Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forum$100 Trillion Destroyed: China's Virus Outbreak; Chinese Economy: Consumption; South China Sea - China Update
00:00 Introduction
00:46 New Outbreak Report
03:30 South China Sea
06:11 Sponsored Investment Feature
08:55 Chinese Economy: Consumption
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xocetaceans
(4,019 posts)Authors: James Alwine, Felicia Goodrum, Bruce Banfield, David Bloom, William J. Britt, Andrew J. Broadbent, Samuel K. Campos , Arturo Casadevall, Gary C. Chan, Anna R. Cliffe, Terence Dermody, Paul Duprex, Lynn W. Enquist, Klaus Frueh, Adam P. Geballe , Marta Gaglia, Stephen Goldstein, Alexander L. Greninger, Gigi Kwick Gronvall, Jae U. Jung, Jeremy P. Kamil, Seema Lakdawala, Shan-Lu Liu, Micah Luftig, John P. Moore, Anne Moscona, Benjamin W. Neuman, Janko Ž. Nikolich, Christine O'Connor, Andrew Pekosz, Sallie Permar, Julie Pfeiffer, John Purdy, Angela Rasmussen, Bert Semler, Gregory A. Smith, David A. Stein, Koenraad Van Doorslaer, Sandra K. Weller, Sean P. J. Whelan, Andrew Yurochko
https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01240-24
JVI
Volume 98, Number 9
17 September 2024
ABSTRACT
Science is humanity’s best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected. The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2. Yet, the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in and escaped from a lab dominates media attention, even in the absence of strong evidence. We discuss how the resulting anti-science movement puts the research community, scientific research, and pandemic preparedness at risk.
COMMENTARY
...
There are two broad competing hypotheses for the origins of SARS-CoV-2: (i) the lab leak hypothesis, the most discussed version of which posits that the virus was modified, or even created, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and, by some mechanism, escaped the laboratory; and (ii) the zoonosis hypothesis, wherein the virus emerged into the human population through a naturally occurring animal-to-human transmission. Viruses often spill over into humans, but these are typically dead-end events that rarely lead to sustained human-to-human transmission and rarely spark a pandemic. Wildlife coronaviruses have long been poised for emergence into humans (1). It is estimated that there are ~66,280 people infected with SARS-CoVs each year due to human-to-bat contact, most of which result in asymptomatic infections with limited or no human-to-human transmission (2). However, in the past 25 years, there have been at least 12 instances of zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans, including three coronaviruses, which resulted in epidemics or pandemics (3).
Dr. Fauci testified that, after examining the scientific data, most scientists have concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged in humans as a zoonosis. The evidence supports the scenario that two distinct ancestral lineages of SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals into humans, and that the Huanan Seafood Market in Hubei Provence, China, where wild animals were routinely present and slaughtered, was the epicenter of the pandemic (4–9). Importantly, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he remains open to evidence supporting a lab leak if it were to become available. Indeed, all scientists must be open to this possibility. Factoring in new data that are sound and validated, even if a prevailing hypothesis were contradicted, is an essential aspect of scientific training. A critical guiding principle of science is that knowledge is continually revised and updated based on quality new evidence.
...
There is currently no verified scientific evidence to support the lab leak hypothesis. Moreover, the assertions in the Chan article have been challenged by a growing body of scientific data supporting the zoonosis hypothesis (4, 5, 8, 10–12). Dr. Chan’s five key points are well refuted by the data, as discussed in publicly accessible platforms by Dr. Paul Offit, in the science-based podcast This Week in Virology (TWiV), and in the scientific literature (13, 14). Further, based on the scientific evidence and investigations described in a declassified report, the majority of the US Intelligence community concur with the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 being more likely. These reports do not identify high confidence evidence for a research-related incident, find no evidence that WIV possessed SARS-CoV-2 or a closely related virus before the end of December 2019, and conclude that it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered (6, 14, 15).
Many questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain unanswered and may never be fully resolved. We cannot currently disprove the lab leak hypothesis. Nevertheless, the lines of evidence needed to validate one hypothesis over another are not epistemically comparable (16). Validating the zoonotic origin is a scientific question that relies on history, epidemiology, and genomic analysis, that when taken together, support a natural spillover as the probable origin. This evidence is driven by scientific data that must be gathered and interpreted by experts. Much of the evidence that could have been obtained from animals at the Huanan Market was forever lost due to the clearance and cleansing of the market before any animals could be tested. Nonetheless, the available scientific evidence supports a zoonotic origin. Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic. Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.
