Jump to content

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Origin of COVID-19)

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources

[edit]

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Proposed merge of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Origin of COVID-19

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus, closed with stale discussion. Counter proposals have not found support. Intervening AfD discussion is noted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Klbrain (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear whether this article was created as a proper WP:CFORK of that article or whether it can only function as a WP:POVFORK. Depending on the outcome of that determination, either a merge back to the main article or a proper summary of this article at the main article ought to be completed. jps (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid duplication, please concentrate discussion at Talk:COVID-19_zoonosis_theories#CFORK_or_POVFORK? Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring archived discussion as it is clear this discussion was never concluded. TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename page to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 ?

[edit]

The page title has a category error. This is an article about the virus' origin (as it says in the first sentence), not the "origin" of the disease. Everybody knows the disease is originated by infection with the virus. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage, I agree with your rational. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article

[edit]

The article in its current form displays a clear bias.

The introduction paragraph is formulated to imply the zoonotic origin is scientific evidence and other hypotheses a product of conspiracy or fiction.

The zoonotic origin is a deduction based on the article of Andersen et al., 2020. It contains deductions based on comparative analyses, but they do not represent factual evidence. Fact: "We prove that ...", Comparative Analysis: "Based on previous data we assess it is unlikely that ..."

That article should be put on the bigger picture that is recently arising, on how a segment of the research community (represented Dr. Daszak) tried to cover up the role of Wuhan's lab coronavirus research and rush to declare that China is not guilty. Those are not conspiracies anymore https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01305-z and even Nature accepts it.

