Then in late 2019, a novel coronavirus that spreads rapidly through humans, that has a Furin Cleavage Site, appears in… Wuhan… thousands of miles away from the bat caves in Southern China where the closest natural variants live, and only a few miles from Wuhan Institute of Virology
I don’t think it’s thousands of miles away. The caves where RaTG13 (one of Covids closest relatives and the same virus that was sampled by the Wuhan institute of virology) was first discovered are in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, Yunnan, about 930 miles away (you can check on Google maps).
Separately, the bat populations being far away makes sense in the context of “natural origin” theory, which purports that the virus didn’t jump straight from bats but passed first through an intermediate (pangolin or what have you) before jumping to humans. That the bat population isn’t in Wuhan doesn’t necessarily make it less likely to be natural origin. This might not have been what you implied (though it’s how I read it).
As I already wrote, the distance from the center of Wuhan to one of the variant I assume you’re referencing (the one collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virologists researchers, RaTG13) is 1,500km (932 miles) away in Yunnan. A difference of 500km (310 miles) doesn’t seem out of the question for roaming animals passing disease between each other.
right, an intermediate host or some other mechanism could have moved the virus a long way before it went exponential.
But why to Wuhan, specifically?
If the virus moves around randomly, it should appear somewhere at random in a large radius of the animal reservoir, and it’s unlikely to make it to specifically the lab where it was being studied!
Isn’t the fact that it’s the largest wet market in central China relevant here? Surely that greatly increases the chance of it travelling to Wuhan specifically in a zoonotic origin scenario, because animals are brought there from all around.
My impression of Huanan Seafood Market is that it contained only a very small number of animals that are even potential candidates for the virus, and is mostly fish (seafood).
Wikipedia contradicts itself on this, claiming circa 100 animals in one section and then circa 10,000 in a different section. Do you know what is going on here?
Having now actually read the article, I didn’t see the claim that it was the largest, so that may actually be made up.
But the article does make it clear that there was much more than seafood, with all sorts of animals including foxes, wolf cubs, snakes, hedgehogs, rats, frogs and palm civets.
right, an intermediate host or some other mechanism could have moved the virus a long way before it went exponential.
Exactly. I’m confused why this might make you skeptical when it’s generally accepted as having happened with SARS CoV-1. Could you explain?
If the virus moves around randomly, it should appear somewhere at random in a large radius of the animal reservoir, and it’s unlikely to make it to specifically the lab where it was being studied!
Sure, but this is a separate point. That it turned up in Wuhan beside the WIV is surprising.
That it turned up hundreds of kilometers away from the precipitating reservoir isn’t.
But that’s my point. Going so far and turning up AT WUHAN is surprising. There are about 700 million people within that radius of the specific cave in Yunnan. That’s 100 times more people than live in Wuhan. So there’s a 100:1 update in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.
And then there’s the timing. How did the virus know to spill over in 2019, just 15 months after the DEFUSE proposal, and not in say the 1990s, or the 2030s?
We’re already at a 1000:1 based on these two, which is enough to close the case. The fancy stuff about enzymes and stuff is just further icing on the cake.
I somewhat agree with this, though it’s separate from the point I was making.
It seems to me (and I could be misinterpreting you) that in your post, you’re suggesting the greater the distance between the cave and the initial site of infection, the less likely natural origin theory is true. I wanted to point out that this is inaccurate.
It doesn’t directly strengthen the lab leak theory: P(emergence at Wuhan & caves distant | leak) is pretty similar to P(emergence at Wuhan & caves nearby | leak).
It does greatly weaken the natural origin theory: P(emergence at Wuhan & caves distant | natural) << P(emergence at Wuhan & caves nearby | natural).
If those are the only credible alternatives, then it greatly increases the posterior odds of the lab leak hypothesis.
Partly disagree—the relevant question isn’t distance, it’s the amount of wildlife from specific places. New York is further from Atlanta than from Litchfield, CT, but there are more people from Atlanta in New York at any given time. And we know that there’s a lot of trade in wildlife in Wuhan from distant places, which is the critical question.
I’ve always wanted to see some hard data on this. All the wet markets in China and Vietnam, numbers of animals per month, etc. That kind of model would be extremely useful in pinning down just how unlucky an innocent WIV would be.
Looks like such data doesn’t exist, and post-2020 wildlife trading ban, new data won’t tell us anything about pre-ban conditions—but we know there is lots of cross-border and long distance transport of wildlife. See, for example, this. And elsewhere in Asia, we see similar descriptions of very large volume of wildlife trade over long distances.
A bit late to the discussion on this point, and way out of my depths. Even so, I am wondering about one aspect here.
Rhetorically, you seem to cast the question of why not elsewhere in terms of only some other specific location. Is there a reason why one might not think that rather than some single (as apposed to major) point of origin that a zoonotic transmission might not have multiple points—with “export” transmissions rates that differ based on local characteristics?
Appreciate the post and suspect this is not bad to have a solid debate around. For both the specific of what happened with regard to the pandemic and the whole manufactured consensus aspect—but suspect the latter might be better explored on its own in terms of how best to prepare oneself to recognize the event and one’s own susceptibilities to such events.
