In an op-ed in the New York Times molecular biologist Alina Chan explains why at this point the most likely explanation for COVID-19 is that it spread throughout the world due to a lab accident at at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Her argument, basically, is that
- the virus is most closely related to bat viruses from China and Laos
- WIV was experimenting with such viruses
- WIV’s safety protocols were not as strict as they should have been
- no naturally-occurring immediate antecedent has been identified as yet
- in the absence of any other explanation a lab accident becomes most likely
I don’t know what the origins of the virus were but I think it’s important that they be honestly and dispassionately investigated and that is unlikely under present circumstances. That’s why I’ve been arguing for several years that a civil suit should be brought naming China as the cause and that the aministration and U. S. courts should not move to block such a suit. As far as I can tell that’s the only way we could press the Chinese government to be more forthcoming.
What would you do differently in the future if you knew the proximate cause of COVID; given that both a lab accident or natural cause are both plausible explanations, and are likely to occur again with lab accident and definitely will occur again with natural cause.
The Origins of COVID-19 and Why It Matters
There is no definitive evidence either way, but when looked at the initial cases all occurred around the market. Claims about lab people being infected have been found untrue. The changes in the virus that make it infectious are not consistent with other lab interventions. It has taken many years with other viruses to discover their source so the fact that it has not been found yet isn’t surprising. The evidence for lab leak is fairly weak.
I think the fact that it probably came from the market is more damning than the lab leak. There are lots of wet markets, not many labs.
As suit against China would go nowhere. That’s just a fantasy. Be real.
Steve
The paper was from 2020 but I think the authors miss the point.
Its a guarantee there will be a future pandemic where the cause is “natural”. Whether COVID was natural or a lab accident won’t change the risk or prevent it.
And the risk from a lab accident causing a future pandemic doesn’t change if COVID was from natural causes either. The field of virology and bio-engineering is very advanced that we can mutate or create a virus like COVID-19, and we know that lab accidents have caused viruses that spread far and wide (see 1977 Russian flu).
The only saving grace with mRNA vaccine technology and advances in sequencing, protein analysis, the turnaround time to a vaccine from the onset of the next pandemic will be cut to possibly 2 months from a year with COVID.
My point all along is that China will ensure we’ll never know the origin for sure. In that case we ought to proceed as if both the lab leak and natural/wet market is the origin and take the necessary steps to reduce the risk from both.
The problem is we appear to be doing nothing at all – at least I can find little evidence of pro active action. It seems to me people in the US are more interested in winning the lab leak/natural causes debate than actually doing anything.
For example:
– If this is from an animal at the wet market, why isn’t China being pressured to shut them down or regulate them to prevent this? This wouldn’t be the first time a disease had its origin in the weird practice of catching and selling live wild animals for food. No one seems to care about actually closing this likely future vector for disease.
– Similarly, we ought to reexamine how we cooperate with China and other countries on dangerous virus research with the goal of greater safety and transparency, as well as our own processes. Few honest advocates for this as well.
The lack of concrete action compared to the time spent on a largely performative debate about origins that won’t be decisively determined is extremely frustrating.
I agree with that comment completely, Andy. As I have said before we have no way of changing the behavior of people in other countries but we can change our own behavior.
Isn’t the logical conclusion that a) contact with China is a health risk and b) the risk can be mitigated by a two week quarantine (at the traveler’s expense) of anyone entering the United States from China even indirectly?
I’m not sure what the logical conclusion is, but it ought to be something and not the nothing that it is.
It’s easy to say “I dunno”
But for those who live in a world where decisions must be made, intuition, experience, recognition of fact withholding and invested interest wrt information, and just plain common sense prevail……..it’s a lab leak.
I don’t think it changes Daves prescription one bit. We need to act accordingly. Even if it puts the next 10% for the Big Guy in jeopardy.