In light of the recent development, it seems foolish to still "blindly" believe in the integrity of the virus-research scientific community, at a time when it is crystal clear (echoed by Nature, US Senate, etc.) that the scientific community had been compromised. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is - at present - no actual evidence for the lab leak theory. One guy not disclosing a tangential collaboration with a lab does not give credence to your conspiracy theory.
I don't believe in the integrity of any specific institution, but I believe in evidence. There is ample evidence of zoonotic origin, and 0 evidence of lab leak. LMFcan (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by ample evidence? Because there is no evidence that the origin is zoonotic, there are only studies that deduce the zoonotic evidence to be "highly likely" based on a comparative assessment of the genome. The same studies assess a lab leak to be "highly unlikely". Sorry for how you understand science and facts, but this is not evidence. See the definition of the word "fact" for a start Fact.
Regarding your assessment that my opinion is a conspiracy, this is exactly the root of this problem. In the beginning of the pandemic, conspiracists used the situation to ignite unsourced debates. The more rational fragment of the society, call them science believers, quickly jumped in to "calm" down the population and avoid that the masses are influenced by conspiracies.
However, purely because conspiracists believe in a theory does not make it automatically wrong or laughable. The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few scientists, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a zoonotic origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in an intermediate host. Such evidence was never discovered, despite thousands of tests on animals in the Wuhan region and beyond.
I am not a virologist and will not argue with the technical details. However, it is my right to demand that Wikipedia is impartial and that it does not turn into a stronghold of blind "science-believing" editors, who reject any alternate theory as simply conspiracy because they are too proud to accept they might have been wrong in prematurely believing in what-seems-to-be a compromised nucleus of scientific researchers with conflicts of interests in the cause of the pandemic. Science is not a static concept of math equations, but also a more general vision of seeking the truth, especially in such cases when the "truth" dynamically evolves considering the incoming flow of new pieces of the puzzle.2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few scientists, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a zoonotic origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in an intermediate host."
I think, "The situation has changed a lot since the early days when a few politicians, apparently with conflicts of interests, rushed to declare prematurely that COVID has a lab leak origin, without waiting for conclusive evidence such as the discovery of a matching genome in any lab."
Same logic, different result, no? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated comment first: I appreciate the creativity of your answer.
Coming to the point: I do not support the "few politicians", however, it seems most editors believe in the "few scientists" as if they were divine creatures of scientific puritanism. Recent evidence suggests their work is not exclusively driven by scientific rigor, to put it mildly.
Science should give an ultimate answer, however, please notice that the scientific community does not have an absolute consensus on the matter:
https://gcrinstitute.org/papers/069_covid-origin.pdf
In the survey above published in February 2024, among 168 leading global experts in virology 79% believe in a zoonotic origin, and 21% believe in an accident-related origin. That is a staggering amount of disagreement to call the situation a consensus, especially since it takes a lot of courage to question the zoonotic origin without being declared a conspiracist, crazy right-wing, etc., and risking a character assassination (we even have an example above when I was characterized as a "conspiracist" by the previous editor, only because I dared to question the balance of this article).
Perhaps it is not too late that Wikipedia fixes this page, by balancing this article with the lines "The community of scientists is divided into two fronts, the majority supporting a zoonotic origin, and a minority supporting an accident leak.", and removing the absurd part implying that individuals questioning the zoonotic origin are conspiracists, etc. The current phrasing is insulting, to say the least, to a rational being. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found https://www.science.org/content/article/virologists-and-epidemiologists-back-natural-origin-covid-19-survey-suggests (a description of that survey's flaws) informative. My favorite line was this:
“At least 78% of experts are very badly informed (not aware of one key document)...33% of experts are either lying or easily confused [because they claimed to be familiar with a paper that never existed]. Basically, these experts are no better than the Delphic Pythia, hallucinations included.”
And that's from someone who believes that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you read the Science article's comment, which assesses that:
"That hardly means respondents believe the matter is settled, however. One in five researchers gave a probability of 50% or more to a scenario other than a natural zoonosis."
The other line you are reporting should be taken in the right context, which is the opposite of what you are implying:
The article refers to a comment that "78% of experts" were uninformed of a proposal "known as DEFUSE, which was submitted to the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2018 by the nonprofit EcoHealth Allianceand partnering labs in the United States and at the Wuhan Institute of Virology".
The person tweeting suggests the majority supporting the zoonotic origin is not well-informed, and follows a "herd mentality" zoonotic belief.
This survey, including the Science article you cited, further iterates that the reality is far away from the clear zoonotic consensus among the scientific community, contrary to what this Wikipedia article tries to indicate. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, anyone who believes in a puritanical "science should come to an ultimate answer" has never actually worked in science, much less in a biological sub-field. There are exceptions and conjecture in every aspect of it, only after decades of research and long standing debate will you often get some "ultimate answer", if ever. Hell, we still have large swaths of the population, including some scientists, who don't believe in evolution - one of the few "ultimate answers" we've ever come to.
Secondly, ~4/5th of experts saying they believe in zoonotic origins does not validate or verify claims of lab leak, if anything it should reduce your certainty in it. You'll also notice that despite the fact that they determine similar levels of experts believe in zoontic origins, there's a 10% disparity between virologists (who would be trained in molecular biology) and epidemiologists (who rarely are).
Lastly, there is a finite number of ways a virus can jump species. If it were from a GoF experiment in a lab that leaked into the public, you'd be able to identify somewhat easily with the sequence of the virus where genes were inserted. No lab on the planet has been able to identify where that would have happened in the sequence, because as it stands now, there isn't any evidence to support it ever happened. LMFcan (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree that "~4/5th of experts saying they believe in zoonotic origins does not validate or verify claims of lab leak, if anything it should reduce your certainty in it".