Small nitpick:
I don’t think it’s thousands of miles away. The caves where RaTG13 (one of Covids closest relatives and the same virus that was sampled by the Wuhan institute of virology) was first discovered are in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, Yunnan, about 930 miles away (you can check on Google maps).
Separately, the bat populations being far away makes sense in the context of “natural origin” theory, which purports that the virus didn’t jump straight from bats but passed first through an intermediate (pangolin or what have you) before jumping to humans. That the bat population isn’t in Wuhan doesn’t necessarily make it less likely to be natural origin. This might not have been what you implied (though it’s how I read it).
In the case of SARS CoV-1, the first case we know of appeared in Foshan. However, the most likely originating bat population reside in a cave 1,000km away (621 miles)
As I already wrote, the distance from the center of Wuhan to one of the variant I assume you’re referencing (the one collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virologists researchers, RaTG13) is 1,500km (932 miles) away in Yunnan. A difference of 500km (310 miles) doesn’t seem out of the question for roaming animals passing disease between each other.
right, an intermediate host or some other mechanism could have moved the virus a long way before it went exponential.
But why to Wuhan, specifically?
If the virus moves around randomly, it should appear somewhere at random in a large radius of the animal reservoir, and it’s unlikely to make it to specifically the lab where it was being studied!
Isn’t the fact that it’s the largest wet market in central China relevant here? Surely that greatly increases the chance of it travelling to Wuhan specifically in a zoonotic origin scenario, because animals are brought there from all around.
Got a source for that?
My impression of Huanan Seafood Market is that it contained only a very small number of animals that are even potential candidates for the virus, and is mostly fish (seafood).
Wikipedia contradicts itself on this, claiming circa 100 animals in one section and then circa 10,000 in a different section. Do you know what is going on here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanan_Seafood_Wholesale_Market#Facility_and_operations
My source for that was Wikipedia, which in turn cites this article in the South China Morning Post:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047238/why-wild-animals-are-key-ingredient-chinas-coronavirus-outbreak
Having now actually read the article, I didn’t see the claim that it was the largest, so that may actually be made up.
But the article does make it clear that there was much more than seafood, with all sorts of animals including foxes, wolf cubs, snakes, hedgehogs, rats, frogs and palm civets.
Exactly. I’m confused why this might make you skeptical when it’s generally accepted as having happened with SARS CoV-1. Could you explain?
Sure, but this is a separate point. That it turned up in Wuhan beside the WIV is surprising.
That it turned up hundreds of kilometers away from the precipitating reservoir isn’t.
But that’s my point. Going so far and turning up AT WUHAN is surprising. There are about 700 million people within that radius of the specific cave in Yunnan. That’s 100 times more people than live in Wuhan. So there’s a 100:1 update in favor of the lab leak hypothesis.
And then there’s the timing. How did the virus know to spill over in 2019, just 15 months after the DEFUSE proposal, and not in say the 1990s, or the 2030s?
We’re already at a 1000:1 based on these two, which is enough to close the case. The fancy stuff about enzymes and stuff is just further icing on the cake.
I somewhat agree with this, though it’s separate from the point I was making.
It seems to me (and I could be misinterpreting you) that in your post, you’re suggesting the greater the distance between the cave and the initial site of infection, the less likely natural origin theory is true. I wanted to point out that this is inaccurate.
It doesn’t directly strengthen the lab leak theory: P(emergence at Wuhan & caves distant | leak) is pretty similar to P(emergence at Wuhan & caves nearby | leak).
It does greatly weaken the natural origin theory: P(emergence at Wuhan & caves distant | natural) << P(emergence at Wuhan & caves nearby | natural).
If those are the only credible alternatives, then it greatly increases the posterior odds of the lab leak hypothesis.
Partly disagree—the relevant question isn’t distance, it’s the amount of wildlife from specific places. New York is further from Atlanta than from Litchfield, CT, but there are more people from Atlanta in New York at any given time. And we know that there’s a lot of trade in wildlife in Wuhan from distant places, which is the critical question.
I’ve always wanted to see some hard data on this. All the wet markets in China and Vietnam, numbers of animals per month, etc. That kind of model would be extremely useful in pinning down just how unlucky an innocent WIV would be.
Looks like such data doesn’t exist, and post-2020 wildlife trading ban, new data won’t tell us anything about pre-ban conditions—but we know there is lots of cross-border and long distance transport of wildlife. See, for example, this. And elsewhere in Asia, we see similar descriptions of very large volume of wildlife trade over long distances.
Good point!
I am not suggesting that.
Your post appears to, by repeatedly emphasising the distance in the context of arguing that a zoonotic origin is unlikely.
Why not? Are you pointing at that the relevant factor is “population within that distance” instead of “distance”?
yes.
A bit late to the discussion on this point, and way out of my depths. Even so, I am wondering about one aspect here.
Rhetorically, you seem to cast the question of why not elsewhere in terms of only some other specific location. Is there a reason why one might not think that rather than some single (as apposed to major) point of origin that a zoonotic transmission might not have multiple points—with “export” transmissions rates that differ based on local characteristics?
Appreciate the post and suspect this is not bad to have a solid debate around. For both the specific of what happened with regard to the pandemic and the whole manufactured consensus aspect—but suspect the latter might be better explored on its own in terms of how best to prepare oneself to recognize the event and one’s own susceptibilities to such events.