentage.
I do not believe one bit the only "reasonable conclusion" is it has to be from nature.
Between the lab sample, the outbreak area, the GoF program being run, the timing, history of lab leaks, and the reaction, a lab leak is very reasonable...
I think there may have been a slight misunderstanding here (I'm not particularly familiar with this topic so I may have some concepts mistaken):
> The lab-leak scenario presumes zoonotic jump, too. Just rather than from something in the wild, it's from humanized (ACE2-transgenic) mice
> So the only reasonable conclusion so far is that we haven't found the reservoir host yet.
> I do not believe one bit the only "reasonable conclusion" is it has to be from nature.
If it's discovered that the reservoir host was a mouse in a lab at WIV then "we will finally be able to make another step in this whole saga" in the same way as it being discovered as a wild host. It might be worth reading their comment again.
(Again, I'm not deeply familiar with this topic and may be totally off base; gluing together my personal understanding of the meanings of these words has me arriving at this conclusion. I'm also attempting to clarify someone else's statements so take another grain of salt for that.)
Zoonotic would mean it was a natural occurrence. The GoF program of adding the spike protein to attach to the ACE2 receptor and putting it in a mouse would NOT be zoonotic, but lab made. It's a lab mouse. Not a jump, but a deliberate placement in a lab.
Obviously the implications matter whether it occurred in nature or deliberately by man. If it was the latter, then the program that was supposed to prepare against the potential of a natural virus actually made something that may never have happened, and then went on to kill millions.
It sounds like the claim is that it’s “from humanized (ACE2-transgenic) mice“. I assume “humanized” is referring to the genome or something else about the genetics but these organisms still shouldn’t be considered humans (or at least this opinion seems reasonable; if it’s factually wrong I’m open to being corrected).
But if it’s “from” non-human “to” human, isn’t that a zoonotic jump, or is there some mistake in this understanding?
Thanks for the explanations. Admittedly, my introduction to the term “zoonotic” was from playing Plague Inc: Evolved (if one is not familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_Inc:_Evolved) so you might see where I’m coming from. I do roughly understand this to be the meaning.
Interesting. I noticed that one of my kids picked up a lot about how electricity works as well as simple and/or/not/nand gates. But that doesn't mean he knows anything about electricity, merely how the game logic presents it, which is close but not quite how it really works. That doesn't mean he knows nothing either, but it does mean that such knowledge should always be verified with proper sources to ensure you're not accidentally learning something isn't quite true.
Yeah, I have difficulty with this, in particular trusting sources. Wikipedia is almost always correct on a technical level but very information dense (Good Thing! Recently I looked up “captain obvious disambiguation” for a joke and learned the word “lapalissade”) so it sometimes requires a certain mindset to learn from there. Some public school teachers don’t like being questioned(!!) and I think that’s caused me to have an internalized skepticism of academics, ironically despite the likelihood they’re more informed. Rando stranger on the internet can be good source but maybe a bullshitter instead.
On the whole, and especially in particular if one pays attention, people here tend to make “good faith” statements such that a difference of opinion similar to this thread is genuinely informative if one is willing to consider the possibility of any particular thing being true (or not). It helps to understand the difference between statements of fact and opinion. I’ve found it helps also to be open about a lack of knowledge if one is willing to ask questions and “be taught” in a fashion, despite the reputation that such leading statements have.
I try to remind myself that all topics which are able to capture academics’ attention have a lot of depth to them, practically by necessity. My physics teacher in high school was fantastic so I have a solid understanding of the concepts taught in that class -- in my experience, MKS logic has been a helpful mental exercise for understanding any abstraction. But it would still take years of study for me to really understand the things we can’t explain about the physical world. And that’s true of almost anything. Best to keep an open mind.
That turned into a bit more than I expected. I appreciate your comment, if it’s not already obvious! I hope you have a nice day, whenever you read this.