...
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24
It is not serious journalism to keep promoting the lab-leak conspiracy theorists in absence of actual evidence. It does serve Trump to deflect the blame due him for his abysmal handling of the pandemic though. Just as scientists try to keep to the data, journalists should try to keep to the facts.
TexasTowelie
(118,515 posts)Jan. 25, 2025, 2:02 PM CST
By Dan De Luce
The CIA said Saturday it has shifted its previous assessments and has concluded that it’s likely the Covid-19 virus was leaked from a Chinese lab before it became a global pandemic but added that the agency had “low confidence” in its judgment.
“CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting,” a CIA spokesperson said in a statement. “CIA continues to assess that both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic remain plausible.”
The spokesperson added that the agency has “low confidence in this judgement” and will continue to evaluate any new intelligence reporting or relevant information.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cia-shifts-assessment-covid-origins-saying-lab-leak-likely-caused-outb-rcna189284
I know that you have criticized Tony before, but trying to insult his credibility as a journalist is ridiculous since he was merely reporting what the CIA had assessed. If anything, it would be irresponsible for a journalist not to provide that assessment by the CIA. While I agree that the origin of COVID-19 cannot be determined with hard evidence and there are political overtones in the CIA report, criticizing the messenger is uncalled for.
xocetaceans
(4,019 posts)...this stated shift in the view of the CIA has occurred just after Trump's political lackey has been installed is not a surprise, but both that lack of independence in the agency's leadership and the lack of evidence to substantiate the newly stated beliefs regarding the pandemic's origin need equal emphasis in the report, if not greater emphasis, so that the report's casual audience does not take away the false belief that the lab leak theory is at all supported by evidence at this point.
So, if a person were to seriously report on this matter instead of producing an ephemeral sort of update, one would actually make that context exceptionally and painfully clear. The report, as it is, does not actually address anything substantive about the pandemic's origins or why scientists, given the current evidence, do not take the lab leak theory as a reasonable explanation. If this reporter cared to be serious about the topic, all of that would be mentioned, but instead, a clickbait assertion such as "It's Official: China Did It" just attracts attention and furthers the spread of the conspiracy theory by lending it unwarranted, superficial credibility. The use of such clickbait is a marketing strategy (not journalism) that will drive misunderstanding (given the diminished context).
Being clear on scientific matters is exceptionally important in furthering most democratic and progressive values. Journalists should take pains to aid that effort.
How would you refer to the reporter's story? Briefly uncareful? Partially stated? Wholly accurate? Completely contextualized?
If he were pushing flat earth, I would say he's a risible moron. Here, at best, he is underinformed and does not have the time to look into what he is reporting with the degree of care that it deserves. So, possibly, there are financial constraints that are keeping him from fully contextualizing that segment. Or he does not care to take the time. Which it is cannot be judged from the report, but the potential effect of such a minimally contextualized report is not good for how future pandemics are handled, for it will ultimately provide an environment in which complete idiots like RFK Jr. and Bret Weinstein thrive. The US does not need a stupider response to the next pandemic than that provided by Trump and the anti-vaxxers, but the inaccuracies propagated by social media and insufficiently careful reporting might well lead to that outcome.
TexasTowelie
(118,515 posts)As far as your claim that the lab leak is a conspiracy, nearly everyone agrees that a lab leak is as plausible as transmission of COVID-19 in the wet markets. Therefore, anyone who claims that a lab leak is not possible is in contradiction with the experts. Most likely we will never identify with 90%+ certainty how COVID was transmitted.
I think that Tony is accurate, he informed his audience of the CIA report which is pertinent to his blog since it is related to China. I listened to the first segment and I didn't hear any reporting that is inaccurate. I don't expect Tony to dive in depth on topics pertaining to epidemiology or virology since China Update is not a science blog. Perhaps your expectations of what information journalists provide are unrealistic? Are you a journalist?
If you are so bothered by Tony's report, then why do you watch them? Tony has already explained that an outside company is responsible for the titles and thumbnails and that has allowed his channel to grow about 40% in the past two months. I consider the information in the reports to be more important than the wording in a video title or thumbnails since I know that YouTube and other marketing companies influence those decisions.
Pardon the limited response, but I have to get to the grocery store and return back home before the bus system shuts down in a couple hours.