The posterior on a belief depends on both the prior probability of the belief and the evidence (see Bayes' theorem).
If the prior belief in a zoonotic origin was 0.99999999999 (as this Wiki page seems to imply), then evidence of 0.8 (4/5 experts) reduces the zoonotic origin likelihood, instead of increasing it.
Concerning:
"If it were from a GoF experiment in a lab that leaked into the public, you'd be able to identify somewhat easily with the sequence of the virus where genes were inserted. No lab on the planet has been able to identify where that would have happened in the sequence, because as it stands now, there isn't any evidence to support it ever happened."
Apparently 1/5 experts disagree with your personal opinion.
And this is exactly the point, the Wiki article should openly state the disagreement on the matter instead of defending a non-existing consensus on the zoonotic origin. It implies a conclusive deduction of the research community, as opposed to a work in progress research and investigation. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:A1B1:DD1A:A1D6:9C4B (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The top half of this is so stupid I actually struggled to comprehend your interpretation of it.
Expert opinion is not evidence (read: observation). You cannot derive implicit probability from opinion, unless the output depends on that opinion (i.e. you can derive probabilistic likelihoods of who will win an election - an output based on opinion - by sampling opinion).
Opinion is not evidence, and the type of evidence you're gathering doesn't actually have an impact on the outcome, and is therefore not measurable by probability in this case. Moreover, the evidence of lableak, as I mentioned prior, is zero. Please, derive for me the probability of something occuring when the input of evidence is zero.
Lastly, you've already been provided evidence to show that the survey is mostly bunk. It used a moronic sampling method that allowed friends to recruit friends, and showed that most sampled weren't familiar with the subject matter. Even if the survey had perfect methodology and found the same results, 80% of respondents being in agreement is about as good a consensus as you'll ever get.
Out of the two of us, I'm going to guess that I'm the only one who worked in an infection and immunity institute during COVID. I can tell you that by the end of ~2021-early 2022 actual experts saw lab leak as a conspiracy theory. LMFcan (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that based on your comment you might need a refresher of your statistics knowledge.
The sample space (pls read what it means in probabilistic terms) is "consensus" or "not consensus" in zoonotic origin. This is the core of the discussion: The wiki article hints at a clear consensus on a zoonotic origin, while evidence suggests the scientific community has not reached a clear consensus.
You advised me that my certainty in evaluating the consensus outcome should increase after the survey (citing your comment "~4/5th of experts ... should reduce your certainty ..."), and I provided you with an argument that this is not necessarily the case, based on the principles of Bayesian inference.
What you refer to as "expert opinion is not observation" is simply incorrect. The concept of what constitutes evidence is always specific to the sample space of the outcomes for the variable whose probability we are measuring. For the consensus variable, the survey is evidence.
Regarding the comment on your experience in an infection and immunity institute: In case you are an authority in the field as you claim, you are welcome to publish your "personal survey" on the fraction of how many "actual experts saw lab leak as a conspiracy theory.". Then we can take these figures seriously. At the moment, the survey I cited is the most credible published source representing the [lack of] consensus on the zoonotic origin. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:6086:E405:FE6E:9AD3 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to do you a favour here and write this out in as basic and clear terms as I can.
"Consensus vs non-consensus" is a non-probabilistic question, because by definition you need a testable hypothesis. In other words, let's say you flip a coin. You can ask "What is the probability that it lands on heads?" <- this is the testable question. You can then draw your conclusions based on the probabilities of the possible conditions
What you are trying to link with Bayesian interference/Bayes Theorem lacks this. Go look at the equation. If I accepted that consensus vs non-consensus were the two possibilities of SOMETHING, what is that something you're going to put on the left hand of the equation?
You: "If the prior belief in a zoonotic origin was 0.99999999999 (as this Wiki page seems to imply), then evidence of 0.8 (4/5 experts) reduces the zoonotic origin likelihood, instead of increasing it."
If you want to act like you know anything about the scientific method we're going to write this correctly and specifically. The survey you've linked would suggest that the probability of asking a random "expert" and getting a response of zoonotic origin is 0.8 (or 0.7-whatever the actual number was). This does not do anything to "zoonotic origin likelihood", as expert opinion has no impact on said likelihood. By all probabilistic metrics, you cannot derive the likelihood of an event based on something that does not have an impact on its likelihood. We've already discussed how the methodology in this is flawed, which means that estimate is likely inaccurate. Additionally, it was conducted by a for-profit company hired by
https://jacob-eliosoff.medium.com/either-sars-cov-2-evolved-from-banal-a-prra-insertion-or-it-was-engineered-430d41237247
Second, you need to define parameters. What defines consensus? What level of positive response do you need to see for "consensus"? Well the cambridge dictionary defines it as "A generally accepted opinion; wide agreement". 80% of respondents responding the same way would fit into a generally accepted opinion. It would be, in most cases, a supermajority of respondents in agreement. Most definitions I can find online for "scientific consensus" list opinion of the majority of scientists (Cambridge doesn't have a definition, otherwise I'd include for continuity). It DOES NOT, in ANY definition mean that ALL scientists agree. So yes, if your imagined "probability" of all scientists agreeing is 0.999999, then I suspect most real facts are going to fall below your standard for scientific rigour (a quick search suggests that "only" 97% of scientists think evolution happened, and we know it to be true). However, we do not need to give credence to a hypothesis that has, as of now, 0 supporting evidence.
Provide me evidence for lab leak having happened beyond "a lab exists" and I'll support it. Until then, you can cry more. LMFcan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
addendum to the above: if you want to be taken seriously, go find actual evidence. A planets worth of virologists hasn't been able to yet. I'm sure you'll be the one. LMFcan (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Rand Paul et. al. in the US Senate, do not represent reality and speak only for their deranged opinions. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is shown to be irrelevant - See Judicial Watch 23.245.99.223 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the phrase "cold/food chain" instead of "cold food chain" in unlikely scenarios

[edit]

Reading through the sources, a space instead of a forward slash is how this phrase is presented. I think the section title (under unlikely scenarios) and the associated prose should have all instances of "cold/food" changed to "cold food" per the sources and common usage 12.75.41.48 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TarnishedPathtalk 02:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1255380784"